EPIC Files Lawsuit To Suspend Airport Body Scanner Use

nacturation writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a petition for review and motion for an emergency stay, urging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to suspend the Transportation Security Administration's full body scanner program. EPIC said that the program is 'unlawful, invasive, and ineffective' (PDF). EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom."

Comments

another Obama disappointment...

[Shakrai]

Add the embrace of these devices to my list of disappointments in the Obama administration. Not that I'm surprised -- he telegraphed himself very plainly on civil liberties when he backtracked on FISA -- but I'm still disappointed.

Re:another Obama disappointment...

[Shakrai]

Well, they MIGHT make a change. If they do it will be because they are afraid of Obama wielding more power, not because they have suddenly decided to embrace civil liberties. Such is what passes for "checks and balances" these days -- we don't check the other branches of Government but we do check the other political party because by god they are out to destroy America as we know it.

Think about all the Republican ranting and raving about Bill Clinton when he was in office. Then Bush came into office and they rolled over and played dead. GOP Congress-critters accused Clinton of wagging the dog when he took us into the Balkens. Those same Congress-critters were silent when Bush took us into Mesopotamia....

Washington was dead on about political parties.

Re:another Obama disappointment...

[interkin3tic]

Me too, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere on that without voters really being outraged about it. Seems like everyone outside of slashdot regards them as no different from the metal detectors.

One time when flying with a friend, they had the backscatter machine. I decided to take a stand for privacy and said I didn't want to be scanned and submitted to a patdown. Everyone looked at me strange, and my friend loudly commented "Dude, you must have an embarrassingly small penis." Which was just plain mean and hurtful and totally not true at all (my gun collection is for defense, not compensation). But anyway, I don't think most people care about this. Naturally we're not going to get a politician shutting it down if no one cares abougt it

Re:another Obama disappointment...

[Archangel Michael]

The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same. Obama is just like Bush, Clinton, Bush before him. If you don't like the power of the Bush's but you like the power of Obama and Clinton (or visa versa) you're just a tool for those seeking more power.

The best defense we (the citizens) have is to limit power of ANYONE in office.

Re:another Obama disappointment...

[Shakrai]

The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same.

That's not true. By voting for (R) or (D) you are expressing a preference for WHICH civil liberties you want to lose first.

Want to lose your 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Vote Democrat.
Want to lose your 4th and 5th amendment rights? Vote Republican.
Want to lose your 10th amendment rights? Vote for any of the above....

Re:another Obama disappointment...

[Cornelius the Great]

Don't be an idiot. Do you think Obama ordered these? do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments?

Here's a small lesson in American government for you: the TSA reports to the Department of Homeland Security, which is a cabinet department of the Executive Branch. For anything under the Executive, the buck stops at the person residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. If the President makes an order not to use full-body scanners, the TSA would have no choice but to obey.

While Bush was responsible during his term, don't pretend that Obama has nothing to do with current policies of TSA/DHS. He's been in charge for the past two years.

Re:another Obama disappointment...

[speroni]

Vote 3rd party.

Send the message that the status quo isnt going to cut it.

Re:another Obama disappointment...

[dkleinsc]

Actually, most infringements on civil liberties are bipartisan.

1st Amendment: Both major parties have embraced "Free Speech Zones", both have regularly beaten up and arrested protesters at their conventions since at least the 1970's, both have at various times suggested that saying or writing certain things is aiding and abetting the enemy. Also, the people targeted in violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments were universally adherents to a particular religion, which falls afoul of the Free Exercise clause.

2nd Amendment: On this one, you're right that Democrats are primarily behind bans on assault weapons and the like.

4th Amendment: Clinton started spying on Internet traffic, Bush increased it to a massive scale, Obama continues the practice and defends it in court. John Ashcroft captured people (including US citizens on US soil) and imprisoned them without ever showing probable cause to a judge. And of course the National Security Letters and other nonsense in the Patriot Act had massive support from both Democrats and Republicans.

5th Amendment: Both Bush and Obama have deprived people of liberty and sometimes life without due process of law by locking them up in Gitmo or sending them to foreign countries to be tortured. Both Dick Cheney and Barack Obama have targeted civilians for killing by the CIA without any sort of trial.

6th Amendment: Both Bush and Obama deprived "enemy combatants", including several US citizens, of the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of their peers. In the BS military tribunals, the enemy combatants are not presented with the evidence or witnesses against them, have no access to witnesses in their defense, and no protection against double jeopardy.

7th Amendment: Both Democrats and Republicans are enthusiastic in their support for binding arbitration, replacing jury trials for civil matters by arbiters who are paid by one side of the arbitration. Judges regularly throw out lawsuits due to binding arbitration agreements.

8th Amendment: Gitmo prisoners, as well as prisoners in Abu Graib, and prisoners sent to foreign countries via "extraordinary rendition", all have received what any reasonable person would term cruel and unusual punishment.

9th and 10th Amendments: Might as well forget about those, since any other rights the people had are long gone.

So suffice to say, we the people are screwed, unless EPIC, the ACLU, and other groups like them start getting some legal successes. With one exception: If the government tries to force you to quarter troops in your home, you can probably win that case.

Re:another Obama disappointment...

[vux984]

Obama could have easily prevented this January 21, 2009. Anyone claiming "he hasn't had enough time" for fixing the DHS/TSA is either lying or ignorant of how the office works.

Yeah. Its one of those two things. Only liars and idiots would ever say something is more complicated than a snap decision for the president.

The bureaucracies have a lot of momentum, and while sure certain key people in key places do have the technical authority to direct something. Its rarely that simple.

Closing guantanamo bay turned out to be more difficult... where do all the prisoners go. Giving them trials is controversial and is causing debate. We can't set the actually dangerous ones free. Nobody wants them in their local prison... that would invite local terrorist acts... blah blah blah.

Full body scanners were floating around in 2005, they were aready installed in airports in 2006/2007... orders have been placed, contracts signed, contractors hired, training done, policies and protocols written, multitudes of careers exist around these infernal things... you don't just step in and undo all that with a snap decision.

Congrats!

[bchickens]

I'm glad to see not everyone is taking this issue laying down. Seems like technology is getting more and more invasive as time goes by. Pretty soon everyone is going to be tracked even in there own home. Some already are!

Re:Congrats!

[aztektum]

Technology isn't becoming more invasive. The use of technology by people in power is become more invasive.

Re:Congrats!

[Shakrai]

so I don't expect this post to be visible for very long

I think your opinion is foolhardy but if you get modded down it's an abuse of the system. If I had mod points I'd toss one your way just for being brave enough to share your thoughts on this matter.

I don't think you could make the case that airports don't have a legitimate interest in screening passengers.

That legitimate interest needs to be balanced against individual rights and liberty. At what point do we decide that we've tilted too far against individual rights and give up on the notion of playing whack-a-mole with the people that seek to harm us?

It's not perfect, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than hoping something won't happen.

But even when something has happened it's been halted by the efforts of the passengers. No attack on an American airline in the post 9/11 world has been successful. The question I would posit is why do we respond like frightened little children to failed attempts at doing us harm?

Re:Congrats!

[Stargoat]

The 4th Amendment would seem to answer your question. A person has a right to no unreasonable searches. Removal of clothing (electronically) is unreasonable. The invasive pat-down is worse. Both are unconstitutional.

Further, there is no evidence that these intrusive (and they are intrusive) searches makes the fliers any safer. This makes an unconstitutional act further unconstitutional, as it is even more unreasonable. The Federal invasion of privacy is unconstitutional and unconscionable.

Most importantly, America is not and was never meant to be a safe country. It was meant to be a free country. Don't forget, had there been a Texan with a pistol on each of those airplanes on 9/11, there would have been no terrorist attack. We gave up the 2nd Amendment and the terrorists killed 3000 of us. How many will die from giving up the 4th?

Re:Congrats!

[KagakuNinja]

Give me a fucking break. Had there been a "Texan on board with a pistol", there would have been 4 armed terrorists on each plane (and most likely, they would have exploited security flaws to ensure they had more and better guns than your hypothetical Texan Freedom Fighter)

The terrorists exploited a flaw in how we dealt with hijackers. It wasn't about a lack of guns at all.

It's either full body scanning

[Omnifarious]

or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.

Personally, I'll go for the public. If they're going to be obnoxious, authoritarian jerks, they should be forced to do it where everybody can see them. I'll act like I'm gay and I enjoy it. I will act like I think they're gay, and they enjoy it. I will turn the humiliation tables around and ask them if they like feeling people's balls and vaginas up in public, if it turns them on.

If enough people take my stance on it, they will quit this garbage in a hurry.

Yeah, all you scaredy cat cowards people who think that somehow this will come back on me and make my life miserable. You know what, up yours. It's people like you that've gotten us where we are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. For once in your life, show a little backbone and self-respect.

Re:It's either full body scanning

[nege]

I know you are trying to be funny, but what about transgendered persons? If a trans-female walks through one of these things (pre-op), should she be subjected to the questions that will bring up? It seems like an unnecessary and humiliating search.

Re:Flying is a privilege, not a right.

[cobrausn]

Hijackings won't work anymore. We (as passengers) are all well too aware of what could happen if they do.

Hijackings used to be about money. Passengers would sit them through and get let go when it was all done with a pretty good chance of making it.

Nobody holds to that illusion anymore. Myself (and I'm sure many others) would curb stomp to death anyone who tried to hijack a plane I was on, or die trying. That, and the staff and pilots are better prepared for this now.

These things are just unnecessary.

Re:Transsexuals

[Joce640k]

Um, *everybody* has a right to privacy, not just some special cases.

PS: The machines won't stop anything, explosives fit inside body cavities just as well as heroin/cocaine does.

9th Amendment

[dazedNconfuzed]

Flying on an aircraft isn't a right...

Groundless stripping & groping normal innocent citizens who just want to fly isn't a power granted government.

Had the Founding Fathers imagined infringement of the right to vehicular travel, no question they would have included it in the Bill of Rights - and realizing they may have missed some, they DID include the catch-all 9th Amendment.
And they DID include an explicit denial of warrant-less searches by government agents, which is what this case is about.

Re:Not so cut and dry

[Mr. Slippery]

If you think Democrats are friendly towards the notion of the 2nd amendment I invite you to relocate to New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey or California. Come and see what Democrats do to the 2nd amendment when they have unchecked power.

Funny you should mention California there and blame the Democrats for gun control. Check your history about Ronald Reagan and the Mulford Act.