and speaking of child protection issues.....

earthroots · and speaking of child protection issues.....

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,26217870-5014090,00.html

another reason why not to fly perhaps??

Smooth Hound

hopefully itll put loads of people off flying

andybebbington

whats the problem with it? I personally think its a good idea. It is only on trial at the moment and it is not mandatory that you use it, it is totally optional,at the moment its only used when you set the metal detector of and is an alternative to frisking. it also has the added bonus that you dont have to empty your pockets, take your belt and shoes off saving time(and your trousers from falling down).
if its rolled out across the airport or even country it can save ages in queing time but you will still be able to opt out and go through the traditional metal detector half undress and be frisked if the alarm goes of after that
The operator sits in a room in another part of the airport and does not have any idea of the identity of the passenger in the scanner, they can not see skin colour or features. the image only stays on the operators screen for 5 seconds and can not be stored.

what would you rather you child frisked by a stranger and upset because some one has touched them when you have spent years teaching them not to let strangers touch them or another stranger seeing a goastly image of them for 5 seconds. Know which i would rather have

Sassinak

Terrorists and smugglers have no qualms at all about using children as a cover for their activities. If it became known that children were going to be exempt from this screening process, it would open the floodgates for them to use children to help them (willingly or otherwise)
Since no-one but the operator will see these images, and I should imagine that there will be pretty stringent safeguards in place to ensure that they are trustworthy, I don't see what the problem is. Most children show most of their flesh on the beach or swimming pool anyway without it causing a major problem.

Smooth Hound

seems like a sensible thing to do,

JamesB

yeah I think its a good idea and it is optional.

I just wish it was expensive, I mean really expensive, enough to add say another £100 to every person flying ... that might make people think a little bit more about flying ....

James

earthroots

I just don't think more surveillance is the answer - the same technologies that are put in place to 'protect' us can be used to develop ways of getting round it surely - upping the ante all the time doesn't really make us more secure.

There is also the health risk involved with the radiation levels emitted during the scan and the 'foot in the door' feeling it gives me - it's voluntary for now but.....- and also a few years ago the Met Police wanted to put them in secondary schools for weapon searches - can't find out what happened about that though.

http://www.archrights.org.uk/archives/rapiscan.htm

but hey if it stops people from flying - I suppose those climate culprits making many business flights would have to seriously consider the health impacts

Smooth Hound

but hey if it stops people from flying - I suppose those climate culprits making many business flights would have to seriously consider the health impacts

i agree, its one way of getting rid of them,

i was talking to someone on the 350.org thingy, who seemed to think that a couple of flights a year was acceptable, i disagree as i told them

we werent born with a birth right to fly.
but thats just my opinion

the arguement is, is that it opens there mind to the world, and therefore in the long run improves the world

is that arragance or what

one guy in america couldnt understand how he would be able to get to a from b, without flying , and would have to change his way of living/lifestyle.
i suggested he had hit the nail right on the head

and to be greatful for any lifestyle, because if he carried on with the flying lifestyle, pretty soon he would be joining the other parts of the world that are more so effected already, and they dont even fly, and are having to change there lifestyle in order to cope with, drought, floods, more agressive weather on the whole.

andybebbington

Children will be not be subjected to a X-ray body scanner which produces "naked" images of flight passengers, airport officials have said.

Children will not be asked to go through the new 'X-ray' scanner at Manchester Airport
Children will be not be subjected to a X-ray body scanner which produces "naked" images of flight passengers, airport officials have said.

Bosses at Manchester Airport had a rethink on allowing under-18s to undergo the check after child protection experts warned that their security workers risked breaking the law by creating indecent images of juveniles.

http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150304747

Diana

Why is it OK to take these images of adults, but if they're taken of under 18's then they're classed as indecent? Surely they're either indecent images or they're now - regardless of age...