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.
So, leaving aside the insult, what you are saying is you gots nuffin. Well, there is a shock, ehe?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can say that now, but if you ever did find a nude picture of your daughter on the internet… you’d be outraged.
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.
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.
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.
Uhuh…and add them up and you haven’t got anything.
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.
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.
Whatever you say, chief.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.
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.
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.
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.
Whatever you say, chief.