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

Awassailing - it is, apparently, harder to fool an experienced and well-trained human, than it is to fool a lie-detector. Human ingenuity keeps coming up with ways to get past other products of human ingenuity, but, fundamentally, humans themselves don't change. Which is, no doubt, why the ElAl operatives manage to keep ahead of the terrorists. Or maybe they just make ElAl such a hard target that the terrorists don't bother with it.

IIRC there was an incident in the 80s when a terrorist planted a bomb in a calculator in his pregnant girlfriend's luggage, on a BA flight to Israel. It got past all the x-ray machine testing, all the British security. But there was a second level of security checking, provided by the Israelis, between the British security and boarding. They spotted the bomb and saved the lives of a couple of hundred people.

I still think it is a mistake to rely almost exclusively on technological solutions. The battle against terror is also a battle of hearts and minds.

What Stewie said!

lolololol, what a bag of bollocks

And I'd rather my dd have her image taken this way instead of been patted down. How do you know the person who currently pats your kid down isn't a paedophile and enjoying it.

I've seen one of the images that you see on the scan in the newspaper - its hardly naked! The bloke in the picture was a white blob, you couldn't see his willy.

So no I wouldn't be bothered at all. And even if the pictures were clearer I still wouldn't be bothered.

Its unlikely that the person monitoring the scans is a peadophile and even if he/she is then they have no contact with the child. The child is not been abused, been made to pose for indecent images, etc. No harm comes tothe child, no distress.

I agree with Alfa. If I were worried about this then would I have to be worried about doc who might see my child naked?

The images would be seen by an officer in a remote location, not someone sitting across the security desk.

but surely a highly trained terrorist is going to be able to get past such careful questioning, and if they have explosives strapped to their body which can't be felt with a pat down, and no image is used........then what?

or even

Yes, Expatinscotland's point is the main issue, IMO. Otherwise I would have no problem with the scan image being seen by one person in a remote location and then being immediately deleted.

I do find the increased reliance on technological security solutions worrying, though. It's a bit like relying on monitoring to keep labouring women safe - monitoring is no substitute for good midwifery care. Look at the way ElAl handles security, and their safety record. If I'm not mistaken, there has not been a successful terrorist incident on an ElAl flight since the late 70s or early 80s.

While they do make use of the technoligial solutions, like X-raying, they do not place such heavy reliance on them. You will never board an ElAl flight without having spoken face to face with at least one highly trained security operative, probably two or three. When you check-in at a non-ElAl flight, the check-in person runs through the "Did you pack these bags yourself?" etc cheklist in a rote manner, sometimes not even making eye-contact. That does not happen with ElAl. They look you in the eye, and assess more than just your answers. Meanwhile, these conversations are often being watched by other security personel, so that they are not relying just on one person's opinion or gut-feel. They hand-search baggage and clothing routinely, managing to be polite and non-invasive (which is quite an achievement for a blunt Israeli).

But, hey, it's expensive employing highly-trained and highly-motivated people. Machines often work out cheaper. (Back to the midwifery comparison!)

I think Awassailinglookingforansw... has said everything I would have.

I have no problem with it, if it will make flying even the tiniest bit safer.

I think it its clearthese are not naked pictures of children b but very bad gainy pictures of a body outline.
Im sorry i really dont see the issue

lol expat - we may disagree on this issue but you do make me laugh

anyhow - no I don't have any objection to the idea, I don't think it's the same as a pornographic image (as DF points out it's perfectly legal to take a picture of your own child naked on the beach in the bath whereever - and that's easily identifiable should it get into the wrong hands) So yes I do think some of these objections are mad

a) They aren't exactly high-def pictures of our children
b) Isn't the whole thing about paedophilia really about SEXUAL images of children - standing with their legs together arms at sides for a brief period ..
c) Assumption about some pervert going into the airport security business and passing the checks because he is keen to see naked kids??

Oh, well, after having gone out with a few doctors, I'm hear to tell you, don't trust any of them, the dirty-minded, randy wee buggers .

I've read the text, I've read all the stuff that was in the papers when they started the trial in Mancester - I just can't see what all the fuss is about.

I'd rather someone sees a naked image of me (or my child) sat in a room where they don't even "see" me, than be patted down by some stranger who can actually see as well as feel me

I have heard a woman call in to LBC a couple of times since this came up. She was picked out of the queue for trials and she has said that she found the process very invasive and very uncomfortable although she agreed to do the trial.

Also, if these images are databased, they also have any number of details about you/your child; names, date of birth, passport details blah blah, all nicely linked to these naked images. I can just see the headlines now when a laptop full of all these details is found on a train into Waterloo.

"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"

yes you can, or at least you can say the creation of child pictures for the purpose of pornography is banned but taking pictures of your kids on the beach is not. Isn't that how it stands now anyway?

they're not "named" images though are they? Just like when your bag goes through the x-ray machine and they see that you've got your rabbit and various other sex toys - they don't know it's "you" as there's no name - just an image to check?

And if we don't trust a random bloke sat in an office drinking coffee and eating donuts, how can we trust the doctors in hospitals who frequently see naked children? And if the security in airports could be invaded by terror groups lets not forget that doctors already have been involved in attempted suicide attacks......

hey, why pick on me? I said I would be ok with it! Pick on the right person why don't you.