Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.

"Love those gigantic tits" remark lands airport scanner operator in hot water

by Scott Carmichael (RSS feed) on Mar 24th 2010 at 10:00AM

Well, that didn't take long did it? A mere month after London Heathrow introduced full body scanners, the first harassment case is already being investigated by the authorities.

When 29 year old Jo Margetson accidentally walked through the scanner, an airport security guard thought it would be hilarious to mention how he "loved those gigantic tits". This was of course the situation everyone feared - I'm just surprised it took this long to happen.

The security guard has been issued a warning for sexual harassment, which will no doubt be the first of many to be issued to people that have access to the scanner images.

Miss Margetson is furious about the incident - 'I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing,' she said. 'I'm totally traumatised by it.". She spoke to the police after the incident, and they in turn reported the case to BAA, the airport operator.

In the United States, the full body imagers are monitored by staff in a remote location, and we have been assured that images will never be shared - even though the purchase requests made by the government requested scanners that have storage and sending capabilities. In other words - it is only a matter of time till US airports are faced with similar cases.

The problem with this equipment is not the technology - which has been proven to work just fine - humans are the real issue, and knowing that some of the operators manning the checkpoints are going to be on the lookout for "big tits" won't help the public's attitude towards them one bit.

(Photo: Getty Images)

Filed under: Europe, United Kingdom, Airports

Search Travel Deals

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

verdegrrl Mar 24th 2010 11:23AM

More troubling is confirmation that the machines can store and send images - along with incomplete background checks of operators to weed those who have a background of sex crimes. Children will be forced to go through those!

DeepThought Mar 24th 2010 6:59PM

Will somebody think of the children!!!

Dan Mar 25th 2010 12:18PM

Actually, if the person is under the age of 16 they prefer to fondle them rather than let them go through the scanner. It's ok to touch, but not to look..?

verdegrrl Mar 26th 2010 11:45AM

What's better, fondled or their naked image circulating in some kiddie porn ring forever? So many ways for pervs to get their kicks from the latest TSA idiocy. For that matter, many kids are taught to loudly protest strangers touching them - especially in inappropriate places.

Charley Mar 24th 2010 12:00PM

Having seen the images produced by these machines, one can hardly think of them as pornography. They are more akin to medical imaging, and unless you have a fetish for such things, they are really clinical in nature and thus rather boring. The storage of images issue is real, but there are methods to secure (read: trace) the images produced, and identifying the person responsible for leaking the image. The ability to store images is a technical and operational requirement needed for scrutinizing recent images and testing system performance, but not for any database function.

That said, there will always be bad employees, and when they are identified, they should be removed from their positions immediately. The value of these machines far outweigh the mostly imagined threats to privacy.

I suppose that you can opt-out, and subject yourself to a manual search, something that I would consider to be worse.

Ryan Mar 24th 2010 8:18PM

You clearly don't understand what some people can consider porn.

andshewas Mar 25th 2010 12:29PM

While the images may be of a "clinical" nature, the individuals responsible for the scanning are not. What should be clinical to a physician can absolutely be porn for a non-physician. Herein lies the problem with letting baggage handlers and airport staff look at "clinical" images of peoples' bodies.

Charley Mar 25th 2010 12:40PM

Ryan said...
You clearly don't understand what some people can consider porn.

- You are right about that. Some gnarly junk out in the wild... C

andshewas said...
While the images may be of a "clinical" nature, the individuals responsible for the scanning are not. What should be clinical to a physician can absolutely be porn for a non-physician. Herein lies the problem with letting baggage handlers and airport staff look at "clinical" images of peoples' bodies.

- It is impossible to control what people think when they view images, but it can be predicted to a great extent. It is entirely reasonable to expect the TSA to psychologically screen their screeners to identify those best suited to the job. The real issue the misuse of collected images, and those concerns can be addressed as I stated in the post.

Willy Mar 24th 2010 12:27PM

Let's be honest. Storing images for [time period] is going to be built into these machines. NOT being able to store and retrieve the data on demand makes them expensive toys.

Let's say a terrorist walks through one of these things and is later caught. The TSA is going to trace his trip through the airport back to the machine he walked through, and they're going to want to look at the image to see if (a) the operator was sleeping, complicit, drunk, etc., or (b) there was no way any "normal" person could have spotted the terrorist before s/he boarded the plane. If you can't store the images for at least, say, 24 hours, the machines don't really serve their purpose.

I'm expecting that X amount of data is stored on the drive and expunged every [time period], so that data is retrievable and analyzable, but not stored for eternity.

The "tits" comment was completely inappropriate, but I hardly think it is harassment. That said, I'm a man, and I don't know what it feels like. However, if someone had said, "Look at the balls on him!" I wold not have been offended in the slightest.

Scott Carmichael Mar 24th 2010 3:41PM

When I go through the scanner, I'm sure they'll all point at me and say "look at that huge dick".

Patrick B. Mar 24th 2010 2:06PM

I don't know how any person could NOT think that the images captured on these devices will not be recorded, indexed, or be made retrievable. If an individual were recorded carrying some kind of prohibited device or object on their person, such an image would, without the slightest doubt, find its way into the hands of the FBI and later, into a court of law (or a military tribunal?) as key evidence against someone charged with "conspiracy to commit terrorism", "illegal transportation of an explosive device", or some other related criminal offense.

In my view, NOT having such evidence available would be completely absurd in such a case, and as Willy said above, would make the scanners little more than expensive toys without much purpose.

It's already known that they are capable of storing images, so why do the authorities feel the need to convince people otherwise? Why not just tell passengers the truth, and more importantly, allow them to have informed consent?

Ben W Mar 25th 2010 2:37PM

Because that's what the authorities promised repeatedly in the press.

Matthew Mar 24th 2010 3:40PM

I actually don't mind having images being stored and sent, but I'm more about security on the whole and not really a person of privacy. However, I do mind being commented on in public by a person I don't even know.

When I finished reading this, I suspected that someone was going to make a comment on the lines of "if someone said 'love that gigantic dick' to me, I wouldn't think it's harassment", and I was almost right.

If someone's going to compare the situation to themselves, at least the person should compare it with equal disgusting factor to that person. To some people, that equal factor is a person of the same gender saying that to them.

"Must be the opposite sex", you say? Most men don't mind being commented on by ANY women mainly because it boosts their sexual ego. Women DO mind being commented on because (they think) they become the sexual target. So the "must be the opposite sex" is a faulty comparison.

veeroods Mar 24th 2010 6:57PM

ROTFL, dude you have to admit that is funny.

RT
www.ultimate-privacy.net.tc

mer Mar 24th 2010 7:14PM

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED.

For shit's sake, people. Get over it! Sometimes your feelings are going to be hurt - it isn't trauma. It isn't worth getting upset over. It isn't constitutionally protected.

vectoor Mar 24th 2010 8:02PM

I'm pretty sure you have the right not to be harassed...

The "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED" speech is usually about free speech stuff, not about people looking at you naked.

And to the guy further up who said "Won't somebody think of the children?" Isn't that usually directed at the other side who believe that we can violate any right so that the children will be "safe from the horrible terrorists"...

CGH Mar 24th 2010 11:32PM

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

~Ben Franklin

He forgot to mention they take your dignity too.

http://www.hrjonline.com

Obaid Mar 24th 2010 8:53PM

The argument over terrorist and such is fully overblown. You can try a million things to protect something, but there's always a way round it. Similar to the people who crack games regardless of the DRM placed. Its new and nice now, but wait a few years.

People should just calm down; and stop "randomly" stopping people in airport security, even though u were perfectly clean going through those metal scanners.

robin Mar 24th 2010 9:30PM

I fully expected this. Our "privacy" is only as safe as the moral code of the person guarding it, and we all know examples of how fickle that can be.
Personally, I could not give a shit what someone like that says or does with my silly image on the scanner. The people who matter to me certainly can't be affected, so let karma take its course.