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."

41 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:another Obama disappointment... by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    3. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments?

      You know it was a Democrat that said "The Buck Stops Here", right?

      How about he discuss thinks Obama does that's in his realm or responsibly?

      TSA comes under Homeland Security which is a part of the Executive Branch the last time I checked. Guess who is in charge of the Executive Branch?

      OMG, my school board made a decision I don't like, that damn Obama!

      That's a stupid analogy. My school board is a local agency that's independent of the Federal (and State, for the most part) Government. TSA is nothing of the kind. Obama could fire the director of TSA tomorrow and end this bullshit policy if he was so inclined.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Department of Homeland Security is a Cabinet level department, which means President Obama personally picked Janet Napolitano to be Secretary and she answers to him.

      On November 5, 2008, Napolitano was named to the advisory board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project. On December 1, 2008, Barack Obama introduced Napolitano as his nominee for United States Secretary of Homeland Security, she was confirmed on January 20, 2009. Janet Napolitano assumed the office of Secretary of Homeland Security on January 21, 2009.

      This isn't some minor functionary of the Federal Government deciding this, she has been pushing backscatter X-ray since the day she got her job.

    7. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    8. Re:another Obama disappointment... by speroni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vote 3rd party.

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

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    9. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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".

    10. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Nimey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't see how you're thinking the 1st Amendment rights would go away first under the Dems.

      Remember that it was under Bush that we had "free speech zones" so that he didn't have to see people that disagreed with him.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    11. Re:another Obama disappointment... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
    12. Re:another Obama disappointment... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:another Obama disappointment... by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Congrats! by bchickens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    --
    ~Bchickens
    1. Re:Congrats! by aztektum · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:Congrats! by raddan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Congrats! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Congrats! by Stargoat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    5. Re:Congrats! by KagakuNinja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. It's either full body scanning by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's either full body scanning by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've gotten around every single pat down without having my genitals felt up by simply making eye contact with the security guard, eyeing him up and down once, and cocking an eyebrow.

      I'm sure one day I WILL come across a homosexual security guard and that will eventually backfire, but to this day I haven't had them reach more than 6 inches above my knees.

    2. Re:It's either full body scanning by boristdog · · Score: 4, Funny

      I want to make a pair of pants where I can make the fly pop open automatically. Then I'll go commando so my wing-wang will flop out when they touch my crotch.

      I can scream "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!" at that point.

    3. Re:It's either full body scanning by devitto · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I haven't had them reach more than 6 inches above my knees."

      Well, that might be fine for you, but I'm still outta luck. :-)

    4. Re:It's either full body scanning by BassMan449 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Personally I want to see a woman wear sweat pants through the checkpoint and wear fake silicone balls under them. I would absolutely love to see the look on the guards face when she runs into those.

    5. Re:It's either full body scanning by nege · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. 4th Amendment by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Where can I sign up? by pla · · Score: 3, Informative
  6. Full body scanners up in the club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This Friday night, come on down to Club Big Brother! We got a full body scanner, some disco balls, strobe effects, and some kickin' bass! The crowd will go wild when you step into the full nude scanner and it's shown on our 2 story high video wall! No cover for ladies and half-price drinks! Club Big Brother-because privacy violations are one big party!

  7. ALERT by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Funny

    The GRAMMAR BOT 9001 has determined you have confused the words "their" and "there". An infraction has been added to your permanent record and your mother has been notified.

    1. Re:ALERT by zero_out · · Score: 3, Funny

      GRAMMAR BOT 9001 didn't recognize the laying vs. lying error. It must be time to update the database of lexical errors in GRAMMAR BOT 9001.

  8. EPIC WIN! by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    ,,,

  9. the ACLU has been calling for a ban since 2002 by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    /. is broken and I often can't paste into the text box, so no link. However go to ACLU.ORG and search for TSA.
    IN fact, they have been calling for a ban of this kind of scanner in airports since 2002

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:the ACLU has been calling for a ban since 2002 by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

      javascript:document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('div'));

      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.
  10. Re:Flying is a privilege, not a right. by cobrausn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
  11. NO. Flying is a right, not a privilege. by X86Daddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:Transsexuals by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    No sig today...
  13. Not so cut and dry by rsborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Not so cut and dry by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  14. Re:Hardly any fuss over the democrats? by couchslug · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Surely they do wrong things, too?"

    No.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  15. 9th Amendment by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?