Movie Star Claims Heathrow Airport Staff Printed Out, Circulated, His Naked Body Images

from the privacy? dept

Wed, Feb 10th 2010 2:09pm — Mike Masnick

There's been a big push over the last couple months to get those full body scanners installed in more airports. These scanners, if you don't recall, basically create a "naked" image of the person in them. This has resulted in all sorts of (mostly reasonable) concerns about privacy (well, and dignity) of those passing through the devices. Defenders of these systems insist that the images are seen by someone remotely who can't see the person, so there's no way to connect the image to the person, and the scans are deleted immediately.

Except... perhaps that's not always true. Eric points us to the news that Indian movie star Shahrukh Khan (oddly, I just saw one of his movies) is claiming that the staff at London's Heathrow airport had not just connected his scan to who he was, but also printed it out and circulated it among some staff.

I have to admit, this one could use a bit more proof, because my understanding was that the scan itself is done in a remote location, but Khan seems to indicate that staff had the printouts almost immediately:

"I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls -- they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said 'give them to me' -- and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them," stated Khan.

I could definitely see how another security or airport staffer might alert whoever was watching the remote scans of who was passing through the scanner. The last few times I've seen these devices used in airports the other security staff had radio contact with the person watching the scans (for obvious reasons). But having multiple printouts immediately distributed? It's not clear how that would happen.

Update: Yup, as we suspected, this story appears to be bogus. Security officials are denying it ever happened, and apparently Khan has some movie coming out about being detained by airport security... so... yeah, PR stunt.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: airport security, heathrow, privacy, scans, skahrukh khan

46 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SureW (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 1:53pm

So I autographed them for them

Classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 10 Feb 2010 @ 2:40pm

I'm a tad suspicious of the claim of printouts as well. I can imagine that they have ways of sending the image back to the screening area since they have to have a way of telling screening personnel about positive scans, about what was detected and where, but so far I haven't heard about any of these scanners having printers attached, though it is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wheatus, 10 Feb 2010 @ 2:41pm

Damn
that's PIMP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 2:48pm

All you need is a cellphone and a printer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re:
  Why would they have printers at the entry areas? They probably would not be configured to have printers at the areas were the image was to appear. I think this needs a lot more proof.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 4:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Why would they have printers at the entry areas?
    
    There are usually computer-equipped security offices nearby.
    
    They probably would not be configured to have printers at the areas were the image was to appear.
    
    That's what the camera-phone is for. The person watching the screen in area where the image appears snaps a photo of the screen with their phone and then sends that to their buddies in the security office (or someone somewhere else) who then ogle it and print it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jjmsan (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 10:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and this camera phone would be able to take a picture send it to a printer in an office nearby fast enough to get large cognizable copies back to the security officers in time for him to see the pictures.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 11:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and this camera phone would be able to take a picture send it to a printer in an office nearby fast enough to get large cognizable copies back to the security officers in time for him to see the pictures.
        
        Absolutely, a camera phone could do that.
        
        I'm not saying that is what happened in this case, just that it is entirely plausible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
edt (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 2:53pm

Heathrow Staff
Hooray for the airport staff... another Hollyfool law suit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Peet McKimmie (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 4:38pm
  
  Re: Heathrow Staff
  I think you'll find that's "Bollyfool"...
  
  I saw this (not the pictures, the interview) on "Friday Night with Jonathan Ross" last Friday. (UK BBC1) If you dig around YouTube you can probably find the full interview.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
scarr (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 2:57pm

Copypasted my response from elsewhere
I, like some others, don't think this guy's story makes sense. He came out of the scanner and saw girls with a printout? How fast are these printers? They would have to be right next to the scanners too. I suspect a journalist reporting on the earlier trials would've noticed this, and/or some employee would've revealed their availability. How did he confuse a picture of himself naked for a form he had to fill out? When does security ever have you fill out forms? For that matter, when can you ever direct security to give you something at an airport?

It's also quite a coincidence that there happen to be multiple girls working the scanner who are also fans of Bollywood films. While those chances are higher in England than here, how was he the first person/celeb this happened to in the world's second busiest airport?

While the scanners are stupid, I doubt this is real. I think this is just an actor telling an amusing tale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:38pm
  
  Re: Copypasted my response from elsewhere
  The only answer I can think of is an extreme culture of irresponsibility where some employees who were obsessive Bollywood fans had been tipped off in advance that the actor had booked a flight. But I would need a lot more evidence to accept that - and that still doesn't say much to your last point, which is an important one. After all, imagine how much money airport scans of really big stars would be worth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cohen (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:43pm
    
    tipped off in advance?
    Not hard to imagine.
    
    The service rep at the checkin counter could recognize his face and name and then call anyone at the airport.
    
    If he is a big-shot, he could have been accompanied by a service rep who would have alerted security that a VIP was going through.
    
    It's opening a huge can of worms with these images getting sold to tabloids.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 4:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Copypasted my response from elsewhere
    After all, imagine how much money airport scans of really big stars would be worth.
    
    Really big stars often fly on chartered flights so they don't have to go through all the security crap the "little people" do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 8:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Copypasted my response from elsewhere
      "Really big stars often fly on chartered flights so they don't have to go through all the security crap the little people do."
      
      Because if a terrorist wants to hijack a chartered jet and fly it into a building, apparently that's OK.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 4:41pm
  
  Re: Copypasted my response from elsewhere
  How fast are these printers?
  
  How long can it take to be released after being scanned? Surely they hold you until they've reviewed the images. How many reviewers do they have? Do people ever have to wait in a queue for their images to be reviewed?
  
  Also, he didn't say how long it was after he was scanned that he came upon the "girls" with the printouts. It could have been some time afterward.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 2:58pm

US vs. UK?
If it was Homeland Security who claimed that the screener would be at a remote location, that promise can only apply to machines installed at US airports; the TSA have no jurisdiction over Heathrow Airport. The British have their own rules, which include that they can't use the scanners on children since the resulting images would then be classified as child pornography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Valkor, 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re: US vs. UK?
  Note to self: Don't take a picture of my baby in the bathtub while in the UK...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 11 Feb 2010 @ 12:12pm
    
    Re: Re: US vs. UK?
    Or the US.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:12pm

A waste of resources.
So to summerize, the TSA gets a new weapon in the war on terror. Yet they can't even stop their own employees from stealing things out of our checked baggage. At least now they have soft porn to look at while they're taking a break from rifling through our posessions looking for cool things to confiscate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sega (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:21pm

Blatent propaganda for his flick
He has a movie about being detained by TSA. He proceeds to get detained while promoting his upcoming movie. Hmm. It was on the international news headlines for a moment last summer. He is doing what hollywood does, but poorly. Just like you'd expect from Bollywood.
I guess his detention in August 2009 wasn't enough publicity or maybe he has a sequel coming out. Techdirt, this is a non-story. I'll chalk it up to snow madness, assuming of course you are on the east coast.
If you'd like to talk about the attention he's bringing to a more important issue, then have at it. You've done well with that before. I've always appreciated those entries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 5:41pm
  
  Re: Blatent propaganda for his flick
  I guess his detention in August 2009 wasn't enough publicity or maybe he has a sequel coming out. Techdirt, this is a non-story. I'll chalk it up to snow madness, assuming of course you are on the east coast.
  
  Er, we wrote pretty clearly that we didn't believe the story because it didn't make sense. Did you not read the post?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:29pm

Consider the source. I have no idea whether this happened or not but its appearance on the site of Alex Jones, someone who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a little fluffy bunny with a compulsion to tell the truth, makes me doubt it immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 5:21pm
  
  Re:
  "Consider the source. I have no idea whether this happened or not but its appearance on the site of Alex Jones, someone who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a little fluffy bunny with a compulsion to tell the truth, makes me doubt it immediately."
  
  If Alex Jones said the Earth was round would you then say it was flat?
  
  BTW, the story has been reported in many other places.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Armin, 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:31pm

Looks more like a publicity stunt
It's already being denied quite strongly by the airport: Airport denies body scanner photo claim by Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan (and their response makes a lot of sense).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 4:59pm
  
  Re: Looks more like a publicity stunt
  It's already being denied quite strongly by the airport: Airport denies body scanner photo claim by Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan (and their response makes a lot of sense).
  
  I don't think it holds water. They claim it would be "impossible" because "the body-scanning equipment had no capability to print images", as if though that would be the only way images could be made. The camera-phone angle (covered up above) was completely ignored in their denial and there are others ways it could happen too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:41pm

Hearthrow is funny.
I has been a while but the last time I got through the airport in London(hearthrow) you passed through some scanner then walked a looooooooooooooooooong way till you reached customs where the guy asked you some questions.

Well I don't remember exactly but I do remember very clearly I walked a lot, is like the Los Angeles airport(or was a Texan one) where I think there is a red carpet and you walk an incredible distance till the customs once you get out of the plane.

I can see how this can happen. Although I don't believe him.
Mostly because the British authorities didn't try to cover up anything or came out with excuses yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Hearthrow is funny.
  I can see how this can happen. Although I don't believe him. Mostly because the British authorities didn't try to cover up anything or came out with excuses yet.
  
  BAA denies body scanner photo claim.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :), 11 Feb 2010 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re: Hearthrow is funny.
    You win.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 3:52pm

I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt at a fake "streisand"... set up a false bad thing you don't want to get out, and make a big stink out of it, getting the media and the fans all looking for what is really a ghost.

It reads more like someone trying to convince us that he is so hot that the people wanted to see his digitally stripped body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another mike (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 4:01pm

rule 34
'nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blogger Bob, 10 Feb 2010 @ 5:22pm

Myth Buster
This didn't happen. Please check out our latest post at the TSA Blog. http://ow.ly/163uh Thanks, Blogger Bob TSA Blog Team
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 5:35pm
  
  Re: Myth Buster
  This didn't happen. Please check out our latest post at the TSA Blog. http://ow.ly/163uh Thanks, Blogger Bob TSA Blog Team
  
  I notice how you guys parrot the claim that it couldn't happen because the machines don't have printers attached while completely ignoring the fact that they don't have to have printers attached for this to happen. Come on, if you guys are gonna spin, you're going to have to do a little better than that to be believed.
  
  Myth busted? Not yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse, 10 Feb 2010 @ 7:42pm
    
    Re: Re: Myth Buster
    Explain how you get a printout without a printer. Do they wave their magic metal detector wands? C'mon...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 8:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Myth Buster
      Explain how you get a printout without a printer. Do they wave their magic metal detector wands? C'mon...
      
      You can't read, for example, post #19 above? Then I'm sorry, but you're beyond my ability to explain it to you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Dover, 10 Feb 2010 @ 6:19pm

Smile - you're on candid camera
There are those who claim that the naked scanner presently in use does not detect some things, like what the FruitOfTheLoom Kaboom guy had. I also read that there is an infrared scanner which will detect such things in addition to what the perv machine is capable of, it sells for much less and it does not provide perv pics of perps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noel Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 6:50pm

Stooge!
The guy's a stooge for the Taliban! LOL ;)

Look this only undermines international efforts to find methods to combat terrorism.
For what? ....... Free press!
They ought to prosecute him, seeing he was willing to offer false testament.

But how sad is the U.K. law?
Well, it would seem that ALL the Taliban in the UK now know, you only need strap bombs to babies and children.

Oh goody gum bombs, children are easier to recruit.

Surely they'll need amend this via the National Securities Act. How silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
D Mac (profile), 11 Feb 2010 @ 12:29am

he was joking...
It was simply a joke story he told for laughs on a talk show. Why so many people thought he was serious is beyond me. This is getting reposted all over the internet for no reason he never expected people to take his joke seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2010 @ 1:46am
  
  Re: he was joking...
  It was simply a joke story he told for laughs on a talk show.
  
  Has he said so somewhere?
  
  Why so many people thought he was serious is beyond me. This is getting reposted all over the internet for no reason he never expected people to take his joke seriously.
  
  Kind of the guy who makes bomb jokes in the airport, eh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - D Mac (profile), 11 Feb 2010 @ 2:12am
    
    Re: Re: he was joking...
    Has he said so somewhere?
    
    Do you watch Russell Peters and then later expect him to say he was joking? He was talking about how only people with small dicks care about those scanners and then said he signed his for the girls there, obviously jokes.
    
    Kind of the guy who makes bomb jokes in the airport, eh?
    
    Going on a talkshow and making jokes about airport security is completely different from making bomb jokes at an airport.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2010 @ 3:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: he was joking...
      He was talking about how only people with small dicks care about those scanners and then said he signed his for the girls there, obviously jokes.
      
      So you're saying he was obviously joking if he said he didn't have small penis? Please tell us, how do you know about the size of his penis?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - D Mac (profile), 11 Feb 2010 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: he was joking...
        You obviously have not watched the original interview. Obviously nor has all the people that keep reporting this rediculous "news" piece.
        
        Watch the interview, maybe all the laughing after each sentence he says will help you understand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2010 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he was joking...
        You obviously have not watched the original interview. Obviously nor has all the people that keep reporting this rediculous "news" piece.
        
        No, I haven't. So is that where you saw his penis?
        
        Watch the interview, maybe all the laughing after each sentence he says will help you understand.
        
        Ouch. I bet that was embarrassing for him, all those people laughing at it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
akston, 11 Feb 2010 @ 10:11am

Machines have technical ability to hold pics
I haven't seen anyone post this yet, and it's probably important:

This time, it's CNN:

"A privacy group says the Transportation Security Administration is misleading the public with claims that full-body scanners at airports cannot store or send their graphic images.

The TSA specified in 2008 documents that the machines must have image storage and sending abilities, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said."

http://bit.ly/8t510F
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TSA Shill, 11 Feb 2010 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: Machines have technical ability to hold pics
  Lies! All lies!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe (profile), 11 Feb 2010 @ 12:12pm

Doesn't look like anyone has said it yet
KHANNNNNNNNNNNN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]