New airport scanners break child porn laws

[stiz]

first time i've heard this mentioned ... and they have a point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws?CMP=AFCYAH

 

[cheezyflier]

i've said from the beginning (not here of course) that all security measures enacted since the patriot act are not intended for safety because they make no sense. the scanner is a perfect example of this. who knows what they will do with these images? who knows what they can do with them? it's ridiculous to try and show any fairness to an enemy who hides behind women and children, who follows no rules of engagement.

 

[Piglet]

They "claim" the images are deleted right away. I liked the quote about images of "celeb's and freakish body characteristics"!

 

[tigisfat]

... since the patriot act .....

This is in the UK.

 

[Snuffy]

I think its B.S. ... too much of someone worrying about other persons rights or issues. Its bunk and should be thrown out.

If the images are video only and no way to save them then what's the point? If images are saved, it should only be of persons of suspect to be used as evidenece against them in court, and not everyone who isn't suspect.

Sorry, MHO here is that if it involves the security of people to travel safely, then everyone is suspect until proven otherwise. This includes children.

If we don't include the children then the perpetrators of these actions will be enslaving children to be their "mules" and then most likely among their innocent victims as well.

 

[Toastmaker]

I'm somewhat familiar with the design of both X-ray and backscatter imaging devices used for passenger screening.

Listen closely; THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CAPTURING OR STORING ANY IMAGERY designed into any of the devices in use, or proposed for this use.

 

[cheezyflier]

.

Sorry, MHO here is that if it involves the security of people to travel safely, then everyone is suspect until proven otherwise. This includes children.

i'm sorry, but that makes no sense what-so-ever. we know for a fact that most of these terrorists come from a specific group of people.
we also know for a fact that the government knew this guy was trouble long before the incident.
we know that the terrorists family tried (in vain) to warn us.
lemme tell ya something. if they can still see that i was caught with a joint 32 yrs ago in jr high school, you can be darn sure they know who most of these terrorists are, and can specifically search them before letting them board a plane. it makes no sense at all to randomly scren passengers when we could more effectively target a specific demographic.
logic and the laws of probability say that much, and so does common sense.
you know why these things don't happen on isreali planes? because they don't give a dam who's offended. they use profiling because they are concerned more with the safety of their citizens than their international image.

 

[Henry]

i'm sorry, but that makes no sense what-so-ever. we know for a fact that most of these terrorists come from a specific group of people.

the most does not actually work
so we only profile them
personally i see no problem with scanners
unfortunately its the way it will go
if we want to travel safely
no its not perfect but nothing is
H

 

[Snuffy]

... You know why these things don't happen on Israeli planes? because they don't give a dam who's offended. They use profiling because they are concerned more with the safety of their citizens than their international image.

And that's exactly my point. If the rest of the world wants the security of flying internationally without fear of an attack of some kind, then everyone is "suspect and subject to investigation", hands on strip searching if necessary. Fortunately, (depending on how you look at it,) these scanners eliminate the need for strip searching, and still get the job done. Everyone is safer in the long run.

I don't give a damn whose offended either. My life ain't worth the "cost" of someone's "hurt feelings" and being offended at strip searching, scanning, or child pornography issues.

(actually displaying a persons package can be an embarassing thing ... either ya got it or ya don't! ... ... and I got it! I'd be embarassed for the others ... LOL!)

 

[aeronca1]

I also don't see any problems with these scanners, but before I go through one I want the operator to sign a waiver to the effect that I'm not responsible for any damage done to said operator from uncontrolable fits of laughter from viewing my images.....

 

[Henry]

I also don't see any problems with these scanners, but before I go through one I want the operator to sign a waiver to the effect that I'm not responsible for any damage done to said operator from uncontrolable fits of laughter from viewing my images.....

my exact thoughts
LOL
H

 

[Craig Taylor]

I also don't see any problems with these scanners, but before I go through one I want the operator to sign a waiver to the effect that I'm not responsible for any damage done to said operator from uncontrolable fits of laughter from viewing my images.....

Years ago I heard a story that James Garner had once been asked during an interview whether he would be willing to perform a nude scene in one of his movies. His reply was "I don't do horror shows..."

 

[arrowmaker]

Well if they could amp up the scanners a LOT more, then there's no problem. :mixedsmi:

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7CX9Agzeh-c&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7CX9Agzeh-c&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

 

[cheezyflier]

strictly as a matter of numbers, which does logic tell you would stop more terrorists?

randomly screening anyone, or targeting known troublemakers?
totally aside from the profiling issue, we also have the ability to track known individuals, and stop them. it's old technology. yet we're not using it.
this is part of the reason i suggest that safety measures being used currently are not actually intended to make you safer. they are intended to acclimate the general public to a deterioration of their freedoms.
think of the parable of the frog in the boiling water.

 

[Silver Fox]

There is no privacy issue... none, nada, zilch, zero.

Scan everyone, every single person who wants to board... including crew.

You choose to fly, that choice inherently includes those actions, scans and measures required to get on the aircraft. To desire an end result, you must desire the means to acheive that end. In this case, you want to fly. That means you desire the scan, it's not invasive... it's welcome.

We need to stop pandering to completely unfounded claims of 'privacy'. You want 'privacy' stay at home. You choose, choose mind you, to go out in public... man up and accept reponsibility for the consequences of that choice. Images, scans, information requests and all sorts of other 'invasions' take place when you go out in public... the cost of choosing to leave the sanctity of your home.

Just my opinion.

 

[Snuffy]

And if you treat everyone equally as "suspect" there will be no such thing as profiling. That issue becomes dead.

 

[Ferry_vO]

Someone should check the definition of 'porn' btw...

 

[Cratermaker]

I'm somewhat familiar with the design of both X-ray and backscatter imaging devices used for passenger screening.

Listen closely; THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CAPTURING OR STORING ANY IMAGERY designed into any of the devices in use, or proposed for this use.

Cell phone camera + imaging device screen + internet

 

[djscoo]

strictly as a matter of numbers, which does logic tell you would stop more terrorists?

I wish you weren't in Canada so I could send you the link to the most recent episode of the Daily Show.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/118572/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-mon-jan-4-2010

There is a really good segment in there about the warning signs that were missed on the Christmas Day debacle, and how they are the exact same signs from the infamous "shoe bomber".
How can a Muslim born in Nigeria,whose own father reported him to the US embassy, with a one way ticket to Detroit(!), paid cash, first trip to America, no luggage, no transfer after Detroit, and no winter coat...not be considered suspicious??

:isadizzy:

 

[hubbabubba]

Just looking at your posts, gals and guys, I'm not so sure that the last attack was a «failed attempt». Terrorism is just that; propagate terror.

You are now ready to throw away your rights and freedoms for the illusion of security. I don't want to give any recipes here, but I can think of at least two devices that will not show during electronic strip search - because this is what we're talking about here.

Sending hundreds of souls in a pressurized cabin at 35,000 feet will always be attracting terrorists like s**t attracts flies.