Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Approves TSA Body Scans, But Calls For Public Comment

Posted by Soulskill on from the in-the-case-of-the-people-vs-the-peepers dept.

OverTheGeicoE writes "The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has finally issued a ruling (PDF) on EPIC v. DHS, a lawsuit seeking suspension of the use of body scanners for primary screening pending an independent review that would include a public comment period. According to the summary, the court 'grant[s] the petition for review' but 'due to the obvious need for the TSA to continue its airport security operations without interruption, we remand the rule to the TSA but do not vacate it.' In short, the TSA is required to open up their policy for public comment, but they can continue to use the scanners in the meantime and most likely afterward. This doesn't sound like much of a victory for EPIC or the U.S. public."

15 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. we could take back control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These unwelcome intrusions continue because we allow them. If we the people as a group, boycotted air travel, tgis DHS BS would go away. There are two waaaay more effective antiterror methods to use than spying on everyone and fondling people against their wills... first, airlplanes should be constructed to make hijacking physically impossible, (not that hard to do) and we should figure out what it is we as a nation are doing that makes people in other countries want to fscking want to kill us, and stop doing it. It shouldnt be that hard... if we were willing to open our eyes as a nation and see.

    1. Re:we could take back control... by melikamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can travel with a cargo ship. It is much slower and somewhat more expensive than air, but it's definitely an option.

    2. Re:we could take back control... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "... and since a supermajority of US citizens are in denial about climate change.... good luck with that."

      Simply incorrect.

      First, people with at least half a brain -- including in the U.S. -- know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not.

      Second, the vast majority of those you label "deniers" -- those with the aforementioned half a brain -- are not denying "climate change" at all. They are simply challenging the assertion that CO2, in particular, has been a significant contributor to it. As well they should; the "evidence" is actually quite thin and based on shaky assumptions.

      Perhaps that appears to be happening more in America simply because the general public understands the science somewhat better than many others do. Enough to at least raise questions about it, anyway.

    3. Re:we could take back control... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is this attitude that is amusing.

      It is amazing -- and amusing -- how the people who swallowed the Kool-Aid hook, line, and sinker, without bothering to research it themselves, think they know all about it.

    4. Re:we could take back control... by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that one of my friends (20 years) is a supervisor, you're plan does not work for me.

      Then you have the fairly rare opportunity to act on probably the single most effective suggestion I made. The fact that you defend them rather than act on that makes you part of the problem.


      and through negative reinforcement and outright punishment and discrimination (which is illegal anyways) force them to quit their jobs and find new ones.

      You might want to double-check that one with your lawyer. Unless someone falls into one of the Holy categories of "old", "female", "immigrant", "Jewish" (Or I suppose Muslim has turned into the new Jewish), "Black", or "crippled" (including "pregnant"), and to a lesser degree "gay" - You can discriminate against whomever the hell you want. You could walk into work tomorrow and get fired, with the actual reason given and you having no recourse, because you like the color green, you drive a Ford, you voted for Obama, you support the Packers, you listen to NPR, or you prefer dogs to cats.


      For the record, the poster I replied to offered 4 suggestions. Only one was passive, and he emphasized overall that the goal was to give these "people" no choice, make their lives miserable

      For the record, I offered four examples, not meant as all-inclusive, and I don't give a rat's ass about "passive". If not a crime (a real one, in this case) to incite violence, I'd say hunt the race (as in "human") traitors down and kill them in their sleep. As it stands, I suggested legal ways to make their lives hell, in the hopes of redeeming the "better" ones (like, hypothetically, your friend).

      Don't get me wrong - I count as "mostly harmless". But the AC in this thread has the right idea - The government fears one thing and only one thing - That the people get their voice back and start filling harbors with imported Tea-Vs.


      I find it extremely humorous that you are comparing TSA agents to WWII German concentration camp guards like the ones at Auschwitz.

      "No, really, my friend, not like the others! Sure, he unquestioningly kills Jews for a living - But he feels bad about it!"

      If the jackboot fits...

    5. Re:we could take back control... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering that one of my friends (20 years) is a supervisor, you're plan does not work for me. The regular TSA agents and supervisors are not bad people at all. It is hard enough to find a job in this economy and a TSA agent is worse than a call center or telemarketer in terms of stress and bullshit.

      Just following orders? Where have I heard that before?

      Sorry, but orders or no, if you rape a baby, you're a baby raper.

      Oh, sorry, FONDLE.

  2. The feds love their power by pwizard2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course they voted this way... why would a federal circuit court do anything that reduces the power of the federal government? These days, representative government is a lie.

    --
    "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    1. Re:The feds love their power by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It became a myth with the rise of political parties.

      Were there not large organizations that spanned multiple branches of government at any given moment, separation of powers would work better, as each branch would be an independent entity protecting their own interests. Instead, you get one party controlling multiple branches, and the members within agree to work towards common goals, dissolving the separation of powers.

      Of course, one could blame a lot of the country's ills on the existence of political parties.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  3. Summaraized: by Sinthet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're not gonna stop doing it, but we'll now allow you to bitch about it.

  4. So, this is what we're doing now? by bistromath007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the judicial equivalent of saying "cry about it."

    Please, just wake me up when somebody actually starts killing Senators. I'm done with this.

  5. "obvious need"? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it considered an obvious need that the TSA continue using these devices? They've cost the U.S. tens of millions of dollars and so far I haven't heard of them actually having stopped any real terrorist, in fact they've just made it even easier for people and TSA employees to steal stuff from fellow travelers.

    Have these things stopped any actual terrorism attempt? And if so, was the attempt sophisticated enough that it wouldn't have been noticed otherwise?

    1. Re:"obvious need"? by James+Kilton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There isn't one shred of data that these devices actually work, or that TSA's security practices have stopped anything. The TSA does not track anything, so there's no way for anyone to know what the hell the truth is. I suspect that the TSA has not stopped anything since 2001, it's been other agencies (FBI, CIA, etc) who have prevented attacks.

      There's also the fact that driving is many times more dangerous than flying, yet flying gets the most "security" (not that I want a TSA pat-down before getting into my car, of course, but it just shows how useless they are).

      By the way, the backscatter devices would NOT have detected Mr Underpants Bomber. Oh, and every policy the TSA has put in place has been after someone got through security (e.g. shoe bomber => take your shoes off). Security theater at it's finest. Now, who are the politicians who've gotten donations from Rapiscan et.al. and how do we make sure they're permanently removed from office?

  6. NO we can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These unwelcome intrusions continue because we allow them.

    That's the thing, most people I talk to in the real World actually think that the scanner make them safe - they'd be pissed if they went away or if there were another successful terrorist attack would say, 'SEE! We needed those scanners!!"

    Remember, we're in a society that has many many people who think that chiropractic doctors are real, homeopathy works, Satan exists and that by increasing the Debt Ceiling, Government spending will go up.

    1. Re:NO we can't by Stiletto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because most people in the real world are overly susceptible to slick marketing, and body scanning tech has been heavily and unrelentingly been marketed to the American public. These things are big money for the companies that produce them, so they'll stop at nothing to convince Joe Retard that we need them.

  7. I'm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm more afraid of the TSA than I am of Terrorists.

    I'd rather die a free man than fly as a slave.