Security staff at Heathrow airport are reportedly furious at the suggestion that any of them would ever use pics taken from the new body scanners for lewd or lascivious purposes. Their reaction was reported last week in Skyport, a newspaper that carries news and features for those working at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted …
Said it before I will say it again
I will give it 20 seconds for the 1st perv to post some scanner porn on the web and make an arse out of all the "safe guards" (Is that no tissues near the scanner terminals???)
Excellent work. That's a rather large handful of nuts into the works of that legislation.
Let's see how they talk themselves out of that one..
If they have nothing to hide...
...what's the problem then? Quis custodient ipsos custodes...
How can anyone downvote that?
Unless it was for the glaring error. <pedant>It's "custodiet"</pedant>
Surely these people are already vetted for the work that they carry out? It would beggar belief if that was not the case.
Don't make me laugh
Wouldn't be surprised if many were illegal immigrants too; the Home Office has already admitted this year that it employed a dozen illegal foreign staff over the past four years, including in the head-quarters of the UK Border Agency and in Whitehall too.
Heller's Yossarian, unlike you, sir, was not fatuously gullible. Or do you wear your Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses whilst you read the news?
Of course they object
whose going to smuggle in the drugs that the people who think up our security systems obviously take in huge quantities?
An angle that seems to have been overlooked..
These scanners undress people "virtually", allowing for an almost nude image to be seen. Am I right in thinking that it is forbidden for Muslim women to be seen in the nude by anyone other than their husbands? Isn't that why they cover up so much in public? I'm guessing if these scanners are widely deployed, there could well be a religious back lash to them....
In both regards.
Yes, but look on the upside...
...a clever government will soon realise each of these images is indecent and probably breaks the law. In which case each passenger can be fined for indecent exposure with the money going to the State - let's just call it a Security Levy.
Why only muslims?
Some varieties of Orthodox Jews are similarly strict on the matter. So are most Christian sects.
In fact the first male airport security guard to try running that on a group of Russian Eastern Orthodox nuns should probably be awarded the Victoria cross for bravery. If he survives. I am not going to give him more than 1:8 odds there.
That is one thing the Dutch have done right by the way - they completely rehash the body into a diagram in software. No recognisable image whatsoever. I am surprised this is not done in the UK. It is just asking for trouble.
Forget about religious types....I'VE got a rule that says I'm the only one that can see my wife naked.
@AC F*ck that
I'm with you, I don't care if a security guard gets his jollies looking at my 3rd leg, but I'm really uneasy at the thought of him perving at the missus!
"We have bombs and knives on our minds and that’s it."
So we have a bunch of people looking at artificially enhanced pictures of nude passengers with "bombs and knives on our minds and that’s it."
Either they match the profile for terrorists, or the are falling foul of the extreme porn laws.
Take your pick.
They have WHAT on their minds?
You'd be amazed what smudgy pictures pervy people contend themselves with. These high-tech machines don't produce that, but rather an inverted image that's easily inverted again, yielding a quite detailed picture. Government lies to the contrary, that's high-tech for you. But let's hear what the man-on-the-ground has to say.
"Its about as sensible as saying the act of patting down a passenger is perverted."
Well, yes, it is. I don't care that they claim to do or don't enjoy it, I'd rather they didn't do it.
"We are here to do a job. We have bombs and knives on our minds and that’s it."
They're clearly terrorists, then.
The most important thing, though, assuming these are somehow governmentally acceptable terrorists, is that if the entire populated is to be vetted (and this is what these people do), then they have to be vetted, too. No way around it.
The very fact that various people nominally in charge duck that sort of question means they're being irresponsible. Have these people heard of "accountability"? How else would they suppose they're worthy of public trust?
Carry on government.
"These high-tech machines don't produce that, but rather an inverted image that's easily inverted again, yielding a quite detailed picture"
Have you seen the pictures? The inverted rumour is all bollox. If it was that simple do you not think the scanners would do it in the first place?
You'd be lucky to recognise anyone.
Whats wrong with frisking?
It detects guns, knives, non metallic bulges, bottles of water and boobies. Fingertips have a low carbon footprint, don't break down, are portable and can be individually assigned to each member of security staff. They even get to keep them when they go home.
And what happens when the world at large gets to hear about that bomber in the middle east with the "cavity bomb".
Yes sir, please remove your shoes, belt, metallic objects and take a firm hold of your ankles.
Re: Whats wrong with frisking?
Dave 120: "Whats wrong with frisking?"
This - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu5LLKmP5DQ
contact with children
If airport security staff need to be vetted because they are "in contact" with children on a regular basis since children will always be in the security check queues then on the same basis why doesn't the same apply to people on supermarket checkouts/behing the counter in newsagents/sweet shops. I mean you'll need to be ISA-ed to be allowed to sit on a park bench next :-)
That is exactly what the government wants. It matters not all the data they collect about you from birth, through school, and any tertiary contact merely conducting business in the modern world (auto license, etc) - WE MUST KNOW ALL.
What better way to keep you entertained with drivel, targeted with ads to get the money we can't tax away from you, and get the needed jump (pun - or policy?!) on the next generation - your kids.
Don't forget to leave your Government Status Report for the time you spent reading this when you could have been victimized... er... serviced by your government and corporate masters.
eye balling kiddies, titties and willies without vetting
I don't think so.
See how you like the threat of an serious internal body cavity search!
This whole 'naked image' argument is nothing but a diversion. The important point (which nobody is talking about because 'lewd or lascivious purposes' grabs the headlines) is that these scanners would have done not a thing to prevent the 'pants bomber'. They're just an expensive vote-winner for Brown.
Paris because I think we've all seen grainy, ghost-like images of her naked by now...
When you have a body as fabulous as mine, the idea that security guards *aren't* going to get kicks out of seeing a blurry grey image of my body is frankly offensive.
If the authorities aren't going to trust me to not carry a bomb on board, I see no reason why I should trust the authoriities to not abuse my privacy.
Surrender to the Pervatron!
I think I've worked this one out.
I'm a threat to mankind because I want to fly. Meanwhile the bloke operating the man-sized microwave isn't - because he's got a peaked cap.
"Paul Clark, an Under-Secretary with the Department of Transport."
How would Mr Clark like it if he saw an image of himself as "Underwear-Secretary" on the net?
These fascist Muppets just never get it.
Hopefully, I have skimmed this article and missed something.
So if I drive my kids and one of their friends on the 2 minute drive to school, I would need to be vetted, yet if I got a job patting down people at an airport I would not need to be.
My gut instinct is this is not true, but my head can believe it. Even if it is not true it says a lot about this country these days that it is believable.
It's truly delicious to see all sides squirming as it dawns on them that the copious lengths of rope they have been generously been laying out for themselves have suddenly begun to resemble a noose!
A tip of the hat for such wonderful knife twisting!
Quid pro quo?
I agree with most of the comments here, but my immediate reaction to the headline was "pot meet kettle".
If you agree to put other people through rigorous checking all day every day, I think it's only fair that you go through something similar yourself.
There's no accounting for the lunacy of a few. If the system is open to abuse, it will be abused sooner or later.
"The idea that we are going to get kicks out of seeing a blurry grey image of people’s bodies is frankly offensive."
Aaah, my eyes! Ze goggles, zey do nothing!
underpants bomber... what perfect timing
I'm not one for conspiracy theories but boy, the timing of the underpants bomber just could not happened at a more perfect time.
Public start out-crying over these scanners and viola! pants man bomber turns up and everything is perfect again in the land of Government because this bomber has single handedly solved all the problems.
Threat level vermilion
I notice that as a prelude to the introduction of the scanners next week, the "terror threat level" has conveniently just been raised.
I bet that really fucked you off
absolutely no one responded to your question, which was of utmost import to you, but obviously not to anyone else involved with the scheme. ROFLMFAO.
So tell me then, at what point does the line between my human right to fly to a destination and arrive safely, take second place to a terrorist human right to blow himself up along with the 'plane and maybe 300 or more passengers.?
If it saves one life, it's worth it, no?
Your happy for pictures of your floppy bits to be peered at and possibly posted all over the interwebby-thingy.
Fine, you join the GREEN queue.
How do you value one life?
Neal 5: "If it saves one life, it's worth it, no?"
And all cars should be banned from the roads to reduce number of car related deaths to zero; drinking and smoking and eating and everything bad for anyone should be made illegal because it might save one life, etc.
There's a balance between the social and economic impact of such measures versus the damage caused by a terrorist atrocity.
If they make us change our behaviour, so we are no longer free, haven't they "won"?
My human right to fly...
Ah yes, the 'my right to not get blown up' defence, as used by Geoff Hoon on QT to explain why 42 day detention without charge was a good idea.
@anon coward 15.02
You make a poor argument against, for your examples we already have legislation which if you like, inhibits your human right, to perform those functions if you so desire to pay the penalty to do so. The law doesn't stop you driving a car drunk, the penalty does.
You're right there is a balance, and nobody has yet looked at the simplest, exemption to be being scanned for underage of 16. Exemption to be scanned on religious grounds, there is alredy legislation in place for that.
As far as i understand, these scanners are suplementary.
Your behaviour has already been altered, by the very thing that is being protected against..Can you in all honesty tell me, that 9/11 hadn't happened, we wouldn't have these measures in place or being discussed, for not only airport security but air travel security.
Yes, if it saves one life it's worth it, but the liklihood, is that in the evnt of another airplane bombing, it won't be just one life will.
So how high does the death toll need to be, before you say it is worth it?
I am, buit then I have the physique of a greek god and am hung like a horse.
AC as the Mrs gets upset when I get groupies.
> The law doesn't stop you driving a car drunk, the penalty does.
Semantics. What stops me in any instance is either that I arrive at my destination or I immobilize my vehicle, e.g. against a tree. What might stop me in the long run is running out of money to pay the fines, or being permanently deprived of access to a vehicle. These all assume just one thing - that I want to. So what stops me from driving a car drunk is me.
> There is a balance
Metaphor proves yet again a convenient refuge for the absence of a justifiable criterion.
> So how high does the death toll need to be, before you say it is worth it?
...as does the rhetorical question. Are you a professional politician or lobbyist perchance?
So how high does the death toll need to be, before you say it is worth it?
His argument is fine. Air travel has had restrictions almost since day one. Before 9/11 you could not walk onto a plane with a shotgun. They keep adding more restrictions every time something happens or almost happens, or might happen. If it's worth it because it saves one life why not apply the same idea to everything else.
Cut all speed limits by 10%. It would save more then one life. And it's only 10% that's not too bad. Next year we can cut it another 10%. Next time there is a big pileup in a snow storm or fog we better cut the top speed to 50k and force every one to fit speed limiters to there cars.
Banning cars and air travel will save more then one life, is it worth it?
Where do you draw the line?
There is no death toll that makes it worth it. Freedom is worth more than the vanishingly small risk of being killed by a terrorist.
f it saves one life, it's worth it, no?
Some things are worth dying for. Freedom is one. I'm willing to die for my freedom if necessary. Aren't you?
"We have bombs and knives on our minds and that’s it."
Do train conductors, bus ticket collectors or similar use a device to take a look at our winkles and twinkles?
Not as far as I know.
We already are..
yes, all drivers on county council and most school hire work now needs drivers to be CRB'd and social security checked. And that's when you've got 50-odd kids on a bus and sometimes a couple of teachers as well. I think if you drive a taxi and are likely to have a child in the car alone, you probably have to have both sets of parents (yours and theirs) in the car with you and drive blindfolded so you can't see the child.
@Neal 5 - you missed the point a little
Its not about the right or wrong of the scanner, it is about the rights we have as citizens to have all laws applied equally to all people.
The vetting laws are onerous to say the least and this should be demonstrated as they are applied to more situations, but it is only fair that security people looking at the images from these scanners should be held just as much in suspicion as you or I seem to increasingly find ourselves.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?
As a member of a civil enforcement organisation. You have no right to privacy as regard to what goes on within your jobs. Off duty, as a private citizen on the other hand, is a different matter.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear? shoe, other foot, anyone?
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015