New scanners break child porn laws (in England)

[proud2BlibKansan]

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.

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

[MineralMan]

1. What is the definition of 'indecent' in that British law.

Here, there has to be some sexual expression for it to rise to the level of child porn. Blurry black and white images of someone doesn't seem to meet that criteria, I'd think.

Much ado over nothing.

[atreides1]

4. Found this

The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a question of fact.


According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph."

[MineralMan]

7. Yes, and what jury or judge would decide that a blurry

security screening image of a child is indecent? This is just a bunch of people who don't like the idea of themselves being screened in that way looking for a reason to ban the machines.

[MercutioATC]

11. Perhaps the same type of people who charge parents who take pics of their kids in the bathtub

with child pornography.

There's an art photographer in my area who took a picture of her 5-year-old daughter in the bathtub. Nothing sexual about the image. She was charged with child pornography.

This IS a valid legal concern, in light of the puritanical views of many people.

[MineralMan]

15. Was she convicted? Has anybody been convicted of taking

a bathtub photo of their own child? Charges like that are vanishingly rare, and I know of zero convictions. The stories circulate around the internet, but I can't imagine a district attorney today who would bring such charges to court. If one did, any court or jury would toss the charges, unless there was actual sexual behavior or deliberate sexualization going on.

Naked baby photos have just one purpose, and that is to be shown to the subject's boyfriend or girlfriend when they are teenagers. The embarrassment is too exquisite to pass up. My parents did that to me on the occasion of my high school prom. My girlfriend laughed her butt off, then made lewd comments about the photo when we were alone.

[spanone]

9. so if you download nude pictures of children from the internet, that's ok?

no sexual expression, just nude kids.

[MineralMan]

16. I don't know. I've never done that, nor have I seen any such photos

on the internet. The intent of the downloader is, quite obviously, a factor. Since these security screening images are not saved, it's really a non-issue, isn't it?

And the intent, in this case, has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with security on airplanes. The images are not saved. There is no sexual connotation.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Sorry, an image of a nude child standing alone is not child porn

Child porn has two elements... child and porn.

Nudity is not intrinsically pornographic.

The whole story has a ginned-up quality.

[atreides1]

6. Not under British law

According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph."

So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.






The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a question of fact.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. I'm not questioning whether it's an image. I am saying it isn't indecent.

Simple nudity absent sexual content or lascivious display is not indecent. A security scan picture is not sexual or exploitive.

Consider the contrary. Are all images of nude children illegal in the UK?

I am guessing not.

And if any class of nude image is permitted then a security image like we are describing would be near the top of the list. Aside from pictures taken by doctors it is hard to imagine a less prurient sort of nudity.

[MineralMan]

17. Lots of images of naked children in art. Some of them are hanging

in major art museums in the UK. Some depictions of naked children can be seen in churches, there, too. See my posts below this one.

[ThomCat]

10. Given how frequently we hear about abuses involving Homeland

Security here in the US, and airport security and baggage handlers and airline employees making lives hell for travelers, I would be concerned.

If you give people arbitrary authority, they are going to find ways to use and abuse it.

So expect to find that attractive women are being singled out if there is any way male employees can see the images.

Expect to see minorities and foreigners singled out and made to wait in these scanners because it feels humiliating, and that's the intent. Expect to see a lot of profiling.



If you give people a chance to profit from something illicitly, there will always be some people who will. If the images from these machines are saved, expect there to be a trade in the images. People are going to want to see the images of lots of celebrities.

Of course people are not going to want images of their kids acquired and possibly passed around. Would you want naked images of your children distributed?

So these machines should Not have the ability to save images.

[MineralMan]

13. We hear/Some say....not information, but rumor..

I suspect you do not travel much. If you did, you'd know that such incidents happen very, very rarely. What happens, instead, is that TSA people are far too busy to mess around with such crap, almost universally. There's no time for it, and too many people watching.

"Some say" many things, and "we hear" a lot of stuff that is not representative of real life.

[ThomCat]

19. I used to travel frequently

I've personally seen abuses of authority.

I've personally arrive with that little sticker on it indicating that i was randomly searched, and what a surprise, stuff was stolen from my luggage while they were searching. They don't even mind announcing who stole it anymore before they know there it nothing you can do about it.

I've watched people get bullied by overzealous TSA employees with bad attitude.

If you haven't seen it then you travel with your eyes closed. If you don't think it happens, then you must only be traveling out of tiny little peduncle airports that don't see any traffic anyway. :eyes:

[MineralMan]

3. This image sits on a pilaster in a British church...

A guy has to wonder if all the depictions of putti in British churches and museums are kiddy porn.

Pull them all down!

[MineralMan]

5. And this painting of putti cavorting outdoors was sold

at Christie's in London recently for about US$45,000. I rest my case. Blurry images on a screen don't qualify as pornography under any reasonable law.

[fasttense]

12. I would certainly NOT allow my 12 year old pre-pubescent daughter to

go through these scanners. True they don't appear as porn when first scanned but wait until they hit the internet. It's a pedophiles dream come true. A never ending source of naked children images. A few touch ups with photo shop, and you have yourself a full blown colorized photograph of a your naked child.

Or what about one of those celebs who seem too willing to appear naked on screen as long as they are getting paid?

All it would take would be one underpaid, overworked non-high school grad looking to augment his/her income. It's not as if these TSA employees are well trained and compensated.

No thanks, you can keep your virtual strip search and I'll keep my privacy.

[MineralMan]

14. The images are not stored. That's part of the design of the scanners.

So, how are they going to show up on the internet, do you suppose?

Pedophiles have plenty of real photos to send around to each other. Why would they be interested in fuzzy images?

Do you travel with your daughter a lot?

[Romulox]

18. English common law is the source of American law; I find it hard to believe there is no INTENT

element to the crime in England, as there is here. :hi: