If she was 17 (or 15), would it be kiddie porn?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Jan 8, 2010.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    It's a MWS image of an adult. But, if she was 17 15, do you think it would trigger an investigation?

    Note: The title/subject was if she was 17. Because of age of consent issues, and how kiddie porn and this consent interplay, it might be easier to change her age to 15 and ask the same question.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  3. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    In the UK, it would be illegal. That's why they have to either exempt children from their child pornography rules or change the technology.
     
  4. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #4
    And how about in Illinois? Or New York. Or any other facility within the US that is ruled by the TSA.

    Remember, the TSA rules that prohibit the carrying of cell phones or cameras into the "secured" room are from the same people that prohibit their folks from stealing from people's bags or bringing their firearms into secure areas or walking away from their post allowing people to sneak in through the exit.
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    And people are taking this quietly? I have written to my MP outlining my disapproval of this flagrant degradation of our population. If you don't like it, take action now.

    Where is the outrage?
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    I think a lot of people are hoping to see the scans.
     
  7. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #7
    The terrorists took it. If you ever head over to the flyertalk forums, you will see a constant assailing of these abominations. you will also see depression as articles are brought up where interviewed Kettles state that "well, it's ok, if it means that flying will be safer."

    When you have the media and the public brainwashed and in your pocket, the dissenters get crowded out.

    WOW. From this post, you'd think I was blaming MWSs on the NWO
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    I think it's insane. I'm not happy in the least, and will fly only if I have to.
     
  9. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #9
    [[​IMG][​IMG]
    May I present to you. Dr. and Mrs. Manhattan.
     
  10. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    Seriously, I don't have enough lube to make these scans worth my time. They are incredibly intrusive and make me feel uncomfortable, but they aren't erotic in the least. You'd have to be a pretty serious pervert to get much out of these, other than for their voyeuristic pleasure.
     
  11. benlee macrumors 65816

    benlee

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #11
    I don't see what the problem is. There are obviously privacy issues, i realize that, but I would gladly surrender a black and white scan of my tiny penis for a little more safety in my air travels. While I don't think 5 TSA workers need to be behind the screen looking at my girlfriend's breasts, I think if done in a respectable and secure manner, its not that big of a deal.

    You allow your doctor to see your privates, for your safety.

    Please note, I'm not trying to argue...just would like a little discussion about this so perhaps I can be more informed.
     
  12. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #12
    Why can't they just have a generic image of a human body(neither male or female) and when the person gets scanned the only thing that gets shown on the image is the objects it detects?
     
  13. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #13
    And what if this machine picks up a false positive? I'm guessing the only way for them to make sure it's not a weapon is a full strip search?

    F That.
     
  14. benlee macrumors 65816

    benlee

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #14
    F getting blown up on a plane from an underwear bomber, I say.
     
  15. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #15
    [​IMG]

    I'll take my chances.
     
  16. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #16
    How do these scanners protect against someone sticking some explosive up their arse? They don't. So you are pretty much no safer with them.
     
  17. Bostonaholic macrumors 6502

    Bostonaholic

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    #17
    Although that sounds like a good idea, I don't believe these machines are "smart" enough to detect foreign objects. The machine simply scans and prints, it is the duty of the person watching the screen to make a decision if anything in the scan seems out of place.
     
  18. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    Great argument. I absolutely agree with doing whatever is necessary to be safe, but I can tell you that we have Constitutional protections for a reason. Our rights are gold-plated, and need to be protected.

    One of our founding fathers (forgive me for not being a historian) said something to the effect of if you give up your freedom for security, you don't deserve either.

    Is it not possible to secure our safety WITHOUT violating our rights?
     
  19. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #19
    Would it? The age of consent here is 16.
     
  20. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #20
    The machines will work the way they do. The machine will see your naked body. But the image on the computer screen would be of a generic human body. All these people have to do is to program the software to put the object on the generic body.
     
  21. benlee macrumors 65816

    benlee

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #21

    I get that the chances are low, but arguably they are highest now. Even so, I don't see how the scans are that invasive. I'd rather the scanner viewer see an image scan of my tiny penis than someone bring a bomb on my plane--regardless of the risk b/c I don't think the scan is that big of a deal. If it was hazardous to my health then I might reconsider. Till then I'll rock out with my...
     
  22. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    Ok, I'm no expert on UK law, but there was a story on US radio about the need to amend UK law to allow for body scans of children to avoid the UK child-porn rules. 16 vs. 17, I dunno. You are probably right, but regardless, do you want your 17 year old daughter to be walking through these scanners? Do you not want the 16 year old bomb-clad terrorist from walking through?

    All I know is that it's an issue that will require some consideration.
     
  23. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #23
    The age of sexual consent is 16, but it's 18 for appearing in images of that type. It's been widely reported that under-18s will have to be exempted from the scans.
     
  24. Bostonaholic macrumors 6502

    Bostonaholic

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    #24
    I understand what you mean about the generic body. I was pointing out that I don't believe the machines have the ability, yet, to detect that a foreign object exists in the image. Obviously, that's possible, but I don't think the current machines being used have that ability.
     
  25. benlee macrumors 65816

    benlee

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #25
    I agree. I'd I am all about our liberties and maintaining them against all odds. But, you make the decision to fly. You don't have to fly. If you don't want to give up that freedom then I guess you do not fly. I know this sucks but you have to sacrifice your freedoms for the safety of yourself and others. I can't do a lot of things because the threat my actions my have on others. Giving up your freedom to not have an outline scan of your body is not that big of a deal compared to many other freedoms we have sacrificed.

    I do fear that if we give an inch they will take a mile--that does scare me, but that is a whole different discussion---perhaps.
     

Share This Page