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, Insightful)
Yes, we'll all lose, but the problem isn't nudity.
The problem is that the TSA acts as an extended arm of the DHS, and as such are constitutionally bound to the 4th amendment.
The border search exception does not apply to domestic flights, and the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:5, Insightful)
the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.
Aren't you being a little naive?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think he/she meant "the constitution is SUPPOSED to trump federal law...."
The reality of the situation is different, as we know.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS trumps the Constituion whenever they feel like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we'll all lose, but the problem isn't nudity.
The problem is that the TSA acts as an extended arm of the DHS, and as such are constitutionally bound to the 4th amendment.
The border search exception does not apply to domestic flights, and the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.
Except that the SC doesn't always "get it right".
Like the Kelo case as the most recent example.
They just shift the interpretation slightly, and suddenly there's a whole new paradigm to the law.
Strat
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that voting is a right not a privilege. As such people don't bother to worry about things like "facts" when they vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Governing is a privilege, not a right. The government needs to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the Constitution, or find another way to accomplish their ends. It's really that simple. Quit making excuses and just do it.
This is the result of dispensing with the thirteenth amendment in 1812. It was not voted out of existence, but forcibly removed by a foreign invader. Happy Anniversary, you corporate toad-lickers.
Re: (Score:3)
Governing is a responsibility, not a privilege. That governors have repeatedly not lived up to their responsibilities does not change this fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Of all the ways to typo the word "boycott"...
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: (Score:3)
Where in the US constitution does it say it is legal to give up your rights to some semblance of privacy to enjoy such privileges as being allowed to travel around the country. And the TSA has been seen at bus depots and train stations before now too.
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm convinced these full body scanners are less about security and more about ensuring wealth doesn't leave the country. When the shit hits the fan, people wanting to leave and take their fortunes converted into say diamonds, will not be able to take them with them.
For years you could only take up to $10,000 in cash/valuables to a foreign country. Diamonds were the only way to take more. If these scanners proliferate that will be the end of that.
Food for thought in our future police state.
If you've got that much money you can hire a jet. Or take them across a land border.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got that much money you can hire a jet. Or take them across a land border.
Jet? Yes. It is, on the other hand, pretty tough to drive to The Cayman Islands.
Re: (Score:2)
Drive to mexico, fly from there.
Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage (Score:2, Insightful)
Not yours, but what about your sister, or mom, or nana? There are some sick bastards in this world and we have already seen what sick bastards with a little power do. Just look at the current TSA outrages against personal dignity.
I haven't flown since this scanner bullshit started, but I think that when I refuse the scanner I'll inform the TSA manager that if your thug gropes my nuts I'm returning the favor with a closed fist. There is a right to defend oneself from sexual assault, and that is what this. I'
Re: (Score:2)
I've opted out several times. Never once has the agent patting me down seemed to enjoy the process, and they have all been apologetic, and announce to you what they are going to do before they do it.
Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage (Score:5, Funny)
Never once has the agent patting me down seemed to enjoy the process...
We'll if you're the average slashdotter I can't see how they would enjoy it.
"Sorry sir, I'm going to have to move your beard aside so I can..."
Re: (Score:3)
I know you're being funny, but I'm not a horrible person to look at. I'm one of the "stealth nerds" - you have no idea until I start talking, and if I watch my words you'd still never know.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes?
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.
Then why ARE they ogleing my naked outline?
Re: (Score:2)
...and why are they sending hot chicks [google.es] through multiple times? Sometimes calling their buddies over to make sure the scan is 'thorough'?
Re: (Score:2)
Link should be this: hot chicks [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because it pays the rent.
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:5, Insightful)
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Having the government force you to submit to a search to complete your travel is a violation of several rights. Driving is "not a right" either. Should the government force you into a search before you get behind the wheel. By your logic, as long as walking is permitted all other modes of travel are available for infringement.
Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.
If that is all that was at stake, it would be a different conversation.
It's really that simple.
No, it is not. But you seem to be.
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic, as long as walking is permitted all other modes of travel are available for infringement.
If they start searching for all non-walking modes of transportation, why do you think they will stop at walking?
Re: (Score:3)
If they start searching for all non-walking modes of transportation, why do you think they will stop at walking?
I don't.
Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] (Score:5, Insightful)
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Well, yes, that is true; however, the government (which is making these rules) belongs to us. Do we chose to have intrusive searches using mostly-unproven technology? What our choice in the matter of giving away our privacy in the battle between fear and freedom?
You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies, or find another way to travel. It's really that simple.
And, likewise, the TSA needs to "abide by the rules as set forth by the governing bodies, which, as far as I can see requires a period of public comment, something that the TSA has failed to do. So, if somebody is "failing to abide by the rules," it apparently is the TSA
Quit whining and just go through it. Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.
Whether you, anonymous coward, choses to think that somebody else's privacy concerns, or safety concerns, are valid or not is not your business
Re: (Score:3)
What you say is true, however it's a tough road to get back to where we need to be. Media has become simply propaganda, and most people listen to them. More and more people are finding alternative news, but will we have enough people awake before the proverbial shit hits the fan? I'm not so sure. I have hope mind you, but I have no confidence.
Socrates stated that politicians should be elected from those that showed no ambition or inclination to hold office. He was correct.
Socrates also stated that the
Re: (Score:2)
The process has become, that ugly place where the court has stated that they must start the comment period sometime before March of 2013.
Socrates aside, one can still opt out, and as mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be no pleasure taken in the procedurally advised frisk.
I don't agree that it's a good practice for many reasons, a lot of them presuming guilt, invasion of privacy and dignity, and so forth. But the constitutionally prescribed process is underway, although the TSA has been given too much time
Re: (Score:2)
Socrates aside, one can still opt out, and as mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be no pleasure taken in the procedurally advised frisk
Their official policy is to make the frisk as embarrassing as possible, so that you opt in next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's that stated? As a frequent flier, it's never happened to me. No fun, yes. embarrassing? No. Necessary to opt-out? I believe so.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how what you stated was relevant to my comments, but I'll play along for a moment.
The process has become, that ugly place where the court has stated that they must start the comment period sometime before March of 2013.
The majority of courts are corrupted, full of corrupt judges and lawyers. The NDAA is the best proof possible. It's a very sad joke that the TSA can ignore the courts and make them back down from a rightful decision. The TSA has been proven to be hiring people you would demand stay away from your child. Convicted felons, targeting pedophiles, are high on their hire list. No, I refuse to site anything since yo
Re: (Score:3)
The government (which is making these rules) belongs to us. Do we chose to have intrusive searches using mostly-unproven technology? What our choice in the matter of giving away our privacy in the battle between fear and freedom?
As polls have consistently shown, the answer is yes. We, as a country, are quite okay with giving away our freedom and privacy to alleviate our fear.
Unfortunately.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The way I read it is that your are perfectly within your inalienable rights to flap your arms hard enough to take off. Getting on a commercial aircraft, well, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I really I can not tell if your are joking. Obviously at least one mode thinks you are being serious since you got a +1 interesting. A right to do the impossible is no right at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. That reminds me... need to pop a viagra before the next time I pass through one so I have a raging megahard boner.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm going to be using the back of my hand and will feel between the knee and your groin until I meet resistance."
"DO I LOOK LIKE I MIND" *Cue crazy eyes*
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed out loud when I read that!
ACTUAL FORTUNE COOKIE (Score:3)
... that my wife opened contained this message:
"Man who walks sideways through airport security is going to Bangkok."
Re: (Score:2)
Flying is a privilege, but it is doled out by the airline industry, not the government.
The government still has no right to deprive us of our civil rights whether or NOT flying is a privilege.
Driving is likewise a privilege but it's still a violation of our rights to have our cars searched as a condition of driving.
Re: (Score:2)
...Says the person that doesn't even want to put their name on a slashdot post.
Top notch, Anonymous Coward.
Re:Sounds like defeat (Score:4, Insightful)
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Please clarify. What does that even mean?
How does one travel if every mode of transportation is a privilege that can be trivially revoked? Is travel then also a privilege?
Is walking "right"? Or is it too a privilege?
You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies, or find another way to travel.
Are you alluding to the tired argument of needing a license to drive? And that a drivers license is not a right?
Because I'm fine with that. But I don't need a drivers license to be a passenger in a taxi. I don't need to submit to government checks. I don't need to carry identification.
Is taxi travel a priviledge? Can it be revoked?
How exactly is plane travel different from taxi or bus travel? I enter a privately operated vehicle as a passenger, and I sit there.
Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.
What about my daughter's?
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rights are a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the requirements set forth by the governing bodies, or find another country to live in. It's really that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying is a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies,
So we aren't allowed to discuss changing the rules of the road? We just have to sit down and shut up?
The "rules of the road" are wrong. They are stupid, pointless, a waste of time and money, and need to be changed.
We'll leave the "flying is a privilege" discussion for another day.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if flying is a privilege, it's not a government granted privilege.
It's a privilege granted in the private sector by an airline company.
Slashdot vs Impartiality (Score:5, Insightful)
Impartial: "Appeals Court Rules that..."
Slashdot: "Appeals Court Caves To TSA Over Nude Body Scanners"
I have no dog in this fight, but the idea that some court "caved" to an agency rather than ruling on the merits of the case based on their particular principled and reasoned views (which you or I might not happen to personally like or agree with) sounds like conspiracybabble that should have no place on slashdot.
Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no need to be impartial when one side is clearly wrong.
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: (Score:2)
How about consequences for failure? Like for instance, firing the top 3 levels of the Department with cause for non-compliance, starting with Big Sis. Followed by complete disbanding of the TSA and firing all the pretend-a-cops.Keep firing people until they either comply, or nobody works there. We tried the carrots, now its time for sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care how you slice it.
12 months late is 12 months late.
If you or I or anyone else in the 99 percent tried to pull a stunt like that, we wouldn't get two words out of our mouths in the time it would take the bailiff to throw us in jail for contempt of court.
Hell, even a 1 percenter might have exhausted a court's patience by then.
Re: (Score:3)
... that should have no place on slashdot.
There are lots of things that have no place on slashdot.
Increasingly, I realize I refer to myself.
No! If Anonymous Coward leaves, who'll entertain us with decent trolls?
List of Airports to Avoid (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let's say you live in Chicago and have business in Miami. Let's also say that Miami has scanners while Chicago doesn't. How are you going to plan your business? Fly to Miami from Chicago then rent a car and drive back?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Is there an updated list of the airports that use the scanners, so we can avoid giving them our business?
Here I have the set of airports that do not have the body scanners:
{ }
Opt out if they concern you, just get there 30 min early (just in case, it usually doesn't take that long).
If your goal is really economic pressure that is the way to pressure them, travel normally but do not use the scanners and if enough people do so the use of them is economically impractical. I hope to see them vanish within five
Bad Track Record (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad Track Record (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll get moved back to the February after... duh...
Re:Bad Track Record (Score:5, Funny)
What happens when the TSA does not turn in their formal report in February?
Why, the DoJ Inspector General police force will promptly confiscate all scanners, and the DHS Inspector General will take authority over the TSA during senate investigations of the TSA overstepping their authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when the TSA does not turn in their formal report in February?
They'll get a very stern talking to and told they "better not do it again, and I mean it this time!" while getting a few more (b/m)illions from Congress to funnel towards some congressman's drinking buddy. So, same as always happens.
Re: (Score:3)
The state of Texas threatened something like that. It didn't work. [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
In the game of political chicken, Texas lost. It didn't work, because it wasn't tried. We need people willing to stand against Tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas lost because it was outmatched.
You can't expect to win a chicken contest if you're driving a pinto and staring down a freight train.
The feds, rightly, called their bluff, not because they were morally right to do so, but because they had more leverage and couldn't give two shits about what texas thought.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were an airport owner, I'd declare them an illegal organization and remove them as I'd remove all persons engaging in illegal activity from my premises.
They'd revoke your certificate to operate, airlines would abandon you, and you'd go out of business.
It's the media's support (Score:5, Insightful)
I fly about three times a week and I have never gone through a body scanner. A little known fact is that once more people opt out of body scanners, the security lines grow quickly and the scanners get closed in favor of faster metal detectors. As long as the people are OK with body scanners at the airport, there’s very little that can be done in a court.
Re:It's the media's support (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a conspiracy, it's just apathy.
Re:It's the media's support (Score:5, Interesting)
I was out in Orlando for work in April and LA in May. At MSP (my home airport) and MCO we had a choice in scanner methods, in LA we didn't. I refused to use the scanner, instead opting for the manual pat down.
At MCO I was through the "traditional" scanner method quickly, 10 minutes faster than my coworkers who got their chromosomes scrambled. In LA, I was 30 seconds behind my coworker.
It's not fucking worth it to use the scanners. IMO we should all be opting out and forcing the TSA to work harder to get the job done. If people stood up against the intrusion it would be far more effective than the courts telling them to do X and them ignoring it.
They can't as easily ignore an airport full of VERY angry passengers waiting in long lines to do it the "hard" way.
Re:It's the media's support (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of that, every time I go through security I have my video cameras ready along with the printouts from TSA site authorizing the use of video equipment:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm [tsa.gov]
I take it as my civil duty to record any irregularities.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of that, every time I go through security I have my video cameras ready along with the printouts from TSA site authorizing the use of video equipment: .
Ha. Whenever I fly to the States I always take along nude photos of my body to save them scanning me or patting me down. Saves me no end of troubles of that kind.
same here. (Score:2, Interesting)
I opt out too.
And, when it was in the news that the TSA were looking for people who act "suspiciously" - like avoiding eye contact - I started going out of my way to make eye contact - I stare them down until THEY turn their heads. I do the same to cops.
I go in with the attitude of "go ahead fuck with me" because you fuckers step one toe out of line, we're on the 5 O'clock news and internet with a headline along the lines of "TSA fucks over yet another innocent traveler with their stupidity".
And I'd like
Re: (Score:3)
I also systematically refuse the microwave scanners.
I was on my way out of Chicago last week, and was instructed to go through it. I simply told the TSA guy "no". There was a regular metal detector next to it, but he told me I'd get a patdown. No problem I said, but had to wait a couple of minutes for the patdown guy ahead to finish. Then I had a pretty light gloved patdown (nothing to write home about, not even as effective as the one you get in any Arab country airport by default) and then he rubbed a cot
Will the rulemaking process start on time? (Score:3)
Will the rulemaking process start on time, or will a TSA dog eat the proposed rule in late March and force further delay?"
For the answer to this, just ask if there is any penalty to any decision maker at the TSA sufficient to motivate them? If so, it will start on time. If not...
Re: (Score:2)
For the answer to this, just ask if there is any penalty to any decision maker at the TSA sufficient to motivate them?
Considering the government is shielding the AG who illegally ran guns in to Mexico and was found in concept of Congress but his minions at the DOJ refused to do their duty and prosecute, it is certain no one in the TSA will receive so much as a harsh word if the current administration remains after November.
If the administration changes in November, there is still little hope of the TSA being reigned in. Your freedoms do not bear weight in the agenda of politicians
Re: (Score:2)
If the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, he'll never turn against him. That way the power of the Presidency (summarized by the Nixon quote "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.") is not threatened.
Oh, you mean the public good rationale behind a presidentially-appointed AG? None. None whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
let's not forget that it was started during the last administration
Let's also not forget that the TSA was created under the Bush administration
So, if Bush poked out your right eye, it is perfectly acceptable and even expected that Obama pokes out your left eye?
Bush sucked, no doubt. However, Eric Holder's gunwalking program has directly and conclusively put American blood on the AG's hands, and he is not being held responsible. Try that yourself and see how it works out.
We'll find out (Score:2)
In MARCH!!!!
Name change... (Score:5, Funny)
We keep getting closer ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Civics: What a joke (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish I could sue my old high school for wasting my time with civics class. It was there I was taught that we had three branches of government, and that part of the job for each branch was to keep an eye on the other two branches in a system of "checks and balances". Clearly this was just a lot of sentimental BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, you should read up about J. Edgar Hoover and how he controlled the entire U.S. government by using the FBI to wiretap everybody who was anybody and then blackmailing them with the dirt he found.
I smell a similar thing with Chertoff and DHS, only instead of covering up indiscretions, he wants money.
Sample survey (Score:5, Insightful)
"Would you jeopardize the lives of our children and the American citizens by asking us to remove Advanced Imaging Technology scanners from the airport?”
[NO! I want to keep people safe] [yes, allow terrorists blow up the planes]
Americans who don't fly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about foreigners who used to fly to the US multiple times per year, and have instead decided to spend their money elsewhere?
Wow, how shocking ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines don't get any say in this, though you could try chartering a small plane from a small local airport. It may cost more but you have the choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Not flying doesn't opt you out when they are screening buses, subways, and some highways.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/don-phillips-tsa-vipr-teams/index.html [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Established federal law seems to disagree with you.
Regarding 49 USC 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace, section a, paragraph 2: A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.