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."
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.
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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!
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.
Technology isn't becoming more invasive. The use of technology by people in power is become more invasive.
No sig for you!!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.