Airport won't X-ray children
By Nicole Kobie,
Manchester Airport's X-ray security scanning trial won't be snapping images of children, after a rights group raised concerns the plan might be illegal.
The system uses an X-ray scanner to check what people are carrying, so they no longer need to be patted down by security staff before boarding their plane. The images are viewed by staff in a separate room, and destroyed immediately after the passenger leaves the security area, Manchester Airport said.
Following the trial's announcement, Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) raised concerns with Manchester Airport that the images, which show the outline of a naked body, breach the Protection of Children Act.
Until the issue is sorted out, the X-ray scanning will only be used on people over the age of 18 - and, as before, only on those who volunteer. The trial is set to begin in two weeks, so no images have yet been taken.
A spokeswoman for Manchester Airport said the issue fell into a "grey area" legally. She said the airport was working with the appropriate agencies to sort out the issue by the time the trial goes live, but admitted they "may not ever have children using it."
Rule of law
Terri Dowty, the director of ARCH, told IT PRO that the airport was quick to act, but added that this isn't a new issue.
“This is an issue we’ve dealt with in the past,” she said, noting ARCH has successfully brought similar complaints to the Metropolitan Police and the Department of Transport after they tried to use scanners, too.
“The problem is one of law. It’s portrayed in some ways as some kind of pedophile hysteria. It’s not, it’s a rule of law issue,” she said, explaining that taking indecent photos of children was illegal regardless of the use, even with parental consent. “The law does not allow the use of these images because they produce indecent images.”
“The member of staff on the scanner is committing a quite serious criminal offence. It’s not right to ask employees to do that,” she added.
“If people don’t like that, people need to go to parliament… it’s not a matter of opinion, it’s one of fact – it’s what the law says.”
Marketing with fear
So if these scanners can never be used on children, why do people keep trying to use them? “There’s aggressive marketing of these devices and it fits a serious fear,” she said.
“What we find in a lot of new tech is that they are marketing driven," she added. "Somebody wants to sell a technology will identify a particular fear...PR people pick up on whatever people’s fears are and sell a product to meet that fear.”
“We’re taking lots of flack, people are saying we’re making planes fall out of the sky," she said, adding the issue isn't about protecting children from potential pedophiles. "I’d be dismayed if this turns into headline grabbing saying 'pedos are at our airports'. I’m pretty sure Manchester Airport’s employees are not in fact pedophiles.”
You may also like...
Sponsored Links
advertisement
You may also like...
Latest Scanners Analysis & Insight
What is Thunderbolt and why is it so exciting?
Thunderbolt is an incredibly impressive new cable and connector technology from Intel. Formerly known as Light Peak, the highly-anticipated technology has finally arrived and could be the biggest thing to happen to computers this year.
Latest Scanners Reviews
Fujitsu fi-6130Z desktop scanner review
Rating: ![]()
advertisement
Most popular
- Apple iPad 3 vs iPad 2 head-to-head review
- Dell EqualLogic PS6100XS review
- Chromebooks: What's gone wrong?
- ICO: Fines for cookie law breakers
- UK regulator shuts down Angry Birds scam
- Open source software driving cloud-based innovation
- Fujitsu targets enterprises with Android ICS tablet
- IBM bans use of Siri on iPhones
- Dell PowerEdge R820 review
- BlackBerry 7 OS certified to carry 'Restricted' UK government information
Register for IT PRO
You'll get exclusive member benefits including free whitepapers, downloads, Webinars and weekly newsletters full of the latest IT PRO news, reviews, insight and expertise.





Why the US spellings?
This is an article about a UK airport, and UK laws. So why are we talking about pedophiles instead of paedophiles? Surely pedophiles are actually foot lovers and not a threat to anyone!
By cyberspy on Tuesday Oct 20
Stupidy rules the skies
Children or not; the idea of x-raying every passenger in this way is totally unreasonable. If its voluntary the whole idea just wont work. After all, terrorists are not beyond even using children or adults who look like children to carry bombs nowadays. What next; video cameras in the aeroplane loos?
By daveperkes on Tuesday Oct 20
This is all wrong.
Where is our human rights? you can not just put a machine to see peoples private parts.The public has to vote before you instal any X-Ray machines. If not just ask the public to walk through the air port in their Birth Suit when bording a plane.
Is history repeating it's self?
By Ip5_192e7ce1e30 on Tuesday Oct 20
So why *IS* ARCH involved?
If they are not concerned about airport security staff being paedophiles, why exactly are they sticking their legalistic oar in at all? Their brief is to protect children (including, presumably, from the entirely justified fear of being blown out of the air by terrorists) not airport security workers who have unions and management looking after their legal position.
And this can work even if it is voluntary - as long as it is clear that if you do not volunteer you will be very thoroughly searched using more traditional methods. Do ARCH seriously believe that terrorists would not exploit children to smuggle weapons onto aircraft ans surely that ought to be a more serious concern of a children's rights pressure group?
By JohnHind on Tuesday Oct 20
In no particular order ....
* ARCH are right to say that there is a (potential) breach of the law here: which serves only to demonstrate what a stupid law it was in the first place, passed on a wave of hysteria about pAEdophilia. So far as may be seen, it has served only to let prurient pharmacists complain to the police about people's holiday snaps of their children.
* Why are people being so precious? These are lo-res, non-photographic images, a good deal less-revealing than standard beachwear. Why the hysteria about 'nudity' in the early 21st century?
* Aren't the dual standards delicious? It may be okay for an 18 year old, but it's suddenly completely reprehensible at 17 year and 11 months. The law might need objective boundaries, but when public debate assumes that adult/child is black/white with no spectrum in between then we have a problem. What about vulnerable adults? Are the airport staff supposed to assess someone's capability to give informed consent by looking at them? We need to stop this whole 'different rules for children' mentality. Children are people too.
By Ashley on Tuesday Oct 20
Kids and X-rays
Amazing - They test out these machines and someone steps in with all the usual stuff about human rights and those concerning children. These devices are professional items to safeguard us all and even though still voluntary I look in disbelief that this kind of reaction rears its head! Now what was that about children suidide bombers we heard of in the Middle East in the past?
Michael
By searcher_n3 on Tuesday Oct 20
silvermole
This is now getting to the stage of paranoia. The simple answer (to the delight of many parents) would be to leave their children at home if they believe that security staff are a threat to their children.
Surely security staff can also undergo background checks in the same way as teachers etc do. Security scanning should be regarded as a professional task and allowed in the same way as medical staff undertake their task. If either, security or medical, turn their position into a personal deviant persuit it is then that they commit a crime, not while they are carrying out a professional task for the safety of all.
By silvermole on Sunday Oct 25