have you seen the actual scans?
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4679900388000396&pid=15.1
or you like this one better?
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4995820960810345&pid=15.1
like milking a mouse lots of activity lil result
Yes, in fact, I have - and not the hoax photo you posted in the first link (debunked within minutes of first appearance, years ago), or the derezzed sample which followed either. Benefits of being a member of FlyerTalk.com's Travel Safety and Security board, I guess - the people there have a vested interest in such things, and tend to turn up the actual goods. Try these instead:
http://www.nudeoscope.com/Brochure/5a.pdf Like I said, when you can see nipples, labia, and whether or not the man's circumcized, I'm pretty satisfied to call that a nude image. Think that might be a little traumatizing to a sexual assault victim? How about the "resolution" followup groping which appears to result between a third to a half of the time ANYWAYS, which those who submit to the Nude-O-Scope cannot opt out of?
These images (on the brochure) were, IIRC, available on TS&S in *2008*. Note that the lower-res image to the right on the first page, which is still quite sufficient to give one an eyeful, is now *7* years old - what resolution are the scanners working at today, I wonder? The more-detailed one at the left, specifically stated by official sources (this was on the TSA's website for a while, though I don't believe it is any longer) to be "reduced resolution" - so the REAL picture was even more detailed - was IIRC a 2008 release. And that "software fix" they've been going on about? It's a crock - the machine's still taking, and storing, a nude image of the subject - it HAS to, in order to do the scan. Oh, they don't store it, the machines can't store the images? Proven a lie, by TSA's own requisition order. But then, they've ALWAYS lied, as their initial position on the Nude-O-Scope was that it would *NEVER* be the primary screening tool, you'd ALWAYS be able to choose the walkthrough metal detector and if necessary hand wanding. How's that working out again?
I'll agree that there are so many other reasons to detest the Terrorist Support Agency - but the above is still a valid one.