It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Airport body scanners reveal all, but what about when it's your kid?

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Airport body scanners reveal all, but what about when it's your kid?


www.tampabay.com

There's been lots of talk lately about body scanners — the new airport security tool that allows screeners to see through clothes. People are concerned about privacy, delayed flights, health effects.

Now there's another concern. What about kids? Do they have to go through this, too? And what are parents' rights?

A Baltimore family is raising the issue after their 12-year-old daughter was pulled out of line in Tampa and subjected to what they say was an embarrassing and unhealthy scan. The
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

"Our daughter was scared and didn't understand what was happening," said Michelle Nemphos, the mother of the girl. She declined to give her daughter's name. "In essence they conducted a strip search on a 12-year-old girl without her parents present to advocate for her."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Does this not constitute child porn? this is not even the health aspect. How could they do this to children? I think that this is a very important debate that I haven't yet heard on this issue. The last thing that we want to do to our shy and self conscious little girls, is take pictures of what ultimately amounts to their naked bodies.

If a child perceives this to be some fat guy looking at her genetalia, then wouldn't it do the same psychological damage as taking pornographic pictures of this child? I think it would.

--airspoon


p.s. - please no raunchy puns on the last name of the victim


www.tampabay.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Does this not constitute child porn?
--airspoon


Thats taking it a bit far. I would be willing to bet the same child has worn a bathing suit at a pool or beach that was much more revealing than the scan image.

If they didn't have the scanner, there would be some crybaby making waves about whatever method replaced it. It seems to be the American way.


Scared child and overreaction by parents imo.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
What the heck? Child porn? No. Goes to intent. I find it disturbing a mind would even go there, but that's just me.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Hey, remember when they said that they didn't keep copies of the images and then a bunch of British airport security people ran out to get the naked pics of the Indian movie star signed by the guy?

If it in any way promotes cancer and there is serious concern that it does, IMHO putting a child through these infernal machines isn't just "pornographic" which is one issue, it is slow murder.


"Many people will approach this as, 'Oh, it must be safe, the government has thought about this and I'll just submit to it,'" says David Agard, a biochemist and biophysicist at the University of California, San Francisco. "But there really is no threshold of low dose being OK. Any dose of X-rays produces some potential risk."

Agard and several of his UCSF colleagues recently wrote a letter to John Holdren the president's science adviser, asking for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing all those airline passengers to X-rays. The other signers are John Sedat, a molecular biologist and the group's leader; Marc Shuman, a cancer specialist; and Robert Stroud, a biochemist and biophysicist.

"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," Agard says.

www.npr.org...



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I don't think that I would allow either of my daughters to go through the scan. I would politely ask for a female worker to pat down if it was absolutely necessary. Luckily, we don't fly anywhere..never been a fan of flying..



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
ooops
part 2 of above opinion


Child protection experts have warned that the image produced by the Rapiscan machines may break the law which prevents the creation of an indecent image or pseudo-image of a child.

The legislation, the Protection of Children Act 1978, could potentially have led to security officers facing criminal charges for doing their job by examining the images.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



[edit on 20-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


It shows much more than what a child's swimsuit would expose. Not only that, but creeps aren't taking pictures either. My daughter's bathing suit doesn't even come close to revealing what these scanners reveal. I'll say to you what I said to the other poster below, to a child, a nude picture is a nude picture. If we can agree that child pornography harms children, then what does it matter what the viewer is thinking about while viewing the picture? If the child believes that a nude picture is being taken of them, damage done. Also, we have no idea what is going through the minds of the TSA employees viewing the picture and in fact, I would even venture to say that this profession might now attract perverts. I would also venture to say that some creep is enjoying looking at these photos. You can't tell me with a straight face that this isn't going to be abused.


In this picture, this guy's penis is obviously covered but this wouldn't be so in everyday operations. People aren't going to put metal shields over their kid's genitals and even if they did, they would probably have to remove it.

--airspoon

reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Child porn is not a stretch at all. It's some stranger taking nude pictures of a child. To me, this says child porn. Also, you have no idea what's going through the mind of the TSA employee/s who look/s at these photos.

Intent? Intent hardly matters for the victim. Tell me, does it matter why someone slashes your tire? Would a parent not care why someone murdered their child? Not really, your tire is still ruined and the child is still dead.

Also, it doesn't truly matter what the ultimate intent is as far as psychological damage to the child. If the child thinks that nude pictures are being taken of her, it doesn't matter what setting it is in. To a child, a nude picture being taken is a nude picture being taken.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Airspoon I applaud you for bring this to us!
It is far too revealing and it can become a big problem if it isn't already!

Your parental instincts are on the mark!



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



Have you seen the new murmers that the former DHS head has ties to these scanner companies? Its not what you know.. It is who you know.. Airspoon go back to the mall thread and read what I posted.. I gave you the credit you deserve... with a little kick in the shins at the same time



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


So people don't take pictures at the beach or pool that happen to have other peoples children in the background? Coulda fooled me.

If we are going to go all hysterical here, we might aswell call all doctors who have ever taken a chest or pelvic xray on a child a pedophile and child porn collector because those pics don't disapear.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


You find it distrubing a mind would go there? Do you have any idea what is going on around you?

If you did, you wouldn't have said that!



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


You are seeing their privates .. It is a bit different! I agree with OP..
Have you seen one of the scans? They have to be blured on television!



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The day they try putting me through that is the day I jump on and bring it to the ground and smash it. I suggest you all do the same...

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Bonified Ween]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


That is a completely failed comparison... A gynocologist can do a vaginal exam... If TSA wanted to, would you object?

Those scans are very revealing. It is different than a medical xray. These scans show a very detailed view of your skin.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


You are seeing their privates .. It is a bit different! I agree with OP..
Have you seen one of the scans? They have to be blured on television!


And when a doctor takes a chest or pelvic xray? Different? How? Can you prove no dirty thoughts are going through the doctors head? Are doctors somehow safer than a airport screener to view such pics? Need I keep going?

[edit on 20-7-2010 by FreeSpeaker]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

But family pictures sent to a serving soldier are porn according to the army? who's hysterical?
The only good brass is in the magazine.


GALESBURG -- An Illinois National Guard soldier in Afghanistan has been charged by the U.S. Army with possessing child pornography over pictures of a young relative his mother says she sent him.

Terri Miller of Galesburg says she sent her son, Specialist Billy Miller, pictures of the little girl to help him get over his homesickness.
The pictures show the child in a swimsuit playing a wading pool and sitting on a truck. In one, the girl is wearing a swim suit and part of her buttocks are exposed.

The Army says Miller will stay in Afghanistan until his court martial. His unit came home last August. Miller faces jail time, if convicted.

Terri Miller says the pictures are innocent.

WQAD TV reports that the child is a relative Billy treated as his own child when the girl was diagnosed with cancer as her father was going through boot camp. The family notes that the same pictures are on family computers and on Facebook pages, and no one else has been investigated.

"You have no clue how it eats me up", said a crying Terri Miller. "I blame myself every day, every day, if I wouldn't have sent the pictures he would be home."

www.chicagobreakingnews.com...



[edit on 20-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 


No, I'm stupid.

As I said, it all goes to intent. The child who gets scanned would never even see their own scan or think it this way, and, to me, any adults who do so are disturbed, whether in the name of protection or not. They might even draw in the sickos or give them ideas in my opinion. Fight this for any real dangers you might think exist here and on the merits of benefits versus real risks, not imaginary ones.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


That is a completely failed comparison... A gynocologist can do a vaginal exam... If TSA wanted to, would you object?

Those scans are very revealing. It is different than a medical xray. These scans show a very detailed view of your skin.



Gynocologists are a specialist in one field and only treat women so no comparison there. I have had a pelvic xray during my football days and my member was quite exposed so I know how revealing a medical xray can be.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

Doctors, x-ray techs, computer analysts, and so on. X-rays in general are online now.

I guess what all this goes to is that some fear they are keepiing snapshots of the scans. Like I said, fight the real dangers, not the imaginary ones.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join