voyeurism

Both Britain and the US are very sexually uptight. While TV overflows with images of carnage and violence, even a hint of wardrobe malfunction evokes a storm of protest, government intervention and high fines. A friend of mine once said, "it's OK to shoot hundreds of people, but god forbid one is naked. That would be horrible!"

In the US it is perfectly acceptable for kids to watch people being butchered or blown to pieces, but revealing a breast is believed to corrupt them in unacceptable ways. Although superbowl games have tons of commercials with violence, Janet's wardrobe malfunction provoked an outcry from concerned citizens warning that "young kids watch these games."

Britain and the US are amongst the most voyeuristic countries. Telescope sales are very high in the US, but most buyers are not amateur astronomers. Most live in cities where stargazing is not an option given the high levels of light pollution. Both countries are also in love with so-called reality TV and internet streaming video that documents every move subjects take. People simply can't get enough of watching what others are doing. Especially when spiced up with a bit of conflict, strife, or mishap. A bit of hyper-realism that is all too familiar for the producers of such shows. They make sure the well watched subjects are sufficiently stressed to make the show appetizing. Esp. since it is forbidden to show what everyone really wants to see: a bit of flesh.

The UK has more "security" cameras than any other country in the world. The average British citizen, going about their everyday business in the city, gets captured more than 5 times a day by public security cameras. The US is rapidly following suit. Cities everywhere are installing cameras, listening devices and other spy equipment. The rationale is always the same: to improve security. It is a good excuse. Research in cities like San Francisco has shown that street cameras do little to deter crime, and given how understaffed the police departments are, do next to nothing to lead to convictions. It is much better to have a few police officers walk the neighborhood. But that too is not allowed in a country where cars are king. Driving through is so much more high tech and so much easier, both for the police and for the criminals.

What happens with all those cameras? A few studies have shown what we all suspect: the images either go unwatched or officers use cameras to spy on attractive sexy young people, especially women. Such study results are always vehemently challenged by authorities. Just like in the infamous Abu Graib case, these are "isolated incidents" and the "perpetrators will face swift justice." Do you really believe this nonsense?

Hold on, because today is a great day for high tech voyeurs. The BBC reports that Manchester Airport just installed a new generation of "naked" scanners. These machines will speed up security checks by quickly revealing concealed weapons or explosives. They will also expose you to "safe" levels of radiation. All of that to clearly show breast enlargements, body (read nipple) piercings, and a clear black and white outline of people's genitals. But wait a minute. It is all for a good cause.

Besides the airport spokeperson was quick to point out that these images are "not erotic or pornographic." Right!

I strongly suspect some people will take a bit longer to scan and some may even be required to submit to a second pass. You can probably guess why. We need to make sure these dangerous individuals with their enlarged breasts are not hiding explosives on their bodies.

One can never be too sure and when it comes to safety. I am sure we all understand what is at stake here.