Feeds

back to article Naked scans: Net cries nude-o-geddon

The proliferation of airport body scanners will spark a flurry of low-grade porn, internet conspiracy theorists claimed last week. But officials at Manchester Airport, where full body scanning is already due to be tested, have been quick to dismiss this as urban myth. Who to ignore? A number of websites have suggested it is a …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Big Brother

am I the only one

who believes that the "pants bomber" was just a staged event by certain agencies/lobbies to get

these nudie scanners sold?

1
0

Conspiracy

This "Pants Bomber" was rather convenient for the Security Theatre industry - just what they needed to close the deal.

Future "Pants Bombers" will still be able to get through security - they just have to object to the scanner on religious grounds and instead submit to a pat down, which is no different to what already happens now. Therefore airline security is no better off but the rest of us lose a bit more of our dignity and the security industry scores the contract.

Win-win.

6
0
Big Brother

Unlikely claim

"Besides, images taken by the scanners are not ever saved to any form of permanent medium, so there is no scope for images to be played with in this way."

Sorry, I don't believe you. There are good legal reasons why the images must be retained - such as a dispute between the passenger and the airport about the search.

4
0

Saved images....

So nobody with a camera phone can take a picture of the screen then? is that "impossible" is it? Do they have a magic screen that cannot be photographed? I am sure they will want to stop their officers taking cameras into the booth but I bet that wont stop some of them trying.

5
0
Thumb Down

Spot the lie

>> and that no images are ever saved within the system.

Really? Then where did the test images that we see on TV and in the press come from? And if images really aren't saved then how will they be used as evidence?

4
0
Silver badge

Nudity is not automatically a privacy violation

Who needs to see fuzzy solarised images when full colour, full screen full motion video of much more attractive people is readily available?

Excluding kids under 18 is ridiculous ... it just means that terrorists will use minors to get stuff onto planes. Either everyone gets scanned ... or has a chance of getting scanned ... or the system is worthless.

All they need to do is make sure there is no image capture and vet the machine operators. Maybe they should all be registered nurses, for instance.

0
0
Flame

Nurses?

"Maybe they should all be registered nurses, for instance."

Yes, because what the medical profession needs right now is a shortage of trained professionals as they all go off and look at nudie-scans at airports. Let's bulk up the civil service, too, while we're at it - after all, the country can easily afford it. Strewth!

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

But do they work?

Should we be asking if the damn things actually work first?

I find it very hard to believe that anything out there would stop any competent organization or individual from actually blowing up a plane if they really wanted to do it.

What actually keeps us safe is that only insane people want to blow themselves up in planes and the nutters are very very rarely competent.

On the other hand there's a lot of money in Security Theater.

2
0
Thumb Down

How soon before our right to Privacy is completely eroded away?!

Who watches the watchers ? Who makes sure they are following the rules ? Would you trust them ?

And if children are not to be scanned (which I fully agree with), what is the point of the scanners ? Terrorists will just send kids through with explosives.

This is just the next attack on our privacy in the name of security. I agree security is important but there has to be a better way ?!

3
0
Paris Hilton

There's a shortage of low grade fuzzy porn?

This is a national crisis the like of which we have not faced before. There must be an immediate high-level Government enquiry and we must immediately break out the emergency MPEGs.

In this time of our greatest need, none shall go wanting for hand shandy material.

Paris, obviously...

0
0
Bronze badge
Flame

Obvious arse-covering solution

Tinfoil underpants

Should be on issue to all politicians already.

(I do hope they're not trying to sterilise the hoi-polloi)

0
0
FAIL

Government contradiction at it's best.

"Besides, images taken by the scanners are not ever saved to any form of permanent medium, so there is no scope for images to be played with in this way."

This directly contradicts a statement by a Manchester Airport spokesman in a Grauniad article:

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

"Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted."

So which is it, are the streamed to a screen with no recording function or are they stored temporarily. If it's the latter, then we can assume that it'll be done in the most half assed way possible as per Government guidelines.

Personally I'm really not bothered about the idea of these scanners and think the child pr0n argument is a load of bollox. However it's nice to see the "War against Terrorism" collide spectacularly into "Think of the children". What does happen when an unstoppable force meets an unmoveable object?

1
0
FAIL

Surely it's crossed their minds...

A cheapo digital camera or phone will easily grab these images off the screen. Better yet operators, search ebay for spy camera, job's a good 'un.

Can el reg get a competition going to name the website that will host all these images? (scanbook.com? 4scan.org? scannr.com?)

As for the matter of under 18s, this is where all that 'think of the children' legislation has got us. Even police-screened security personnel that are protecting us from terrorists might still be peados, and for some reason it's illegal to see a human being in their natural state.

1
0
Thumb Up

Actually I think this is a damn fine idea...

...I just remember to change my underwear more than once a week!

Paris, because she doesn't wear any!

0
0
\\\

I don't understand

If these scanners produce indecent images of under 18's, then the produce indecent images of everyone. If by not scanning 17year 364day olds and younger, the government are admitting there's a privacy issue.

3
0
Big Brother

Already planned

It should be noted that in September 2008, the Telegraph reported in an article entitled "EU to introduce 'virtual strip searches' at airports by 2010", that Britain (along with the rest of the EU) were required to have these body scanners installed by April 2010. The 'pants bomber' is the convenient excuse to gain public support of these scanners.

1
0

I'll bet the kiddy fiddlers are withdrawing their job applications right now

But seriously. Why should children under 18 be exempt from security scans. Are the terrorists so stupid that they would never think to get a false ID that gives them an age of 17. Obviously in narrows the selection process down a bit because some 30 something would be suicide bomber is never going to pass as 17.

But even supposing you could not find a terrorist that passes for 17, who is to say that these people are not so desperate as to use their own children as walking bombs.

0
0
Happy

This is great

As I approach my 40th birthday this really helps my self confidence.

Just when I am thinking that I am past my prime I find that not only does my government want to see me naked and even take pictures but that there may even be a market out there for this kind of thing.

So now I am feeling great about myself

2
0

"....will not involve the scanning of any children under the age of 18"

Given that children have been used as suicide bombers in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the body scanners are rendered ineffective such a policy.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

No save ?

According to CNN....their is a save capability.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/

0
0
Paris Hilton

And how...

... are we to discover this low level smut among all of the high grade glossy smut currently whizzing round the intrawebs?

And why would we bother?

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

I look forward to

airportvixens.com

0
0

@Winkypop

Quick register that domain name lol

0
0

Won't somebody think of the children!!!!!!

"will not involve the scanning of any children under the age of 18."

Oh well, can anyone else imagine how old the next bomber is going to be?

1
0

Self-view

I would imagine that most members of the public would be comforted if they were able to view the live images the scanner was producing whilst they were actually in it, rather than the images being available solely to the security staff.

1
0
Headmaster

Missing word:

YET !

There is simply no potential for images captured by the scanners to be reversed YET.

"Besides, images taken by the scanners are not ever saved to any form of permanent medium YET"

"airport will not involve the scanning of any children under the age of 18 YET"

But then again, there is no way of matching CCTV data to the Uber database - YET.

Blair / Brown wet dream

One database, with your all your details, footage of your movements, your car movements history (inc footage), high res images of you in the buff.

Not possible YET, but only becuase of a lack of funds....

Of course it's to protect us from terrorists & crime.

10 years ago, saying all your movements in public would be tracked by cameras, would be considered as paranoia, fast forward to now?

2
0
FAIL

bombers

under 18 not scanned? Sweet, lets start recruiting disaffected 17 year old muslims instead!

2
0
Anonymous Coward

"scanners"

Please, when you write about "scanners", tell us what the technology is. Does it irradiate the victims, or is it purely passive/receptive? Also, if people are going to be irradiated with X-rays or whatever, will they explain what they are doing and ask permission first, or will they just herd people through them?

0
0
Thumb Down

As if airport security needed more reasons to act....

like complete wankers.

But on the plus side it will be easy to find all the Pedo's now. Just arrest the freak checking out your kids on the x-ray camera.

Will I be able to complain to somebody if I spot the guy has a boner after perving children with his x-ray camera? Obviously I won't be able to complain at the time because the guy would just accuse me of being a terrorist and subject me to an internal investigation.

This Government has to go.........

0
0
Def
Bronze badge

Now if only...

...the scanners could be adjusted to show if someone's full of shit or not.

Maybe having a clear scan should be a prerequisite for running for government office.

0
0
Stop

The Paedophiles Are Applying

The reality is that every paedophile in the country is busy preparing their CV for any and every vacancy in security at UK airports.

Very recent experience has shown us that social work departments and child care and nurseries are prime targets with very sophisticated and successful infiltration going on all around the country in order to gain access to children. In many ways, they have a much greater record of success than the terrorists have had.

Fuzzy images or not, the whole body scanners are an absolute dream come true and an opportunity they will not miss.

US reports confirm that the scanners do capture and can send images - the denials are just being made to try and avoid some of the criticisms of a poorly thought out and ill conceived piece of security theatre.

0
0
Silver badge
Coat

Perspective

"However, that doesn't mean that the introduction of full-body scanners - particularly with regard to younger travellers - isn't going to raise some uncomfortable issues; not least for Gordon Brown."

Or indeed the poor bastard watching the nude-ray as Gordon Brown passes through customs. Mine's the one with the lead-lined glasses in the pocket, thanks.

0
0
Coat

Yeah, but...

While I hate the idea myself, one has to wonder that IF you're going to do the whole nekkid scan thing, then surely you do need to keep the pictures?

- Person sues for abuse. Authorities need to go "Look - that's why we orifice-searched you"

- Bomber gets through (as they surely will) Authorities need to go back and see how they got through scanner undetected.

- etc.

I oppose the whole idea, seeing how it is all security theatre anyway. But if not day one (to avoid the hoohah) I have no doubt at all that scans WILL be kept. To not do so would be illogical.

I get me coat... oh hang on, no need - they can see through it.

0
0

Ghost porn

There is so little pron available on the internerd featuring young horny models that I am desparate to obtain some fuzzy negative images of fat middle aged women.

0
0
WTF?

Somebody needs to tell 'stalin' brown

That the terrorists have won.

Given a terrorist is someone that wants to annoy and disrupt a society by affecting the military, politic, infrastructure or econominc processes.

Then our so called government have done more to help the terrorists, than any terrorist campaign. The IRA must be kicking themselves at how easy it has been.

8
0
J 3
Grenade

IRA's mistake

Giving the previous few years history, IRA's mistake seems to have been not attacking the USA. If they wanted to destroy freedom in the UK, they should have attacked the USA -- that's that the islamofascists have shown, maybe unintended. Then America's copycat (or would that be lapdog?) would do (did) exactly as their masters and go paranoid, etc. etc. etc.

0
0
Coat

Double standards...

If they're not scanning the naked bodies of anyone under the age of 18, then they're basically saying "Yes, we know we're looking at something we shouldn't and are invading their privacy so we can't look at kids naked."

If it's so harmless they can check out naked kids too. I mean it's not sexual, is it - they're practically doctors. Nobody ever stole or lost data, nope.

And certainly no terrorist or bomb carrier was ever under 18, or carried a bomb because his family were threatened.

1
0

contradiction

So, they won't be used on kids. Isn't this like an admission that these images can be considered to be pornographic? And isn't it illegal for someone to use my image in pornographic material without my consent, even if I'm an adult?

So, pick one. Either it's not porn, in which case it can be used on minors as well, or it is, in which case it shouldn't be used on anyone without their consent.

Me, I'm leaning towards the third option - there is no logic, because it's yet another totally irrational measure in a totally irrational approach to terrorism.

3
0
Paris Hilton

4chan anyone?

/b/

enough said.

0
0
Big Brother

Strip Searched...

Looks like we need to effectively add being Strip Searched to the list of our lost rights.

The irony is if someone is determined to kill themselves (and others) then sadly history shows they will always find a way, no matter how much of a Police State we create to try to stop them and in the mean time, history shows the Police State causes far more social hardship and suffering for everyone than just one suicidal arrogant bullying terrorist. Also we didn't have this Police State back when we had to suffer the IRA, yet for the most part, life just continued and people just got on with their lives without problems.

So where is this Police State going to end, now even strip searches are being added to the list? (If any of us could travel back in time even just 20 years, to tell people about now, no one would believe a description of the world we have now. Makes me wonder where its going. What is unthinkable now, that won't be in another 20 years at this rate).

2
0
Silver badge

So hang on a minute

They claim that the images created are not pornographic, but then decline to scan anyone under 18 in case they're done under child porn laws?

How does that work then?

2
0

Straw Man

Congratulations - you've demolished a straw man.

The pictures are not invasive now, but then they are only, according to the Govt., 60% effective. They will become more detailed, so as to be more effective. Nothing much under 99% effective is really any use - letting 2 out of 5 bombs through is hardly progress.

The ban on keeping images will last precisely as long as no-one gets a bomb through. Once they have, the gutter press will demand to know why the scanners didn't work. If no images are kept, no-one will know why, so the next identical bomb will also get through. So images will have to be stored permanently. And it will be necessary to retain the identity the subject of each one, to enable checking.

Once they are stored, along with an identifier to the person scanned, how long before they leak?

0
0
Thumb Down

under 18s

I wonder how them that's in power will sleep after the first attempted bombing by a child (are 17year old's really children?)

Forced into this because "think of the chilllllldrun" created a unique op for them to be abused by them that "don't think of the chilllllldrun"

0
0
Coffee/keyboard

As they say...

Who will watch the watchers?

I fully expect to see some of these images floating around the net at some point during the next year, with a seedy voyeuristic theme.

Any images I find will be forwarded directly to the PM and posted on as many websites as I can find, just to make it clear that I do not agree with a PFY staring at this kind of "fuzzy smut" of everyone's grandmothers.

Surely computers could be trained up on this instead??

0
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Inverting an inversion...

If you go down the comments on that Prison Planet post, it looks like the "airport inversion" is a fake. Someone found an eerily similar photo of the same girl in the same pose, just without the fabric outlines...

http://www.photoalto.com/index/fa/c.image/pid/PAA246000018 [NSFW]

1
0

Yep

Thought the image was a fake soon as I saw it, just from the shadows under her breasts. Wouldn't have thought x-ray backscatter could create shadows in that way.

0
0
Flame

Are you the problem?

We don't need these scanners. We have never needed these scanners.

Nor do we need the ID cards, ID database, mandatory RFID chips on our vehicles.

We do not need CCTV, constant telephone, email and web snooping.

We do not need treaties that subjugate use to the whim of foreign powers.

Get down to the ballot box and vote.

Don't give me that "They're all the same" shit, that just makes you part of the problem (as well as being reprehensibly pathetic). If you truly believe that, then stand yourself. I guarantee you that you are not alone. And if the idea of getting off your own lazy arse fills you with terror, then at least support someone else who was brave enough to do something, not just sit on their couch and moan, moan, moan.

The next time you walk past a war memorial, think to yourself "What did they die for?". If you let the state carry on cutting our freedoms the way they are, I'll tell you the answer to that one: nothing. Their deaths will be meaningless and you will have made them meaningless through your own inaction and procrastination.

Vote, protest, resist; or watch your country die before your eyes.

8
1
Flame

@AC and the abuse of political power

I totally agree we don't need these relentless violations to our privacy, liberty, dignity and freedom. This "naked scans" technology is beyond anything I could ever have imagined possible even just 10 years ago, yet its just one of a vast array of violations the control freaks are forcing on us all. I'm utterly dismayed with how my country is being undermined and centuries of history wiped out. The results of so many fights for freedom and liberty from arrogant state control freaks are now wiped out in a matter of years.

However your kind is part of the problem. You cannot and will not solve this problem via elections. It simply will not work no matter who you vote for. That isn't a call to do nothing and it isn't a call for a revolution and that isn't a call to "sit on their couch and moan, moan, moan". There is a vital middle ground. Its called free speech and don't *ever* over look the importance of it. Millions throughout history and around the world have died to protect it for very good reason. Its not just one person speaking. When a million or more people speak together, then every government has to listen. (Now think whats possible with the Internet). Only freedom of speech can push back against the people in power, to provide a feedback mechanism to limit their excesses. Thats its point. It creates a vital feedback mechanism in society to limit the control freaks excesses. You can't just vote in any party and then let them get on with it. Thats a society without feedback and it aways runs out of control, just like a machine loosing feedback aways fails. Plus don't ever believe free speech is weak. Thats what politicians want people to believe, because they don't want people to stand together and against the people in power. They want everyone to believe you are all powerless to stop whats happening and they want us all to see them as the only answer to all problems. Well they are not. They don't listen even when they say they do. They are all out for themselves. Its all part of their two faced act to get what they want, which is power, (and personal gain from that power) then time, after time, after time, we see the same pattern, whoever gets in, they go off and do their own thing and create ever more social problems, for the vast majority of people, until finally, everyone gets so bloody sick of whats happening, they throw out the current party and then get another lot in, who repeat the same cycle of abuse of the majority of people.

Its time to end the cycle of abuse and knowledge is the only way that will ever be broken, because knowledge is the only thing that will stop people blindly trusting the Narcissistic, arrogant, self righteous, lying, two faced people who always seek power over others. (Narcissistic as in literally Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is why they are so relentlessly driven to need power over others, no matter what they say they want that power for). Its time to end their abuse of the majority of people.

Knowledge is power and free speech is the only way to spread knowledge. The politicians know people standing together can oppose them, that is why the Narcissistic power hungry control freaks so fear the Internet and want to control it, because never before, have so many people had the power to join together and speak out. That is extremely powerful. It can totally transform society and for the better for a change.

Also what is happening now is the country is shifting towards the far right parties. That is bloody scary and bloody dangerous because give them a few months in power and everyone will start to see the error of voting in any group like them. History has shown this time and time again, but then history is also knowledge and free speech is the only way to spread that knowledge. Some trusting fools don't see the danger. They have never experienced the danger and can't see how bloody bad the far right parties would be and thats before you even add in the extra danger we now have of them being given the Police State powers that have already been put in place for the next party. We need to end the cycle of abuse, not make it worse.

The Internet is extremely powerful but we are in danger of that turning into part of the problem, rather than being part of the solution. Its time to stop trusting *any* of the arrogant control freaks who want power over us regardless of which party they are in and for us all to police them all, every minute of every day, because they cannot ever be trusted with unquestionable power ever again. Society has stopped policing them. News media is fragmented. Viewers of the news in all forms of media are fragmented. Its Divide and Conquer against us all. Society is fragmented by so many news outlets resulting in the vast majority of people failing to see and hear of the major events that are going on in politics, which is exactly what the people in power want, because then the majority of people cannot stand together in great enough numbers to stand against the politicians actions so they are getting free to act as they like. Only through force of numbers will we ever be able to police the people who are given power.

This whole election to solve whats happening argument, totally overlooks a fundamental flaw in democracy, which is democracy can be totally wiped out once all the parties you can choose from have the same core motives. Which is exactly what we have (and have always had in some form). At a fundamental level the very act of seeking power over someone else therefore inevitably means forcing them to conform to the wishes of the person with power. Its an inherently unfair act of control. The problem is everyone in politics seeks power over others, resulting in this continuous push towards an ever more Authoritarian control. Worse still, Authoritarianism always slides into Totalitarianism when freedom of speech is increasingly repressed as it is now.

Therefore the election myth we are sold, acts like a means to fool us all and placate us as a population into thinking we have a choice in the matter. *we don't* the people in power do so they need to be policed. The more I've realized whats really going on, the more I've seen this destruction of privacy, liberty, dignity and freedom isn't going to be solved by elections. Only freedom of speech can push back against the people in power to provide a feedback mechanism to limit their excesses. The Internet is vital in this role. Without free speech, we slide into an utter nightmare as we are doing now.

The political exploitation of technology is destabilizing society, because its giving the relentless control freaks ever more power to bias society ever more in their favor. We need to fight that and elections will not stop the way technology is being abused. There has to be limits set. The abusers have to be forced to limit their actions, or we force them back with technology to force policing on their actions. Free speech is vital.

0
0
J 3
Big Brother

Ha!

"The next time you walk past a war memorial, think to yourself "What did they die for?""

I know the answer to that one: 99% of the time, they died to protect their country's rich people's revenue, that's all -- from the feudal lord's troops of servants (and before, of course) to today's armies, all the same. That's what nearly all wars are about, one way or another, even when you think of a resistance fight.

What, cynic, moi?

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.