Slashdot Mirror
Court Approves TSA Body Scans, But Calls For Public Comment
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."
Your fire extinguisher was design to specification, tested and certified as to fitness for purpose by an independent third party, and if you are diligent you regularly check their condition and whether they are 'in date' and replace them if not. How much of that is true for the TSA. The land of the free now cares more for its fire extinguishers than it does for its freedom.
We should learn our lesson from the dozen or so times that the US has created a group of people who hate us. We use people as proxies then leave them with a pile of rubble, we push for policies that are favorable to American businesses but which ruin whole countries, we fight wars against countries that never posed a threat, we give weapons to oppressive governments, we throw our support behind tyrants and dictators, etc. We need to stop doing all of the above, then clean up the massive mess that we have made, and then we will return to our position as the country that brings people hope.
As for airport security, can you cite any cases where the TSA's backscatter or groping approach has actually prevented an attack? I seem to recall a test that indicated that the TSA missed the majority of knives and even a large fractions of guns at those checkpoints. I also get the feeling that the bomb sniffing dogs, intelligence analysis, locked cabin doors, and in-the-air security (e.g. tackling people who try to set their shoes on fire) are doing many orders of magnitude more to protect travellers.
Palm trees and 8
Yes, but you get the radiation from the machine in a second and you get it from the flight spread over an hour. That is also assuming the machine is operating and being operated correctly. I'm not convinced yet. I'll wait several years and see if cancer rates increase among frequent travellers before I allow it to be used on myself or my family.
These unwelcome intrusions continue because we allow them. If we the people as a group, boycotted air travel, tgis DHS BS would go away.
Agreed. However, you need to understand that the vast majority of air travel consists of business travelers with close to zero discretion about how to get to their destination, rather than people flying because they choose to do so.
You want to make the TSA cut this shit out? We have exactly one option that might work: Public shunning.
Run a business? Refuse to serve them.
Know any personally? Tell them you can't hang out anymore until they take a respectable job such as prostitution or dealing drugs.
Encounter one casually on the street? Stop just short of assault in badgering them.
Have to actually fly? Hand every one of them that speaks to you the business card of a local headhunter.
Make it impossible for these people to have a life, and no one will take the job at any price. And maybe, just maybe, instead of instituting some sort of "TSA draft", the asshats in DC will get the message.
They want "public commentary" on their scanners"? How about "fuck off and die, you goose-stepping pieces of shit, We The People hope your pornoscanners give you all a slow and painful cancer"? That work for ya, Janet? Get the idea yet?
/ And for the apologists - You know who else "was just doing their jobs"?
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.
You want to cause them pain by mistreating them, which is not that much different than physical violence in the spirit of your argument.
Antagonistic behavior and belligerence is never the answer to conflict resolution.
Simple intelligence would dictate the answer here:
The TSA allows you the option of a pat down. It takes 700 - 1000 times longer. Literally. I don't like being touched by a strange man, especially right up against my junk. Guess what? He does not really want to do it either.
Optimum solution to getting them to change their minds is for us to take a path of suffering instead of a path of violence. We all subject ourselves to the pat down. Then it will take 12 hours to get through the check points, the airlines will go absolutely ape shit and scream even louder for a private alternative to the TSA, and the TSA is effectively shut down by an inefficient process.
Either that, or they would need 100 TSA agents manning each entry point to do a pat down procedure.
It costs me more in time and energy, and it invades my privacy. However, my privacy and personal space is invaded by a single person and the data is not recorded that could be kept forever.
I dislike the current situation as much as you do, but I will not resort to your methods. They are far to aggressive, harmful, and uncivilized.
People need to remember the lesson of Gandhi. Non-violence and passive resistance can be as strong as water shaping the world over time. There is a time when violence is required for self preservation, but I hardly think the TSA policies are a threat against your life.
"It's very much a sensible interpretation from your post that in order to rationally believe something to be true, you must research it yourself."
This is the part that is both moronic and straw-man, as I already explained. If you do not understand that it is a huge leap from certain questionable research to making broad generalizations about ALL research (which is what you did), then you shouldn't be arguing with people about it online.
"Sort of. It does depend on the legitimacy of the challenge."
It certainly does. And what do you know about "the legitimacy" of the challenge? The stuff you saw on the news? Silly and relatively irrelevant stuff like "hide the decline", and dumb comments in computer code?
Or do you actually know something about people like Prof. Wibjorn Karlen? Not some kook, this is somebody who actually collaborated with CRU staff on important climate papers. What do you know of Wegman and his report, or what it actually said, and why it's relevant? Do you actually know anything about tree ring temperature proxies and how they are/were used?
"Almost all?" Really? What do you know about the actual percentage? (Hint: don't quote to me "studies" by Naomi Oreskes... her work has been thoroughly discredited.)
Get back to me when you do know these things and can discuss them. Until then, all you're doing is spitting the Kool-Aid all over everybody else.
I don't understand the court's comments. I mean, I do from the standpoint that they are in DC and aren't reviewing this from a Constitutional standpoint but rather some kind of operational / "I don't want to go on record as being the guy who pulled the plug and then a terrors slips past." Frankly, this has already been decided in Terry v. Ohio. It clearly outlines the requirements for police (e.g. the government) to search a person vs. just "frisk" a person. It even outlines what defines a "frisk" which is why it is often referred to as a "Terry Frisk" within the law enforcement world. Simply put, there needs to be probable cause for the officer to search a person (the same as the groping and looking down your pants search done by the TSA.) Reasonable suspicion, e.g. "I think anyone of you could be a terrorist" doesn't qualify, and thus this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. As is the scanner, as forcing anyone to show their nude person also (under several rulings) requires probable cause or the exceptions for entering a prison.
There is one major issue not in the favor of citizens though... the TSA (namely it's "agents") are security guards and not law enforcement. Thus they are not directly forced to behave by Terry v. Ohio, or for that matter anything else. And they do not have to reach for probable cause. But, they are agents of the government and therefore we the people are protected by our enumerated and inalienable rights. We just have to apparently point this out to the courts.
I too dislike the "we are just following orders" comments they give... like others, I apparently payed attention in history class and have seen what that attitude has lead to and frankly I doubt the human psyche has changed enough to prevent a relapse.
But I am all for refusing the back-scatter scanners and making them search my person if that is my only alternative because I have to fly somewhere. It slows them down, it slows down everything, and that is what will cause the pressure on the system. The morons going through the x-ray machine... well I guess in a few years they will learn that much like asbestos and cigarettes the government wasn't actually truthful in the damage caused by something. There is far too much evidence that their machines are harmful (most recently a large number of TSA agents reporting cancer.) It's an x-ray... I don't care how low power you set it... you weren't genetically designed to deal with it all the time. I fly several times a week, so I am not going to play in the the naked picture taking microwave generator thank you very much... both for privacy and health reasons. I love listening to the TSA agents tell people it's just like a sonogram and your cell phone is more dangerous. Really?! Maybe if you guys payed attention in high school and went on to collage you could get real jobs and stop trying to mesmerize the masses with your make believe science.
I'm personally waiting for the "anus bomber" or "laptop battery bomber" to attempt to strike. Either will shut down commercial air travel as probing people (well I know a few that might like it, but I digress) and not allowing laptops on aircraft will be the check-mate that is needed. The security theater reaction instituted by DHS and thus the TSA is their actual goal. terrorists don't even need to be successful... hell failing is actually more damaging in this case. The terrorists are winning by getting us to give up our freedoms. People, their goal is to destroy our way of life... not knock fling tin cans out of the air. They love police states where freedoms are restricted because people believe they are now safer... that's how they run things themselves. They don't need to be the ones in charge, but getting us to fall under their type of rule means they won, even if they no longer suck air in a cave with a love sheep as their only companion. They dislike freedom, they dislike private wealth, they dislike public education and free thought... I have never heard them say "man, I really hate airpla