Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Security Government Privacy The Courts Transportation United States

Motion Filed In 1st Circuit To Enjoin TSA's New Mandatory "AIT" Screening (google.com) 129

New submitter saizai writes: TSA has made electronic strip search mandatory whenever they feel like it. "TSA is updating the AIT PIA to reflect a change to the operating protocol regarding the ability of individuals to opt out of AIT screening in favor of physical screening. While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security." I've filed for an injunction against new TSA policy on mandatory AIT, in my general lawsuit challenging TSA's "orders". The court says TSA will respond to my motion by Tuesday. I'll reply immediately. Hopefully will have it put on hold before January. (Note that "AIT" stands for "Advanced Imaging Technology," the term TSA applies to walk-through body scanners.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Motion Filed In 1st Circuit To Enjoin TSA's New Mandatory "AIT" Screening

Comments Filter:
  • Slowly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24, 2015 @06:11PM (#51180013)

    Slowly tightening their grip. Where's all those people who said it was fine because you'd always be able to opt out? Called us crazy for saying it was a slippery slope?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Slowly tightening their grip. Where's all those people who said it was fine because you'd always be able to opt out? Called us crazy for saying it was a slippery slope?

      People opted out because they were NOT fine with it.

      Everyone else didn't care enough to opt out, which is so easy, I have to assume they really don't care.

      • by daq man ( 170241 )

        I went through one of these in August. I didn't want to and the TSA staff there gave me no option. I could have kicked up a fun but I'd stood in line for twenty minutes to get to the front and everyone behind me was well and truly pissed enough. Not to mention that my son was with me and having dad lead off in irons wasn't an image I wanted to leave behind. Also, I was on the way home after my own father's funeral.

        For thirty years I was a frequent traveller, my family lives in the UK and I live in the USA.

        • by daq man ( 170241 )

          damned spell corrector (messer upper) fun should be fuss...

    • What's crazy to me is this:
      If I were trying to bring a weapon, I would definitely usenthe body scanner (or my bag).

      The physical screening is far more likely to find something. A metal detector is too.

      The imaging tech is very ineffective.

    • They've slid down the slope a bit and are now saying that the TSA is only doing this to protect against terrorists and that you're free not to fly if you don't like it.

      When the TSA expands to other methods of transportation, they'll slide down the slope a bit more and defend the TSA (and the government) with new arguments all the while denying that we are all sliding down the slope.

    • Those people are always silent when they're obviously wrong. What can they say, after all ? They helped us lose Liberty ? You can't educate most people. "History's a stranger, memory's a fool."
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Thanks. As one of the many people who are aghast at what is going on, but don't want to make a social/political fight my career, I appreciate that people like you do challenge the slide into authoritarianism.

  • OP here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saizai ( 1178155 ) <slashdot@s.ai> on Thursday December 24, 2015 @06:18PM (#51180035) Homepage

    Sai here (OP & person who filed this lawsuit). Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      First off, this is a good fight. It's a good thing you are doing, and I hope you succeed. A lot of us are disturbed by the direction of things over the last 14-odd years, and we're doing the best we can to halt the slide in our own ways.

      My question would be: do you not worry that talking about it online is unwise given a pending lawsuit?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by saizai ( 1178155 )

        Thanks. :-)

        Fair question, but with a simple answer: I've not said anything online that I haven't already said in court and/or isn't very blatantly obvious. I don't disclose pending litigation strategy or the like that might be damaging, nor anything private, privileged, etc.

        I think it's beneficial to raise public awareness. Part of why they responded to me at all was because TSA's PR people (howdy, Curtis!) read the 2013 BoingBoing article about my SFO experience [boingboing.net] and had a subsequent internal shitstorm. (Ho

    • Thank you for your part in the fight against encroaching authoritarians. We'll be cheering for you from our mothers' basements.

    • by SumDog ( 466607 )

      That's awesome. It's crazy how every other country in the world said the backscatter x-rays were unsafe, and most EU states (except for the UK) banned them entirely. Then the US switched to millimetre wave machines, yet never once acknowledging the safety issues with the x-ray systems!

      I know personally that in Australia, you cannot opt out. If you try, they tell you that you have to wait 24 hours before you can come in and board the plane. And no, there's no refund for your ticket and no rescheduling the fl

    • Sai here (OP & person who filed this lawsuit). Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

      Bravo to you, sir, for standing up for your rights, and by extension, everyone else's rights as well.

      I've always opted-out of the scanner on general principles and so far they've never tried to force me to use it. I can see that this is likely not to be the case the next time I fly. We'll see what happens...

    • I just wanted to say thanks. I read through some of your website and I've watched about half of your TSA video and I sent you a donation.

      I hope you win. This shit is ridiculous and extremely anti-American. I hope other people donate to you as well and don't just post some empty platitudes. I haven't flown since 1995 and after seeing this kind of shit I wouldn't blame anyone for avoiding the U.S.; Land of the free, indeed.

      • Much appreciated. FWIW, though this motion should be resolved quickly, for me at least, it's just one part of a much larger lawsuit. Will probably take years. Hopefully some sanity may eventually prevail â¦

  • by ssufficool ( 1836898 ) on Thursday December 24, 2015 @06:30PM (#51180079)

    They haven't been able to point to a single instance where the TSA has prevented an attack. It's all security theater. So what do we do? Make it more invasive. More government for no tangible benefit.

    In all, TSA security procedures are all reactive, not proactive. Failed shoe bomb, everyone now takes off shoes. Mixed liquid bombs, no liquids over X ounces. No sharp thingies. etc... etc...

    The only improvement has been procedures on locking the pilot cabin. Sound, sensible security practice.

    It seems one of the primary purposes of our government, to keep us safe from foreign threats, has jumped the shark. Instead of a comprehensive and well thought out system, we have many moving parts once again scrambling to make us feel safe. You know, that system we tried to fix after 911? Federal, state and local law enforcement all operating behind their own walls and not sharing. Now we are rebuilding that same broken system with the DHS and TSA.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday December 24, 2015 @08:24PM (#51180493)

      They haven't been able to point to a single instance where the TSA has prevented an attack.

      The TSA's goal is not to catch terrorists in the act, but to deter them from even trying. I am not saying that the TSA is effective, I am just pointing out that the absence of attempts is not a negative indicator of the TSA's effectiveness.

      • by OhPlz ( 168413 )

        There was a recent undercover test conducted by the feds where the majority of restricted items they tried to sneak through the checkpoints actually made it through. Counting actual terrorist incidents may not be effective, but those undercover test results are scathing. My own inner-cynic thinks that the TSA is a politicians gift to the labor unions and all the high tech scanners is likewise a gift to the companies that manufacture and maintain them. The government is operating its own economy with our

      • by Anonymous Coward

        They haven't been able to point to a single instance where the TSA has prevented an attack.

        The TSA's goal is not to catch terrorists in the act, but to deter them from even trying. I am not saying that the TSA is effective, I am just pointing out that the absence of attempts is not a negative indicator of the TSA's effectiveness.

        The problem is the number of news reports of either people forgetting the weapon in a brief case and making a complete round trip without getting caught or the 95% success rate of red teams making it through TSA security once again without getting caught (carrying guns, knives, explosives).

        Anyone that believes the TSA is successful at what they do .. just isn't paying attention.

        Further more, the lines that the TSA creates are a wonderfully simple and predictable target.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Absence of attempts outside of the one off of 9/11 is also not a positive indicator of the TSA's effectiveness. We were safe for decades with a far less expensive, less invasive, and more effective system. We changed it because some people pissed in their pants.

  • Policy Regulation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sandbagger ( 654585 ) on Thursday December 24, 2015 @06:35PM (#51180085)

    I have a policy that my customers pay me on time. Unfortunately I tend to get strung along for 90 days. Since my policy doesn't have the force of regulation I tend to have to suck it up.

    I suspect that the nudie scanner that doesn't work is entering the polygraph zone. The people who buy them want everyone else to believe that these contraptions work. In the TSA's case millions have been spent on these things so I presume some congress critter has decided to make them mandatory to justify the expense.

    • I suspect that the nudie scanner that doesn't work is entering the polygraph zone.

      I suspect you're right. I get tagged in the millimeter wave machine almost every time I walk through, when there's nothing there it should be triggering on. It's a multi-million dollar boondoggle.
    • by saizai ( 1178155 )

      FWIW, there's no evidence of congressional involvement. My personal guess is that it was just dictated by Peter Neffenger, the new head of the TSA.

    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Thursday December 24, 2015 @08:39PM (#51180559) Homepage Journal

      I have a policy that my customers pay me on time. Unfortunately I tend to get strung along for 90 days. Since my policy doesn't have the force of regulation I tend to have to suck it up.

      I hate this type of post.

      It's defeatist and dispiriting to the reader. By advocating no action ("suck it up"), it supports and encourages loss of freedom, authoritative control, and hopelessness.

      It's also uncreative - there's *lots* of things we could do, both as a group and individually, to try to change the situation.

      You don't have the will to fight, so go drown your despair in drink. Don't being down everyone else as well.

      The OP took the trouble to file suit against the TSA. Looking at his website [s.ai], he might be a rare case of a lawyer doing an open source 'kind of thing.

      I haven't seen a lot of this type of "open source good for the community" from the legal profession. I'm not saying that there's *none* [spamgourmet.com], but it's very rare compared to the number of lawyers around.

      Engineers are pretty generous with their time. There's a ton of open source software and designs for hardware, people answering questions, things you can make and modify and use.

      A lot of lawyers I talk to claim to be unemployed or under-employed. Looking through the myriad number of social abuses we come across at Slashdot, I've always wondered why some of them don't put their spare time into fixing some of our problems using the court system. If it's their own time and they are otherwise unemployed, it wouldn't be very expensive.

      They'd also get a big boost of popularity (and business) from having defended a rights issue [google.com]. When the police decided unilaterally that recording them was illegal, it took an incident [wikipedia.org] to take it to court, and not a pair of lawyers who had set up a situation, with proper witnesses and affadavits.

      Anyway, this guy appears to be doing some legal things [makeyourlaws.org] in the manner of open source.

      Cut him some slack, OK?

      • by saizai ( 1178155 )

        Thanks. :-) FWIW, I am in fact not a lawyer, though I am applying to law school this year, and I've managed to win a fair amount of legal proceedings without a JD.

  • Sai - should they deny the motion, what do you intend to do next? Like others here, I appreciate the lengths you've gone to get rid of this illegal, silly nonsense.
    • Re:So what's next? (Score:4, Informative)

      by saizai ( 1178155 ) <slashdot@s.ai> on Thursday December 24, 2015 @07:14PM (#51180237) Homepage

      Depends on exactly what the 1st Circuit rules. I very strongly doubt they would rule I don't have standing (which would be the worst case outcome for my ability to prosecute this).

      It's possible they might not want to allow an emergency PI/TRO, in which case it'll get delayed on fuller briefing, probably ~1-6 months. They also might deny preliminary injunction and TRO, without prejudice to an ordinary motion for injunction, in which case we're talking 6-12 months.

      It's also possible that they'll rule that yes the TSA violated the APA (again) but they'll let 'em get away with it anyway (like in EPIC v DHS, 653 F3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) [google.com]). That would be the worst case outcome on substance. I'd probably try for SCOTUS cert petition if that happens.

      We'll find out in about a week, anyway, so no need to speculate too much. Follow me on G+ [google.com] or Twitter [twitter.com], or watch my TSA litigation page [s.ai] if you want updates. ;-)

      • First, thank you for the work you've been doing.

        Second, can we help? If so, how?
        • by saizai ( 1178155 )

          You're welcome. How to help:
          a) Supporting me financially would be very appreciated (I'm broke and can't legally get paid for the time I spend on this even if I win the lawsuit). Patreon [patreon.com], Bitcoin [s.ai], PayPal [s.ai], physical check [s.ai].
          b) I need pro bono legal counsel for this case [s.ai] and my BOS case [s.ai]. If you know lawyers who might be interested (or are one), email me.
          c) Share. TSA HQ does pay attention to social and mainstream media, and the only two things that make them do things are bad PR and litigation.
          d) Contact your sen

        • by saizai ( 1178155 )

          (Also on sharing, it may help to follow me on Twitter @saizai or Google+ +saizai, if you want to stay updated. I also send an aggregate email update about once a month to my Patreons.)

  • Anyone who flies is promoting the system.
    • Anyone who flies is promoting the system.

      One of many reasons I don't fly. A lot of issues just go away when you refuse to participate. It's not an option for some people but it works for me.

    • by saizai ( 1178155 )

      TSA is already expanding to trains, busses, & highways. So that's not going to save you for long.

      • by rcase5 ( 3781471 )

        TSA is already expanding to ... highways.

        Oh really? How is that going to work exactly?

        • Google "VIPR" to see the first generation of it. That's just the start; they're actively expanding their asserted jurisdiction, to cover *all* methods of travel.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    My spouse's insulin pump (that she obviously can't just do without) cannot be passed through an x-ray machine. Nor can it go through a body scanner. This is all according to its manufacturer. Every time we fly through airports using body scanners she needs to opt and do the pat down. It's an invasive, slow, and frustrating experience, but at least it doesn't put her in medical jeopardy. Making her pass through the scanners potentially causing her pump to deliver too little or too much insulin while she's 10

  • Update: according to an anonymous but credible source, this policy was started on 12/20. Will find out more once TSA files its official response to my motion on Tuesday.

    • Update: according to an anonymous but credible source, this policy was started on 12/20. Will find out more once TSA files its official response to my motion on Tuesday.

      I opted out both directions of my trip home for the holidays –both after 12/20.

      The pat-downs were excessively long, and they insisted on going through their little script regardless of my repeatedly saying, "I know the drill—get on with it."

  • We effete Europeans have found the solution, don't travel to the USA. This is not criticism of the 'people' who are usually generous and friendly (though a little weaponised for our wimpy UK tastes) but government and big business really need fixing. Perhaps we could put on our red coats and invade? Then swap all these guns, paranoia etc. for cucumber sandwiches, with the crusts cut off and a little pepper and vinegar. Cricket is good, too.
  • TSA response & my reply are now filed. And I've released some FOIA docs as a bonus.

    http://slashdot.org/firehose.p... [slashdot.org]

What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!

Working...