[scott_s]

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no.

There's no objective answer to this. I believe you and I have discussed this before. Personally, the scans don't bother me at all. Being patted down doesn't bother me too much, but it does bother me at least some. So, for me, I'd rather walk through a scanner unobstructed than be patted down.

[tptacek]

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

[scott_s]

Not too much. It would bother me some, of course. But not enough to take the extra five minutes for the alternative. (It seems you assumed I hadn't thought of the worst case, and then further assumed it would bother me.)

I would be embarrassed to walk around naked, of course. But there the embarrassment is mostly from violating social norms. The remaining part is, of course, exposed genitalia. The rest of my body concerns me not at all - I routinely go for runs wearing just athletic shorts.

Further, while that is the worst-worst case, I think the more realistic-worst case are a dump of images with no names associated with them. Given the process as I understand it, I don't see a plausible way for the scan-name mapping to remain.

I'm genuinely curious: why does the worst case situation bother you so much?

[roc]

The burden of justification for new security measures should be on the TSA. And they have failed at this. This sort of thing is a gross violation of personal privacy, entirely without cause. That it adds expense and delay for no demonstrable increase in plane security is but adding insult to injury.

Hearing people approach security measures with the argument "whatever would you have to hide, citizen?" is the worst part of the ongoing "War on Terror" debacle.

I'm hoping you're playing devil's advocate here.

[scott_s]

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I personally find this less invasive than the current security measures.

[roc]

What default security procedure does an electronic strip search replace, that is more invasive?

Removing your shoes?

[scott_s]

Remove shoes, remove belt. Walk through metal detector. Forgot to remove change, so metal detector beeps. Security guy asks if he can scan me with hand-held scanner and I consent. He sweeps it all over, oddly it beeps in places other than my pocket. But it also beeps at my pocket. Security guy asks if he can pat those areas down. I consent. Turn around. More waving, more beeping, maybe more patting down.

Happens to me half the time I walk through a metal detector. Recently, it even beeped when I removed everything I could think of - I don't know what caused the big and small metal detectors to go off. After a simple pat-down, the security guy was satisfied.

If a scanner can even eliminate the time spent doing that, then I'm happy.

[barrkel]

The question you have to ask is not just whether it bothers you, but whether it bothers anyone you care about - and not just "bother", but materially affect them, anything from bullying (think: teenagers at school) to body shame.

[sprout]

And? Why would anyone other than an art student want a body scan of every person going through Chicago on a busy day? What is the horror that will befall me if someone sees me naked?

[Devilboy]

Someone with a smaller penis than yourself might be embarrassed at his scan getting posted on Facebook or wherever - even if you personally are OK with it.

[gojomo]

If you're one of the few people who have their body scans leaked, you'll be a sort of celebrity. If you're one of the many, it'll be no big deal.

The scan pose and false-colors are so clinical that any such image wouldn't be titillating. I suppose it might reveal an embarrassing piercing/implant/deformity. ("OMG! He has a tail!")

As a mechanism for harassment of public figures, it seems less harmful than photoshopped fake nude (or other compromising position) pictures -- and you can't stop those, and they're more likely to mislead the unwary.

I'm concerned about the idea that an arbitrarily detailed personal search can be required before travel -- but that concern applies at least as much to pat-downs and carry-on-searches as body-scans. In fact, probably more, because while we all have naked bodies, an agent rifling through my carry-on sees my books and personal effects -- unique to me.

[blackguardx]

It wouldn't bother me too much. I am not ashamed of my body and neither should you be.

It is a shame that we as Americans are taught to be afraid of our bodies and nudity in general. Why is this? I think it is a cancer on our culture that we need to change.

[billybob]

Whether you'd like people to change their definition of personal privacy is a very different question from whether it's OK to invade their privacy.

I mean, if I'm poking you in the face with my finger and going 'nya-nya-nya,' and you ask me to stop, and I respond that you really shouldn't be bothered by that because it doesn't hurt you, how convincing would I be?

People don't like having their nudity exposed. Saying "it shouldn't bother them" is really not anyone else's place.

[sliverstorm]

No, it wouldn't bother me. In fact, it might motivate me to put on some muscle and get a little more fit.