The question is, psychological effect aside, does backscatter body scanners actually do any good?
We can get all sensationalistic about it, get all angry about invasions of privacy, but really, many people will just think that's the prices you pay for security.
So, we need to deal with this on a factual level, on a level where we ask: what does it need to see, and does it see it. With that Rigamarole out of the way, I now have an excuse to post a video of Mythbuster Adam Savage.
This is not the first time I've heard about this.
I'm not the person most worried about folks seeing my junk, though the patdown might skeeve me somewhat. But I understand that not everybody likes or at least is comfortable with the idea of somebody seeing their ding-dongs, hoo-hahs, and headlights.
I feel that if somebody's privacy or personal property is invaded, somebody better be doing the rest of us and that person some substantial good, given the discomfort we are put through. If the "pornoscanners" don't pick up anything real, if they don't show the real threats, if they're no improvement over the much less invasive technologies, then there's no point, regardless of what moral arguments you might throw at the subject. The moral arguments for such invasive security measures become moot points if the technological and practical arguments for that technology or those techniques don't exist.
That goes the same for any other such security measure, and its a point we can calmly make to any critic.