Body Scanner Porn?

#1
BBC Story Linky

I am beside myself with incredulity! In the words of Victor Meldrew, I Don't Believe It!

Tiny six inch high fuzzy pictures of people passing through full body scan security systes may now be used for porn? Have you seen these images they are as less focused than the view through the bottom of a half empty beer glass!

Beside that fact, what Numpties do they have in these civil rights offices?
abridged quote said:
Terri Dowty, of civil rights group Action On Rights For Children, said that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child. "They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way."

She added that there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime", but the purpose had to be more specific than the security measures being proposed by the government.
So, it's illegal, but it's not?
 
#2
The way I look at it, it will be damn site easier to see who is slipping in and out of the country by using a burkha.
 
#3
I some times think these rights people should engage brain beore mouth. What this plonker is sayiong is that the people whom we trust to protect us from suicide bombers cannot be trusted to not try to sell on these scanner picturse, or might get their rocks of by looking at them.
 
#4
I'm not usually one to cast stones, but I may as well get it in first...

CCF_CI said:
Tiny six inch high fuzzy pictures of people passing through full body scan security systes may now be used for porn? Have you seen these images they are as less focused than the view through the bottom of a half empty beer glass!
...and how, exactly, do you come by this knowledge? :lol:
 
#6
Hardly surprising Terri is a 'Ms' all men are probably b4stards, and all man made machines too, because men are b4stards, and not like wimmin, the moon goddesses.

I can't really see many peodo getting their rocks off on the images shown, and I can see these devices being very useful. THey claim they can't spot cdertain explosives, yet in the picture shown you can see the subjects shin bones (and the structure of their feet) quite clearly, a belt buckle and the attached bet, and a number of other items. That is all we need, a feeling or an image that isn't quite right to initiate further investigation.

If people feel they don't wish to go through the scanners at airports they can be subjected to the vintage examinations... that may take a bit longer....


like good old rectal probes :D
 
#7
No all of them are rubbish fuzzy images. This one is from the EMIT Technologies People Portal 2. Triangles highlight location of automatically detected suspect items (One of which appears to be his penis but anyway). I don't think many would get off to this, even the child sized one!
 

Attachments

#8
Presumably these scanners would "see" sanitary towels. Can these be reliably distinguished from suspect items, or is this an area that would require specific investigation?
 
#9
You sound like a volunteer! I doubt that they would show up strongly as they are not very dense so unless they were very 'wet' that would be unlikely to be an issue. These machines will not pick up items inside bodily cavities so maybe there might still be a job for you inspecting those. Better get your job application in quickly.
 
#10
Good pun on the title Vampangua, very impressive. However good the scanners are perhaps acting on the reports of a father saying my son is a nut case extreemist who hates being a on this world so much he would like to take a airliner with him to paradise rather than putting him the information on a to do list would have saved a the streched public purse the cost of implementing the scanners. Which will be redundant when the nutters pack their arses to get round the system - next step rectal exams for all translantic passengers?
 
#11
I can confirm the images are crap. They trialled these bodyscanner machines at Heathrow Terminal 4 last year - I used one and they let me see the results. Normally, my great body naked would at least give me a semi but this image was so shit I felt nothing.

Also, the software automatically covers up the groin area.

Far better off sticking to placing hidden cameras in the ladies toilets if you need images to get off on.
 
#12
So if the next wannabe jihabbi sticks the bomb us his arse and just leaves the fuze poking out, then what?
 
#13
If you think that a body scanner will infringe your or your childs rights then decline the offer and make alternate travel plans. Air travel is a luxury not a right...
 
#14
snozzer said:
If you think that a body scanner will infringe your or your childs rights then decline the offer and make alternate travel plans. Air travel is a luxury not a right...
It's neither a luxury or a right. It's no different from taking a bus or a train. Also, many people have to travel by air for work, and there are no realistic alternatives.

Personally, I don't have a fixed opinion. On the one hand, I'd rather my family were subjected to this than blown to pieces above the atlantic; on the other, it seems no different from having every passenger strip to their underwear and parade through customs. It certainly isn't dignified, and - as with all measures that remove civil liberties - hands a small victory to the enemy.
 
#15
putteesinmyhands said:
I'm not usually one to cast stones, but I may as well get it in first...

CCF_CI said:
Tiny six inch high fuzzy pictures of people passing through full body scan security systes may now be used for porn? Have you seen these images they are as less focused than the view through the bottom of a half empty beer glass!
...and how, exactly, do you come by this knowledge? :lol:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8441385.stm
 
#16
DeltaDog said:
snozzer said:
If you think that a body scanner will infringe your or your childs rights then decline the offer and make alternate travel plans. Air travel is a luxury not a right...
It's neither a luxury or a right. It's no different from taking a bus or a train. Also, many people have to travel by air for work, and there are no realistic alternatives.

Personally, I don't have a fixed opinion. On the one hand, I'd rather my family were subjected to this than blown to pieces above the atlantic; on the other, it seems no different from having every passenger strip to their underwear and parade through customs. It certainly isn't dignified, and - as with all measures that remove civil liberties - hands a small victory to the enemy.
Ok, not luxury, but a choice, either choose to except it or get the boots on.
 
#19
snozzer said:
DeltaDog said:
snozzer said:
If you think that a body scanner will infringe your or your childs rights then decline the offer and make alternate travel plans. Air travel is a luxury not a right...
It's neither a luxury or a right. It's no different from taking a bus or a train. Also, many people have to travel by air for work, and there are no realistic alternatives.
Ok, not luxury, but a choice, either choose to except it or get the boots on.
You seem to be making the argument that it's acceptable because it's a condition of entry. However, it applies to all airports and many people are required by their job to travel by air. When the choice is between going through with it and losing your job, that's no choice at all. A bit like scanning people on the way out of their houses, and telling them they have the choice to stay inside.

I'm not saying it's necessarily unacceptable. Just that being a condition of entry doesn't make it acceptable.
 
#20
Some women might be worried it will detect their implants or breast prosthesis. I was discussing this issue with a close female relative whom has had a mastectomy and she said she would feel humiliated as someone would be looking at her lopsided body and due to the scan showing something in that area not being quite right they would almost certainly want to investigate further, which would completely ruin her holiday. Some people are very sensitive about such things even when done by medical professionals, so I am not sure what the answer is.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads