It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Body scanners violate UK child porn laws

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:32 AM
Hardly erotic...

Although i agree that there could be some kind of civil liberty infringement, these picture are not that far off an x-ray in my opinion... They look like a photo negative... not much of a demand for photo negative porn as far as I’m aware

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Muckster]

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:48 AM
reply to post by Muckster

Rule #34 Muckster

The extreme security measures enforced at airports are quite laughable.

But what's even more hilarious is people are agreeing to be subjected to them.

Make sure you're wearing the safe color!

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Just watch, there will be an sudden influx of pedophiles applying for security positions at Heathrow... All vying for the coveted body-scanning monitor. LOL

— Doc Velocity

On top of that a whole new genre of internet perversion will abound. Photoshopped or not.. reprobates are going to have fun with it: "Leaked teen Lolita body scan pics!!", "Daddys girl masturbates in airport scanner!!".. and so on.

And you just know it wont be long before the same technology somehow makes it to the market allowing every junk tugger with an x-ray cam to roam the malls, high schools and playgrounds. If airports can use them, why not liquor stores, banks, govt buildings and so on?

This genie should be kept in the bottle for as long as possible.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:16 AM
And there I was thinking that the next threat was from the bomb in the annal cavity, and along comes this bomb in the pants guy closely followed by body scanners..

I smell something, so how effective are these scanners going to be against the bomb up the bottom brigade???

[edit on 5/1/10 by thoughtsfull]

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:03 AM
This is very sad news that policies now have the right to strip us (literally) of our rights.

As pointed out before me it really does seem that the full body scanners came straight into the headlines after the Amsterdam flight was put at risk from a bomber.

Forget scanners just have security fry up a little bit of bacon at the gates, everyone has to eat a bit and then they can board the plane, anyone who refuses can choose to have a body scan instead. I have a strong suspicion that extremists would have more trouble eating some bacon than blowing up a plane full of families.

Whats the big deal about getting a bomb onto a plane anyways, wouldn't deaths be just as numerous if bombs were detonated near the airport entrance where security is far more lax? Is it because the ultimate plan of bombers to use the plane as a missile? because there are guidelines put into place for how to deal with suspected highjacked planes by the military where jets are scrambled and the plane brought down if neccessary very quickly.

One more thing, in the UK child porn laws are for under 16 (I think) because thats when the age consent can be given so it may be a little different over here.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:36 AM
reply to post by Muckster

The images purposely colored and dithered so as to not look like naked people, in order to initially sell them to the public. The truth is with a little processing & proper coloring they would be just as good if not better than naked pictures because you will see around corners & crevices with a fully rendered 3D character. With some paint and post processing you could take the characters and make porn movies or just sell them to Hollywood for the next Avatar film - these would be far better realistic than any technology used in porn today.

The government would like nothing better than to own your 3D images and be free to use them as they wish without your consent. At the very least there will be a black market where workers can scan a secondary image.

Yep, not only are they going to have naked images of your kids, but they will be able to view them from any 3D angle and they can be animated.

It will be illegal for you or your kids to posses their own 3D images, but the government will have them.

Personally, I'd rather be patted down then to be repeatedly scanned, so if there's an opt out I'm taking it.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:11 AM
See , this is one of the reasons I will never fly again. I am the only person with the right to veiw my body in such detail. I dont even go swimming because I get jealous of all the people soaking up all my sexy .... HA !
To be honest , I think that the idea behind the technology is great, but the application , and the method by which the device does its job is not adquate to the task , or for that matter civil in the untertaking of the same.
Rather than taking full body pictures , they ought to scan the body for suspect chemical trace and solid returns like knives and pistols, and only provide a picture of the location on the body , where the suspect return came from . That way a persons rights are protected , but the scanner can still effectively do its work. Of course the current machines and the ones in development are only built to provide an image which must be examined by a customs or security service officer. That is quite frankly inefficient and lazy. Rather than putting science and technology to the test, and rolling out what amounts to a forensic scanner capable of reading the chemical trace of explosives , and the hard return of metals and weapons, and then presenting the customs agent with ONLY visual data relavent to the task of securing the aircraft , they build a dumb machine for taking pictures of people through thier clothes. Useless lazy pathetic and inadequate. May the designer burn in hell.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by TrueBrit

They do have the bomb sniffing machines, but they've found that they just don't work very well, they are more than 10 times the cost of body scanners, require more maintenance, and don't always detect materials as well as having false positives.

The body scanners will certainly not keep people from smuggling items in their body cavities - unless they actually do x-rays. This is why I find them completely useless - just like the stupid 3 ounces of fluid rules. Yeah right you can't have more than 3 oz of shampoo but the terrorist can stick a pound of explosives up his ying yang.

The TSA and their rules are a complete joke - they terrorize the flying public and airline workers while the real terrorists are thinking hm? drug smugglers & prison convicts have been putting contraband in the body cavities for hundreds of years - I guess since were going to kill ourselves anyway a little discomfort of explosives inside will have to do.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:03 AM
What a world. I'm sorry to see common sense and good will have been voted out of government, as if it hadn't already, and we're introduced with stupidity and.. I don't know, what the hell is their problem with making this dumb war last longer and letting the duped be scared a day longer. Where's the love anymore?

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by verylowfrequency

Hey , there are two things I have to say . If the machines they built dont work , then they need to build ones that do . Also if they cost more to use, then who the hell cares. Its pay, or have your turf blown up, then you pay the money and say the hell with it.Im gonna bet a few machines here and there dont cost as much as a world trade centre?

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:14 AM
Planes go down for a variety reasons, terrorism being a smaller risk than bad maintenance/faults and human error. So why go through all this humiliation for something that is such a small risk?
There is a lot more to this body scanning stuff than they want us to know.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:30 AM
reply to post by Flighty

Actually that’s a very good point!

Maybe the money should be invested in better ground maintenance...

Can’t sniffer dogs detect explosives?

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by Muckster

Yeah, I don't get it. With so much less money being spent on quality maintenance of aircraft, it's actually now more of a risk than it's ever been.

And those sniffer dogs have a pretty good strike rate in detecting what they've been trained to find.
So something else is definately up.

And back on topic, if they can use these child porn laws to save kids the indignity of this body scan, then I'm all for it.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Flighty
And those sniffer dogs have a pretty good strike rate in detecting what they've been trained to find.

And they just loooooove to sniff crotches. Underpants bombers don't stand a chance!

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by wecomeinpeace

Thank you, i havent laughed that hard in a week.

Wow, scanners that take nude pictures....Thats pretty twisted. I cant imagine all the bad pron sites that would pop up peddling stolen scanner images for top dollar.

Seriously, this is retarded...If they can make a scanner that can see through your clothes, you think they could make a device to detect a bomb or weapon without destroying ones own personal privacy.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in