New scanners break child porn laws

[dipsydoodle]

Source: guardian.co.uk home Location

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

[seeinfweggos]

1. that's ironic

[dipsydoodle]

4. Especialy given

tht airport staff probably don't want to land up on our sex offenders watch list.

[seeinfweggos]

10. well if it's anything like the terrorist watch list

everybody is already on it - except sex offenders

[AnOhioan]

45. Thanks for the laugh

[high density]

2. So terrorists, make sure you recruit some teens and have them fly out of Britain

All I see is endless government money being thrown at a problem that we can't honestly solve.

[hedgehog]

3. Here's what I want to know about the scanners:

1. Are they effective?

2. Can anyone smuggle enough of whatever in body cavities to present a hazard?

3. Are we 100% sure the scanners won't harm people?

If the answers are yes, no and yes, then let's get on with it. I'd rather some security guard somewhere see a fuzzy image of my naked body than ever give the right wing an excuse for another war.

[Ian David]

5. You could have fun by taping obscene messages under your clothes. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

25. bwahahaha - that's great - you can

write 'SEE ANYTHING YOU LIKE?' in metallic-powder ointment
and then add 'HINT, HINT... ' pointing at your crotch

[dipsydoodle]

27. It's easier

with a soft lead pencil. :)

[Fearless]

6. Agreed.

[notesdev]

7. The actual answers

1) Probably not, given answers to 2 and 3

2) Yes

3) We are sure in the other direction, that they can harm people (ionizing radiation)

[jberryhill]

15. Can you compare the dose to.... flying?

You do know that flying on an airplane substantially increases your exposure to ionizing radiation, yes?

[notesdev]

16. It's like getting an x-ray at a doctor

It's the same stuff that people are warned to limit their lifetime exposure to 300-500 scans. Totally inappropriate for people who fly regularly, being a frequent flyer would be the equivalent of a death sentence by cancer.

[jberryhill]

18. No it's not...

The entire reason it's a backscatter detector is because it uses a lower wavelength than medical x-rays and detects what bounces off, instead of measuring absorption on the other side.

Where are you getting that from?

(And that's for the backscatter detectors, not the millimeter wave machines which are preferred)

[daleo]

67. There is some concern about the frequency being used

Normally, it is considered to be too long wave to cause damage to DNA, but there is concern that resonance effects could damage DNA at these frequencies, I suppose because this is coherent EM, even if the wavelength is fairly long.

DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field
Authors: B. S. Alexandrov, V. Gelev, A. R. Bishop, A. Usheva, K. O. Rasmussen
(Submitted on 28 Oct 2009)
Abstract: We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.
Subjects: Biological Physics (physics.bio-ph); Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph)
Report number: LA-UR 09-03248
Cite as: arXiv:0910.5294v1

[Arrowhead2k1]

19. It's magnetic radiation. It's not nearly as harmful as x-rays if harmful at all.

You expose yourself to the same kind of radiation every time you use your cell phone. No studies have been able to prove any kind of adverse health consequences from exposure to this kind of radiation.

[avaistheone1]

28. No one has ever established how much radiation is safe for any given individual

no matter how low or insignificant the radiation may appear.

[Robb]

64. Yes they have. nt

[avaistheone1]

30. Actually we do have some good cell phone studies that raise serious questions about their safety.

We have no clear evidence that cell phones pose health risks, but that doesn't mean there's no cause for concern. The latest on this subject comes from Britain, where a six-year study published in September, 2007, by the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme found that cell phone use had no adverse effects on brain function, memory and reaction times and no evidence that it can lead to brain cancer.

But the scientist who headed the $17.9 million study emphasized that research so far has included few participants who have used cell phones for 10 years or longer. An ongoing study involving 200,000 people in Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Britain may tell us more about possible long-term health risks.

In 2006, a Swedish study showed that the risk of developing a malignant tumor on the side of the head where a cell phone is typically used was 240 percent greater than normal. But the findings, published in 2006 in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, contradicted the results of a number of large clinical trials, none of which found any such evidence. The latest from Sweden, an analysis of earlier studies, concluded that using a cell phone for more than a decade can double the risks of benign brain tumors called acoustic neuroma and malignant brain and nervous system tumors called gliomas.

Brain tumors can take 30 to 40 years to develop, so it could be many years before we know for sure whether cell phone use is safe or, if not, how great the risks may be. Until then, the big worry is that children may be more vulnerable than adults (just as they're more susceptible to risks posed by exposure to cigarette smoke, lead and radiation). For this reason, experts in the United States and Britain have advised limiting youngsters' cell phone use.

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400310/how-safe-are-cell-phones




Hey but if you want to take your chances, go right ahead. Not me. I always take precautions to limit my radiation exposure.

[dipsydoodle]

13. There are doubts as to whether

the scanners currently available are able to detect fluids or chemicals.

Read here fpr example :

The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation.

>

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html

[bergie321]

36. but...but..

Chertoff said they would work. I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that he left DHS and went immediately to work for the company that makes these poisonous porn machines.

[Robb]

65. Not true.

Chertoff's consulting firm includes a client who makes the things.

Next DU will report he hides in all the scanners himself. :eyes:

[wroberts189]

20. I just saw a DU post that said experts have said they would not have caught the undie bomber.

That chemical sniffing tech. was better but still had problems.

[TheEuclideanOne]

24. I agree

If you smuggle something in in a body cavity, I think it would be quite difficult to stop, regardless of the technology.

I think that if they could modify the technology to superimpose the external findings onto a general body image, they could accomplish everything they need to. From what I see, the non-fleshy findings seem to really stick out.

[hedgehog]

32. So the question then becomes, can you conceal anything in

a body cavity in amounts likely to be dangerous to others?

[JoeyT]

47. Depends on how you're trying to be dangerous.

I imagine they could easily get a boxcutter up there.
I suspect you meant explosion-wise. The answer to that is pretty much yes.
They probably couldn't get a spectacular blow the plane clear out of the sky amount in there (Well, they could if they worked at it enough.), but they could easily get enough to punch a pretty big hole in the plane in there. A vial of a chemical weapon? Wouldn't be a problem at all. Nor are those all that hard to get hold of. I'd say it'd require enormous resolve, but probably not as much as setting ones junk on fire, and someone already did that.
And now I have the image of a half dozen Al-Qaeda operatives, ten pounds of explosives, and a tub of Vaseline stuck in my head. Argh.

(For reference about the amount someone can hide in cavities, I refer you to the convict that managed to conceal a toolbox full of saws and files for use in an escape attempt.)

[Loge23]

40. But I'm not guilty!

Whatever happened to due process?
I object to presenting myself as guilty - to a TSA employee yet - in order to be deemed innocent.
I don't know what the answer is ultimately, but giving up any more liberty doesn't work for me.
I do not believe that the TSA is capable of actually preventing an incident. I find them to be arrogant, poorly trained, and utterly incompetent individuals for the most part.
Whoever thought we would accept virtual strip searches in this country? What's next? If there's a car bomb (God forbid), will we pull into scanners in highway rest stops? What about street scanners? Ridiculous? I think not.

[Shallah Kali]

41. this article says they would not have found the crotchbomber's materials

Are planned airport scanners just a scam?

New technology that Gordon Brown relies on for his response to the Christmas Day bomb attack has been tested – and found wanting
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html

Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

If a material is low density, such as powder, liquid or thin plastic – as well as the passenger's clothing – the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen. High- density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimetre waves and leave an image of the object.

snip

Last week the US Transportation Security Administration ordered $165m-worth of scanners, using both millimetre and X-ray technology, from L-3 Communications.

Qinetiq had developed a similar millimetre-wave body scanner, but is now developing a sophisticated "stand-off" scanner which does not pose any privacy issues as it does not show a body image. Materials hidden on a body reflect back signals, showing up as a red alert on screen. Kevin Murphy, product manager for physical security at Qinetiq, admitted this SPO system would also not have picked up the Christmas Day bomb, but insisted that it could be used as part of a "layered approach" to security in mass transportation, which would also include monitoring people's behaviour.

Mr Murphy echoed Mr Wallace's doubts over whether the millimetre-wave body scanners being discussed by the Government would have picked up Abdulmutallab's hidden explosive. He said: "It is conjecture whether or not these methods would have seen through clothing. I don't think anyone knows."

LONDON, Sept. 28, 2009
Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers
New Technique of Storing Bomb Materials Inside Body Cavity Nearly Kills a Saudi Prince
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

To get his bomb into this room, Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, avoided detection by two sets of airport security including metal detectors and palace security. He spent 30 hours in the close company of the prince's own secret service agents - all without anyone suspecting a thing.

How did he do it?

Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

snip

"This is the nightmare scenario," said Chris Yates, an aviation security consultant.

On a plane at altitude, the effects of such a bomb could be catastrophic. And there is no current security system that could stop it.

"Absolutely nothing other than to require people to strip naked at the airport," said Yates.

[jmowreader]

44. Number 2 is probably yes

The drug smugglers call a cocaine-filled condom a "bullet." You figure out the rest.

[Fridays Child]

8. What are these children likely to be doing while they're scanned?

I'm not saying that full body scanners don't generate troubling privacy issues but, honestly, is the standing human form indecent now? On the other hand, as we slide further and further into absurdity, it seems that the uptight right wing could be hoist with its own proverbial petard, on this one (Gasp! Staying safe from the evil Muslims at the expense of our pious Christian modesty! Whatever are we to do?), and I love it when that happens.

:party:

[jberryhill]

14. "is the standing human form indecent now"

No, it's not, and never has been.

Perverts think "naked form" and "indecent" are the same thing, but they're not.

[FiveGoodMen]

38. "is the standing human form indecent now?"

Man convicted of indecent exposure inside his own home:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7264545

[seeinfweggos]

66. is the standing human form indecent now?

ask that guy that got arrested for being naked in his kitchen.

[jberryhill]

9. I doubt that...

Some group "claims" they violate the law.

Mere images of naked children are not illegal in most places.

Not even in the Vatican....

[Arrowhead2k1]

11. BREAKING NEWS: Thousands of registered sex offenders fill out applications for the TSA.

:rofl:

[wroberts189]

17. That was my first thought as well. Talk about a system ripe for abuse. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. only after they were turned down by a seminary.

[depakid]

12. Paranoia meet... paranoia!

[Psephos]

49. Exactly. nt

[Turbineguy]

21. There will be no problems

(deleted for cheap shot).

[wroberts189]

22. .. and republicans :) nt

[wroberts189]

23. Cool.. so now I can see what J-Lo really looks like :) Woohoo... TSA here I come. nt

[jberryhill]

26. Yes - and about 600 other people every hour!

Woo-hoo.

Do you have any idea how fast that gets old?

[wroberts189]

33. It will be too old as soon as Rush Limbaugh walks through.

I will have to file a workers comp claim for PSTD and mental anguish.


After I finish vomiting.

[hedgehog]

34. No need to wait

[wroberts189]

35. I don't know .. there could be bombs in those boobs. And those hips are a little wide.

I bet she is packed with Semtex

She will have to go through the scanner twice while dancing to be really sure.

hehe

[Socal31]

29. Im against these scanners.....

But how many parents in the UK are breaking "child porn" laws over there with bathtub photos?


The UK scares me.

[JuniperLea]

31. These freaks of nature will do what they can to terrorize...

As soon as you don't treat the search of a child the same as an adult, some scum is going to wire a child with explosives.

[truthisfreedom]

39. Let's face it. There's no fucking solution to any of this. They'll just stick bombs up their body

cavities. We have no way to protect ourselves against the terrorists, ultimately.

[Shallah Kali]

42. already done -New Technique of Storing Bomb Materials Inside Body Cavity Nearly Kills a Saudi Prince

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

snip

The Trojan bomber hands the phone to Prince Mohammed. He's standing next to him, and 14 seconds later, he detonates.

"This is the nightmare scenario," said Chris Yates, an aviation security consultant.

On a plane at altitude, the effects of such a bomb could be catastrophic. And there is no current security system that could stop it.

"Absolutely nothing other than to require people to strip naked at the airport," said Yates.

[JoeyT]

48. Yep!

And if they swallow it, not even a cavity search is going to find it.
Nothing short you laying down on the carry-on conveyor and riding through the little X-Ray machine is going to find stuff like that.

That won't stop people from demanding more authority for the TSA and more reduction of basic human rights and dignity.

[MineralMan]

43. Someone needs to look up the definition of child pornography.

There has to be a sexual element in it. I doubt there is anything sexually arousing in a blurry backscatter image. This is a bogus issue.

[alp227]

46. Define "indecent image". Does that include **any** nudity?

The majority of the time, people want to see child nudity for perverted purposes. This time, it's for safety reasons...all because of one idiot who tried and failed to blow up an airplane with stuff hidden in his privates.

How about this: to avoid trouble, hire some geeky, socially inept college students to monitor the full body scanners. I'm damned sure they ain't gonna be very turned on by those bodies. :rofl:

[JelloSka]

68. Yes, it does nt

[chrisa]

50. Thought about this when they first mentioned it...

Are these images saved? I could imagine some scumbag getting a picture of a celebrity, and selling it to the paparazzi.

[nilram]

51. scans on the internet?

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet.

Oh, come on! TSA agents are prohibited from taking their cell phones into the viewing room with them, and the scanners themselves don't save images. That's what the airlines told us, and I, for one, believe our new airline overlords!

[Shallah Kali]

52. just as tsa people are prohibited from stealing from luggage

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/13/eveningnews/main643165.shtml

& the NSA would only listen and record phone calls of bad guys not some soldier's phone sex with the wife or girlfriend at home then gather around and tee hee about it all http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1

[LisaL]

53. And of course we all know people never do something they

are not supposed to be doing.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. This is beyond stupid.

Either deal with security measures or possible terrorist attacks. Seems some don't want to deal with reality and because of that we get shit like this.

[leveymg]

55. This is absurd nonsense.

Celebrity pictures on the internet . . .

[Behind the Aegis]

56. There's your (general) "cui bono!"

[leveymg]

57. I think we finally agree on something

[Behind the Aegis]

58. That explains the cold here in New Olreans....Hell is freezing over.

:)

[leveymg]

59. How are things down there?

:P :evilgrin: :hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

60. Colder than a frost giant's dinkus buried in the snow!

We moved further south to avoid the cold! The way things are going, we will have to move our asses to the equator and still have a portable heater!

[leveymg]

61. This is why people drink Vodka.

My parent's generation, and their parents drank a lot of it. Old habits die hard. Originally, it was anti-freeze.

Have a martini. It'll warm your dinkus.

[MetaTrope]

62. A modest proposal

These scanners would be the perfect opportunity to reintroduce the eunuch class to government operations. Worked so well for the ancient Asian monarchs, why couldn't it be used today?

[Odin2005]

63. I pointed that out and got accused of having a sick mind.

:eyes: