Since 2004, there has been a specific exemption to the UK child porn laws for members of the Security Service and GCHQ (for those who don't know, the UK's NSA) "for the exercise of any of the functions" of their organisations and I have long wondered what they do with that power. Plant the images on people for blackmail purposes?
I am also not entirely convinced the more general exemption for "the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime" doesn't apply here, but I don't know what the case law says about what that actually covers.
Hire children as scanner operators!
I am fine with this.
Sadly, it will be robots. If a robot scans me for explosives, I demand a receipt with my body mass index, blood pressure, a list of mineral deficiencies and excesses, and back-scatter cholesterol level so that the programmers in the military industrial complex will not get bored programming the next generation of human seek-and-destroy systems so we can thin the herd for the health insurance companies to improve the profitability of their pool.
As a few recent sexting cases have shown, it doesn't matter how old the person is who takes the picture.
damn lawmakers! will trained dogs do?
There was a TSA info poster about full body scanners I was amused by late last year; while at the same time the press were using images taken with the sensitivity knob turned to "naked" the TSA poster was calming my fears because they seemed to have theirs turned all the way around to "blurry humanoid". A spot of superglue on the controls will prevent operators using it to create child porn, while also reducing the operator burden to a level where they won't create any useful data to examine anyway.
Unfortunately, terrorists continue to win the fight to inconvenience the Western world.
"Buttered Cat Effect" FTW (although çŸ›ç›¾ isn't a bad alternative)
"Counterterrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," Bruce Schneier said. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
"I wish that, just once, some terrorist would try something that you can only foil by upgrading the passengers to first class and giving them free drinks." [Bruce Schneier, 12/26/09]
Schneier is awesome
Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country's way of life; it's only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we're doing the terrorists' job for them.
Next up, a 17 year old will try to blow up a plane, and children will be banned from the cabin during flight. Children under 18 must be checked with luggage.
As with Schneier and the free drinks, that'd actually be an improvement—no more screaming brats kicking the seat in front.
This was the stupidest article ever. The author should be ashamed of himself.
Indecency or pornography requires that the subject actually portray an indecent or sexual act. Taking a photo of a child that's merely naked walking through a scanning machine is neither. If it were, physicians who take routine x-rays of children would be constantly guilty of a crime.
In the UK we have rather strict laws concerning children, they make your terrorism laws look comical in comparison. It's generally considered a very bad thing to be found with photos of children on your computer - even if they're your own.
At least you'll have some form of life if you're branded a "terrorist". Get the "paedophile" label and you may as well just kill yourself, your life is pretty much over.
We have this crap to put up with - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html
It doesn't matter what the prosecutor says. Lawyers can argue anything they want.
It matters what the law is. The charges were dropped, ostensibly because the law wasn't on the DA's side.
Body Cavity Searches.