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

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
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.
 

Attachments


mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
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.
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
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.
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.
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
Where is the outrage?
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
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
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.
 

benlee

macrumors 65816
Mar 4, 2007
1,236
1
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.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
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?
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
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.
 

benlee

macrumors 65816
Mar 4, 2007
1,236
1
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.
F getting blown up on a plane from an underwear bomber, I say.
 

robbieduncan

Moderator emeritus
Jul 24, 2002
24,505
23
London
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.
 

Bostonaholic

macrumors 6502
Aug 21, 2009
439
0
Columbus, Ohio
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?
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.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
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.
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?
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
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.
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.
 

benlee

macrumors 65816
Mar 4, 2007
1,236
1
snip[/img]

I'll take my chances.

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...
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Would it? The age of consent here is 16.
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.
 

Bostonaholic

macrumors 6502
Aug 21, 2009
439
0
Columbus, Ohio
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.
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.
 

benlee

macrumors 65816
Mar 4, 2007
1,236
1
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?
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.