![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oh, children
Jan. 5th, 2010 10:26 pmi was just thinking, for the billionth time,why can't lj have an easy-post button, like facebook and twitter, on web pages?
when, wow. look, there was one.
only clicking it puts the link in the subject line and there's no body and no text-copy. so WHAT'S THE POINT?
whatever. since this was the article in question, i'll post it the old fashioned way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws
New Scanners Break Child Porn Laws
The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.
Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.
Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.
They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.
The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.
( oh, technicalities )
when, wow. look, there was one.
only clicking it puts the link in the subject line and there's no body and no text-copy. so WHAT'S THE POINT?
whatever. since this was the article in question, i'll post it the old fashioned way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws
New Scanners Break Child Porn Laws
The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.
Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.
Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.
They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.
The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.
( oh, technicalities )
