Full Body Scans: Privacy vs. Security
- Thread starter oneofmany
- Start date
Re: Full body scanner images; securing our airways again
<font size="5"><center>
High-tech airport scans work — too well,
say opponents</font size></center>
McClatchy Newspapers
By Rob Hotakainen
December 29, 2009
WASHINGTON — Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed attempt to blow up Northwest Flight 253 last week has revived a battle in Congress over the use of whole-body imaging technology to screen airline passengers.
Some legislators argue that the machines, which cost about $170,000 each and are in use at 19 U.S. airports, could have detected the explosive powder the 23-year-old Nigerian was carrying and should be approved for widespread use. Abdulmutallab didn't go through the whole-body scanner at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport before he boarded the Northwest flight to Detroit.
Others, however, call a whole-body scan a "virtual strip search" that should be used only if there's probable cause to assume that someone might be carrying explosives.
In June, the House of Representatives voted 310-118 to prohibit the widespread use of whole-body imaging technology as a primary tool for airport screening, a measure introduced by Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah.
Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican who co-sponsored the legislation however, called the scanning "a virtual strip search" and said security officials can use less invasive methods such as bomb-sniffing dogs to detect explosives.
"It is precisely the same as being pulled into a side room and being ordered to remove your clothes physically," he said. "In either event, your nude image is being inspected by several security guards."
However, another California Republican, Rep. Dan Lungren, who's been promoting the technology for four years, said the Christmas Day incident should help support his cause when Congress reconvenes in January.
"This is a specific example of what can happen," he said.
Lungren said he was screened by one of the machines at Washington Reagan National airport.
"They said to me as I'm standing there, 'So you have an artificial hip, and it's your right hip,' " Lungren said. "And I said, 'Yes, that's right.' And they said, 'Oh, it looks like you left some change in your pocket.' "
Lungren said the machines are less invasive than being patted down by a security guard.
"I would much prefer this. . . . I would rather not have hands on me frankly," he said.
The technology picked up a key endorsement over the weekend from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
"Those privacy concerns, which are frankly mild, have to fall in the face of the ability of these machines to detect material like this explosive on this individual," the Connecticut independent said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
As testing of the technology continues, the Transportation Security Administration said the machines are being used for primary screening at six U.S. airports: San Francisco, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Miami, Albuquerque, N.M., and Tulsa, Okla. Thirteen other airports are using them for secondary screening: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Ronald Reagan Washington National, Atlanta, Baltimore-Washington, Denver, Detroit, Dallas-Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Fla., Tampa, Fla., Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and Richmond, Va.
The conservative McClintock said the Christmas Day incident raises questions of why a person on a terrorist watch list had been allowed to enter the country and why U.S. authorities hadn't revoked his visa, which British officials did.
"I think we need to make a distinction between an 81-year-old grandmother ... and a 23-year-old Nigerian national who's already on the terrorist watch list and who's already had his visa revoked by Great Britain," he said.
McClintock has an unlikely ally: the American Civil Liberties Union.
In a background paper, the ACLU said that government officials are "essentially taking a naked picture of air passengers" and that air travelers shouldn't be required to display personal details of their bodies as a prerequisite to boarding a plane.
"Those images reveal not only our private body parts, but also intimate medical details like colostomy bags," the ACLU said. "That degree of examination amounts to a significant — and for some people humiliating — assault on the essential dignity of passengers that citizens in a free nation should not have to tolerate."
Lungren, who's been working on the issue since he headed a homeland security subcommittee, said that the screening must show private parts to make sure that explosives are not hidden there. The Nigerian suspect was found carrying the explosive material in his underwear.
Advocates of the screening say they've incorporated safeguards to assure privacy. For example, faces are blurred, and the security officer who views the image never sees the passenger because he's viewing a monitor in a nearby room.
U.S. airports using whole-body imaging:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/81412.html
<font size="5"><center>
High-tech airport scans work — too well,
say opponents</font size></center>
McClatchy Newspapers
By Rob Hotakainen
December 29, 2009
WASHINGTON — Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed attempt to blow up Northwest Flight 253 last week has revived a battle in Congress over the use of whole-body imaging technology to screen airline passengers.
Some legislators argue that the machines, which cost about $170,000 each and are in use at 19 U.S. airports, could have detected the explosive powder the 23-year-old Nigerian was carrying and should be approved for widespread use. Abdulmutallab didn't go through the whole-body scanner at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport before he boarded the Northwest flight to Detroit.
Others, however, call a whole-body scan a "virtual strip search" that should be used only if there's probable cause to assume that someone might be carrying explosives.
In June, the House of Representatives voted 310-118 to prohibit the widespread use of whole-body imaging technology as a primary tool for airport screening, a measure introduced by Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah.
Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican who co-sponsored the legislation however, called the scanning "a virtual strip search" and said security officials can use less invasive methods such as bomb-sniffing dogs to detect explosives.
"It is precisely the same as being pulled into a side room and being ordered to remove your clothes physically," he said. "In either event, your nude image is being inspected by several security guards."
However, another California Republican, Rep. Dan Lungren, who's been promoting the technology for four years, said the Christmas Day incident should help support his cause when Congress reconvenes in January.
"This is a specific example of what can happen," he said.
Lungren said he was screened by one of the machines at Washington Reagan National airport.
"They said to me as I'm standing there, 'So you have an artificial hip, and it's your right hip,' " Lungren said. "And I said, 'Yes, that's right.' And they said, 'Oh, it looks like you left some change in your pocket.' "
Lungren said the machines are less invasive than being patted down by a security guard.
"I would much prefer this. . . . I would rather not have hands on me frankly," he said.
The technology picked up a key endorsement over the weekend from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
"Those privacy concerns, which are frankly mild, have to fall in the face of the ability of these machines to detect material like this explosive on this individual," the Connecticut independent said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
As testing of the technology continues, the Transportation Security Administration said the machines are being used for primary screening at six U.S. airports: San Francisco, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Miami, Albuquerque, N.M., and Tulsa, Okla. Thirteen other airports are using them for secondary screening: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Ronald Reagan Washington National, Atlanta, Baltimore-Washington, Denver, Detroit, Dallas-Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Fla., Tampa, Fla., Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and Richmond, Va.
The conservative McClintock said the Christmas Day incident raises questions of why a person on a terrorist watch list had been allowed to enter the country and why U.S. authorities hadn't revoked his visa, which British officials did.
"I think we need to make a distinction between an 81-year-old grandmother ... and a 23-year-old Nigerian national who's already on the terrorist watch list and who's already had his visa revoked by Great Britain," he said.
McClintock has an unlikely ally: the American Civil Liberties Union.
In a background paper, the ACLU said that government officials are "essentially taking a naked picture of air passengers" and that air travelers shouldn't be required to display personal details of their bodies as a prerequisite to boarding a plane.
"Those images reveal not only our private body parts, but also intimate medical details like colostomy bags," the ACLU said. "That degree of examination amounts to a significant — and for some people humiliating — assault on the essential dignity of passengers that citizens in a free nation should not have to tolerate."
Lungren, who's been working on the issue since he headed a homeland security subcommittee, said that the screening must show private parts to make sure that explosives are not hidden there. The Nigerian suspect was found carrying the explosive material in his underwear.
Advocates of the screening say they've incorporated safeguards to assure privacy. For example, faces are blurred, and the security officer who views the image never sees the passenger because he's viewing a monitor in a nearby room.
U.S. airports using whole-body imaging:
<font size="3">Albuquerque International Sunport Airport
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
Denver International Airport
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
Detroit Metro Airport
Indianapolis International Airport
Jacksonville International Airport
Las Vegas McCarran International Airport
Los Angeles International Airport
Miami International Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Richmond International Airport
San Francisco International Airport
Salt Lake City International Airport
Tampa International Airport
Tulsa International Airport</font size>
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
Denver International Airport
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
Detroit Metro Airport
Indianapolis International Airport
Jacksonville International Airport
Las Vegas McCarran International Airport
Los Angeles International Airport
Miami International Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Richmond International Airport
San Francisco International Airport
Salt Lake City International Airport
Tampa International Airport
Tulsa International Airport</font size>
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/81412.html
Re: Full body scanner images; securing our airways again
<font size="4">
Dutch to use full body scans for U.S. flights</font size>
A staff member demonstrates a full body scan at Manchester Airport in the UK.
c a b l e N e w s N e t w o r k
December 30, 2009 8:45 a.m. EST
The Netherlands said Wednesday it will begin using full body scanners on all passengers taking flights to the United States, following the attempted terrorist attack on a U.S.-bound flight on Christmas Day.
`
<font size="4">
Dutch to use full body scans for U.S. flights</font size>
A staff member demonstrates a full body scan at Manchester Airport in the UK.
c a b l e N e w s N e t w o r k
December 30, 2009 8:45 a.m. EST
The Netherlands said Wednesday it will begin using full body scanners on all passengers taking flights to the United States, following the attempted terrorist attack on a U.S.-bound flight on Christmas Day.
`
The whole bodyscan initiative is a crock of bullshit. Shit was planned from the start.
The company that designed the technology was probably losing money on account of the fact that the majority of airports weren't jumping on the bodyscan bandwagon quickly enough.
So what do they do? They create a bogus terrorism situation in order to make the general populace and airports nervous so attention will be returned to the bodyscan technology. All of a sudden, having the bodyscan technology is a fucking "urgent need." It's all bullshit. Classic "wag the dog."
I've never heard of a terrorist "announcing" what plot they are going to undertake next, which is exactly the case here when terrorists (allegedly from Yemen) announced that there will be more airplane attacks in the works just like the one that occurred recently that has everyone reaching for the bodyscan bullshit.
Shit is one big hoax.
The company that designed the technology was probably losing money on account of the fact that the majority of airports weren't jumping on the bodyscan bandwagon quickly enough.
So what do they do? They create a bogus terrorism situation in order to make the general populace and airports nervous so attention will be returned to the bodyscan technology. All of a sudden, having the bodyscan technology is a fucking "urgent need." It's all bullshit. Classic "wag the dog."
I've never heard of a terrorist "announcing" what plot they are going to undertake next, which is exactly the case here when terrorists (allegedly from Yemen) announced that there will be more airplane attacks in the works just like the one that occurred recently that has everyone reaching for the bodyscan bullshit.
Shit is one big hoax.
The whole bodyscan initiative is a crock of bullshit. Shit was planned from the start.
The company that designed the technology was probably losing money on account of the fact that the majority of airports weren't jumping on the bodyscan bandwagon quickly enough.
<font size="3">So what do they do? They create a bogus terrorism situation in order to make the general populace and airports nervous so attention will be returned to the bodyscan technology. All of a sudden, having the bodyscan technology is a fucking "urgent need." It's all bullshit. Classic "wag the dog."</font size>
I've never heard of a terrorist "announcing" what plot they are going to undertake next, which is exactly the case here when terrorists (allegedly from Yemen) announced that there will be more airplane attacks in the works just like the one that occurred recently that has everyone reaching for the bodyscan bullshit.
Shit is one big hoax.
C'mon bro.
Now, all of us are entitled to our opinions, right or wrong.
But, I have to ask: do you have any <font size="3">"facts"</font size> to back up the opinion above ? ? ?
QueEx
911 was used to create fear thereby causing many scared people to give up their civil liberties. Once the fear wore off and rational thinking kicked back in many realized that they were tricked. The whole fiasco had the air of precision planning.
read this:
Deal of the Year: World Trade Center, New York, NY
Weighing in at $3.2 billion, the acquisition of the 99-year leasehold of the World Trade Center was the largest of the year. "Notwithstanding the emotional difficulty of celebrating anything related to the World Trade Center is the fact that upon completion of its acquisition by Larry Silverstein, it was clearly the deal of the year for the industry, and now more than ever, a deal of [a] lifetime for Silverstein" said Ken Zakin, managing director at Insignia/ESG. [iiRealEstate]
Silverstein Makes a Huge
Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks
Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."
But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.
From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. [BusinessWeek]
How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]
Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.
The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.
Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday. [MontereyHerald 11/22/2003]
Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.
As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.
Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]
This man increased the insurance on a building he barely paid down on just weeks before they were hit by Jetliners and blown up by super thermite paint. All three building were destroyed even though no plane hit Bldg. 7. i got more if you need. The terrorists were not on the plane. They were spotted and spoken to at in their country.
read this:
Deal of the Year: World Trade Center, New York, NY
Weighing in at $3.2 billion, the acquisition of the 99-year leasehold of the World Trade Center was the largest of the year. "Notwithstanding the emotional difficulty of celebrating anything related to the World Trade Center is the fact that upon completion of its acquisition by Larry Silverstein, it was clearly the deal of the year for the industry, and now more than ever, a deal of [a] lifetime for Silverstein" said Ken Zakin, managing director at Insignia/ESG. [iiRealEstate]
Silverstein Makes a Huge
Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks
Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."
But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.
From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. [BusinessWeek]
How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]
Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.
The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.
Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday. [MontereyHerald 11/22/2003]
Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.
As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.
Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]
This man increased the insurance on a building he barely paid down on just weeks before they were hit by Jetliners and blown up by super thermite paint. All three building were destroyed even though no plane hit Bldg. 7. i got more if you need. The terrorists were not on the plane. They were spotted and spoken to at in their country.
"Originally Posted by TheIntelCritic
The whole bodyscan initiative is a crock of bullshit. Shit was planned from the start.
The company that designed the technology was probably losing money on account of the fact that the majority of airports weren't jumping on the bodyscan bandwagon quickly enough.
So what do they do? They create a bogus terrorism situation in order to make the general populace and airports nervous so attention will be returned to the bodyscan technology. All of a sudden, having the bodyscan technology is a fucking "urgent need." It's all bullshit. Classic "wag the dog."
I've never heard of a terrorist "announcing" what plot they are going to undertake next, which is exactly the case here when terrorists (allegedly from Yemen) announced that there will be more airplane attacks in the works just like the one that occurred recently that has everyone reaching for the bodyscan bullshit.
Shit is one big hoax."
C/muthafukkinsign
This is straight bull a ninja gets on a plane with explosives strapped to his nuts?!? And the bomb failed to explode?!?
WTF?!?%@*&%!!!! C'mon Son!!! I smell bullshit!!!!
Do you know the only Black guy to survive to destruction of building 7 was Murdered after his exposee interview in which he stated seeing dead bodies in the lobby of the building as he was being rescued.....before the building collapsed?
The whole bodyscan initiative is a crock of bullshit. Shit was planned from the start.
The company that designed the technology was probably losing money on account of the fact that the majority of airports weren't jumping on the bodyscan bandwagon quickly enough.
So what do they do? They create a bogus terrorism situation in order to make the general populace and airports nervous so attention will be returned to the bodyscan technology. All of a sudden, having the bodyscan technology is a fucking "urgent need." It's all bullshit. Classic "wag the dog."
I've never heard of a terrorist "announcing" what plot they are going to undertake next, which is exactly the case here when terrorists (allegedly from Yemen) announced that there will be more airplane attacks in the works just like the one that occurred recently that has everyone reaching for the bodyscan bullshit.
Shit is one big hoax."
C/muthafukkinsign
This is straight bull a ninja gets on a plane with explosives strapped to his nuts?!? And the bomb failed to explode?!?
WTF?!?%@*&%!!!! C'mon Son!!! I smell bullshit!!!!
Do you know the only Black guy to survive to destruction of building 7 was Murdered after his exposee interview in which he stated seeing dead bodies in the lobby of the building as he was being rescued.....before the building collapsed?
If somebody that is on watchlists applies for Visa, why would they turn it down? Give it to them, flag it, and see what they try to do when they show up at the airport. You can get intelligence on who sent them.
You are letting Al Qaida probe your security system.
You are letting Al Qaida probe your security system.
If somebody that is on watchlists applies for Visa, why would they turn it down? Give it to them, flag it, and see what they try to do when they show up at the airport. You can get intelligence on who sent them.
You are letting Al Qaida probe your security system.
You are letting Al Qaida probe your security system.
If somebody that is on watchlists applies for Visa, why would they turn it down? Give it to them, flag it, and see what they try to do when they show up at the airport. You can get intelligence on who sent them.
You are letting Al Qaida probe your security system.
You are letting Al Qaida probe your security system.
The whole bodyscan initiative is a crock of bullshit. Shit was planned from the start.
The company that designed the technology was probably losing money on account of the fact that the majority of airports weren't jumping on the bodyscan bandwagon quickly enough.
So what do they do? They create a bogus terrorism situation in order to make the general populace and airports nervous so attention will be returned to the bodyscan technology. All of a sudden, having the bodyscan technology is a fucking "urgent need." It's all bullshit. Classic "wag the dog."
I've never heard of a terrorist "announcing" what plot they are going to undertake next, which is exactly the case here when terrorists (allegedly from Yemen) announced that there will be more airplane attacks in the works just like the one that occurred recently that has everyone reaching for the bodyscan bullshit.
Shit is one big hoax.
At last a brother with his eyes open. This here is the truth
I work in the government; the amount of lies that get passed off as the truth is unbelievable in the U.K
There is always an agenda.
You have to respect the game because they pulled off the hoax bomb attempt and no one died; that was never the objective
Now they can trample all over your rights. I swear that next will be mandatory swabs for disease before you travel.... and of course the fact that they incidentally collect your dna will be of no use to them whatsover
Terrorism policy
New scanners break child porn lawsBuzz up!
Digg it
Alan Travis, home affairs editor guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 22.14 GMT Article history
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of full body scanners only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted. Photograph: Paul Ellis/AFP/Getty Images
The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.
Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.
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.
They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.
The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.
Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station.
"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered.
A Manchester airport spokesman said their trial had started in December, but only with passengers over 18 until the legal situation with children was clarified. So far 500 people have taken part on a voluntary basis with positive feedback from nearly all those involved.
Passengers also pass through a metal detector before they can board their plane. Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.
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 concerns are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to see the person to whom the image relates, and these anonymous images are deleted immediately."
But Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, had concerns over the "instant" introduction of scanners: "Where are the government assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias?" she said.
Her concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.
The disclosures came as Downing Street insisted British intelligence information that the Detroit plane suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with extremists, but he was not singled out as a particular risk, Brown's spokesman said.
President Barack Obama has criticised US intelligence agencies for failing to piece together information about the 23-year-old that should have stopped him boarding the flight.
Brown's spokesman said "There was security information about this individual's activities and that was shared with the US authorities."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws
New scanners break child porn lawsBuzz up!
Digg it
Alan Travis, home affairs editor guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 22.14 GMT Article history
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of full body scanners only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted. Photograph: Paul Ellis/AFP/Getty Images
The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.
Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.
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.
They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.
The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.
Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station.
"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered.
A Manchester airport spokesman said their trial had started in December, but only with passengers over 18 until the legal situation with children was clarified. So far 500 people have taken part on a voluntary basis with positive feedback from nearly all those involved.
Passengers also pass through a metal detector before they can board their plane. Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.
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 concerns are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to see the person to whom the image relates, and these anonymous images are deleted immediately."
But Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, had concerns over the "instant" introduction of scanners: "Where are the government assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias?" she said.
Her concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.
The disclosures came as Downing Street insisted British intelligence information that the Detroit plane suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with extremists, but he was not singled out as a particular risk, Brown's spokesman said.
President Barack Obama has criticised US intelligence agencies for failing to piece together information about the 23-year-old that should have stopped him boarding the flight.
Brown's spokesman said "There was security information about this individual's activities and that was shared with the US authorities."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws
Airports Set To Become Primary Peddlers Of Child Porn
Invasion of the body scanners: Fat greasy perverts sitting alone in back rooms get ready to enjoy your naked children
The man is seeing a naked image of the woman similar to the top picture.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The establishment is ensuring that pedophiles and perverts are kept entertained at airport security checkpoints by mandating the mass rollout of naked body scanners that provide detailed images of your child’s genitalia, to be enjoyed by officials sitting alone in back rooms.
Despite official assurances and media talking points that claim the naked body scanners now being implemented in airports worldwide do not show enough detail to be considered a violation of privacy, the true measure of how much of an intrusion they really are is proven by the fact that they break child pornography laws in the UK that bar the production of indecent images of children.
Ministers in the UK will be forced to exempt under-18’s from the virtual strip searches or pass new legislation that protects airport workers from being prosecuted as pedophiles.
“They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet,” reports the Guardian. “The Department for Transport confirmed that the “child porn” problem was among the “legal and operational issues” now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown’s announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their “gradual” introduction at British airports.”
“They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way,” said Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the “prevention and detection of crime” but the purpose had to be more specific than the “trawling exercise” now being considered.
As the Guardian report highlights, despite the fact that news organizations routinely blur out sensitive areas of the body when showing images produced by the scans, the actual resolution of the images allows airport workers to see “genitalia and breast enlargements”.
Despite the promise that the images would immediately be deleted, Simon Davies of Privacy International warns that scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an “irresistible pull” for some employees.
Indeed, the fact that your sons and daughters will potentially be subject to a virtual strip search where the shape and detail of their genitalia will be visible to someone sat alone in a back room begs the question of what kind of people would want to apply for such a job. If such technology is rolled out on a widespread basis, working in airport security will undoubtedly become a pull for perverts and pedophiles who will be given free reign to lust over your naked child’s body. How far will Americans acquiesce in the name of safety?
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
This compilation of articles proves that people in positions of power have routinely and illegally abused surveillance technologies for their own personal titillation, particularly in regard to young women and children.
A school in Overton County, Tennessee was sued to the tune of $4.2 million in damages by parents after school officials allowed surveillance cameras to be installed in locker rooms of children aged 10-14, with the images showing both girls and boys in various stages of undress.
Another case in Sutherland high school New York found that head school custodian Allen Wemes had kept a pornographic stash of footage filmed by a secret surveillance camera placed in a female restroom.
In June 2004, the director of a tutoring center in Chicago was charged with manufacturing and possessing child pornography after he was discovered to be operating a sophisticated video surveillance system in the bathroom of the Beverly Instructional Center.
These are just a few of dozens of cases in the U.S. alone where officials have been caught abusing invasive surveillance technologies for their own perverted pleasure. If similar technology is to be implemented on a mass scale in airports as is being proposed, we are going to see such violations skyrocket to an industrial level.
A familiar tactic employed to convince the public that the scanners are necessary is the repeated use of images that show concealed weapons, creating the perception that everyone is guilty and needs to be scanned. This is reinforced by the public being made to hold their hands up when they enter the scanner in a symbolic act of submission, when holding their arms out horizontally would be no different.
How much humiliation, fealty and degradation are we prepared to accept in the name of being protected from a menace that the government has proven time and again it has no motivation in stopping? The very people promoting the mass implementation of body scanners stand to reap the financial rewards because they are heavily invested in the technology.
Are we going to allow perverts and pedophiles in positions of power enjoy naked images of our children or are we finally going to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough and start boycotting and filing lawsuits against airports and other institutions that attempt to ram through these revolting and dehumanizing measures?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/airports-set-to-become-primary-peddlers-of-child-porn.html
Invasion of the body scanners: Fat greasy perverts sitting alone in back rooms get ready to enjoy your naked children
The man is seeing a naked image of the woman similar to the top picture.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The establishment is ensuring that pedophiles and perverts are kept entertained at airport security checkpoints by mandating the mass rollout of naked body scanners that provide detailed images of your child’s genitalia, to be enjoyed by officials sitting alone in back rooms.
Despite official assurances and media talking points that claim the naked body scanners now being implemented in airports worldwide do not show enough detail to be considered a violation of privacy, the true measure of how much of an intrusion they really are is proven by the fact that they break child pornography laws in the UK that bar the production of indecent images of children.
Ministers in the UK will be forced to exempt under-18’s from the virtual strip searches or pass new legislation that protects airport workers from being prosecuted as pedophiles.
“They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet,” reports the Guardian. “The Department for Transport confirmed that the “child porn” problem was among the “legal and operational issues” now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown’s announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their “gradual” introduction at British airports.”
“They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way,” said Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the “prevention and detection of crime” but the purpose had to be more specific than the “trawling exercise” now being considered.
As the Guardian report highlights, despite the fact that news organizations routinely blur out sensitive areas of the body when showing images produced by the scans, the actual resolution of the images allows airport workers to see “genitalia and breast enlargements”.
Despite the promise that the images would immediately be deleted, Simon Davies of Privacy International warns that scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an “irresistible pull” for some employees.
Indeed, the fact that your sons and daughters will potentially be subject to a virtual strip search where the shape and detail of their genitalia will be visible to someone sat alone in a back room begs the question of what kind of people would want to apply for such a job. If such technology is rolled out on a widespread basis, working in airport security will undoubtedly become a pull for perverts and pedophiles who will be given free reign to lust over your naked child’s body. How far will Americans acquiesce in the name of safety?
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
This compilation of articles proves that people in positions of power have routinely and illegally abused surveillance technologies for their own personal titillation, particularly in regard to young women and children.
A school in Overton County, Tennessee was sued to the tune of $4.2 million in damages by parents after school officials allowed surveillance cameras to be installed in locker rooms of children aged 10-14, with the images showing both girls and boys in various stages of undress.
Another case in Sutherland high school New York found that head school custodian Allen Wemes had kept a pornographic stash of footage filmed by a secret surveillance camera placed in a female restroom.
In June 2004, the director of a tutoring center in Chicago was charged with manufacturing and possessing child pornography after he was discovered to be operating a sophisticated video surveillance system in the bathroom of the Beverly Instructional Center.
These are just a few of dozens of cases in the U.S. alone where officials have been caught abusing invasive surveillance technologies for their own perverted pleasure. If similar technology is to be implemented on a mass scale in airports as is being proposed, we are going to see such violations skyrocket to an industrial level.
A familiar tactic employed to convince the public that the scanners are necessary is the repeated use of images that show concealed weapons, creating the perception that everyone is guilty and needs to be scanned. This is reinforced by the public being made to hold their hands up when they enter the scanner in a symbolic act of submission, when holding their arms out horizontally would be no different.
How much humiliation, fealty and degradation are we prepared to accept in the name of being protected from a menace that the government has proven time and again it has no motivation in stopping? The very people promoting the mass implementation of body scanners stand to reap the financial rewards because they are heavily invested in the technology.
Are we going to allow perverts and pedophiles in positions of power enjoy naked images of our children or are we finally going to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough and start boycotting and filing lawsuits against airports and other institutions that attempt to ram through these revolting and dehumanizing measures?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/airports-set-to-become-primary-peddlers-of-child-porn.html
Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff
Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff
Authorities’ claim that virtual strip search pictures immediately destroyed proven fraudulent – use of devices needs to be halted now
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.
UK Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said last week that the images produced by the scanners were deleted “immediately” and airport staff carrying out the procedure are fully trained and supervised.
“It is very important to stress that the images which are captured by body scanners are immediately deleted after the passenger has gone through the body scanner,” Adonis told the London Evening Standard.
Adonis was forced to address privacy concerns following reports that the images produced by the scanners broke child pornography laws in the UK. When the scanners were first introduced, it was also speculated that images of famous people would be ripe for abuse as the pictures produced by the devices make genitals “eerily visible” according to journalists who have investigated trials of the technology.
However, the Transport Secretary’s assurances were demolished after it was revealed on the BBC’s Jonathan Ross show Friday that Indian actor Shahrukh Khan had passed through a body scan and later had the image of his naked body printed out and circulated by Heathrow security staff.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You’ve got to see them. It makes you embarrassed – if you’re not well endowed,” said Khan, referring to how the scans produce clear images of a person’s genitals.
“You walk into the machine and everything – the whole outline of your body – comes out,” he said.
“I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said ‘give them to me’ – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them,” stated Khan.
The story was carried by Yahoo News under the headline “Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow”.
Khan’s reference to “girls” with printouts of his naked body scan can only refer to female airport security staff responsible for processing the images produced by the scanners, “professionals” who are supposed to instantly delete the images, according to Lord Adonis.
The revelation that airport security staff are completely abusing any notion of the professionalism promised by authorities by printing out and circulating images of naked body scans should set alarm bells ringing, especially in light of the fact that such images of minors break child pornography laws. British authorities have made it mandatory for travelers to submit to the naked body scanners when asked and have overturned previous rules that prevented under 18’s from passing through the devices.
Within days of the devices being introduced at Heathrow, staff have abused their professionalism and printed out naked scans of a famous actor for their own titillation.
We were promised all along that the body scanners “increased privacy” because they were only accessible to a single staff member who had no personal contact with the passenger taking the scan, in addition to the assurance that the images could not be saved and were instantly deleted. It in fact turns out that airport staff have been saving, printing and circulating naked body scans in complete violation of these supposed guarantees.
Furthermore, we were told that the identity of the person undergoing the virtual strip search would also be kept private. The fact that Heathrow employees must have known that the actor was about to take the body scan in order to print out copies of the image also proves this claim to be a total fallacy.
The abuse of the naked body scan images in this instance is a total violation of every data protection law in the UK. Far from treating the story in a comical manner, Khan should be filing a very expensive lawsuit and preparing for a successful and lucrative outcome.
In the meantime, the revelation that the naked body scanner images are being freely printed out and circulated by airport security staff should prove to be the death knell for plans on behalf of governments worldwide to institute the scanners on a widespread basis.
Courts have consistently found that strip searches are only legal when performed on a person who has already been found guilty of a crime or on arrestees pending trial where a reasonable suspicion has to exist that they are carrying a weapon. Subjecting masses of people to blanket strip searches in airports reverses the very notion of innocent until proven guilty.
Barring people from flying and essentially treating them like terrorists for refusing to be humiliated by the virtual strip search is a clear breach of the basic human right of freedom of movement. Security experts agree that such scanners would not even have stopped the incident that has been exploited to justify their widespread introduction – the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
Not only have the scanners proven to be a total violation of privacy, but major international radiation safety groups are now warning of the health risks they pose.
Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/exposed-naked-body-scanner-images-of-film-star-printed-circulated.html
Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff
Authorities’ claim that virtual strip search pictures immediately destroyed proven fraudulent – use of devices needs to be halted now
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.
UK Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said last week that the images produced by the scanners were deleted “immediately” and airport staff carrying out the procedure are fully trained and supervised.
“It is very important to stress that the images which are captured by body scanners are immediately deleted after the passenger has gone through the body scanner,” Adonis told the London Evening Standard.
Adonis was forced to address privacy concerns following reports that the images produced by the scanners broke child pornography laws in the UK. When the scanners were first introduced, it was also speculated that images of famous people would be ripe for abuse as the pictures produced by the devices make genitals “eerily visible” according to journalists who have investigated trials of the technology.
However, the Transport Secretary’s assurances were demolished after it was revealed on the BBC’s Jonathan Ross show Friday that Indian actor Shahrukh Khan had passed through a body scan and later had the image of his naked body printed out and circulated by Heathrow security staff.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You’ve got to see them. It makes you embarrassed – if you’re not well endowed,” said Khan, referring to how the scans produce clear images of a person’s genitals.
“You walk into the machine and everything – the whole outline of your body – comes out,” he said.
“I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said ‘give them to me’ – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them,” stated Khan.
The story was carried by Yahoo News under the headline “Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow”.
Khan’s reference to “girls” with printouts of his naked body scan can only refer to female airport security staff responsible for processing the images produced by the scanners, “professionals” who are supposed to instantly delete the images, according to Lord Adonis.
The revelation that airport security staff are completely abusing any notion of the professionalism promised by authorities by printing out and circulating images of naked body scans should set alarm bells ringing, especially in light of the fact that such images of minors break child pornography laws. British authorities have made it mandatory for travelers to submit to the naked body scanners when asked and have overturned previous rules that prevented under 18’s from passing through the devices.
Within days of the devices being introduced at Heathrow, staff have abused their professionalism and printed out naked scans of a famous actor for their own titillation.
We were promised all along that the body scanners “increased privacy” because they were only accessible to a single staff member who had no personal contact with the passenger taking the scan, in addition to the assurance that the images could not be saved and were instantly deleted. It in fact turns out that airport staff have been saving, printing and circulating naked body scans in complete violation of these supposed guarantees.
Furthermore, we were told that the identity of the person undergoing the virtual strip search would also be kept private. The fact that Heathrow employees must have known that the actor was about to take the body scan in order to print out copies of the image also proves this claim to be a total fallacy.
The abuse of the naked body scan images in this instance is a total violation of every data protection law in the UK. Far from treating the story in a comical manner, Khan should be filing a very expensive lawsuit and preparing for a successful and lucrative outcome.
In the meantime, the revelation that the naked body scanner images are being freely printed out and circulated by airport security staff should prove to be the death knell for plans on behalf of governments worldwide to institute the scanners on a widespread basis.
Courts have consistently found that strip searches are only legal when performed on a person who has already been found guilty of a crime or on arrestees pending trial where a reasonable suspicion has to exist that they are carrying a weapon. Subjecting masses of people to blanket strip searches in airports reverses the very notion of innocent until proven guilty.
Barring people from flying and essentially treating them like terrorists for refusing to be humiliated by the virtual strip search is a clear breach of the basic human right of freedom of movement. Security experts agree that such scanners would not even have stopped the incident that has been exploited to justify their widespread introduction – the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
Not only have the scanners proven to be a total violation of privacy, but major international radiation safety groups are now warning of the health risks they pose.
Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/exposed-naked-body-scanner-images-of-film-star-printed-circulated.html