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

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.
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












Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
Will Mar 25th 2010 10:58AM
All of this fuss for an airplane that seats a few hundred. What about sports arenas all over the world that seat thousands. With little more than a metal detector, to assure the safety of thousands. I feel our thinking of safety and prevention may be a little off here. If they can't blow up a plane due to full body scanners then they will move on to trains, or malls, or major sporting events, or hotels. This is a band aid fix on a gapping wound. This will only be more of a hassle for regular passengers to have to deal with. It is a waste of money, and invasion of privacy, and I am sure that there is some less invasive form of weapon or bomb detection out there.
Ben W Mar 25th 2010 2:49PM
Well for stadiums you have mobile scanners crossed with lie detectors straight out of a dystopian sci-fi movie called Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST)
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wqooBmYfQ4 for Homeland securities own video.
Alix Mar 25th 2010 12:51PM
You know, if they were serious about keeping people's dignity and helping passengers feel safe, this guy would either have been fired or been taken off scanner duty permanently.
David Apr 3rd 2010 3:11PM
First of all being "sure" theres something less invasive doesnt mean anything unless u actually are "sure" the technology exists. Secondly, this goes beyond weapons and also applies to illegal substances, from drugs to food to animals, things that dont just harm the people on the airplane, but at the destination of the flyer. Thirdly, most of you (people who disagree with this security measure) would probably not say a thing had you been on a high-jacked plane, or in a bomb scare, you just dont have the perspective, and trust me, its worth a little invasion of your privacy to avoid such situations.
bob Mar 25th 2010 12:50PM
Irony in the works. Some tabloid will pay some tsa worker 500,000 for grainy images of some famous actress who will then sue for several million dollars when nude images show up on the web, we the american people will pay her several millions dollars with our taxes while also paying the tsa worker then shell out 10 to 20 to go to the movies to watch the actress take off most of her clothes and look sexy.
Blogdude Mar 25th 2010 12:51PM
These "security" measures just invade privacy without really improving safety.
http://blog-stalk.com/showpost.php?ID=354
T-nuts Mar 25th 2010 3:26PM
What, no picture of the girl? What kind of article is this?
AmoLudare Mar 26th 2010 2:57PM
Pics or it didn't happen. Come on titty!
KaiEm May 11th 2010 4:13PM
Erm. Issued a warning? He needed to be fired straightaway. That sort of behaviour should not be tolerated.
Ticklemepink May 27th 2010 6:52PM
if these things are used for "random" screenings, i bet that some immature agent will find a well endowed woman and say she needs to be screened just so he can look at the goods.