I just see people embarrassed at having body parts, which is absurd. Everyone looks approximately the same, and it's not like photos of your junk are being sent to your coworkers.
2) additional security and screening costs money, time, and our patience, but there's no evidence that it's effective. A GAO report points out that the TSA expedited purchasing of the full-body scanners without doing anything to ensure it would be better than the existing system. It was done in part as a reaction to the attempted bombing of 25 Dec 2009, but without evidence that the machines would be effective against a repeat of that attack. I also recall a report (perhaps 5 years ago?) saying that penetration testing of post-9/11 security was as easy as pre-9/11 despite the attempts by the TSA at improving it.
3) Another GAO reports highlights that the TSA has done no evaluation of how to improve overall security. For example, a bomb set off in the waiting lines of densely packed airport security, or in Penn Station, would also have a chilling effect on our travel. This attack was done already against El Al's ticket booth in LA. Or consider the hijacking of CanJet Flight 918 where an armed gunman forced his way through security and got on board an airline preparing for takeoff - when the pilots are present but before the doors are secured. Full-body scanners do nothing against this attack.
4) As the GAO and others have reported, people can still smuggle things in their body. These are not detectable by the full-body scanners. With enough people in collusion, that is sufficient to get the parts for a bomb through security.
If it's impossible to keep drugs out of prison, with 24-hour observation and multiple levels of walls and barriers, it's not going to be possible to keep a bomb or weapon out of a plane. The goal is to reduce the likelihood, but there's no evidence that the full-body scanners make a real difference. Instead, they waste money, waste time, waste patience, and inure travelers to yet more intrusions on their personal life.
Therefore my annoyance comes from being told to do things which are meaningless and ineffective, and perhaps even detrimental to overall security.
Some of what you referenced and further reading here:
Forced or coerced nudity has been used as a weapon because it represents a one-way power transfer.
Furthermore I fail to see exactly what concrete harm is being done that justifies your calling body scanners a weapon.
I would only be annoyed for reasons other than inconvenience if the contact is unprofessional. Assuming that it's not, and everyone else is doing the same, I wouldn't feel like I was being violated.
My basic point is that the liberty being infringed upon by these scanners (i.e. liberty to hide your genitals from people) is frivolous. So I'm asking for other reasons that these should be disallowed. This seems to be a very unpopular point of view for some reason.
In the case of scanners, under the same assumption of completely professional conduct, I see no problem. She would probably be more emotionally scarred by a visit to the doctor.
Kids generally don't have any problem running around naked. It's the adults that feel self-conscious.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=junk (NSFW) (definition 2)
And BTW, here in SoCal we can't drive anywhere without encountering those interior "border" checkpoints, where the CBP guards do all they can to routinely circumvent the 4th. Just like TSA.
And please tell me what it is about! Security???
Yes, I think that's the point. Or politics if you're cynical, which I might agree with.
Sorry for my brevity, I may have come across the wrong way. What I mean is that this measure doesn't take away control over of person. It's voluntary, just as with a EULA. You could, I guess, argue that EULAs are immoral because they take away your freedoms, but I don't hold that view.
Strictly interpreted my second sentence is trivially false; this whole thing is about controlling the ability of people to take weapons on planes, so let me refine my statement: it's not about power and control over the visibility of your genitalia, which follows from the fact that you still have control over it.
What something is 'about' is a stupid semantic point, and not really worth arguing. More interesting is what it does. Money is spent, TSA officers see through your clothes, you are to some extent hindered from bringing weapons on planes. I consider the seeing through clothes part as the least important term in the equation, hence my confusion and the massive argument.
Just wondering, what kind of security checks do certified pilots have to go through before flying?
I understand if your individual experience of culture is a step apart from the norm; but you must recognize that, even if you don't see people stripping off their clothes has a sexual element, plenty of people who go to strip clubs etc. do.