I’ve known quite a number of doctors including those specializing in OB/GYN. Some of them may have been, shall we say, more than a bit interested in their chosen field. Hell, some may indeed have been true perverts. But examining (or over-examining) a human being is very different from viewing a monochrome image, no matter the desirability of the subject of that image. Repeat that kind of image twice a minute and you’ll reach saturation rather soon.
Here I think you do a disservice to the, eh, aesthetically challenged among us. After all, SOMEBODY marries them. (My cite-- visit Walmart and watch the people.)
Well, given that they don’t know that it is actually my picture, just a picture, then pretty much, yeah.
No, this would be a direct personal assault and if discovered would require legal sanction (if I let the cretin live long enough). You see, here we have a case where the perpetrator knows the victim, making it an invasion of privacy.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. They’re all big girls now, and rather bright if I do say so myself. If I and other people could tell it was one of my daughters, I would be surprised and concerned. Surprised because I don’t think any of my daughters would post such of themselves, but I couldn’t be sure. (Yes, I’m thinking of you, my youngest and most deliberately outrageous child!) Concerned because if they didn’t, then someone else clearly invaded their (well, hoping it’s only one, so “her”) privacy. And someone who will invade your personal limits might do other, even more ugly, things. So concerned. But not really about the picture itself.
But if the picture was anonymous, and I had to turn it around and examine it and say “Well, it looks something like (her) when she was 19, but you know, I’m not used to seeing her in blue without any hair, to say nothing of naked after the age of two, but yeah, it kind of does resemble her, and the gesture, that middle finger, well it could be…”
No… in the photography field I am in… when we colorize or color correct an image we do not call it doctoring an image.
Colorized gray or BW photos are considered color enhanced.
Doctored images are when you say remove someone from a photo, or add someone, or add an object to the scene.
I guess color could be involved with doctoring…
Also it depends on what you mean by doctoring. I guess in a completely pure sense it could mean color enhancements, but that’s not what it means today.
Also you’re under the impression all photos make you look deformed, but from what I have read they look like photos of someone naked.
Also the photos aren’t grayscale. Some pictures it looks like they are RGB with the red color lowered or removed. Causing the image to have a cyan hue. I would have to mess around with it, but you might only need to adjust the red level or add red to get the proper color.
I won’t go as far to say that the Internet hasn’t desensitized many of us to porn, but come on… If you see an attractive person naked you’re going to get at least mildly aroused unless you’re completely dead down there.
Thankfully my girlfriends doctor is a straight female… I don’t have to worry about that at least.
No. Shit. Sherlock. What has this got to do with the subject of the OP though? No one is denying that there are voyeurs or voyeur porn sites out there. Upskirt videos, nude beach videos, hidden camera videos, etc etc. The point in question is whether or not there are (as in right now) sites purporting to have pictures taken of regular people (not models, not demos) passing through a scanner.
Which you have NOT DEMONSTRATED. DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND.
I wish people wouldn’t play up the “oh no, nudity!” angle so much, because it obscures the real issue. It’s easy to dismiss those sorts of concerns as irrational sexual paranoia. The problem with this and most other airport “security” measures is that it represents a continued assault on our presumption of privacy, on our rational sensibilities, and on our convenience, all while wasting tremendous amounts of time and resources to ineffectively address a problem that isn’t all that serious in the first place.
Terrorism is bullshit. It is not and has never been a serious threat to our safety, any more than shark attacks or lightning or improperly prepared fast food. (Properly prepared fast food, however, kills Americans in numbers Osama bin Laden could only dream of.)
Let’s suppose that with heightened security, we can save one planeload of people every ten years, say, at the cost of more invasive procedures and 30 minutes or so extra at the gate on average. My take: it’s not fucking worth it.
We trade convenience for the lives of our fellow humans all the time. I happily accept the fact that, purely for my own convenience, I have the ability to get in a two-ton machine and hurtle down the freeway in it at seventy miles per hour. In that same ten-year period in which our extra “security” measures might have saved a couple hundred people, my need for speed has killed a couple hundred thousand, and injured or maimed millions in the United States alone.
So why should we give up any more privacy or convenience and spend countless millions of dollars on systems that provide practically zero net benefit? The extent of our response to 9/11 with respect to airline security should have been to keep the cockpit doors locked. Anything else is overkill.
The occasional airplane exploding is nothing new; and while the ones that are caused by malicious action are greatly outnumbered by the ones caused by mere human error, if we can reasonably reduce the already vanishingly small incidence of such acts without indulging in hysterical and ultimately impotent security theater, and without invading people’s privacy or making flying less convenient, we should do so. But that has always been one of the smallest acceptable risks of flying, and it’s still safer than driving.
Sorry, but even when I was a young stud I don’t think I could successfully crank the ol’ generator more than several dozen times a day.
But we’re not really talking voluntary arousal. We’re talking shift work. Clocking in, checking the Notices in the ready room, and going into the Duty Station where you’re going to spend the next 6 or 8 or ten hours (with some 15 minute breaks and maybe 45 minutes for “lunch”) staring at a screen upon which are cast, every 15 or 20 seconds, the image of some human person who you are supposed to examine for contraband. Fully half are (unless you’re lucky enough to be bisexual) of the wrong sex. And damn near every single one is at best plain trending toward ugly. Yeah boy howdy, I want that job! Just as much as I’m really looking forward to my turn in the barrel!
But even if the examiner is the hardiest kind of porn consumer, even if he/she is sitting in that hole whacking him/herself bloody all shift long, I don’t give a shit. It means nothing to me. S/he has ever seen my ID and knows me only as a blue blob representing an older, fatter male human without “suspicious” attachments. S/he doesn’t know me from Adam and couldn’t pick me out of a crowd of 7 more than a minute after I’ve left his/her direct sight.
Dream on! As long as we’re indulging in hypotheticals, let me just ask you what kind of girls choose to spend their professional lives looking into other womens’ … …well.
I’m not sayin! I’m just sayin…
ETA-- it’s been fun, but it’s past my bedtime and I have to do rounds first thing in the morning. Play nice, keep the discussion interesting, I’ll check back.
Did I say… “that site has REAL BODY SCANNER PORN!” No.
this was posted online on various sites. I didn’t say THIS HAPPENED!! I let the article speak for itself.
I posted the source. I even posted the video which makes it seem like more of an anecdote. If I was trying to make it seem like it was REALLY REAL then I wouldn’t have posted that information. I just didn’t know from the article I read what to make of it, but yes after looking at the youtube video I think it’s more of a fake story to get laughs.
Again when did I claim it was real? I only posted the info for you to draw your own conclusion.
Here I am showing an image from an actual demo of a scanner, but the one i found had also inverted the image to show that you could easily create an image that more closely resembled an actual photo. I was not trying to imply that that particular image was what the scanner created. I apologize for not posting the original, but I couldn’t find it. I thought it would be obvious that this was an inverted photo since no other photos are like this.
Again I never said ‘OMG THERE ARE REAL BODY SCANNER IMAGES OMFG!111!’
Again point out where I said there was a REAL site for body scanner porn. All I did was mention there are a lot of sites for other voyeur fetishes so why not assume there will be one for body scanners.
Again i just cite my sources and this is when you become hostile.
Since I found a legit source for that picture. Not sure why you get so upset, but whatever.
Also you mentioned that it was doctored because it was inverted and they added skin tone. Please refer to my other posts as to why that’s not the case. Also they didn’t add skin tone, they simply inverted that hue which happened to be a tan color. Try it. It works.
Though like I said, it’s not perfect because it’s not an inverted image. So just inverting it isn’t enough.
You went on to basically ignore half of what I said and put words into my mouth. So I think you deserved what ever indignation I threw at you.
I feel the same way. I don’t know that these things will actually make us safer at all. All it means is people will take more extreme ways of concealing bombs. Next there’s going to be a bomb hiding in someone’s stomach like in The Dark Knight movie.
Where would you draw the line? What can the government do to you in the name of [del]security theatre[/del] stopping terrorism before you say enough is enough?
Personally, I’d sooner accept the risk of suicide bombers than give those morons at the TSA more invasive powers.
Another thing is we tend to try to force our values onto each other. In this case those who think getting naked for some stranger is ok, or ok under certain conditions.
We say a person who doesn’t agree doesn’t HAVE to do this if they feel it’s humiliating or degrading, but what are the alternatives… don’t fly. Okay, but what about us who live hundreds of miles away from home… for whom flying is very convenient.
We’re told… deal with it. That our feelings are somehow illogical and we should get over it. Well I think that’s crap. Many people feel the same way I do, and many don’t.
In this case I feel like it forces me to get naked. While I’m not sure if my flight home or my girlfriend’s flight home will require us to be scanned, the idea of it eventually coming to that is not something I look forward to.
I admit I even suffer from being ignorant of some things and being better off not knowing. In this case I do know what happens during a body scan and what is visible. What I don’t know is who is seeing it and what they’re doing with the image.
I’m sure if you guys found a nude picture of one of your loved ones online you would be a little upset in some way. Perhaps only the person posting the image saw it (well and you), but perhaps not. It’s still going to upset you to know that a million people could have seen that image. In addition to just knowing an inappropriate image of someone you care about is floating around the Internet.
For me even one person seeing it is enough to upset me.
Again people have different things that bother them. Stop pretending I am somehow being irrational.
If it bothers me… it bothers me. Nothing is going to change that. I accept that it doesn’t bother some people, but regardless it still affects me.
The real problem is most of you can’t look past your own feelings about the issue. Some are fine about your own bodies, and that I can understand, and many of you claim to feel no problem with it happening to your wife or kids or whatever. but when it comes down to it… it’s because you’re ignorant of what’s going on.
If the person who just scanned your daughter came up to you and told you exactly what he thought about her body and what sort of lewd things he may or may not have been thinking about… then that would probably upset you.
Here’s a good game to play. Imagine you’re in the position of the operator and you see an attractive person and are aroused by it. We’re human beings… it’s going to happen. Then imagine some stranger feeling the same feelings for one of your kids. Suddenly it’s not so reasonable.
Is it okay for me to look at your wives are daughters naked if i promise not to get aroused? You can say… as long as it’s okay with them… but think about it.
You think everyone who goes through these body scans WANT them? No some are probably like me and have no choice. Imagine someone who came here to visit the country and has to leave the country to see his parents. There is no way he can drive home if he lives in the Middle East.
So stop pretending this is completely voluntary for everyone. Some people aren’t comfortable with themselves or their loved ones being exposed to anyone other than people who are very close to them.
It could be do to issues of our freedoms as human beings or do to religious reasons. You can consider them irrational all you want, but you’re not going to change someone’s mind about it very easily.
So please. If you don’t agree… fine. But enough with the snide comments putting down my own beliefs.
Your problem is you suffer from an over active imagination coupled with more than a tinge of paranoia. You are worrying about something that will probably never happen to you (i.e. you or your wife ever even going through one of these machines, and if you do, the even less probability that you just happen to go through when someone decides to circumvent the software, capture you or your wife’s image, process the image and doctor it to look like something other than a vaguely human shaped blob, and then post it out on the web).
I’m sure I would be upset by that. But I think the probability of it happening because some security guard at one of the vanishingly few air ports in the US that actually has such a scanner AND who decides he or she is going to circumvent the software AND decides that he or she is going to capture an image of my wife (out of all the others going through the scanner) AND decides that they are going to massage said image into something recognizable as my wife AND decides to post said image on the web is…well, improbable. I realize you are having a hard time getting your head wrapped around this concept.
None of this means I LIKE having these machines in air ports, nor that I think we SHOULD have them…as I said earlier in this thread. But the reason I don’t think we should have them has nothing to do with some paranoid delusion that someone is going to use the thing to post dirty pictures of my wife on the web.
I’m not pretending…you ARE being irrational. You are, frankly, worrying about the wrong thing on this subject. Instead of worrying about a low probability event you should take a step back and consider how much of our freedom we are giving away in the name of safety. Consider the time, effort and money that will go into all this. And, for those of us who actually travel, consider the extra time and aggravation this will cause. Those are all valid points…worrying that someone is going to post scanner captures of your wife on the web, not so much.
No doubt. I put it in the same category as people who have an irrational fear about flying, or dieing from ebola (while living in New Jersey, smoking 2 packs a day and having that double cheese burger, extra fries and a diet coke).
No, I think the real issue here is you have an irrational fear of something and you are projecting…despite the fact that there is no real evidence that these devices are being used in such a way that confirms your paranoia. I’m not saying this to be insulting…you obviously have a problem and I truly think you should seek help. A lot of people have irrational fears about stuff, and you have mentioned in another thread that you have issues.
Certainly. And if an alien came down and abducted me, took me back to it’s flying saucer and started doing anal probes with a rusty jackhammer, I’d be upset as well. However, while I acknowledge the fact that someone COULD post a scanned picture of my daughter on the web, I think that it’s about as likely as that alien abduction, all things considered. For one thing, if someone DID post such a picture, it would be pretty easy to find out who it was, since I’d be able to demonstrate exactly which days I flew through a given airport, and which days the scanning took place. You can bet there would be a criminal investigation. You can also imagine that there would be a very large lawsuit. Well, I can imagine though…no idea about you. What I CAN tell you though is that the airport security office can imagine it…which is why they have and will continue to take steps to ensure this kind of thing doesn’t happen.
There are a lot of folks who come from cultures with heavy body taboos…no doubt about it. All I can say to you is what I said upthread…no one is forcing you to fly. If you don’t want to subject yourself or your wife to such a thing then, if you are planning to travel out of the US, don’t go out of Laguardia…take a different flight through a different air port (and check first to make sure they don’t have a scanner installed), or take a cruise ship or something. Simple as that.
No…I don’t consider this argument irrational. What I consider irrational is your worry about having the scans captured, massaged and posted on the web. THAT is irrational…and highly improbable. If one has a heavy nudity taboo due to culture or religion then, while I don’t have one myself, I can see how someone could anyway. In that case, again, don’t fly.
To my mind you set the tone of this when folks didn’t immediately agree with you…and then went downhill from there. You are just lucky that no one is paying much attention to this thread.
Um, I might be missing the point, but I was told by a friend of a friend* that you can already get pictures from the internet of very attractive naked people doing all sorts of interesting things, in high definition stills and video, for a very reasonable sum. I don’t think there is a huge unsatisfied demand for blurry blue blobs? Or even for a job that involves looking at thousands of them?
“circumvent the software” Ever hear of a 3MP Camera Phone. That’s plenty of resolution for a good image.
“Vaguely human shaped blog” weren’t you originally telling me how much detail is visible?
The problem is you’re only thinking about probability with a single person. The probability goes up when you consider the millions of people who will undergo a scan.
It’s not the only reason I am against it, though that particular scenario is definitely one of the reasons.
Oh now you’re suddenly worried about the freedom. What freedom? According to you the only down side is that it takes a little longer to get on your flight. Please explain to me in detail the freedoms that you’re worrying are being violated. When you’re also one who believes that flying is not a right, and so what freedoms do we have related to this… wait you’re just one of those people that don’t commit to either side of the issue. What are they called? ‘Politicians’ I think.
Also similarly you like to make things up about the person you’re debating against in an attempt to smear them and make them look foolish.
I’m projecting sort of… because I don’t really expect anyone to have the same values, but I am trying to create a point that… even though unlikely… if it happened to you … you would feel similarly. The difference… I am outraged because it could happen to me or anyone really.
I’ve focused a lot on what I would feel, but I would have empathy if it happened to anyone else. The point is I am upset that these things are going to be used improperly at some point when they’re not necessary.
You don’t see me going on about doctors crossing the line, because it’s something we do actually need. I can deal with it, or at least like the rest of you I tend to ignore the fact that there are perverts in the medical system. But this is just going too far in my opinion. What is the next step after this? Strip searching? Though that has happened, and this was supposedly the alternative… but the next incident they might increase how often a person is physically searched.
Because policy, regulation, and law is never broken.
Simple as that huh… really? In a few years when these are in most airports and even required for domestic flights remind me how simple it is to avoid.
It’s not my only concern, but it’s a possible scenario when giving someone in a closed room a nude image to scrutinize with enough time to take a quick snap shot with their camera phone and distribute it. It would be bad enough if they just kept it for their own private use as well. How are they going to get caught :\
Even if there is a camera in the room with them they could be pretend to be doing something else on their phone. Or hide it well enough that the camera won’t see.
No… if you read everything was fine until you started lying about me saying that I knew of some website with REAL body scan voyeur, which I then spent several posts trying to get you to re-read what I said… but instead you blatantly ignored everything and continued to put words in my mouth… and yeah that pisses me off.
I’m lucky no one else was paying attention? I’m sure everyone who read this at least knew you were talking out your ass accusing me of things.
