[doctor_eval]

The problem was not swimsuits. It was any clothing that was relatively thin. Swimsuits was just an example.

In any case why would we be required to don tinfoil suits every time we go to the airport?

[iszomer]

50/50 on privacy. Sure, privacy is cool but I pity the people whom must endure seeing the shapely flabs and curves of everyday people. That's got to have a toll on anyone's psych over time, as an "occupational hazard".

[dheera]

I mean, the material has a bug that wasn't discovered until recently, so we fix the bug and re-deploy the material. It's that simple. Just embed some carbon fibers or something in the swim suit, there are tons of ways to block UV.

It's like if your car seatbelts have a bug you issue a product recall. Same thing.

[VBprogrammer]

It would seem easier and more efficient to fix the cultural taboos around nudity and over-sexualisation.

Breastfeeding mothers would be collateral winners of that change for example.

[doctor_eval]

You do realise that you have to add this to every swimsuit on the planet, right? And all other clothes that may exhibit it this behaviour?

It is not the material that’s buggy, it’s new technology which can look under clothes and damage privacy that’s the problem.

[emn13]

Not to mention changing materials would likely have continuous costs, and will impact the materials properties and longevity - potentially in ways that just don't add up to a feasible product.

And then there's the fact that this is a hugely international business, so unless we convince the whole world to do this, we'll be impacting supply lines and flexibility there too.

The whole undertaking seems like it would have an absurd scope - just to avoid adding IR filters that cameras need anyhow to achieve accurate color reproduction, and therefore most cameras already include!

[dheera]

No. That's like saying thieves are the problem so tie up the hands of every would-be thief and don't bother lock doors.

It's much simpler to lock doors, and that prevents thieves 99.9% of the time.

[_Microft]

The filter IS the lock. It can be circumvented by the determined but it prevents most of the abuse most of the time.

[iSnow]

Or just add a near infrared filter to cameras. Much easier and can even be mandated by law if necessary.

[dheera]

No. I can rip off infrared filters from any camera I own.

I already do that, because I image nebulae and galaxies and sometimes landscapes in infrared.

[_Microft]

Most people cannot, believe that they cannot, or would not even if they could. We can be sure of that because despite of billions of cameras in phones, pocket cameras or webcams being out there, the web is not flooded by pictures like these. Putting filters into cameras definitely works. It is not an obstacle to the determined but it prevents most of the abuse most of the time.

[lobocinza]

Hardware deployment is order of magnitudes more costly than software.