And you would be wrong. She meant "without hijab".

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.

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.

Can't speak for them, but: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-...

There's nothing there about what was on the iPhone.

Edit: OK, I missed that. She did characterize the problematic images. Sorry.

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." »

I don't see how that refutes the comment you're replying to.