Slashdot Mirror
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."
Took long enough. I though it would be the ACLU but they seem to have really dropped the ball when it comes to the TSA. Here is the problem with all airport security theater. A dogs are better bomb sniffers than any machine. And B you can put a bomb up your ass. I suspect that the ACLU didn't go after the TSA because they too are turning into a bunch of ass covering bureaucrats and worried about the optics of them shutting down half this airport crap and then some dickweed blowing up a plane and their getting the blame.
or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy [marco.org]. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.
I loved the guy around here (and I wish I could find his post) that said something like: In 200 years we've gone from "Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" to "Sure, you can pat me down, I don't want to miss my connecting flight."
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I've gotten around it by not flying anymore. Road trips for the win. Drove all the way to Salt Lake City last year. Drove all the way to NOLA this year. Sure, it limits me to visiting Canada and 49 of the 50 US States but it's better than the alternative, IMHO.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's a sad state of affairs when the Republicans can gridlock congress intentionally, then get rewarded for it the next election by morons that are doing it because politics in D.C. has gotten too partisan. With Sen., McConnell openly stating that he's going to intentionally gridlock the Senate so that a Republican candidate has a better shot at the 2012 Presidential elections, you really have to wonder about these guys' patriotism.
It's a really neat trick to refuse to engage in bipartisan politics then attack the guy that went way out of his way to work with you. Then have the voters reward you with more seats.
My opinion runs contrary to most of Slashdot on this matter, so I don't expect this post to be visible for very long, but-- what's the big deal? I don't think you could make the case that airports don't have a legitimate interest in screening passengers. I usually agree with EPIC, but I don't in this case.
Clearly, what offends people here is the invasive nature of the screening. But is it really all that invasive? They get what's essentially a contour map of your body. Big deal. The really invasive alternative is the pat down, or worse, the strip search. With these screeners, you just walk through, no clothing removal necessary.
The problem is that you have an extremely low-probability event which causes a large amount of damage. This is where most Slashdotters have their heads in the sand. You are right that the amount of physical damage is minimal, but actual physical damage is not the goal of terrorists: spreading the message is the goal, and the spreading of that message is greatly heightened by a dramatic delivery, such as the deaths of innocent people. I think it's understandable that people would want to prevent that from happening as much as they want the physical harm from happening. In that light, I think a non-invasive (as in, you just walk through it) scanner is a nice technological solution. It's not perfect, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than hoping something won't happen.
I eagerly await your civil responses.
How many "Guards" have you met, known, dealt with? Most are just twisted enough or suck at lying to the point they fail the psychological or poly or background check for any Law Enforcement position. The pay is McDonalds grade, the job is boring, most of your co-workers have sub standard personal hygien and as a bonus the public pisses on you every chance they get. When you fail to present them the opportunity they create one for themselves. Another words only a sick twisted sociopath with an authoritarian complex works in the Guard industry. Want to guess what I do for a living? Muah Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!
Fellow chrome user!
See this bug here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=60057
Based on comment #10, I made a little bookmark in the bookmark bar called "Fix /." with the site
And now I can click that whenever I want to reply.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
There are modesty requirements for several religions, including forms of Islam (well-publicized) and Judaism (not as well-known). Any sort of display of the flesh other than face or hands (and sometimes limits on those) is a violation of the religion, with narrow exceptions for family and doctors.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The framers of the Constitution of the US had a lively debate on whether or not to include the Bill of Rights. They felt that such an enumeration would lead to damaged thinking about how people get a specific set of rights, listed by a government, and anything else is "not a right." Your post is evidence that the concern was well founded.
I have the absolute and sovereign right to conduct transactions with any other party as I see fit. That includes paying an airline to provide travel services... or a boat company, or a train company, or gasoline vendors so I might power my car. These are my rights, just as providing those services are the rights of those individuals or entities.
The US federal government and its child governments have made decrees that our rightful ability to make such transactions should be hindered or outright prohibited (see drug and prostitution laws).
A free people, in a free country, could easily go about choosing to purchase travel services from whichever entities they choose, and be subject to agreed upon security arrangements with those entities. Some airlines could specialize in extensive strip-searchy, genital-feely security theatrics, and some could specialize on a more distributed "hand every non-drinking passenger a little baseball bat as they board" approach. Then you could exercise your "right to feel" safe, while the rest of us exercise our rights, sans conflict.
What you seek is less and less respect from government, in exchange for absolutely nothing other than a baseless "feeling" of security. Plenty of cowards felt the liquid ban made them safer... until the wannabe crotch-bomber showed them it meant nothing... Plenty of cowards will feel safer now that everyones genitals are felt or photographed, until the next elevation in this arms race. Then the cowards will be ready for the next bit of demeaning, useless, costly garbage, further hindering our freedoms and rights, such as travel at will within the borders of "our" supposed country.
I'd rather walk through a body scanner before boarding a plane than be required to give them my name and other irrelevant information that only helps the government and the airline to track my personal travel and also helps the airline to continue to restrict transferring of tickets.
As a side note, I've always thought it was just "wrong" that the ticket did not just entitle the holder of said ticket to a particular seat on a particular flight regardless of who originally was considering sitting in that seat.
Want to lose your 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Vote Democrat.
You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks (was outlawed, now legal)?
Don't paint with too broad a brush.
Now if we could only also vote for those appointed positions that hold so much power (SoS,NSA,CoS, etc).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
It's only a DE FACTO 2-party system... I still don't understand how any person can be a cheerleader for either major party with the BS that has gone down over the last CENTURY.
I vote straight ticket 3rd party every election just out of the hope that a 3rd party candidate gets enough votes that the next time around they might get equal footing in a debate, or news coverage and maybe some other people might wake up and realize that there are more than 2 choices.
Collector's Edition
Since 3rd party voters are the most likely to vote based on the actual platform instead of the party, they are the one group that can be influenced to vote for you by doing what they want. Democrats will generally vote Democrat. Republicans will generally vote Republican. There is no point in either party doing the will of the people registered to their party. 3rd party voters on the other had, they can be swayed with a good argument, or good track record on service. They are the ones that politicians must cater to.
So, voting anything but third party is "Throwing away your vote".
Voting for a third party is (unfortunately) a pretty ineffectual protest move. Due to the majority-vote ballot system generally used in the US, there is a chicken-and-egg problem for third parties: People tend to vote for someone they think might win, but the only way a candidate has a chance to win is by getting a significant number of votes. Plus, people remember Ross Perot (and to a lesser degree Ralph Nader) as a third-party electoral spoiler.
If you want to make a real difference, get out and organize like-minded people, protest, knock on doors or mail letters to make your point to the public, and do other visible things. Casting votes and writing letters to the editor (or blog posts) are not going to convince many people.
Name me a 3rd party that puts up candidates worth voting for and I'll consider it. The Libertarians are the ones that would appeal to me on paper but they always seem to nominate idiots. I remember their 2008 Presidential candidate best for waging a campaign against Wiccans in the military. Hardly seems compatible with the notion of limited Government and respect for civil liberties.
I looked for the "none of the above" option in 2008 but I could not find it. More's the pity.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
It seems humiliating because it is humiliating, and transgendered people shouldn’t get any special treatment. It wouldn’t help anyway...
“Excuse me, why do I have to go through this and she didn’t?” “She’s transgendered.” “Oh...”
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Plus, people remember Ross Perot (and to a lesser degree Ralph Nader) as a third-party electoral spoiler.
The problem is that third party candidates are seen as spoilers at all. They are the only candidates not spoiling everything. I saw an article about the governor race in Illinois, and how it went to a republican, and the author of the article blamed Green party voters for letting the republican take office. Well fuck you, Mr. Political Analyst guy, the Green party voters were the only sane ones. Maybe if the democratic voters had voted for the Green candidate, then the republican wouldn't have taken office either, huh?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It's also MY RIGHT to feel some assurance that the guy sitting next to me isn't planning on hijacking the plane.
No it's not your right. So, this is your reasoning:
"Oh NO! I want to feel safe! Please government, go ahead and search me and make sure I don't have any weapons so that I'll be safe! Take my Fourth Amendment rights away."
It's that sort of attitude that makes terrorism so effective. Yes, I'm saying people like you allow terrorism to be effective.
Thank you so very little.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Just you wait until someone does blow up a plane and went through the body scanner. Sooner or later they will make a bomb from threads of C-4 or whatever, sew it into a set of pants and shirt, and then we'll have to fly naked because the TSA is scared of clothing.
They are already scared of shoes, toothpaste, hair gel, nail clippers, bottled water, yadda-yadd, ad-infinitum.
Here's what I don't get. We had the "shoe-bomber" which in turn, made the TSA remove and inspect our shoes. Then last year we had the "underwear-bomber"... So how come the TSA doesn't make us remove and inspect our underwear?
Just wait till some guy detonates a bomb he shoved up his ass. Then it's cavity searches for all.
And the airline industry will slowly crumble from pissed off passengers refusing to fly. Or we'll just accept it by that time, just as we now accept the humiliation we currently go through.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
That's how it starts. you call for a ban. You don't jump straight to sue. They sue for immigrants because an immigrant comes forward with a complaint.
Maybe after you are refused to board a flight after refusing to use one of these device you should go to the ACLU?
Did you go to the ACLU and search to see all the things they have been doing? no, of course not. That would require rationality.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bad choice of words, but that gives me another idea. :)
In San Francisco, there's probably no good joke to make because everyone's figured out that neither the searcher's nor the traveller's gender/orientation matters. It's just a job.
But in Texas: "Look, I can tell you're straight, but how do you guys handle it if a gay dude gets hired? You can't exactly have him volunteering to pat down the women, or all us guys would be trying to get hired *laugh*"
If he smirks, look kinda like you're pondering it and then say "but seriously, what if one of your co-workers starts looking like he enjoys searching the kids a bit too much, y'know?"
The political system in the U.S. is FUBAR. The only "vote" we have these days is with our dollars. Don't like being treated like a criminal or a porn star at the airport? Stop flying. Or, if you're running a company, cut back on corporate air travel by 50%. Use teleconferencing. Plan ahead and take the train. I haven't flown anywhere since 2000. But, I've traveled all over the country by train. When you decide to stop flying, make sure you tell them why you're not flying. Their response can be quite entertaining.
When I canceled my cable TV subscription back in 2006, they (Time/Warner) asked why I was leaving. I told them I was sick and tired of paying over $100/month to watch commercials. I was particularly outraged at the (usually animated) self-promotion ads that ran at the bottom of the screen during the show or movie I was trying to watch. The T/W customer "support" person's response was, "Well, sir, we don't have any control over that. Those are decisions made by the network." To which I replied that Time/Warner owned TBS and TBS was, at the time, one of the biggest (ab)users of this type of TV spam. Her response? Dead silence. Made my day.
If the airlines (big corporations) start feeling the economic heat (sometimes just the well-orchestrated threat of economic heat), you will be amazed at how fast things will change in Washington. And at the airport. But, you have to make sure you tell them why you're leaving and taking your dollars with you.
One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
Exactly! I am actually an intersexed person and therefore have very strange anatomy that I would prefer to keep to myself. At this point I simply refuse to fly anywhere if it means that by either an electronic strip-search or being felt up by somebody is going to lead to embarrassing questions because my anotomy does not match what is expected.