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?

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?

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.

"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?

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.

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

read the text.

the real images are quite graphic.

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.

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.

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

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......

"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?

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.

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

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 .

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??

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

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

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.

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!)

or even

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?

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.