Full body scanners 'break child-porn laws': your thoughts?

[HelenMumsnet]

Afternoon.

LBC Radio have asked us what Mumsnetters think about privacy campaigners who are saying the proposed new body scanners at British airports breach child protection laws because they create indecent images of children.

(You can read more about this here)

So, what do you think?

Would you be horrified at the idea of security guards looking at full-body scans of your children?

Or do you think these kind of objections are mad?

[diedandgonetodevon]

I think it's totally crazy. There is a world of difference between child porn and the kind of images the scanners produce.

I doubt anyone relishes the thought of some hairy bloke behind a scanner looking at them but IMO it is a damn sight better than later discovering you are on a plane with an explosives-strapped lunatic.

[Awassailinglookingforanswers]

no it doesn't (or should I say "wouldn't") bother me if a security guard was looking at a full body scan of my child. Someone sat in a remote room, looks a picture, sees that they're not carrying anything potentially lethal, deletes picture.

I'm assuming that the people employed for such positions have been fairly highly security checked and only employers with a good record history with the airport would be using it - not a random work experience kid.....

[RockBird]

Aha, I texted LBC last week with this point and Petrie Hosken laughed it off so I'm glad they're taking it seriously now.

Firstly, you cannot say that one naked image of a child is banned but another is not. The kind of images that the scanners produce are clear enough and would concern me. The legislation states that no such images of children are acceptable. Change that and you leave it wide open.

Secondly, unless scanners are going to be installed in every airport on the planet, then anyone with an agenda is simply going to fly from somewhere else, which makes the whole thing pointless.

So, would I object to my 2 month old being scanned? Damn right I would.

[RockBird]

My teacher 'friend' who was imprisoned for child pornography offences had every security check going due to other work that he did. That sure made a difference to all the children involved...

[RockBird]

Damn, I have a 23 month old, not a 2 month old, perish the thought!

[Awassailinglookingforanswers]

well obviously there are serious flaws in the CRB system, I wont' deny that. But I do think that this is totally different from other "images" of children that are (and damn well should be) illegal.

[Tee2072]

It is, once again, giving the flyer a false sense of security, pornography and privacy issues aside.

As rockbird noted, a terrorist will just fly from some where that does not have the scanners.

There is no way to make flying 100% safe and its about time people realized this.

But I would not object to my son being scanned. I just think it is pointless for anyone to be scanned.

[Hassled]

I think it's insane. It's also reasonably safe to assume that a small child wouldn't be a suicide bomber - have children ever been used as such? I suppose there are no depths to which people wouldn't stoop - but assuming not, possibly children should be scanned in the normal way. But if the security bods reckon we all need full body scanning, then I'm not going to argue with them.

The likelihood of a scanner bloke getting his kicks from seeing a fit 20-something woman (or man) go through the machine is far higher than the likelihood of him getting his kicks from seeing a child go through. Most people are not paedophiles.

[CMOTdibbler]

It's not like it is a naked picture of people is it ? Rather more like a fuzzy black and white image of someone in a swimming costume.

I've been through those scanners when they were trialling them, and they are a lot less invasive than being patted down in public

[EffiePerine]

Huh?

[Awassailinglookingforanswers]

yes children have been used as suicide bombers in the past and given that adult suicide bombers have no qualms about trying to blow up a plane full of adults and children I personally wouldn't put it past the to put the explosives on a child travelling with them either.

[Cyclops]

I hadn't even thought of this until I saw this thread.

Flying is becoming an arms race, the determined terrorist will simply find another innovative way to get a bomb on board. I don't like the idea of these scanners full stop but that's just me (I always get changed for swimming in the cubicle or the toilet!).

Now there's an idea....why not just get people to fly in their swimming costumes

[WhatDidISayRoy]

absoluytely no issue with full body scanners if it will make our airlines safer. Can't see why anyone wouldnt want those.

As for the nakedness, have you seen what the image would look like.

Saftey first each and every time IMO

[expatinscotland]

'I'm assuming that the people employed for such positions have been fairly highly security checked and only employers with a good record history with the airport would be using it - not a random work experience kid.....'

See, that's the problem. I mean, look at some of the people employed as 'security', particularly in the US.

And IMO it's a pretty clear image of someone's genetalia.

I agree with Rockbird.

[solo]

I think it's quite a ridiculous idea that the two types of image are remotely similar. The scanners are a necessary security meassure IMO and it surely wouldn't be long before most of the world would follow suit and install them.

I travelled to and around Australia in 2001, 3 weeks after 9/11, we took 9 flights in total. It was hellish in some airports(especially Heathrow), but everyone understood the reasons why and I'm quite certain that 99.5% of the travelling population will understand the reasons for introducing the scanners.
Scan away if it catches and stops would be nut jobs trying to blow innocent men, women and children up.

[RainRainGoAway]

Two totally different issues.

Are scanners effective?

And related to child porn?

If they are ineffective fo preventing terrorism then don't use them and channel money into better preventitive ways.

To do with child porn - if these scanners are effective at reducing the chance of terrorism I would far rather someone had a glimpse of my child naked in a fuzzy picture than to be blown up.

[ThumbleBells]

Not sure to be honest. The pics they showed didn't look too graphic, but the text suggests that the actual images are very graphic. So.. no, still not sure. But if they are databased then there is a risk some idiot will use them for illicit purposes, although that would happen with many of the adult female scans too, I would imagine. So I think I would be ok with it so long as the images are deleted once the flight has arrived without incidence, and there are no facilities for copying or transferring images to the internet.

How do the scanners work? What form of radiation/electronic imaging do they use? Am interested on a general health basis.

[WhatDidISayRoy]

so thumblebells, would you rather risk a nutter sitting next to you and yours on a plane than a quick pic of the naked bod?

[WhatDidISayRoy]

a nutter with explosives i meant

[Itsjustafleshwound]

It was only the actions of the brave fellow passengers who managed to stop the 'Detroit' bomber ...

Perhaps the solution lies in making the checks used now safer instead of trying to reinvent the wheel...

Saying that, I wouldn't have an issue if I or my children were subject to the full body scan ... it is not like it is going to be on screen for ages - it would just be a cursory check like when your bags are x-rayed??

[Earthstar]

I would have no problem with this as long as the data is properly protected and secure.

[ThumbleBells]

of course I meant incident