
Full body scanners may break child pornography laws - jacquesm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6933898/Full-body-scanners-may-break-child-pornography-laws.html
======
blhack
Watching the TSA squirm over these millimeter scanners is almost entertaining.

They want to do a full body scan, but...err..they have to blur genitals, so
you could hide something in your groin region.

They want to scan everybody, but...err...not people under 18, so you could
hide something on a kid.

So what do we end up with? We end up with what is, in my opinion, one of the
most disgusting invasions of my privacy I could have even imagined and we're
not even really benefiting from it because we're so concerned about being
immoral (while taking what equates to naked photos of everyone) that we cut
some huge massive holes in our security wall.

Awesome.

To me, this feels like a boss that screams up and down about security, then
insists that his workstation be able to bypass all of it.

~~~
gaius
_To me, this feels like a boss that screams up and down about security, then
insists that his workstation be able to bypass all of it._

That actually is literally true - according to the leaked TSA documents heads
of state are completely exempt.

~~~
blahedo
There are less than two hundred heads of state in the world, so that by itself
doesn't worry me. Imagine, though, how quickly this might drift to immediate
family of heads of state... top diplomatic corps officials... people
travelling on diplomatic passports....

------
jsz0
I don't understand the outrage over full body scans. A doctor or nurse often
conducts routine private examinations for the benefit of your health and well
being. An airport screener does a fully body scan for the benefit of your
health and well being -- and the well being of others. I don't really see any
difference. Most of the time the doctor or nurse do their examination and
there's no problem. We don't view this as being too invasive because we
understand it's a wise precaution to get regular checkups -- just in case.

~~~
Timothee
I feel like at least the following might bother people:

1\. Doctors and nurses are educated. I will leave it at that for TSA agents.

2\. A doctor's office is much more private than an airport (even though you
are not really naked in the airport, you're not really sure of who is seeing
the scan)

3\. At the doctor's office, your main goal is to have your health checked. At
the airport, your main goal is to travel.

~~~
nfnaaron
"... you're not really sure of who is seeing the scan."

Sure you are. Everyone.

This is data, like any other, and when you give your data to anyone, you can
assume it's going to be seen by someone who shouldn't see it.

Actually, I predict a new genre of porn to emerge from this.

------
ivenkys
Does anyone actually think that this will help prevent terrorism ?

Its quite astonishing that we seem to be willing to submit ourselves to every
kind of invasion of privacy as long as it "protects" us from terrorism.

~~~
DenisM
It will make people feel safer, which is the only real problem here anyway.

------
ErrantX
No. The image wouldn't class as indecent.

They need better researchers :-)

~~~
garply
Have you worked in the porn industry?

Edit: This was a sincere question, not sure why it was voted down.

~~~
jacquesm
Why does an on-topic question that gets answered deserve two downvotes?

(I can only fix the one...)

It's not like he's insulting anyone by asking a valid question, there are not
that many professions where you get information on the kind of images that are
and are not legit, the porn industry is probably the major one.

~~~
ErrantX
I was intentionally vague too to provoke such a question (in the hope a
discussion would evolve)

------
pixcavator
I'd suggest trying to use computer vision, exclusively. It seems to me that
removing the person (and the display) and not recording images would help
dealing with the legal and moral problems.

~~~
dustingetz
even if that works, i feel like you kinda need a person to fire when the
system misses something.

~~~
phsr
You fire the developer of the vision software

------
garply
Are those red box areas auto-classified as potentially dangerous? I wonder
what kind of algorithms they're using to do that.

------
mortenjorck
Fight the Terrorists vs. Protect the Children.

Aliens vs. Predator.

~~~
gaius
We're lucky we don't get half the government we pay for.

------
Jach
"It detects big bruises too?" My thoughts on seeing the images.

It's interesting how the people seem to agree it's immoral to take nude
"pictures" of people in non-erotic positions, but seem perfectly content with
shifting all the immorality of actually looking at the pictures (surely the
stuff doing the imaging can't be considered immoral) to one person in "a
remote location". (And if it's really one person, who bets they'll just start
clicking the "Okay" button after getting bored?)

