Naked X-Rays Introduced

[Sol Invictus]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0ToHiAeST

How's this for invasion of privacy?
I might just go commando on my next business trip to make a point.

13th October 2009

[Smaland]

Free advertising for porn stars...

[Sol Invictus]

Naked airport scanners in child porn uproar
Published on 10-18-2009

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...ml?autostart=1

Manchester Airport has been forced to rethink trials of its invasive new X-ray machine after claims the “naked” images of airline passengers could violate child pornography laws.

This week, the airport began a year-long trial of the full-body scanner, which can instantly detect any hidden weapons or explosives without passengers having to remove any of their clothing – such as shoes and belts – for a search.

It effectively does away with the need to frisk passengers and is expected to speed up the security process at airports, but the cost of that is passengers are starkly naked in front of security staff. Genital outlines are clearly visible on the screen.

The scanner’s manufacturer, RapiScan, is already eyeing further airports around the world. A few weeks ago it sold 30 of the $US160,000 ($174,000) scanners to the US Transportation Security Administration, Forbes reported.

The Times in Britain reported that the number sold to the US was closer to 1000.

The technology has already been trialled at Heathrow airport and if the trials are successful it could be rolled out across Britain.

But British children’s advocate Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) said the technology would fall foul of the country’s Protection of Children Act, which states it is an offence to “’show” and “make” an indecent image of a child.

The group said it was irrelevant that the naked images were not stored and that parents’ permission was required before children could be scanned. It pointed to a provision in the act outlawing “pseudo-photographs”.

A child rights campaigner, Shy Keenan, told Sky News: “We can’t allow a line to be crossed in case perverts try to say they were only looking at images for a short time and weren’t storing them.”

Manchester Airport initially argued that its scanner was lawful and exempt from the child pornography laws because it was used for the “prevention and detection of crime”. ARCH said a good reason was required to qualify for this exemption.

The airport admitted on Thursday that it might be illegal for children to use the scanner. It said it would not allow anyone under 18 to use the device if it is advised the practice is unlawful.

“Since a number of people have been in touch and pointed out that there might be a problem, we have ourselves been in touch with charities working in this area to take further advice,” an airport spokesman told The Register.

“As far as Manchester Airport is concerned, we are not in the business of endangering children – our only interest is in making sure all passengers get on the plane safely. We will abide by the advice given by experts in this area.”