# Body Scanners and Privacy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486 "2010-03-06T01:17:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/21 "2010-03-06T04:41:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Should be fairly easy to link to them then, no? So..show…me. > > And we might invade Iran next week, or be taken over by brain sucking aliens. The thing is, you don’t seem to have any more evidence for your assertions than there is evidence for the Iran invasion or brain sucking aliens thingy. These things have been out for quite a while now, after all, especially in Europe…so, where is the Body Scan Porn? > > -XT Wow man. First I never linked that image as proof a random person had their photo leaked. I knew it was from the SOURCE site that produced it using one of their own models and an actual scanner. READ THE ARTICLE! The image that was inverted to show skin tone… just bring it into photo shop and invert the colors. It’s what you get. I only posted it to show you what will EVENTUALLY be leaked on the net. I posted that particular link that shows the same woman because of the sites name, and there is a reason someone bought that domain name obviously. … Also you want me to post porn links on the website… are you stupid? Use google. You can find plenty of voyeur sites. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/22 "2010-03-06T04:48:31Z")
[QUOTE=nilum] Also you want me to post porn links on the website… are you stupid? Use google. You can find plenty of voyeur sites. [/QUOTE] So, leaving aside the insult, what you are saying is you gots nuffin. Well, there is a shock, ehe? > [@](#): > > Wow man. First I never linked that image as proof a random person had their photo leaked. I knew it was from the SOURCE site that produced it using one of their own models and an actual scanner. READ THE ARTICLE! I did read the article. Thus far this has been the sole piece of ‘evidence’ which you have trotted out, and I was pointing out how weak it was. Try reading what I’m writing with an eye to following the argument. > [@](#): > > The image that was inverted to show skin tone… just bring it into photo shop and invert the colors. It’s what you get. I only posted it to show you what will EVENTUALLY be leaked on the net. I posted that particular link that shows the same woman because of the sites name, and there is a reason someone bought that domain name obviously. Again, you can photoshop anything. It proves nothing. You have proved nothing. Just a lot of frantic worry and handwaving…well, and the whole insults thingy. -XT ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/23 "2010-03-06T04:52:53Z")
Sorry, I’m not feeling the outrage. If some security officer (pervert or not) sitting in a stuffy windowless room gets to look at an image that represents my naked body, what harm befalls me? S/he has no idea who I am, doesn’t know my name, and will almost certainly never see me or my “parts” ever again. All s/he knows about me is that there either is or is not something in my image that causes him/her to push the big red button to alert the other security people. Like a gun, or a knife, or an oddly shaped object tied to my nutsack. You know, something “suspicious”. Which isn’t bloody likely to happen to me or any other rational person with an IQ above room temperature. ("_Oh yes, officer, I completely forgot that I had my Walther PPK snuggled down in my underpants on the way to the airport…"_) Same for my wife and my daughters. I/we stand briefly in front of a blank scanner and some invisible microwave beam “examines” us. Nothing visible happens, anyone watching the process sees us fully clothed, no one either applauds or giggles at us, and shortly we go on our anonymous way. As for the poor bozo stuck in a room watching an endless parade of pseudo-naked humanity, I only feel sorry. Every 20 or 30 seconds s/he has to look at yet another iteration of the actually rather limited diversity of personal flesh. Ever been to a nudist colony? I have. To be frank, the overwhelming majority of people really benefit from keeping their clothes on. My own ugly ass would frighten children, and most young adults. After the first day’s novelty, the rare real “looker” (of either sex) would hardly compensate for the endless and utter boredom of this job. And even if an image (picture or something) were to be made of this view, again, so what? Unless the person is already identified as some celebrity, personal identity is nearly impossible to discern. Due to the truly limited variation in human appearances, I’m pretty sure there is already porn circulating around from multitudes of other sources with representations of people who look superficially identical to you, to me, or to your girlfriend. What possible harm could befall any of us if yet another unidentifiable image gets out? I mean c’mon, it’s not like it leaves a mark. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/24 "2010-03-06T04:56:36Z")
I have no earthly idea how anyone would be able to identify you from the backscatter images that i’ve seen [like this](http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=122&a=2127) , as was posted before these security personnel are, from my experience, not able to match up the actual visual image of the passenger with the scanner image. as long as it’s kept that way, i don’t have a problem. there’s just a little too much over-sensitivity nowadays about “my body”. i’m not a nudist or anything, but jesus, i’m not going to shit my pants if some random person who doesn’t know what i look like to human eyes can tell if i have a small dick or a prosthetic limb. anyways, my guess is that in the near future you may have some “model image” of your backscatter/millimeter scan implanted into your e-passport. what i mean is that a “clean” backscatter/millimeter picture will be taken of you (so you get a pat down, get a metal detector, get both scans) and then they can use this model image to compare to the current image being taken. would make it easy to run it through a computer without the need for human eyes to view any discrepancies. or they’ll just develop really good computer models that automatically blur out the parts of the images that could conceivably be used to identify someone and their private parts or they’ll just have computers do the actual determination as to whether you’re clean without the need for a benchmark image. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/25 "2010-03-06T04:56:40Z")
Dude you’ve been insulting me with your passive aggressive tone this entire time. Listen: I NEVER claimed that there existed any LEAKED photos other than demos that were authorized to be released publicly. I HAD heard of in one case where it supposedly happened within an airport among employees, whether this is true or not I don’t know. However I DID post my sources. In fact I’ve posted my sources for everything. I AM not going to post links to a voyeur porn site just because in some childish way you’re attempting to get my account banned. When you can easily search for a voyeur website and get thousands of hits on google. So don’t say I have nothing. Voyeur websites do exist and if you don’t know what a voyeur fetish is and what a website that caters to voyeurs are… well then I’m afraid there is nothing more I can do other than tell you to go find out for youself. I posted that original “porn” link because I knew it wasn’t really porn, but wanted to make a point as to the fact that there is obviously some people interested in body scanner voyeur porn. Does it exist yet? Not as far as I can tell. Will it? Yes. Both fake and real. Face it. You were just upset you were wrong about that image being a fake. Which I have no idea what led you to believe it was a fake to begin with. Now i gave you a source and you feel bad you were proven wrong Get over it man. I think this is a pretty big deal. And I think you would to if you had a girlfriend or kids that were in a position to have this happen to them. So put yourself in someone else’s shoes. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/26 "2010-03-06T04:59:49Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Ever been to a nudist colony? I have. To be frank, the overwhelming majority of people really benefit from keeping their clothes on. My own ugly ass would frighten children, and most young adults. This made me laugh. > [@](#): > > And even if an image (picture or something) were to be made of this view, again, so what? Unless the person is already identified as some celebrity, personal identity is nearly impossible to discern. Due to the truly limited variation in human appearances, I’m pretty sure there is already porn circulating around from multitudes of other sources with representations of people who look superficially identical to you, to me, or to your girlfriend. What possible harm could befall any of us if yet another unidentifiable image gets out? I mean c’mon, it’s not like it leaves a mark. Yep. People are really bad at identifying people with whom they are not personally acquainted. So if some protocol were breached and the image-viewer could see the actual person, it would be a fleeting concern. 10 minutes and 50 images later, no way in hell some random guy will be able to pick out some other random guy. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/27 "2010-03-06T05:05:20Z")
> [@](#): > > As for the poor bozo stuck in a room watching an endless parade of pseudo-naked humanity, I only feel sorry. Every 20 or 30 seconds s/he has to look at yet another iteration of the actually rather limited diversity of personal flesh. Ever been to a nudist colony? I have. To be frank, the overwhelming majority of people really benefit from keeping their clothes on. My own ugly ass would frighten children, and most young adults. You know they say the same things about some doctors and I know that’s BS for a fact. If you’re perverted enough you could even get off on the ugly ones. > [@](#): > > Same for my wife and my daughters. I’ll call this the ignorance is bliss mentality. That because you have no idea who is looking at your picture or what they are doing with it then you’re fine with it. I guess if some gym teacher was spying on your daughter changing and no one ever found out… it’s still okay right? That’s what the perverts think too. It’s okay as long as they don’t get caught doing it. > [@](#): > > And even if an image (picture or something) were to be made of this view, again, so what? Unless the person is already identified as some celebrity, personal identity is nearly impossible to discern. Due to the truly limited variation in human appearances, I’m pretty sure there is already porn circulating around from multitudes of other sources with representations of people who look superficially identical to you, to me, or to your girlfriend. You can say that now, but if you ever did find a nude picture of your daughter on the internet… you’d be outraged. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/28 "2010-03-06T05:07:17Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Voyeur websites do exist and if you don’t know what a voyeur fetish is and what a website that caters to voyeurs are… well then I’m afraid there is nothing more I can do other than tell you to go find out for youself. > > I posted that original “porn” link because I knew it wasn’t really porn, but wanted to make a point as to the fact that there is obviously some people interested in body scanner voyeur porn. > > Does it exist yet? Not as far as I can tell. > > Will it? Yes. Both fake and real. a) if it’s fake, who gives a shit? b) you’re not going to get real crap, sorry. TSA is inept, but it’s an entirely different thing to publicize backscatter images of people. do you see “x-ray fetish! real xrays from medical patients!” websites? no. i doubt there would be far less people interested in this kind of porn as opposed to blue-tinted hairless jabba-the-hutt lookalike porn. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/29 "2010-03-06T05:07:50Z")
[QUOTE=nilum] Listen: I NEVER claimed that there existed any LEAKED photos other than demos that were authorized to be released publicly. [/QUOTE] You just continued to speculate that there was an impending flood of supposed photos coming soon, along with a link to an obvious (well, to most of us) satire site. Yeah…I know. Got that. > [@](#): > > I HAD heard of in one case where it supposedly happened within an airport among employees, whether this is true or not I don’t know. However I DID post my sources. And your source was completely anecdotal. Which I pointed out. Well, along with a source just restating your own line (without evidence), some pictures (which seem to be the same people over and over again), and a satire site that you thought was for real. Again, I got that…it was the point I was making. > [@](#): > > In fact I’ve posted my sources for everything. Uhuh…and add them up and you haven’t got anything. > [@](#): > > I AM not going to post links to a voyeur porn site just because in some childish way you’re attempting to get my account banned. When you can easily search for a voyeur website and get thousands of hits on google. So don’t say I have nothing. I can google as well as anyone and I’m not coming up with thousands of porn sites showing purported pictures of real people taken by airport scanners. Sorry..it’s your claim and you aren’t backing it up. I’m not going to do the work FOR you, especially based on the cites you’ve provided thus far which demonstrate diddly. > [@](#): > > Will it? Yes, and probably in both. To put it bluntly, horseshit. You are basing this on your own paranoia, frankly. I see no EVIDENCE that this is, was or will be the case. > [@](#): > > face you were just upset you were wrong about that image being a fake. Which I have no idea what led you to believe it was a fake to begin with. Now i gave you a source and you feel bad you were proven wrong 😛 Whatever you say, chief. > [@](#): > > I think this is a pretty big deal. And I think you would to if you had a girlfriend or kids that were in a position to have this happen to them. So put yourself in someone else’s shoes. And I don’t think it’s a big deal. And I DO travel…frequently. And overseas. Do you? Have you actually ever SEEN one of these scanners, let alone gone through one? No? I didn’t think so. I have. And I would have zero problem going through one. Though your fingers are in your ears and you are going ‘lalalalala…I can’t HEAR you!’, I’ll say it again…you are fretting over nothing. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/30 "2010-03-06T05:12:15Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I guess if some gym teacher was spying on your daughter changing and no one ever found out… it’s still okay right? That’s what the perverts think too. It’s okay as long as they don’t get caught doing it. ZOMG! Do you know that sometimes when I go to the gym, I see sports bras? jockstrap straps? even sometimes a bit of lunchmeat sandwich? I would submit that the indignation that society has for voyeurs and peepholes isn’t the actual viewing of the image, it’s the illicit and privacy-compromising manner in which the picture is taken. when you get your scan at the airport, you know it’s happening. it’s like going to the beach in a bikini and then getting repulsed after finding out that some perv was at the beach that day and is now at home jacking off to the mental image that he has of you - maybe even a picture - people would be like “ew, that guy is messed up” but they don’t feel violated. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/31 "2010-03-06T05:15:14Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > a) if it’s fake, who gives a shit? > b) you’re not going to get real crap, sorry. TSA is inept, but it’s an entirely different thing to publicize backscatter images of people. > > do you see “x-ray fetish! real xrays from medical patients!” websites? no. i doubt there would be far less people interested in this kind of porn as opposed to blue-tinted hairless jabba-the-hutt lookalike porn. umm do you know what xrays take photos of? i think it’s completely different. The details that body scanners get are much better than a person’s skull an subtle outline. And if you search for it there is pictures of x-rays taken while people are having sex. There is a fetish for everything. Like my first photo shows the blue can be inverted to get a tan which is close to the actual skin tone, though some color is lost because it’s not a true negative image. But with some subtle color adjustment it could look like a photo. And I’m sure the perverts would pick the nice-looking young girls and not the old grandmas to show. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/32 "2010-03-06T05:19:17Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > umm do you know what xrays take photos of? i think it’s completely different. my point with the x-rays is not that it’s “equivalently sexy” it’s that you don’t see a proliferation of this stuff (and i _really_ doubt that there are involuntarily taken genuine x-rays of people screwing) because the equipment to take these pictures is limited, and access to these images is controlled. do you see images online of Hillary Duff’s carry on that went through the x-ray scanners? no. I wonder why? ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/33 "2010-03-06T05:21:24Z")
> [@](#): > > I can google as well as anyone and I’m not coming up with thousands of porn sites showing purported pictures of real people taken by airport scanners. Sorry..it’s your claim and you aren’t backing it up. I’m not going to do the work FOR you, especially based on the cites you’ve provided thus far which demonstrate diddly. DUDE READ!!! VOYEUR DOES NOT MEAN BODY SCANNING. It can mean a camera in a toilet, or a camera > [@](#): > > Like I said voyeurism sites do have some real stuff. Either cams hidden in bathrooms, changing rooms… etc. Really man… you’ve been stuck at that one point when you completely misread what I said. > [@](#): > > voyeurs and peepholes isn’t the actual viewing of the image, it’s the illicit and privacy-compromising manner in which the picture is taken. Umm… someone who sneaks a photo of the screen while someone is getting a body scan IS violating someone’s privacy. If someone released pics of people getting body scans what would you call the people who looked at them… voyeurs. Obviously these people are not getting the body scans to have them distributed freely… but it can happen, and I believe it will. All it takes is a camera phone and someone who wants to make some money on the internet. Likelyhood it will happen? 100% ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/34 "2010-03-06T05:24:52Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Umm… someone who sneaks a photo of the screen while someone is getting a body scan IS violating someone’s privacy. no, they’re not (at least not in the sense we’re talking here). and I have no idea why you think this is even remotely plausible. do you know what kind of shit storm you’d be walking into if you managed to get into a position to photograph a TSA security monitor? > [@](#): > > If someone released pics of people getting body scans what would you call the people who looked at them… voyeurs. no, I would call them viewers of the images. you actually have to be doing the surreptitious viewing to be a voyeur. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/35 "2010-03-06T05:25:27Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > my point with the x-rays is not that it’s “equivalently sexy” it’s that you don’t see a proliferation of this stuff (and i _really_ doubt that there are involuntarily taken genuine x-rays of people screwing) because the equipment to take these pictures is limited, and access to these images is controlled. > > do you see images online of Hillary Duff’s carry on that went through the x-ray scanners? no. I wonder why? You completely missed my point. I was saying that everyone has weird fetishes and honestly I don’t find the fetish of random people being screened for weapons that weird. You are all going based on low resolution images on the web… when they have a large viewing screen with a high resolution image. With the right camera you could get a great pic of someone. Invert the colors, and do some other color adjustments… and then you have a naked photo… pretty sure naked photos of random people would get someone off. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/36 "2010-03-06T05:28:50Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > You completely missed my point. I was saying that everyone has weird fetishes and honestly I don’t find the fetish of random people being screened for weapons that weird. > > You are all going based on low resolution images on the web… when they have a large viewing screen with a high resolution image. With the right camera you could get a great pic of someone. Invert the colors, and do some other color adjustments… and then you have a naked photo… pretty sure naked photos of random people would get someone off. no you don’t have a naked photo. you have a doctored image of someone taken with a backscatter imaging device. if sicko wants to go and paste a cutout picture of Hanna Montana that he got from the US weekly at his local grocery store checkout line on the face of that image, be my guest. no one would feel violated or bad about it - neither hannah montana or the person whose image itt is. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/37 "2010-03-06T05:30:17Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > no, they’re not (at least not in the sense we’re talking here). and I have no idea why you think this is even remotely plausible. do you know what kind of shit storm you’d be walking into if you managed to get into a position to photograph a TSA security monitor? > > no, I would call them viewers of the images. you actually have to be doing the surreptitious viewing to be a voyeur. Definition of voyeur: 1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point. 2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects. Hmm it applies to both of those in my opinion. If the operator is willing to take a pic and share it online with others I assume he’s a voyeur who also gets pleasure out of watching people get naked. The word voyeur doesn’t implicitly state it has to be in secret. The people who search for it online fall into the second category. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/38 "2010-03-06T05:32:48Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > no you don’t have a naked photo. you have a doctored image of someone taken with a backscatter imaging device. if sicko wants to go and paste a cutout picture of Hanna Montana that he got from the US weekly at his local grocery store checkout line on the face of that image, be my guest. no one would feel violated or bad about it - neither hannah montana or the person whose image itt is. What do colors have to do with doctoring. When you color correct an image it’s not considered doctored. I’ve taken black and white photos and have colorized them… that doesn’t make them doctored. The point is… that’s the persons REAL BODY… and though the color might not be accurate… when is a photo’s color ever perfect? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/39 "2010-03-06T05:33:40Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Definition of voyeur: > > 1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point. > 2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects. > > Hmm it applies to both of those in my opinion. If the operator is willing to take a pic and share it online with others I assume he’s a voyeur who also gets pleasure out of watching people get anked. The word voyeur doesn’t implicitly state it has to be in secret. The people who search for it online fall into the second category. the definition of voyeur that society frowns upon, and the topic at hand, is the “surreptitious viewing or photographing” part. you’re a “voyeur” if you really really like looking at pictures of deceased victims of earthquakes. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486/40 "2010-03-06T05:35:31Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > What do colors have to do with doctoring. > > When you color correct an image it’s not considered doctored. > > I’ve taken black and white photos and have colorized them… that doesn’t make them doctored. > > The point is… that’s the persons REAL BODY… and though the color might not be accurate… when is a photo’s color ever perfect? it’s not a goddamn photograph. and yes, it absolutely does make them doctored if you take an original black and white photo and then colorize it after-the-fact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-scanners-and-privacy/531486.md?page=3)