Appeals Court Caves To TSA Over Nude Body Scanners 169
OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently filed a petition to force the Department of Homeland Security to start its public comment period on body scanners within 60 days or stop using them entirely. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has issued its ruling (PDF), and has refused EPIC's petition. DHS told the court earlier that it expected to have a formal rule proposal on body scanners by the end of February, so the court denied EPIC's motion on the expectation that public comment period would start by late March. TFA and this submission have a pessimistic headline on this ruling, but other sources seem to think the glass is half-full, and that EPIC in effect got what it wanted. Is this a victory or a defeat? Will the rulemaking process start on time, or will a TSA dog eat the proposed rule in late March and force further delay?"
Sounds like defeat (Score:5, Informative)
If it means we still have the TSA and their nudie scanners then we all lose, whether we realize it or not.
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:5, Informative)
So being seen naked / groped-by-strangers is a valid requirement for flying and we should all just get over it?
You're a moron.
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:5, Informative)
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Wrong.
Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
This comes out of the common law right to freedom of movement which includes the use of conveyances appropriate to the time. Our modern society operates on the assumption of a right to air travel.
Get over it (Score:0, Informative)
The truth is that there is no right to Fly, You have 3 options, Scanner, Patdown or don't Fly. Drive, take a train, bus or ship, or simply put one foot in front of the other.
Fact: the court caved (Score:5, Informative)
I suggest reading up on this case a bit...
In November 2010, EPIC sued DHS because the body scanners suck. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/05/158250/epic-files-lawsuit-to-suspend-airport-body-scanner-use [slashdot.org]
In July 2011, a court found that DHS had improperly deployed the scanners by not providing a period for public comment. The court allowed the scans to continue on the condition that they have a public comment period. http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/07/17/0143233/Court-Approves-TSA-Body-Scans-But-Calls-For-Public-Comment [slashdot.org]
By July 2012, there had STILL not been a public comment period. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/11/2113239/dhs-still-stonewalling-on-body-scanning-ruling-one-year-later [slashdot.org]
And here we are, September 2012, and the appeals court says look, I know DHS was told to do public comment and it's been over a year and they still haven't done it, but they promise they're really going to do it this time in March 2013, so we're going to take their word for it even though they ignored the previous court order for a public comment period.
Any characterization other than "cave" fails to describe the situation in historical context.
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps this is an unduly pithy response, but I'm compelled to say "citation needed."
It is often said that driving is a privilege, and not a right. However, that particularly pithy remark has only been offered when someone wishes to operate a vehicle -- not merely to ride in a vehicle, and certainly not merely to ride in licensed commercial passenger vehicles.
Your ordinary air traveler is not a pilot, and is not demanding the "right" to operate the aircraft. Nor is the government operating the aircraft and merely reserving the "right" to offer its services to whom it chooses. The government is exercising a police power to regulate, and potentially negate, travel arrangements made between two private parties.
Finally, you may wish to review the actual "rules of the road" as set forth by the governing bodies. 49 USC 40103 [cornell.edu] states that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace," and complements that pesky thing referred to as the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). While reasonable restrictions are permitted (as in all aspects of even enumerated rights under U.S. Constitution), freedom of movement is not merely a privilege subject to the whim of the soverign.
The battle cry of the authoritarian. You shall not challenge the rules; no reasonable person would have an opinion different than mine; I will not abuse the rules despite them giving me and my agents a clear opportunity to do so.
Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage (Score:4, Informative)
Oh please. This is a lame argument against these scanners. There are two good arguments against them:
1. They don't work.
2. They are more likely to kill you than a terrorist.
Do you honestly think anyone wants to see your junk on one of these things? Have you seen the images they produce? _Not_ chubby-inducing.