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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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