≡ Menu

If you know this woman, tell her that she’s naked on the Internet

This post, which originally appeared at http://undertheradarmedia.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/if-you-know-this-woman-tell-her-shes-naked-on-the-internet/, has for some reason been disappeared (apparently replaced with: Airports set to become primary peddlers of child porn). The original post is pasted below. [Note: the images are not genuine TSA scanner images, but based on stock photos of a model [NSFW], simulating what we can expect result from the new body imagers.]

If you know this woman, tell her that she’s naked on the Internet

via Under The Radar Media by maasanova on 1/7/10


Admitted: Airport Body Scanners Provide Crisp Image Of Your Genitals

As part of the gargantuan fraud being peddled by the corporate media in service of the government’s agenda to subject everyone to degrading naked body scans in airports, apologists for the devices claimed that people’s genitals would be blurred out to save embarrassment.

This has now proven to be a fraudulent con designed to keep people in the dark about the fact that the body scanners DO produce crisp images of your naked body and they DO allow TSA thugs to see intricate details of your genitals.

A report from October 2008, when the naked body scanners were first being introduced at Melbourne Airport in Australia, detailed how the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.

“It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.

“It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine,” she admitted.

In addition, London Guardian journalist Helen Carter writes today that the scanners produce an image which make “genitals eerily visible,” after she attended a trial run at Manchester Airport earlier this week.

The aggressive campaign on behalf of governments and the media to sell the public on invasive body scanners has been accompanied by the reassurance that the devices do not show details of genitals, an obvious attempt to counter the fact that the machines do represent a virtual strip search as well as violating laws against child pornography.

Images accompanying articles about the scanners, as well as TV news reports, blurred out sensitive areas, creating the impression that this is also what officials in airports saw, misleading the public into thinking that their private parts would not be on public display.

Since it’s already been admitted by security officials, as well as personally witnessed recently by newspaper reporters, that the scanners do indeed provide detailed pictures of people’s sexual organs, are Americans going to accept thugs in uniforms staring at their genitals, or are people finally going to say enough is enough and start boycotting the airlines as well as conducting mass protests in resistance to this complete abomination against basic human dignity?

Posted in Uncategorized Tagged: survelliance

{ 15 comments… add one }
  • freedom January 8, 2010, 11:50 am

    this is so sick! privet parts are for love ones only and your self. and you have to stand there and let this pigs see you naked!

  • Wolf Larson January 8, 2010, 6:14 pm
  • maasanova January 8, 2010, 7:25 pm

    Hello, thanks for linking to me. I removed the page since a few astute readers informed the that the picture was fake. The scanners are still wrong and I’m still not convinced that hi-res images cannot be produced with those machines.

  • Neverfox January 8, 2010, 9:28 pm

    And, of course, the left-libertarian would also point out that the caption of that image is a problematic way of expressing the concern since, rather than simply appealing to all individual’s – both men and women – distaste for invasions of their own privacy, it directs it to a presumably protective male “keeper” who should be appalled on behalf of his women – you know, because women need men to be outraged for them.

    (Since you often have questions about what distinguishes left-libertarianism from “normal” libertarianism, Stephan, I would say this is a great opportunity to see it in action: they are more likely than not to catch and comment on things like that while still making the same general point about the privacy invasion itself, all without being unlibertarian. For what is the opposition to the scanner if not an opposition to authoritarian paternalism which is then itself expressed (unconsciously or not) in the patriarchal paternalism of the caption? There is a tension in the grounds thickness realm IMO.)

  • DixieFlatline January 9, 2010, 1:16 pm

    Right Neverfox, that is why Left-Libertarians I have heard LLs identify as feminists, but never as masculinists.

  • Stephen January 10, 2010, 8:19 pm

    How about the dangers of radiation. Wouldn’t frequent flyers be at risk?

  • EXV2 January 11, 2010, 10:04 am

    The picture that you show on this article is a faked one. The correct one is located here

  • J.Williamson January 12, 2010, 8:06 am

    How long before we have a a new web site? : nakedinthescaner.com ? How long before you start seeing celebrities caught in the scaner ? This illness has quite some potential.

  • Gsoltso May 16, 2010, 4:09 pm

    These images are a hoax. The correct images for both the backscatter and MMW versions of AIT machines can be found here at TSAs blog page – http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/08/imaging-technolgy-bigger-picture.html

    This picture was a nude photo and has had the threat items superimposed over them. I hope this clears up any confusion for you. Thanks!

  • Tomas Estrada-palma December 27, 2010, 7:23 am

    Actually, I was the individual who put this picture together. I copied it off some official site then brought the image into Photoshop. I turned the exposure down and bingo – she came out nice and clear.

    I’m now amazed by seeing this thing I created all over the Internet.

Leave a Reply

Bad Behavior has blocked 2263 access attempts in the last 7 days.

© 2012-2020 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright

%d bloggers like this: