The fact a stranger gets to look at me naked is undignified - like if someone was hiding spy cameras in gym showers, or walking up to people in public and pulling down their trousers.
From a Defcon angle, it's also an information security risk; even large government bodies have fallen victim to cryptolockers, so it's not like the government-grade IT security keeping the photos secure is impenetrable.
The 'reassurance' that I'm too ugly and unimportant for anyone to take particular interest in does nothing to restore this dignity :)
> In the United States, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 required that all full-body scanners operated in airports by the Transportation Security Administration use "Automated Target Recognition" software, which replaces the picture of a nude body with the cartoon-like representation.[3] As a result of this law, all backscatter X-ray machines formerly in use by the Transportation Security Administration were removed from airports by May 2013, since the agency said the vendor (Rapiscan) did not meet their contractual deadline to implement the software.[4]
Yep. I refused the backscatter scanner when they first came out because of radiation and nude scans, but now that they've changed that I think it's fine.
That's the reason why there are more recent devices that hide the nudity and only show abstract figures with suspicious body areas highlighted.
But the airport visitors has no way of knowing what generation the software is, i.e. whether they are visible in the nude or not. Also, the unmodified images by still be stored on the device - who knows?
Would Obama, Trump, and their wives be happy to have their scans available for public viewing? If it's obvious they wouldn't, it should be obvious it's an invasion of privacy.
For me, I'm already iffy about the whole thing when it's just me but the thought of putting my kids in one of these things makes me... very unhappy, in a bunch of different ways at once. But so does a stranger feeling them up. I'm not sure how/whether I'll ever be able to fly with them.
Some posters are claiming the screens don't show the raw images anymore, but what happens to those scans? Betting they don't discard them. Ever.
Revenge porn is terrible, but I don't think that's relevant here. Can you think of a plausible scenario where a backscatter machine's data could be used against someone? They didn't save your face; I don't know what someone would look at. And that's if the machines actually saved any data, which was not supposed to happen.
I created fake nudes in high school about 20 years ago... It's always been on the table for an artist to fake them, the only difference in that and deep nudes are that a computer does them. Why is it just now bothering people? Because of the buzz word of deepnude?
In addition to the fact that a computer can create a photograph that is exceedingly realistic with exceedingly little effort, releasing nude photographs of anyone without their consent—fake or not—is a terrible thing to do to another person.
Your youth makes your actions forgivable, but not acceptable.
non-ionizing means mostly harmless, but there is no guarantee. Proteins come in lots of shapes and sizes, and non-ionizing radiation can still resonate.
