Snook Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 im sorry but your argument has been used by those that get off on looking at pictures of nudists. the funny thing is the law does not see it that way. to be pornographic the image's primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. note the word "primary" and not "exclusive". And those weird body scanner images come under that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 would a parent be happy to know that a naked image of thier child would be created every time they went on Hols? Yes. Because I'm not outrageously alarmed to the point of hysteria just because some random stranger might see the blurry outline of my kids' soft bits. There's a lot of people on this thread that need to get some perspective! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 There's a lot of people on this thread that need to get some perspective! meanwhile others need to understand peoples right to privacy and not be duped by governments wishing to subjugate the population with wild horror stories about perceived threats they have no evidence for or justification to remove your rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 would a parent be happy to know that a naked image of thier child would be created every time they went on Hols? yes this image gets stored in one way or another Except that, no the images are not stored... yes the person viewing the image is not supervised And yes, of course they are supervised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 meanwhile others need to understand peoples right to privacy and not be duped by governments wishing to subjugate the population with wild horror stories about perceived threats they have no evidence for or justification to remove your rights. With all due respect, you kind of lose the element of privacy when you choose to enter an airport and fly. If you dislike it, you can opt not to fly in future. The choice is yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 meanwhile others need to understand peoples right to privacy and not be duped by governments wishing to subjugate the population with wild horror stories about perceived threats they have no evidence for or justification to remove your rights. That's a different argument to simply screaming "think of the children". I disagree with the scanners because they're intrusive and ineffective security theatre, not because I'm worried that some female security officer is oggling my six pack in some sort of weird colour scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 With all due respect, you kind of lose the element of privacy when you choose to enter an airport and fly. If you dislike it, you can opt not to fly in future. The choice is yours not actually true. you dont lose your right to cover up, or do you think the police should be able to strip search you in the street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Except that, no the images are not stored... And yes, of course they are supervised. are they, then how did some scanner operators manage to make copies of more then 100 people in that case? this is very interesting: http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/6/165831/7563/travel/Full-Body+Scanners+101%3A+How+Naked+Is+Full-Body+Scan+Naked%3F and this is also: http://www.prisonplanet.com/exposed-naked-body-scanner-images-of-film-star-printed-circulated.html 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 not actually true. you dont lose your right to cover up, or do you think the police should be able to strip search you in the street? I would rather walk through a scanner than get frisked in the middle of the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I think the most dangerous thing about the scanners is that any sense of security they provide is entirely false. The only difference they make is in increasing the likelihood of a non-aircraft based terrorist attack. So next we will have them at train stations and shopping precincts. And then there will be few places you can go without being scanned, and it will become more common that (as scanning technology improves) you will be scanned with assumed consent. It won't prevent a terrorist attack. And the images will become an object of mirth and ridicule as they migrate out from the scanner operators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.