Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UK Airport worker oogles colleague in naked airport body scanner machine.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
rcrush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:43 PM
Original message
UK Airport worker oogles colleague in naked airport body scanner machine.
A HEATHROW security man was quizzed by police after ogling a girl colleague "naked" in a new anti-terror body scanner.
Jo Margetson, 29, reported John Laker, 25, after he took her picture with the X-ray gadget and made a lewd comment.

The pervy guard leered and told her: "I love those gigantic t**s."

She had entered the X-ray machine by mistake - and was horrified when Laker pressed a button to take a revealing photo.

They were brought in by the Government after the Christmas Day underpants bomber tried to blow up a flight to Detroit.
They produce full-body "nude" images of passengers to locate hidden weapons or explosives. This includes clear outlines of genitalia.
Opponents of the scanners, including anti-paedophile groups, have furiously condemned their use.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2904943/Airport-security-guard-John-Laker-ogled-woman-colleague-in-body-scanner.html#ixzz0j7nnHMiT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. NOBODY could have foreseen this
Well, unless you have the most rudimentary understanding of human nature. But it will never, e-e-e-ever happen again. Pinky swear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm shocked! Who would have thought this would happen?!
She should just shut up and take the compliment.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Yeah, who would'a thunk it? Might be interesting should images of a few VIPs, be it government,
industry, or the entertainment world, show up on the internet revealing the whole garbanzo. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tranche Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. "horrified when Laker pressed a button"
Great. Gotta love when the administrators of this garbage fear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. What's with this press the button crap?
They built these and allowed them to build in photo taking? What the fiuck? Did TMZ design these things?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. It's called "video memory."
Creating such a machine without this capability would be a challenge, I think.

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Not really. Design it such that each image is stored in a specific memory location
and then flush that memory location between the time each photo is taken.

This strikes me as CS101 type stuff. And yes, I know just enough about computer code to know this is not only possible, but fucking easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. Yeah, it's be nice if the software in those scanners were designed that way...
but they weren't.

They were designed explicitly to store images, and have software functions that let you save images. Yeah, the TSA promises they won't use such functionality. Yeah right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. Even apart from privacy issue...
...there is not way on this formerly green Earth that I am going to submit to a non-medical X-ray.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Hope you enjoy the manual body cavity search then. Good Lord I hate these bastards. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. manual body cavity search WTF. the scanners dont do a cavaity search. all one has to do is insert
and walk thru the scanners.

are you suggesting if we dont get naked for the cameras we get a glove up us?

then they had better have the glove ready for all that walk out of that useless scanner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. It's not really for detection. It's for making people afraid.
Making normal people afraid of authority and making them feel like something is being done. And making potential terrorists afraid of detection. It is the appearance of surveillance as a deterent and not surveillance itself. Kind of like when one sees a mirrored dome on the ceiling of a retail store. "They're watching us!" Except most of the time those domes have no cameras in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. to dehumanize and criminalize as a whole. to have us all two steppin together, head down,
no eye contact, tail between legs...

i hear ya

and we as a whole willfully and appreciate participate in cowardly sheep like behavior

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thanks John Laker
You are doing a great job for those who are against these machines. Keep it up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm not condoning her coworker's actions, but I'd like to know how
she entered the x-ray machine by mistake. Is it not marked and shouldn't airport personnel be aware of what the equipment is? Maybe the story is just badly reported, but something sounds a little strange to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rcrush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Here is what one of them looks like.



Appears as if she could have just walked in front of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. In that case, I guess it could have happened like she said. I had seen
reports about the machines on TV and the examples they showed looked like a small booth or something that you had to enter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. That's FAKED. The photo doesn't match the man's pose.
Look at his hands, and then at the hands in the image. The angles in the image are all wrong (look at the lines between the forearm and the wrist, in particular)- and the body in the image is perfectly symmetrical, besides. That screenshot is a fake designed for public consumption!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmoney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. well, the scan could be from a few seconds earlier
I'm guessing it would grab a still, rather than be video feed... but it wouldn't surprise me if it's faked. The guy in the photo looks stockier than the alien grey figure on the screen... hey, wait a minute!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rcrush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. What about this one?


I don't know where they are supposed to put the monitor at but it looks like the scanner looks like a wall and someone COULD possible walk in front of it accidentally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. That one is also faked.
The pose does not match the screen image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. This thread
is useless wi.....

oh fuck it, I'm sick of this old gag!

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. ya. and as once again a womans right to privacy and decency is invaded, we woman
are pretty damn sick of it too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
17. I wondered where Larry Craig went to work...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
18. "oogles"?
Those wacky Brits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. 'ogles', not a double o
The double o was a mistake by the thread starter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
20. Ah, the irony of The Sun calling the guard 'pervy', when it publishes topless photos every day
The exact reaction they want from their male readers is leering and "I love those gigantic t**s." Bunch of bloody hypocrites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
24. Now that Taliban plastic surgeons are out there
Putting explosive breast implants into women, will these machines really keep us safe (he says, cowering in fear)?

(according to a Daily Telegraph story today).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmoney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
25. What happened to the screen being in a different room from the scanner?
The idea was it would be on the other side of the airport or something, so the person monitoring the screen would have no idea who was in the scanner. Of course, some genius probably put a regular video camera/monitor in there to defeat that idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
951-Riverside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. They lied.
Just like they're lying about the images not being stored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
28. What would God think about people seeing others naked?
:shrug: Appalled I am sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. so how others may feel doesnt matter. since you are not opposed to getting naked for all. about
how this man interpreted the invasion of this woman when he hit the button.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
29. Oh dear.. that's just terrible..
Can I see the photo so I can fully evaluate the merits of the complaint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
30. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
34. I TOLD YOU SO!!!
All the cop wannabes here on DU said it would never happen.

All of them said "But the picture's blurry!" or "But security professionals would never abuse this!"

Guess what. Somebody just abused a body scanner to look through a person's clothes and ogle her.

I want you to say it. I want you to admit that you were fucking wrong, now that the proof of body-scanner abuse is right here in front of your eyes.

But you won't, because you're bullying cowards. You engender in me nothing but utter contempt. Fuck you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
36. The photos of scans I've seen are visibly retouched to "white-out" nipples and genitals....
Another image that shocked me more because of how it revealed the power of this so-called minimal radiation revealed the shin bones in the legs.

I don't think women of child bearing age should be required to step through these contraptions at all. They might not know they are pregnant -- or they may not want to reveal that they are, for very good private reasons.

Honestly, the next step is going to be to have us all strip down and walk through cattle chutes. They'll have to have Temple Grandin design them so we remain calm and don't stampede.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Hey, I go to Colorado State!
Temple Grandin's awesome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Yes she is -- I admire her work very much.
otoh -- moooooo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
39. But the politically connected seller made lots of MONEY.
So, shut up and move along, there's nothing to see here. Well, kind of nothing to see here. Well, oh, wow, come see this. Whew boy! Hubba hubba. Yowzer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC