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

Personally, I would be happy for a fuzzy picture of my DC to be splashed across the front page of the newspapers - Providing (and that is a huge providing!!!) there is evidence that it will stop a terrorist blowing up the plane we are due to go on next week.
But - if it is really a futile measure then I would rather they stepped up other ways.

I'm sure the security guards don't want to look at naked pictures of children, or most passengers for that matter, pretty thankless job.

I don't understant why the sniffer dogs aren't used more.

the difference with those, awwassail, is that they don't involve naked images of people.

read the text.

the real images are quite graphic.

see, that's the thing. you're trusting a government that's allowed some pretty severe data breeches with naked images of yourself and your children.

i can't say i'm comfortable with that.

"but i don't trust the people employed by security any more than i trust the nutters"

so should they just stop all baggage x-rays and other "checks" that have been done for years then - after all if they're just as bad what's the point?

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?

yes. because a) when you're talking about this type of fanatic, nothing is going to stop him/her. eventually, someone will find a way to blow a plane up if that's truly the goal of their operation b) sorry, but i don't trust the people employed by security any more than i trust the nutters. in fact, i think the next tack Al-Queda will take is to make sure they have operatives in airport security as well.

my understanding is that the images don't need to be stored at all? It shows up if there's anything on the body........presumably if there is then the person is then taken off and questioned/proper strip searched and they don't even board the flight? Rather like with the x-rays of bags if something dodgy is seen they're checked out straight away?

of course I meant incident

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

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??

a nutter with explosives i meant

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?

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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

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

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.

Huh?

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

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.

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.