Full-body scanners banned for kids in U.K., likened to child porn

by Charlie Leocha on October 21, 2009

While the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) seems intent on scanning everyone with whole-body scanners that strip passengers naked, officials in the U.K. have decided to limit the use of these strip-search machines by forbidding their use on children.

These scanners are so powerful, I’ve been told, that they can tell whether a traveler has a dime or a nickle in their pocket. Child protection agencies who, I assume, have had access to the results of these scanned images have likened them to what amounts to child pornography. Hence, Manchester Airport in the U.K. has been banned from using the whole-body scanners on children under 18 years of age.

Manchester Airport managers have had a rethink on allowing under-18s through the scanner after child protection experts warned that they risked breaking the law by creating indecent images of juveniles.

The RapiScan machine being trialled at the airport’s Terminal 2 shows up a clear outline of passengers’ bodies as well as breast enlargements, piercings and false limbs.

Travellers can opt out of the virtual strip search but the airport had planned to let children take part if their parents gave consent.

Though the news video finished with a statement indicating that terrorists will have no place to hide explosives, we know from news reports that they are already looking for new ways to deliver their deadly bombs inside their bodies where the whole-body scanner is useless.

Here in the U.S.A. the House of Representatives has made their objection to these machines as primary systems for scanning airline passengers. They voted overwhelmingly to make whole-body scanners available only for secondary scanning of those who need additional checks. The vote was 310 to 118 last June 4th.

Unfortunately, TSA seems intent on ignoring the will of the House and is moving forward with their drive to install whole-body scanners throughout the airport system. We’ll see if our federal airport cops actually defy the House. After all, that is where their funding stream starts.

I’m beginning to think TSA doesn’t really care.

Print Friendly

Tagged as: full body scanners, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, whole-body scanners

  • Keith

    Wow…. are you saying someone in authority actually agrees with me?

    These scanners produce child porn.

    (obviously, only if you allow children in the scanners)

  • Hapgood

    Unless Obama appoints someone who is interested in and empowered to make the TSA accountable to the rule of law, the TSA will do whatever they want regardless of what anyone thinks of them. They have the magic word “Security” in their name, which entitles them to carte blanche without regard to laws and restrictions that apply to agencies without “Security” in their name.

    They need not worry about either the House or the Senate. The funding bill that ultimately emerges from conference committee will hand the TSA yet another blank check, with no restrictions on the use of virtual strip searches. A TSA official merely needs to walk into the closed-door committee session and remind the members that whoever votes to restrict the strip searches (or to impose any other restrictions or oversight on the TSA) will be personally liable for any consequences resulting from “weakening” the TSA’s ability to protect aviation. After the next terrorist attack, anyone who votes to restrict the TSA will have to explain to the grieving families of the victims why they voted to deprive the TSA of a tool that would have prevented the attack.

    The TSA’s leaders know that they can neutralize any threats from Congress by playing to their inherent fear of losing elections from being labeled “soft on terrorism.” And they won’t hesitate to do exactly that should Congress show any signs of balking at handing them their accustomed blank check. That’s the strategy that has kept the War On Drugs continually expanding for decades despite its clear failure. And those who wage the War On Terror have learned much from their Drug War predecessors about ensuring that elected officials remain unquestioningly loyal supporters.

    The TSA is accountable only to themselves. They don’t care what the public thinks, since we’re the Enemy from which they’re protecting aviation. And they don’t care what Congress does either, since they’re experts at playing the FEAR card to make sure that Congress keeps handing them blank checks and doesn’t ask questions. That’s what “democracy” means in the 21st century. So we had all best get used to standing spread-eagled in the scanner when the screener barks the order, if we want to fly today.

  • Jeff Linder

    Okay, up until now I had generally been ambivalent to in favor of these scanners (been through one myself), but this was an aspect I had not considered, and its a biggie.

    Even though the software is specifically designed not to allow the transmission or retention of images, based on the level of detail, the operator would definitely be seeing effectively nude pictures of children. Whether or not this rises to the level of child pornography is an open question, but that aside, it has got be possibly very uncomfortable for operators, or even scarier, that job could be very attractive to some people (lets face it, TSA does not have a great history of background checking, and that assumes a conviction).

    Before any testing continues, a no minors policy needs to be put in place immediately.

    I still think these devices have a part to play in an overall security scheme, but I’m definitely rethinking them as primary access point controls.

  • Pat

    So, let me get this straight: a security system that results in the generation of indecent images isn’t ok for use on children, but is perfectly fine for adults? Surely child pornography is a serious concern, but why the distinction between harmful, nude images of non-consenting children and very possibly harmful, nude images of non-consenting adults?

    This shows very clearly how low personal privacy falls on the priority scale.

  • John

    @hapgood … or they could actually be protecting you from real threat? They could be providing members of Congress classified briefings on threats that make them reconsider their decision.

    Can you give me the dates that you were read in on the classified terrorism threat briefings? I have friends that are and they tell me to shut up and be happily ignorant. Oh and they also say to thank the TSA everyday because they are thinking two steps ahead instead of just reacting to threats after the fact.

    How about this … You take the bus so I can fly safely.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Full-body scanners banned for kids in U.K., likened to child porn -- Topsy.com

  • Hapgood

    John, I’m willing to acknowledge the possibility that the parts of the TSA that are hidden away behind the closed doors of classified facilities are well-managed, proactive, and thoughtful, consistent, and effective. Unfortunately, since I have no way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes, I can only judge the TSA by what I read, and what I see at airport checkpoints. If the visible part of the TSA seems to consist of buffoons who inconsistently implement absurd rules at airport checkpoints, on what basis should I believe that the hidden part is any different?

    I know that the TSA wants the public to take the approach of “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” We should thus ignore what’s obviously visible, and accept on pure and simple faith that what goes on behind the many veiled layers of secrecy provides effective protection against horrible threats. We should not question the cost, intrusiveness, or effectiveness of what the TSA does, but gratefully accept that whatever they ask us to do is both necessary and effective.

    If you can accept that on faith, good for you. But I demand concrete assurance that we’re actually getting something useful for what the TSA is costing us, in hassle and intrusion as well as in dollars. I know from experience that the sort of pervasive secrecy under which the TSA operates practically guarantees incompetence, waste, and abuse– which is consistent with what is visible at checkpoints. That’s why other government agencies have transparency and accountability requirements. The Constitution, after all, was written by men who knew from harsh experience that government can’t be trusted, and thus needs checks and balances to avoid tyranny.

    The TSA should be subject to accountability and oversight, even if transparency would adversely affect the TSA’s “mission” (whatever that actually is). They should not have a blank check to do whatever they want. In particular, decisions such as imposing virtual strip searches on every passenger, which significantly alter the balance of privacy and “security,” should be made by Congress after open debate and through public regulations. The TSA insists on making those determinations behind their closed doors, and through their classified regulations. That to me sounds more like East Germany than the United States, as does your recommendation to “shut up and be happily ignorant.” Is that really the “victory” we seek in the War on Terror?

    I won’t at all deny the reality and the significance of the terrorist threat. But unlike you, I can’t blindly trust that the TSA is in any way effective at protecting us from it. Hassles and restrictions arbitrarily imposed at the whim of low-level “officers,” along with surrender of privacy and liberty, is no assurance of effective security. Accountability and oversight are.

    As for your recommendation that I take the bus, I think that’s actually a very good idea. Since the TSA is completely unresponsive to the public, the only thing we can do about it is to “just say no.” I can enjoy some great staycations that avoid the restrictions and hassles the TSA inflicts (along with even more hassles inflicted by airlines). And you can fly and be grateful for every command the TSA screeners bark at you, even though there’s no reason to believe it does anything to keep you safe.

  • Frank

    I can enjoy some great staycations that avoid the restrictions and hassles the TSA inflicts (along with even more hassles inflicted by airlines). And you can fly and be grateful for every command the TSA screeners bark at you, even though there’s no reason to believe it does anything to keep you safe.
    ===================================================

    What they BARK AT YOU doesnt keep you safe? Firstly, if you treat other people with respect, you usually get it returned. 99% of all TSA agents I have come in contact with are courteous and just want to assist you through the process (your words, hassles).
    They BARK (instruct loudly) for everyone to remove your computer from it’s case. I’m thinking it allows a better computer scan of your internal parts which allows the screener to better identify possible threats like plastic explosives (Semtex) inside.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

    Remove shoes: Self explanatory. Richard Reid. Had he simply done this in the lavatory by removing the smoke detector, things may of turned out catastrophic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)

    Found in his shoe: Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN, also known as corpent, pentrite, or rarely and primarily in German as nitropenta or pentrit)[1], is one of the most powerful high explosives known, with a relative effectiveness factor (R.E. factor) of 1.66.

    Removal of winter coats: Allows the TSA agents to visually access each individual who may have found a way to conceal a weapon or explosive device. I know a F/A who was on a hijacked flight in the early 80′s. The Hijacker brought on a plastic flare GUN. Did that make it through security?????? Huh?

    I go through security on a weekly basis. I find your comments abit of an exaggeration.

    Get in line. show ID and Ticket.
    Get in line. Get a tub and remove metal items, liquids in bin and shoes. Push Rollaboard through machine.
    Go through Metal Detector.
    Collect personal belongings.

    THE OUTRAGE.

  • Marlin

    Why is everyone in this world so uptight about their body being seen? Everybody needs to relax a bit, and while I am not for any freedom’s being taken away, and the TSA has overstepped their boundary’s at times, this seems like such a non-issue.

  • MidMom8949

    I infinitely prefer whole-body scanning to the pat down in the glass booth. (I know I can opt to go to another room, etc., at the cost of additional time and luggage dragging.) I have metal in various parts of my body and always have to have an additional scan. At most airports, I have to wait in that claustrophobia-causing glass booth while a screener screams for a female screener. Whole-body scanning is fast and easy.

    I am not remotely worried about some TSA employee guessing that shadowy figure on their screen is me. (Note to self–keep going to the gym. . .)

    This, of course, is separate from the issue of whether TSA oversteps its authority. Yes, they seem to account to no one.

  • Janet

    So doesn’t this make the technology ineffective if they don’t scan children? Do you really think the terrorists will balk about having children carry their weapons? My other concern is the use of this technology and it’s later effects on the body. Right now they are saying it is safe, but how many times have we heard that and a later report disagrees with it. Many medical discoveries are not made until many years have lapsed. As a person who has to limit their exposure to Xrays for medical reasons, I’d like to see some tests that would replicate long term results.

  • Kweed

    John IS happily ignorant, he just won’t shut up.

  • Carrie Charney

    @ Hapgood: I hope you also consider the train. No TSA. Just get there before the train does. Lots of legroom. You can get up and move about. Few weather delays. Snack car. I now do New York to Boston or Baltimore by train. I still don’t mind flying and find that TSA attitudes have greatly improved over the years. I take the train for those routes because it is faster in the long run.

  • Hapgood

    As I’ve stated before, the real problem with the virtual strip search isn’t the intrusive loss of privacy, although that’s what seems to particularly bother people in our Puritanical country.

    The real problem is that the scanning procedure makes no provision for allowing passengers to maintain control over their wallets. It thus thus exposes them to serious risk of identity theft, in addition to all the hassles of stolen credit cards. It also makes it impossible to wear a “security pouch” under clothing, which is often recommended to secure cash and identity papers.

    Currently, a passenger can walk through the metal detector with a wallet and passport securely in a pocket or security pouch, as long as everything containing metal is removed. The virtual strip search doesn’t allow that. That all has to be “divested” so that the impeccably trustworthy officers hidden away in their remote viewing stations (to protect our privacy) have an unobstructed view. A wallet placed in a bin is dangerously vulnerable to theft, and the possibility that a carry-on bag contains a “divested” wallet or passport makes it that much more valuable to thieves.

    The TSA has confirmed on their blog that the (secret) operating procedures for full body scanning make no provision for allowing passengers to have continuous sight of their belongings during the strip search. One of the bloggers recommended politely ask a screener to help maintain visual contact with belongings. But like everything else about the TSA, whether that request is granted is entirely at the whim of the screener, since they’re not accountable for anything. There is no obligation for anyone in the TSA to help passengers protect their belongings.

    The needless risk of serious consequences from the loss of a wallet or passport built in to the scanning procedure is the real showstopper here. It’s clear that none of the “security experts” who are intent on strip searching all passengers thought of that problem. That’s enough reason to put a halt to the deployment, at least until the TSA figures out a way to protect passengers from the threat of theft and identity theft that it currently creates.

    I suspect that the TSA will continue its current approach of ignoring the problem until someone actually has a wallet stolen at a checkpoint during a full body scan. Then they’ll react in their usual fashion of blaming the passenger and denying all responsibility.

  • Hapgood

    MidMom8949, that’s exactly why the appropriate role for full body scanners is for secondary screenings that currently require pat-down. That’s the most cost-effective use of the scanners, in terms of intrusiveness and in dollars. It makes the screening easier for everyone when there’s enough specific cause to justify an intrusive body search.

    But evidently that’s not good enough for the TSA. They want to spend millions of dollars to strip search everyone who is guilty of wanting to fly, while increasing the risk of identity theft. Yes, there is at least a theoretical security benefit to strip searching everyone. But is it worth the price? That’s why Congress should publicly debate the cost-benefit analysis and make public rules for its use, rather than letting the TSA’s unaccountable bureaucrats do that in secret. But that’s not good enough for the TSA.

  • Hapgood

    @Carrie Charney, New York is well served by Amtrak, which makes trains a superior alternative to flying within the Northeast. But I live in Southern California, where Amtrak’s schedules and routes are so limited and inconvenient that you’d have to be a “foaming” rail fanatic to consider them. For that matter, the Greyhound station in Los Angeles is in the heart of Skid Row, which makes the bus a less than desirable option if you live in Southern California.

    It’s unfortunate that the only truly practical form of transportation within California is the automobile. Los Angeles to San Francisco takes around eight hours by car (if you avoid peak traffic hours). That’s not much longer than flying, which might work out to five or six hours “door to door,” and it avoids all the hassles of airlines, airports (especially user-hostile LAX), and of course the TSA. Amtrak takes twelve hours, when it’s on schedule.

  • http://www.discount-office-needs.co.uk/Scanners/36/ scanners uk

    I am really surprised to hear that these scanners are capable of producing child porn?

Previous post:

Next post: