The appropriate level of worry over your privacy is: Blackwatch Plaid!

This, ladies and gents, is why you don't believe the man. ESPECIALLY when he is trying to make civil liberties defenders look like paranoid creeps.

You know all those new airport full-body scanners which privacy advocates fretted over, only to have their concernes dismissed like the opinion of a four year old? The ones which supposedly had so many fail-safes built in to protect privacy that you were better off there than in your own bedroom with the curtains closed?

Yeah, well, turns out they weren't so fool-proof after all. Technology blog Gizmodo published 100 scans after thoughtfully editing out any identifying features, to demonstrate the vulnerability of such technology and undeniably prove that all of us concerned about privacy aren't just paranoiacs with delusions of importance.

The scans were sourced from a courthouse in Orlando, Florida, where, Gizmodo reported, US marshalls had improperly stored the images. No explination has been given as to why the scans were in the hands of the courthouse or US marshalls, surprisingly (hah).

Now this IS a bit of a tough issue as we all agree that it is important to ensure safety in the air, and nobody wants airport delays to get longer. Some would argue that no far is too far, since human lives are worth more than any inconveniences or privacy concerns. Others would retort that no such security is required on trains or buses, and that methods such as the body scans leave an unnecessary amount of information about the traveller in unknown hands. Where do I stand? I think the scans are stink, but I also think it's stink of the US to require fingerprints and iris scans (do they need DNA too?) of all incoming travellers. I don't have an answer as to how to try to ensure security without them but I'd like to think the full body scans aren't it - at least not in the way they are currently done.