Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EPIC Files Lawsuit To Suspend Airport Body Scanner Use

Posted by Soulskill on from the shut-up-it's-cold-here dept.

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."

16 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 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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/
  2. 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.

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    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 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. :-)

    3. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!!
  5. 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?
  6. 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.