New Airport Scanners Breach UK Child Pornography Laws

The UK's Guardian reported late Monday that the full body scanners being tested in the UK and like those planned for the US, are being challenged on the grounds that they breached UK laws against child pornography and cannot be used on those under 18. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is "illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image' of a child." I posed a question a few days ago: How many parents are going to want some stranger viewing virtually naked pictures of their child(ren) from these scanners? On the other hand, we know terrorist groups are more than willing to blow up their children as well as ours. And they quickly adapt their strategy...make them take of their shoes and they put the explosives down their pants....

While awaiting a ruling, "voluntary trials" started last month for those 18 and over. One wonders how many actual "volunteers" they could get unless they were offering a choice between a scan and a body cavity search. And the question of whether the machines would be used in a, "lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias" has been broached,   thus setting up the protest which will certainly be used by any group or person attempting to smuggle such a weapon.

The expensive, doomed debacle that is the full body scanner slogs on. But there is a glimmer of hope...celebrities:

...concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.

Maybe, just maybe...if those elite jet setters (and even better yet, some politicians) realize they and their families might be in for a little more publicity than they bargained, the idea will be quashed before too many tax dollars are paid out.

White House had October Briefing on Assassination Attempt Similar to Flight 253

Yesterday, I wrote how this administration seems to be more interested in trampling our last shred of dignity, by claiming scanners that show all our naughty bits would solve our security problems.

Now YID with LID publishes a report coming from Newsweek (hardly a conservative-leaning publication) that there was a White House briefing (no pun intended) in October on an attempted assassination. The target, Muhammad bin Nayef, Saudi's chief counterterrorism official, survived the attack. But it was believed this terrorist used the same underwear bombing technique as the attempt on Northwest Airlines flight 253.

What we have here is...failure to communicate:

In fact there were several briefings in those months, including a high-level briefing to Obama 3 days before the Christmas attempt. And, once again there was a breakdown in communication between the FBI and the CIA.

"When Abdulmutallab’s father visited the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, in November to report his concerns that his son might have been involved with Islamic extremists in Yemen, the FBI had no representative at the meeting; the FBI maintains an attaché only in Lagos on the southern coast, not in Abuja, the capital. But the CIA, which did have an officer present who wrote up a report on the meeting, never told the FBI about Abdulmutallab."

Of course the President immediately flew back to DC after the attempt.... No...wait...he stayed in Hawaii, although CBS news reporters fretted that the president was having to spend the vacation working rather than "recharging his batteries." (Hat tip to News Busters)  

Can you imagine the media brouhaha had Bush stayed on Christmas vacation?? I tweeted recently about the media complained on how long Bush stayed at the school after the September 11 attacks. Even though it clearly made more sense to both wait for further information and keep from panicking a roomful of children. No matter how he reacted he couldn't win with the media. Obama finally holds a press conference in an unbuttoned shirt, no tie, looking more tourist than presidential.

Read the full story: YID With LID: New Obama Security Oversight: White House Received October Briefing About Underwear Bombings

Honestly…I was only kidding!

When news came out about the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253, I joked that since Richard Reid, the failed Shoe Bomber (aka, Hot Foot) caused us to have to remove our shoes before boarding a flight, I hoped that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (aka, Hot Pants) wouldn’t have us removing our pants too!

Honestly…it was only a joke! But this administration apparently thinks this is now a good idea. In true, “never allow a crisis to go to waste” format, they want to remove your pants, via scanners that will reveal your whoopsi-daisy to the scanner’s technician.

Oh, but don’t worry, they tell us, “Technicians view the images in a locked room.” Yeah I bet they do! Then the TSA tries to assure us that the images will not be stored. "Once they (the passengers) are cleared, they cannot be stored, they're gone forever," a TSA official said. “So there’s NO chance they’ll end up on YouTube.” Okay…I added that last part. And we can trust the TSA because they would never allow something confidential to be posted online....

What’s really scary is the number of people who think having sweaty technicians ogling everyone with superman vision is worth it for a chance of safety. The question is: “Who is going to have to go through it?” Are we going to start sending little old ladies through to be politically correct? What about children: Do you really want some unknown person seeing a scan of your virtually naked child? We’ve had a number of lawsuits over Muslim women not wanting to remove their headdress for a driver’s license. What do you think will happen when they’re told they have to go through one of these scanners? And will the TSA let them slide because they don’t want to appear to be profiling or violating (a now politically protected) religion?

Ridiculous! After all, it was already known that Hot Pants was a danger. He was on a watch list (which apparently means they just sit around and WATCH him attempt to blow up one of our planes!) But he was not put on the no-fly list. Cat Stevens is on a no-fly list, conservative talk show host Michael Savage is on a no-fly list (to the UK) but this guy is not? Even after his own father told authorities that he was planning to bring down a plane. Were they all listening to new Christmas iPods over at the CIA when he told them this? Or is it because everything must be typed up in triplicate, stamped, “Do Not Disseminate to the Internet or the FBI” and fed through the food chain from the janitor on up? Did it get lost between the Chief Assistant and the Assistant Chief?

But never mind. The government is on its way to make a show trial and kick out a few low level bureaucrats that no one really liked anyway. The sheeple are blindly being herded along to give up their last shred of dignity just to go on a business trip or holiday. Tearing down the bureaucratic wall is what needs to change—not parading us in our birthday suits! This is not what the people wanted when promised government transparency.