×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

751 comments

Government (5, Insightful)

dufachi (973647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691378)

It's not illegal if the government does it. Right?

Re:Government (3, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691428)

That's sort of right. Technically it's 'when the government does it, that means that it is not illegal'. Amoral to be sure, but still a de facto part of every government in recorded history....eventually.

Re:Government (5, Informative)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691482)

If the government does illegal things (like using full-body scanners on minors) then other people may file a complaint to the police, or directly start a law suit. This happens a lot in civil cases where people or companies sue the government.

The government makes the laws, but is not above the law (at least not in most developed countries with proper separation of powers). Indeed the government can technically do whatever they like, as long as they first make sure their own laws allow them to do so. That's all.

Re:Government (1, Insightful)

Revenger75 (1246176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691618)

Let me know the outcome... actually try to tape it for me, because I want to have a good laugh when you try to place a police officer under citizen's arrest because you caught them speeding.

Developed != Civilised (4, Insightful)

sirlark (1676276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691734)

In agreement with the parent, there are plenty of examples of governments making laws to sanction immoral actions; consider the apartheid regime in South Africa, where as the government 'needed' to do something illegal, e.g. force mass evictions based on race to provide new land for development of suburbs for whites, new laws sprang into place. A more recent example example would be the US and the patriot act. Granted, the introduction of laws that curtail civil liberties or are immoral had to be sneaked in, often on unrelated bills, but it is another case of a government making laws to suit it's own purpose.

Which brings me to my actual point. It's not only developed countries that have a proper separation of powers. Many developing countries have the same legal principles enshrined in their constitutions. It's just that those principles are often ignored (including in developed countries) by the corrupt. Corruption is a part of human nature, not a part of just 3rd world human nature.

Re:Government (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691732)

I can't speak for the specific legislation covering this, but it's not uncommon for UK laws to exempt the police and security services from laws. This is from the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 [opsi.gov.uk]:

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not make unlawful anything done by, or on behalf of, law enforcement agencies or any of the intelligence services -

(a) in the interests of national security; or

(b) for the purpose of the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence, or the conduct of a prosecution,

Re:Government (1)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691838)

tell that to NIXON we all know what happed to him after his famous "Well, when the President does it that means that it is not illegal" to FROST

Re:Government (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691450)

Sigh, as an equal rights employer, the government jobs as scanners will be hyper competitive with register pedophiles. I guess airport scanner is the new catholic priest.

Re:Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691524)

I doubt it. Did you see the pictures from the article? While people were clearly in the nude pornography is more than nudity and those pictures weren't that great in comparison to what someone with an Internet connection could probably get online much more easily.

Re:Government (2, Insightful)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691646)

I doubt it. Did you see the pictures from the article? While people were clearly in the nude pornography is more than nudity and those pictures weren't that great in comparison to what someone with an Internet connection could probably get online much more easily.

So you're fine with me browsing the images of your hot wife/sister/daughter?

Re:Government (4, Funny)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691708)

No sister, no daughter, and if you think my mom is hot, then there's something -really- wrong with you.

Re:Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691598)

It's not illegal if the government does it.

That's what they told us during the reign of Dubya.

Sent to prison for Cartoon Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691798)

Let's not forget that"anything" that could be considered child porn, regardless of the facts will put you behind bars... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199/
"Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation's first conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons."

coming to a airport near you... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691380)

Pedobear TSA edition!

From TFA (3, Funny)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691714)

"A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We understand the concerns expressed about privacy in relation to the deployment of body scanners. It is vital staff are properly trained and we are developing a code of practice to ensure these god damn hot tiny titties and asses are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to be seen ejaculating to the person to whom the image relates, and that these images are immediately sold to tabloids.""

Note. This quote may have been altered for your safety.

Unstoppable force, immovable object (5, Funny)

SoVeryTired (967875) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691386)

Two ridiculous hot-button topics with opposing aims.
Wow, this is kind of like when the unstoppble force meets the immovable object.

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (3, Funny)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691462)

It is amazing what is going on. I personally don't care myself, If I get scanned or patted down. But I can imaging a a few folks who might. Pre-Op Transexuals for one.

I bet we catch more of those preops than terrorists with this new technology.

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691736)

Hey! I insist in patting down! Seriously, if I didn't fly I wouldn't have any sex life, so please, you can't take that away from me!

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (1)

kdrive113 (1716118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691468)

Wait, which one is supposed to be Christian Bale?

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (2, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691584)

Batman is the dark knight. The one who stands outside the law, foiling each side's attempts to control humanity. Clearly he's the snarky slashdotter who points out inconvenient flaws in their arguments through example. The public will quietly cheer him on while, the TSA agents who do not understand sarcasm, will think he's a terrorist out to undermine decent American ideals.They'll attempt to capture and tazer him into submission, which will ultimately lead to a riveting segway chase scene; with people screaming ... and lots of explosions ... and a innocent damsel caught up in the middle of this.

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691628)

How old is this damsel?

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (0, Troll)

hazem (472289) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691484)

Wow, this is kind of like when the unstoppble force meets the immovable object.

I'm sure the solution will be to have TSA officers carefully gird children with special lead loin cloths to cover their naughty bits before they are put through the scanner.

I missed the boat on buying stock in full-body scanner companies, but I may still be able to make a killing on the lead bathing suit manufacturers.

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691636)

I missed the boat on buying stock in full-body scanner companies, but I may still be able to make a killing on the lead bathing suit manufacturers.

Lead bathing suit lacks something. How about bullet proof bikini.

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691662)

Supposedly, for now, they'll just stop scanning those younger than 18 years.

Which, given the age of maturity in the culture that supplies most terrorists today, is kinda pointless.

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691752)

It's generally pointless. If you present a loophole people who want to do something illegal will use it. If you do not scan a specific group of people and this is known, you needn't scan anyone. Because all materials you are looking for will be carried by a member of that group of people, if necessary one such person will be taken along for that single purpose alone.

Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object (0, Redundant)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691720)

I so hope my theory concerning that problem is right and they annihilate each other at contact.

It's disgusting, frankly (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691392)

How deep we've dug ourselves.

Re:It's disgusting, frankly (5, Insightful)

GrubLord (1662041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691690)

Actually, it could very well get worse.

The exact same image (or rather, one even more accurate) could be recreated just by turning down the surface-transparency on a medical scan (such as a CT scan). Once all those subcutaneous organs are properly filtered out of the scan, what's left is a high-resolution, extremely-accurate naked image of your child.

Moreover, it's in 3D!

When the for-the-children lobby figure that one out, perhaps we ought to expect most hospitals (already terrified of lawsuits) to start delaying or refusing potentially life-saving diagnostic scans on the grounds that they may constitute illegal child pornography.

False Dichotomy (2, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691394)

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.

I somehow doubt that their choice is limited to those two options.

Re:False Dichotomy (1)

rich_r (655226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691466)

Broadly, speaking, those are the options. And they've not much time to push legislative changes through the house, either. Exempting U18's is the easiest way, and probably the easiest to justify in that the government recently committed to exempting U18's from certain safeguarding provisions.
The only other work-around is for ACPO to say they won't charge UKBA individuals for the offence, provided its only committed with the scanners whilst at work, but that's not entirely satisfactory for obvious reasons.

Re:False Dichotomy (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691480)

Broadly, speaking, those are the options.

They could rewrite the laws that define nude pictures of those under 18 as automatically pornography.

Re:False Dichotomy (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691840)

But think of the 17-and-three-quarters-year-olds-who-took-the-damn-pictures-and-uploaded-them-themselves! They'll go unpunished for their own exploitation of themselves and the harm they caused themselves in the process!

Yet another example (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691396)

Yet another example of how "think of the children" has a myriad of untended consequences.

It's not to say that I'm hugely in favor of full-body imaging devices, but I'm also not in favor of draconian laws about "pseudo-images" which serve little to no purpose as well.

How about we agree that if nobody gets hurt, we won't press charges.

Lame.

Ridiculous law (5, Interesting)

ramsun (62627) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691398)

This is ridiculous. Child porn laws need to differentiate between nude images and obscene/exploitative images. Hopefully this security debate will fuel a rethink.

Re:Ridiculous law (5, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691440)

I agree. But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience. People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.

Re:Ridiculous law (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691464)

That's funny. Some things (greek art, for example) lead me to believe that this isn't a universal truth, but rather a social construct.

I recall when I was 12, all nudity was sexual, precisely because I was never allowed to see any "naughty bits". As an adult, there are plenty of naughty bits to be found if you know where to look and so it's not so thrilling any more.

Perhaps this is simply a construct of the fact that child nudity simply can't be found anymore, anywhere, so people who are attracted to it have a lower tolerance for stimulus.

This is also in light of the fact that from my understanding, the image of "dirty drooling pervert" isn't quite as accurate as most people would like to believe. Of course, your work in prisons may lead you down that path to some extent, but I would hate to think of the conclusions of a sociologist who was only ever allowed to study the prison population of the culture he was trying to understand. :-)

Re:Ridiculous law (5, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691626)

Of course, your work in prisons may lead you down that path to some extent, but I would hate to think of the conclusions of a sociologist who was only ever allowed to study the prison population of the culture he was trying to understand. :-)

This sounds an awful lot like how people who spend all day working with drug addicts in rehab tend to have this image of all illegal drugs as horrible and talk about how the majority of drug users are broken worn-down people, they just see that all day and never see the girl smoking a joint at a party, or the friends who take some ecstacy at a rave and then go home to sleep it off, they just see the guy who smokes 5g of weed per day, the habitual coke-head and the heroin addict who's ruined his life and base their image of drug users on these people while not realising that the average drug user is a fairly normal person with a regular life...

(This was not meant to be in the defense of child molesters but rather as an example of a similar situation in which it is easy to get a warped view of reality based on a poorly chosen sample group)

/Mikael

Re:Ridiculous law (4, Funny)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691588)

Bestiality is illegal. Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.

Re:Ridiculous law (4, Funny)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691678)

Bestiality is illegal.

Not here in Brazil, bitches. You will have to pry Mumu from my cold dead hands

Re:Ridiculous law (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691706)

Bestiality is illegal. Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.

No, it isn't.

First of all, an animal won't care, as it grows older, that there is a picture of its genitalia, or it being involved in a sex act to which it did not consent, extant in the public space. Or even just lying there, exposed. People -- they generally will care. That even applies to baby pictures. Parents think they're cute. The subjects, not so much.

Secondly, the real issue here is that the problem law is one that outlaws not images of real people, but any rendering, artistic or otherwise, of a real or imaginary young person.

As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit. This is very harsh, but it still allows for privacy and most liberty, excepting that travel using someone else's privately owned conveyance has preconditions no sensible person would put up with (and hopefully, that will kill the air travel industry, finally teaching the idiots in government a lesson.)

It is much more disturbing that art and less-than-art expression, harming no individual, utterly victimless, is being cast as criminal activity. That's straight up repression, censorship, and foolish to boot.

Here, it would be straight up unconstitutional. Which is not to say, of course, that they wouldn't make laws against it anyway, they've stepped on eight of ten of the bill of rights amendments as it is, not to mention other parts of the constitution. But at least you'd have a leg to stand on to object.

Re:Ridiculous law (1, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691670)

I agree. But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience. People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.

Was it really proper child porn, as in nudity of prepubescent children?

Or was it simply nude pics of humans whom we consider children socially (and therefore also classify them as "child porn"), but who are physically sexually mature?

Because, you know, it would be hard for a healthy sexually mature heterosexual male to not be aroused by a nude picture of a sexually mature female, regardless of the nature of the picture and ages of either participant. You can't cheat nature, you can only suppress its urges.

Re:Ridiculous law (1, Insightful)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691766)

it would be hard for a healthy sexually mature heterosexual male to not be aroused by a nude picture of a sexually mature female

Sorry, that is an over-broad statement. I can think of plenty of counterexamples.

Re:Ridiculous law (4, Funny)

iamacat (583406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691460)

Child porn laws need to differentiate between images of voluntarily nude children in the bathtub and children forced to show their privates to strangers so that they can fly to visit grandma.

Re:Ridiculous law (5, Insightful)

engun (1234934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691574)

This is a good example of a world gone mad. Since when is every individual a suspected pedophile? Pedophiles are an absolute, absolute minority. Most adults actually have a natural instinct to be protective of children, this is known psychology. Somehow, the assumption seems to be that the norm is to abuse children and the exception is to care for them.

I find it even more amusing that there is no worry about the privacy of adults. Isn't their privacy being abused by these full-body scanners? Won't 99.99% of cases be that guards screening this would get a kick out of seeing an adult nude and not give two hoots about naked children? Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of the population are pedophiles? I'm willing to bet that it's a pretty low number.

Re:Ridiculous law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691654)

I have a question; do humiliating pedophiles contribute to social safety?
I guess not. Volstead Act banned alcohol, a kind of material not preferable in church, strongly assisted social instability.

Re:Ridiculous law (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691684)

As an adult male, I know that when I go out in public I act coldly and hatefully towards children.

It's the only way to keep people from calling me a pedophile! Being nice to them just makes people scared of me!

Presume guilty except in explicit evidence of innocent. And even then, question exactly why an innocent person would need evidence of innocence.

Wait, no damn! That means I should stop hating kids because it looks like I have something to hide! Is there any way to prove the absence of something? Science gave up trying to do that with God years ago!

Re:Ridiculous law (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691774)

Someone hand that guy an insightful mod, he's got it. I was pondering all the time what bothers me about this, and this is it!

Pedophiles are a minority. Well, most likely. Let's not assume this is somehow a world of the Paranoia RPG where everyone hates mutants and everyone is one and tries to hide it. Yet we're afraid of a secret pedo sitting behind those scanners and seeing kids nude. We're not worried about him seeing adult females (or males, hey, ya know, some swing that way...) nude, despite the chance of him being (sexually) interested in seeing that being magnitudes higher.

That doesn't bother us? Well, it might not bother our politicians, I don't even WANT to picture them nude, not to mention having to look at them that way because it's my job (shudder!), but it certainly should bother any halfway attractive person on this planet who plans to take a flight.

Re:Ridiculous law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691778)

This is a good example of a world gone mad. Since when is every individual a suspected terrorist? Terrorists are an absolute, absolute minority. Most civilians actually have a natural instinct to be protective of other civilians, this is known psychology. Somehow, the assumption seems to be that the norm is to blow up planes and the exception is to fly peacefully.

Think of the children (4, Funny)

xs650 (741277) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691400)

As much as I don't care for the losers working airport security, I'm more concerned about the trauma they will go through looking at average airline passengers sans clothing all day long.

So, pat down for childs! (5, Interesting)

stm2 (141831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691410)

Body scanners are optional, if you refuse, you get a pat-down search.
But some pat-dows may constitute sexual assault:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/inappropriate-pat-down-searches-during-an-airport-security-screening.html [legalmatch.com]
This may be a catch-22 for TSA :)

Solution: exempt children (4, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691412)

"But back to those privacy concerns. Some lawyers believe having a young traveller pass through the full-body scanners could violate child pornography laws. As a result, Canada is exempting passengers under-18 from the new measures."

from http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/06/f-rfa-common.html [www.cbc.ca]

Personally, if I were asked to go through one I would opt for the pat-down instead. Want to get your rocks off feeling my rocks? Go for it, but I won't have my naked image stored in a computer that politicians claim is hack proof and will get deleted right after.

Agree, but... (4, Insightful)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691470)

...I would go a bit further: I don't want my naked image to be seen by anyone. Unless I was a porn star, which I'm not (and not intending to be one through this technology).

It's indecent, and I am principally against it. It's attacking the integrity of the human body, and a number of other basic human rights.
In The Netherlands, some person from the PvdA political party called it totally acceptable to introduce body scanners as flying is "voluntarily", and thus you would not be able to refuse it once you bought a ticket and boarding the plane. That person probably has no idea that a significant number of flying-hours is made by business travelers who are not doing that voluntarily, and cannot refuse (lest be fired).
A lot of stupid arguments are floating around in these days why the body scanners are OK, but every one of them can be refuted by a simple - but basic (like human rights) - counter argument...
Let's hope the political process works and we can indeed always opt for a pat down (or more, if suspicion arises *after* the pat down and normal security screening - that failed for Schiphol), or we have hundreds of thousands of people added to a virtual "no-fly list" as per arguments above...

Re:Agree, but... (4, Insightful)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691604)

OTOH, we can finally get over this hangup about nudity being something naughty. We have Christianity to thank for making sins out of things as commonplace as nudity and sex.

I don't want my naked image to be seen by anyone

It's not like the stuff under your clothes is a mystery to anyone. Get over it. Do you also think it's indecent when a doctor asks to see your naked body?

My problem with body scans has nothing to do with nudity-- it's that we're being driven toward it by a knee-jerk reaction. Before we dive into body scanning everyone, we need to ask whether we are more likely to catch terrorists this way, and whether it is worth the cost.

Re:Agree, but... (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691622)

Yes, how dare these people who are not me have differing views than my own. Let us outlaw these differing opinions, friend!

Unless you feel differently, then you are my enemy.

Re:Agree, but... (2, Insightful)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691656)

Why should we respect any viewpoints based on superstition? They're not rational. Worse, they're often harmful.

Furthermore, we have thousands of years of evidence of religious people not respecting anyone else's views. Why am I obligated to make concessions to them? I'm not killing them because they believe in God (I do not), but in many places in the world, I would be. Can you imagine what would happen to a public leader in a Western country who refused to swear an oath on a Holy Book? People would run him/her out of town.

I believe that in a civil society, you are obligated to respect people (until they give you a reason not to), but you are under no obligation to respect people's views.

Re:Agree, but... (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691802)

Can you imagine what would happen to a public leader in a Western country who refused to swear an oath on a Holy Book?

Very few western countries do this (does it even exist outside of the US ?) and most of the others consider it quite shocking. FYI.

Re:Agree, but... (1)

shish (588640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691630)

It's indecent, ... It's attacking the integrity of the human body

Somewhat tangential, but I'm curious -- do you have any scientific, or even logical reasons for these statements? At first glance it seems that they're entirely cultural, and I've never understood why people would follow cultural norms without having logic to back them up :S

Re:Agree, but... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691762)

"I've never understood why people would follow cultural norms without having logic to back them up :S"

Maybe true but that's not how it works irl. Gay incest between 13year old boys should be completely acceptable from any kind of logical point of view. I imagine that a large portion of people even just reading the words will shudder a bit, and this is /. ... a lot more logical than the average southern state.

Anyways, not wanting to be seen naked is sort of logical... or should I say having laws for it is. It is the same idea as harassment laws... 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me' is of course true, but laws exist for that. It isn't a good idea for a government to offend or emotionally hurt vast swaths of people.

As well this is taking away an expectation of privacy. When a government takes away a right no matter how pointless it may be it has to have a pretty good reason and a super majority backing it (ethically it should, I dunno about legally). Governments are there to give people more freedom not less (No matter what the anti-government types say, you have more freedom now than you would in an anarchy).

Re:Agree, but... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691686)

...I would go a bit further: I don't want my naked image to be seen by anyone. Unless I was a porn star, which I'm not (and not intending to be one through this technology).

I don't really mind if they pay appropriately.

Oh, and what's the usual rate for chubby porn these days, by the way?

Re:Solution: exempt children (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691552)

Children are small. We can transport them with a series of high speed air powered tubes. Problem solved.

Now will somebody... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691414)

please think of the adults!

1984 came late... (5, Insightful)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691426)

If we continue to allow such invasion to our personal dignity as full body scans, scatter ray etc in public places WITHOUT DUE REASON OR WARRANT we are only one step away from having cameras and microphones in all of our houses. For anti-terrorism measures, instead of investing far more in either more labour intensive approaches such as metal detectors or explosive/chemical sniffers, governments have chosen far more invasive options with dubious increase in safety for the innocent.

Re:1984 came late... (5, Informative)

holygoat (564732) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691610)

Um...

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/ [wired.com]

"£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes. The government’s “children’s secretary” Ed Balls is behind the plan, which is aimed at problem, antisocial families. The idea is that, if a child has a more stable home life, he or she will be less likely to stray into crime and drugs."

Re:1984 came late... (0, Flamebait)

Revenger75 (1246176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691650)

If your that worried about some TSA guards seeing a pseudo-image of your body, maybe you should hit the gym a little more often...

Re:1984 came late... (1)

jessica_alba (1234100) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691792)

i don't suppose a highly motivated, global organization that specializes in terror warrants some poor sap having to look at your ass. and, btw, i don't see how PUBLIC security has anything to do with someone bugging your PRIVATE residence, but, by all means, keep rocking the tin foil hat like its fucking 1984

Wait, (3, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691472)

A child protection law is actually protecting the privacy of adults?

This cant be right, I'm certain the PC committee will rectify this before tea time.

Re:Wait, (4, Informative)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691520)

Many day care centers have glass walls and no doors to the toilets these days.

I once made a comment to a day care center "Is it for the protection of the children". She replied "No, It is for the staffs protection".

It's the only logical solution. (5, Funny)

HamSammy (1716116) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691488)

We'll have to put kids in opaque balls and cast them out to sea so that nobody can look at them or touch them or think about them. It's the only way.

Re:It's the only logical solution. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691780)

Hehehe, you said balls!

I understand they're exempting people under 18 (4, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691506)

Perfect. There have been suicide bombers younger than that. I feel much safer now...if perhaps a tad undignified.

Re:I understand they're exempting people under 18 (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691532)

Given that the UK recruits 16 year olds into their armed forces and has fielded 17 year olds quite recently, they have absolutely no excuse for not thinking of that.

I'm pretty sure my parents should be in jail... (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691528)

Based on pictures they snapped of my cousin and I running around naked at the beach when we were about 3.

This is really stupid. The UK's "strict liability" laws are horribly designed.

Re:I'm pretty sure my parents should be in jail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691560)

Based on pictures they snapped of my cousin and I running around naked at the beach when we were about 3.

Really? Let's see those pictures to confirm whether your parents are guilty or not.

If you think if the children, the terrorists win (3, Funny)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691548)

If you think if the children, the terrorists win. Wait. No. If you don't think of the children, the terrorists win. Ahhh...my moral outrage is so confused right now.

rethink security (2, Funny)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691550)

I say the passengers for the flight get to take a vote to see who gets to go through the body scanning machine. I doubt you'll get a flight full of pedophiles, but some kids seem capable of blowing things up

Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists (5, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691566)

Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists.

The cage match we've all been waiting for.

Anyone taking bets?

AndyMo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691568)

If it's not sexual in nature or intended for sexual arousal, it's not porn. People of any age can be legally pictured nude in art, medical images, etc.

Odd timing (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691590)

Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.

Re:Odd timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691846)

It is a bit ironic. Kind of how the presidential speech was delayed just in time to overlap the Glenn Beck program. This is starting to become scary...

go by boat!!! (1)

ushere (1015833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691606)

wtf, if you fly, you get screened. you don't want to get screened, don't fly. bloody simple.

Re:go by boat!!! (2, Insightful)

WegianWarrior (649800) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691660)

Or, as someone mentioned higher up, don't fly and get fired. Some of us do have to go places as part of our job...

here's an idea... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691642)

Why the hell do they need to long term store it? It doesn't help you to say "oh yeah, he did have a weapon on him after all" 4 hours later. Don't let the image stream ever hit the hard drive. Just keep it in ram and wipe it when the next one steps through. Wait, why is this even a computer? Why isn't it just a monitor for the machine and strictly a video feed?
Oh who cares, the staff just whip out their cell phone cameras anyway if they see the secret transvestite senator walk though. Then it doesn't matter how much security they put on it. And who cares if they're storing pics or not if some pedo decides to get a job with airport security so he can look at naked kids all day? The article's solution was to "tell people not to violate CP laws." Oh yeah, telling pedos not to do anything pedo-ish always works. I say modify or dump the scanners!

Idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691704)

Coroners had better stop documenting the autopsies of children or they'll be in trouble -_-

Medical uses? (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691768)

First of all, full body scanners are a fucking poor solution to terrorism for two reasons:
1. Terrorists will find another way around it anyway.
2. You're X-raying someone every single time they fly. It doesn't take a radiologist to tell you that lots of x-rays are bad.

We're effectively willing to slowly sterilize frequent fliers over the next 10 years because of some jackasses putting explosives in their shoes/underwear. The terrorists have already won. I mean, I don't think that even the most extreme terrorist would have thought that they would be able to have a government agree to irradiate its citizens.

But anyway, how do doctors get around taking x-rays and CT scans of minors for medical reasons? I mean, it's not like children have never broken their pelvis before. Surely there already exists some exception to this child pornography law to allow the use of x-rays and CT scans for legitimate purposes.

Re:Medical uses? (1)

jessica_alba (1234100) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691850)

"When X-rays are used for medical imaging purposes, they have to be energetic enough to get through the human body. The X-rays used in the backscatter machines in airports have such low energy that they literally bounce off the skin. That is what backscatter implies," Thrall said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34734234/ns/travel-news/ [msn.com]
you know this if you were a radiologist, instead of an idiot.

Weasel words exists in law, too (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30691776)

Presumably the use of a "full body scanner" won't be considered "indecent" in court. Whereas pictures of a naked child holding a sex toy for instance would be.

If you can't tell the difference, you should be shot. The Guardian certainly deserves to be. Because presumably they would bring up the same argument against, say, visits to the pediatrician or medical imaging.

Please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691808)

Can someone Think of the children!

pampers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30691830)

going with this thought process, then i'd say the pampers diaper commercials should be considered child porn...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...