Full body scans violate British child porn laws - Macleans.ca
 

Full body scans violate British child porn laws

Canada set to install scanners of its own at 9 airports


 

Concerns that full body scanners in airports violate British child pornography laws could result in those under the age of 18 being exempt from the screening or a delay in their introduction as the law is changed. A UK children’s rights group has claimed the images generated by the machines are so graphic they amount to “virtual strip-searching” and have called for safeguards to protect passengers’ privacy, among them reassurances the images won’t 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 Parliament. A 12-month trial of the scanners at Manchester airport which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted. Meanwhile, in Canada, the federal government is pressing ahead with plans to install full-body scanners at international airports in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Halifax. The move is reportedly in response to increasing pressure from American authorities to step up security operations at airports worldwide.

The Guardian

La Presse


 
Filed under:

Full body scans violate British child porn laws

  1. While I'm sure this headline will elicit jokey "Stephen Harper supports child porn" nonsense, the real issue remains: wouldn't it have been nice to have had the opportunity to discuss this in the HOC?
    Oh…. right….. hmmmmm

  2. I don't wish to be radiated! Why would they not buy the machines which operate on Radio Waves? I don't need the federal government telling me what a safe level of radiation is. I'm all for increased security and am indifferent to the privacy issue, but buy safe scanners or at least give us the option to opt for a full body search instead. This is ridiculous to subject us to a known health risk.

  3. Stephen Harper supports child pornography. Ha ha ha!

  4. But they introduced them and said nobody under 18 will be screened,oops did someone not know that?

  5. Its less than a cell phone emits, and you can be patted down, no problems at all.

  6. Kelowna has been trying this out for months, I guess you must live in Ontario, because if it isnt tried out there, nobody there knows about it.lol

  7. I emits more potentially damaging radiation than a cell phone – cell phone radiation is at too low an energy level to cause the kind of damage that full body scans can, regardless of the amount.

    As far as we can tell, no level of extra ionizing radiation (that is, higher energy radiation, or what's commonly referred to as just general radiation in these types of discussions) is entirely safe. However, just going off the numbers from CBC's website, they'd have to do about 250 million of these scans to, on average, cause terminal cancer in one person. To put things in greater perspective, the simple act of flying high in the sky on the flight (due to reduced atmospheric shielding at higher altitudes) will expose people to much more radiation – potentially on the order of 100 times or more, depending on altitude and flight duration.

    I don't like these scanners for reasons besides safety, and any new source of radiation certainly a cause for concern, but the hazards of using these machines are quite minimal, as long as they're being used as currently reported.

  8. Great, lets just give up more freedom and privacy for a manufactured threat so Michael Chertoff's business buddies can make millions. God, people are stupid. You'd think after almost 10 years of this BS people wouldf get a clue.