Non-Images You Can Look At On A Screen?
"Manchester Airport has rejected claims its new body scanners will fall foul of child pornography laws, claiming that because they use X-rays "they do not make an image"."
So there should be no problem displaying the non-image on a big screen, in public, for all to see, yeah?
Oh, but no. Suddenly it's obvious that:-
1. It's an image.
2. It's intrusive with respect to privacy.
3. It may well be indecent in some sense (not pornographic, but indecency isn't limited to only that which is pornographic).
I think it might be helpful to ask ourselves various questions about aspects of this scanning scheme in other situations.
For example, if someone was to wear, in public, clothing that was similarly revealing, would it count as indecent exposure? How does this scanning scheme compare with, say, security CCTV or leisure centre staff in swimming pool changing rooms? What are the relevant similarities and differences?
Perhaps those who claim that the images aren't images, and nonsense like that, should put their money where their mouths are:-
1. Go through the scanners themselves.
2. Have the images turned into posters, with details of who they're non-images of included.
3. Put the posters on display in the airport, to demonstrate that the people responsible are more than happy to eat their own dog food.
And while they're at it, they can ask some Muslims, men and women, to participate, to show it's not in anyway discriminatory - oh, wait...