Under The Radar Media

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

Posted in Uncategorized by maasanova on January 9, 2010

Maasanova,

Well well what can I say? Yesterday I was cruising some current events forums looking for something good to blog on, and  I fell for a hoax. Actually, lots of people fell for the hoax, including the Drudge Report. On my post yesterday which was entitled “If you know this woman, tell her that she’s naked on the Internet,” I posted what was purported to be the recored image of a young woman from an airport scanner. Actually, the image was a fake; essentially a sensational photoshopped job made from stock footage of a nude model. You can view the image here, as well as read what  The German tabloid Bild has to say about the image. It’s in German, and the translation is horrible, but you’ll get the gist of it.

This retraction is for Under the Radar Media’s helping to (unknowingly) perpetuate the hoax, but we should still be aware and remain vigilant against complying with having a scanned image of our naked bodies, no matter how low the resolution is. By the way, here is what airport scanner’s image allegedly looks like, which is still clear enough to violate child pornography laws in the UK:

Advertisements

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Geaf said, on January 28, 2010 at 10:16 am

    ‘but we should still be aware and remain vigilant against complying with having a scanned image of our naked bodies, no matter how low the resolution is. By the way, here is what airport scanner’s image allegedly looks like, which is still clear enough to violate child pornography laws in the UK:’
    – What?
    So, far from you being an advocate of this technology you are actively trying to dissuade people from accepting it.
    Why am I not surprised to see that whilst you berate the attempts to control and stop possible bombers getting onto planes, you provide NO ALTERNATIVE!?
    It is so easy to condemn and criticise without giving any alternative option.
    What would YOU do then?
    Let everyone get on planes and to hell with it?
    Also, there are many situations where children are seen semi naked or even naked in their lives….What do you think of Drs, surgeons, medics?
    Are they Paedophiles? Some of them must be right…?
    I don’t hear complaints that Drs have the right to remove a childs clothes in say, an accident or for surgery etc…?
    So if we can have people fully ‘qualified’ to do this in the area of medicine then logic allows that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why the same cannot be done in the area of airport security!
    Also as you know very well, there needn’t be any viewing of the actual scan on these machines and this has already been talked about if you care to look for it. There is already a software that provides cover on the images. Instead of the full image the operators only see a stick figure or symbol of a human body. this is then lit up with markers if the scanner deems something to be suspicious. If you can point out to me, how, in any way this is different to the security they already use in airports then I am all ears.
    The present way is to be scanned and watched by the eyes of security men and then, when they suspect something…based on either strange behaviour or maybe the supposed instinct of the security guy, they can then elect to pull you aside and then search you further. If you are guilty and carrying something you get caught. If not they let you carry on with your journey.
    In what way is using a machine to do the scanning any different? Especially if the image seen by the operator is in no way sexually revealing?
    You need not answer this as it requires no answer. It is obvious, there is NO difference.
    Maybe one day you will try to post a productive solution to the increasing bomber threat instead of enjoying being a naysayer to everything any government tries to do.
    People like you just put things down and criticise but you never try to help.
    It takes very little intellect to be a critic.

  2. maasanova said, on November 17, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Geaf, what up now faggot?

  3. Tom said, on November 17, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    Geaf, It’s people like you that always think what the Govt. does is legit, that does nothing to stop the out of control ways of the authorities. I don’t have a problem with authority. What I do have a problem with is the ways of authority.

    Most authority personnel carry the mindset that they can do as they please with no accountability risks because the Govt. stands behind them due to being the originator of the reason for the harassment. That is the problem with todays version of Law Enforcement. They will go out of their way to insure that you abide by every little law in the books while they, themselves are breaking the law to do this.

    They look for the most immaterial things to warrant a traffic stop so they can begin the deeper digging into your life pouring in extra effort to find something, anything to arrest you for. I see it happen and hear constantly about people being pulled over for the most unimportant reasons and then being asked for permission to search their vehicle. Why would having one of two tag lights out give them a reason to search a vehicle? It doesn’t in the eyes of the citizen but in the eyes of Officers you bet it does. Why? Why can’t they spend that over exertion on finding and stopping the crimes that involve victims? I’ll tell you why, because this way is easier and produces more opportunities to make arrests for victim less crimes such as their so called war on drugs that is seriously spiraling out of control. Not the drug users and abusers but the enforcement side of it and their illegal means of attacking it.

    This gripe may seem off topic of the story here but its roots come from the same tree.

  4. Geaf said, on November 17, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Hmm I will only refer to the first response by way of saying I won’t credit it with a reply… now, to the second response, you misunderstood me it seems…
    Firstly, before we talk about anything we should be very careful of making huge assumptions.
    I never said I trust the government and think that what they do is always legit?
    You said those words and you decided that you somehow ‘know’ what kind of a person I am, based upon one ranting blog comment, that makes you pretty amazing!
    You will, in reality, actually find that we share the same opinion on some things.
    What you are talking about does seem to me to be something you personally have a problem with because, although I agree and I have seen the same thing happen to people too, I don’t think that the majority of law enforcement is part of this scheme you seem to be painting.
    Just because I agree with something the government or ‘authorities’ do, that in NO WAY equates to me ‘always think(ing) what the Govt do is legit’.
    That would be nonsense.
    I still stand by what I said originally and that is that everyone loves to whine and moan and shout and point but how many even try to offer an alternative or a solution themselves?
    Lets ban those scanners!
    Yeah!
    So if there is a bombing plan by some unknown, some day, somewhere, then what?
    ‘As long as we kept them from seeing us pseudo-naked, that is the important thing’.
    That statement wouldn’t be popular I bet, after a few kids had bled to death…
    I wouldn’t care if me, my mother and my kids were scanned because I value my and their lives more than my fear of some stranger seeing my vaguely naked shape on a screen…
    Also – I am NOT saying I think these scanners are a great idea, I am not championing the cause for scanners, I am simply saying that I personally would not feel safe flying unless I felt that everything had been done to (try to) make sure that people could not bring stuff ion board that would constitute a threat to me or my family or the plane! For now, to me, the scanners may not be the best solution but they CERTAINLY help matters and they CERTAINLY do make it more difficult for people.
    Give me a BETTER solution is all I am saying but no one can so, until then I wish they would just shut up.
    People trying to bring in the paedophile angle too it just makes me sick. They aren’t worried about that, they are just interested in causing a commotion…
    I will accept though, a lot of the complaints are directly about the nakedness issue, which I already covered before and to be honest I find it laughable now.
    Wow when did we become so full of our own shit that we actually worry about something so damned trivial…?
    Isn’t the madness of society and the risk of bombings,etc enough to put things in perspective?

  5. spookiewon said, on February 8, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Unfortunately, Geaf, there’s nothing CERTAIN about it. In fact, the very makers of these scanners say they would be unable to detect the very threats you talk about. None of the “bombing threats” of the last ten or so years since 9/11 could have been detected by the scanners in question. Neither the “backscatter xray” nor the “millimeter wave” variety. You and your family are no safer with the scanners than without, and in that DOES certainly paint the liberty and privacy traded in a different light. The “madness of society” is the very idea that we must give up out liberty to be safe, when the opposite is the real truth–it is only by a fundamental respect for human and civil rights that we can be safe.

    The biggest lie of all is that “they hate us for our freedom.” The truth is that they hate us for our hypocrisy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: