Security guard ogling a girl "naked" in body scanner(thesun.co.uk)
thesun.co.uk
Security guard ogling a girl "naked" in body scanner
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2904943/Airport-security-guard-John-Laker-ogled-woman-colleague-in-body-scanner.html
6 comments
It bothers me that any alleged expert can say with a straight face that it's ok because the pictures are deleted and people are trained. If your system relies on data being deleted and people not abusing the system, then it is going to fail. It's only a question of how often. Like the old rule about guns that you should only point them at things you intend to shoot, you should only gather data you intend to keep forever, because more than data wants to be free, data wants to be immortal.
The only thing I really take issue with is the Child Porn smoke screen that is constantly used; it's a none issue compared to the general issue with these devices. It's like with web filtering: CP is used as an excuse to get people onside.
Case in point: this article uses "girl" even though the person in question is 29 - a Woman. It by no means makes the situation any better (clearly), but it allows the Sun to segue into the pedophile aspect nicely.... bah
Case in point: this article uses "girl" even though the person in question is 29 - a Woman. It by no means makes the situation any better (clearly), but it allows the Sun to segue into the pedophile aspect nicely.... bah
Yeah but you have to understand that the general public doesn't use facts and logic to form conclusions. They use social queues, and they need road signs--tribal banners, if you want--to know which side they should be on.
We at HN are (generally) on the side for whom "child porn" is a rallying cry, and no one outside of our little bubble of the universe will understand why we would agree with the premise, but still argue against the banner, just because of silly facts and logic.
I've given up on rational discourse in the public. I'm content with my tribal banners waving, as long as they are waving in the right direction.
We at HN are (generally) on the side for whom "child porn" is a rallying cry, and no one outside of our little bubble of the universe will understand why we would agree with the premise, but still argue against the banner, just because of silly facts and logic.
I've given up on rational discourse in the public. I'm content with my tribal banners waving, as long as they are waving in the right direction.
Oh absolutely. I contributed to a book on the French hadopi laws discussing whether it really would have an affect on child porn - by filtering it out.
Talking to some French friends (who I got to recommend it to people :)) they all said people were interested, but ultimately too condition by the phrase "child porn" to change their opinion...
Talking to some French friends (who I got to recommend it to people :)) they all said people were interested, but ultimately too condition by the phrase "child porn" to change their opinion...
In the same newspaper and related - "Al Qaeda gives female suicide bombers exploding breast implants to 'destroy jet'.
"the chemicals are virtually impossible to detect by airport security scanners."
"The surgeons are also believed to have previously inserted the chemical into male bombers buttocks"
If these can't be detected by body scanners, there seems little point having body scanners. Probably better to interview flyers and monitor for suspicious activity.
"the chemicals are virtually impossible to detect by airport security scanners."
"The surgeons are also believed to have previously inserted the chemical into male bombers buttocks"
If these can't be detected by body scanners, there seems little point having body scanners. Probably better to interview flyers and monitor for suspicious activity.
This is from the Sun, a well known trash paper. I wouldn't take anything they publish seriously.
I'm scared to extrapolate and assume this is the natural extension of the end of privacy - your naked body.
I don't know what could be a better example of the public not-liking something and the state doing it anyway "in the public interest"
But it seems to be part of a trend.
In the states the same yahoos that were screaming at the top of their lungs a couple of years ago about terrorism laws just made them all permanent.
I won't go into other examples of the state intervening and controlling our personal lives -- hopefully that one example was bland enough for this crowd. I think this is HN-related because not all uses of new technology is bringing forth a bright, sunny day. Lots of disturbing stuff coming down the pike. There's a helluva lot of spin with these devices and other state intrusions -- from both sides.
But it seems to be part of a trend.
In the states the same yahoos that were screaming at the top of their lungs a couple of years ago about terrorism laws just made them all permanent.
I won't go into other examples of the state intervening and controlling our personal lives -- hopefully that one example was bland enough for this crowd. I think this is HN-related because not all uses of new technology is bringing forth a bright, sunny day. Lots of disturbing stuff coming down the pike. There's a helluva lot of spin with these devices and other state intrusions -- from both sides.