11 ms·

This may be from another article, but I would like a formal definition of what "in a state of undress" means.

by erkose 8y ago

jrockway 8y ago
Doesn't really matter. The fact that she was made to be uncomfortable was the problem.
- LeoPanthera 8y ago
  And you would be wrong. She meant "without hijab".
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. According to Wikipedia:[0] > In front of her husband: There is no restriction in Islam on what body parts a woman may show to her husband in private. The husband and wife can see any part of each other’s body especially during sexual intercourse. That is, Islam isn't puritanical. Sexist, for sure, but not puritanical. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam Edit: bad taste
  - komali2 8y ago
    To be fair, that may have the exact cultural implication to a Muslim that being naked would have to your average, I dunno, midwestern Christian American woman. So "state of undress" seems to work quite well... meh, this thread is too deep.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mirimir 8y ago
    OK, what's your source for that statement? Edit: If you had said "could be wrong", I would agree. But to get to "would be wrong", you would need a clear statement from her. Which, of course, she has no obligation to provide.
    - phyzome 8y ago
      Can't speak for them, but: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-...
      - mirimir 8y ago
        There's nothing there about what was on the iPhone. Edit: OK, I missed that. She did characterize the problematic images. Sorry.
        phyzome 8y ago
        There sure is: « Lazoja noted in her affidavit that as a practicing Muslim who wears a hijab, she does not want to be seen "in a state of undress without my hijab" by men who are not members of her family. The two agents asked if Lazoja had any electronic devices, so she produced her phone. They then asked her to unlock the phone, but she refused—citing the fact that the phone contained such "undressed" images of herself as well as "legal communications with the Council on American-Islamic Relations." »
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    I don't see how that refutes the comment you're replying to.
phyzome 8y ago
ArsTechnica has a better article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-... She's Muslim, and did not want unrelated men to see her without her hijab. Perhaps she was also naked, who knows? But she probably wouldn't say that, out of propriety. (The fact that she's a member of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, maybe explain why they were hassling her in particular.)

This may be from another article, but I would like a formal definition of what "in a state of undress" means.

by erkose 8y ago

This may be from another article, but I would like a formal definition of what "in a state of undress" means.

jrockway 8y ago

Doesn't really matter. The fact that she was made to be uncomfortable was the problem.

LeoPanthera 8y ago
And you would be wrong. She meant "without hijab".
- mirimir 8y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. According to Wikipedia:[0] > In front of her husband: There is no restriction in Islam on what body parts a woman may show to her husband in private. The husband and wife can see any part of each other’s body especially during sexual intercourse. That is, Islam isn't puritanical. Sexist, for sure, but not puritanical. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam Edit: bad taste
- komali2 8y ago
  To be fair, that may have the exact cultural implication to a Muslim that being naked would have to your average, I dunno, midwestern Christian American woman. So "state of undress" seems to work quite well... meh, this thread is too deep.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mirimir 8y ago
  OK, what's your source for that statement? Edit: If you had said "could be wrong", I would agree. But to get to "would be wrong", you would need a clear statement from her. Which, of course, she has no obligation to provide.
  - phyzome 8y ago
    Can't speak for them, but: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-...
    - mirimir 8y ago
      There's nothing there about what was on the iPhone. Edit: OK, I missed that. She did characterize the problematic images. Sorry.
      - phyzome 8y ago
        There sure is: « Lazoja noted in her affidavit that as a practicing Muslim who wears a hijab, she does not want to be seen "in a state of undress without my hijab" by men who are not members of her family. The two agents asked if Lazoja had any electronic devices, so she produced her phone. They then asked her to unlock the phone, but she refused—citing the fact that the phone contained such "undressed" images of herself as well as "legal communications with the Council on American-Islamic Relations." »
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  I don't see how that refutes the comment you're replying to.

phyzome 8y ago

ArsTechnica has a better article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-... She's Muslim, and did not want unrelated men to see her without her hijab. Perhaps she was also naked, who knows? But she probably wouldn't say that, out of propriety. (The fact that she's a member of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, maybe explain why they were hassling her in particular.)