Slashdot Mirror


EPIC Files For Rehearing In Body Scanner Case

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed for a rehearing in their case against DHS regarding airport body scanners. In their latest court filing (PDF), EPIC argues that last month's ruling requiring a public comment period but no other changes was based on incorrect information. From TFA: '"The court overstated the effectiveness of the body scanner devices and understated the degree of the privacy intrusion to the travelling public," stated EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. EPIC's petition challenged the Court's finding that the devices detect "liquid and powders," which was never established and was not claimed by the government. EPIC also argued that the court wrongly concluded that the TSA is not subject to a federal privacy law that prohibits video voyeurism. The panel found that TSA body scanner employees are "engaged in law enforcement activity," contrary to the TSA's own regulations.' Note that this is a request for a rehearing with the same court that rejected their request to stop TSA's use of body scanners. It is not an appeal to a higher court. Is EPIC likely to obtain a more favorable ruling from the same court?"

22 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Probably not by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2
    Why would government (albeit a different arm) ever want to give up power they have. Personally I think it would be better fought on appeal especially if facts are in question. But then IANAL and don't even pretend to be one on /.

    EPIC's petition challenged the Court's finding that the devices detect "liquid and powders," which was never established and was not claimed by the government.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:Probably not by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Court you have to dot your t's and cross your i's or the higher court will refuse the hear the appeal. You have to show essentially negligence by the lower court for an appeal to succeed and that's what EPIC is doing. Presenting the errors in judgement and asking the lower court to overrule their own previous ruling. If the court refuses to go ahead with that (and it does happen that courts overturn their own judgments, reference the RIAA case against Jamie Thomas where the court overturned their own previous bad ruling) then they appeal that decision and the basis for courts ruling is then open to appeal due to the errors outlined in the previous ruling. People forget there are strict rules in the appeals courts about what is open for appeal. You can't appeal everything and the kitchen sink and it becomes a shell game to find the right avenue of appeal to get a judgement overturned.

    2. Re:Probably not by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      There's loads of money in stuff like Quicken and other tax software, along with a practical guarantee that it won't fuck up your taxes so long as the information is accurate.

      It makes me wonder why there isn't a law version of this.

      Your closing statement contains an ad hominem attack on the prosecution and several other logical fallacies [expand list]. Are you sure you want to continue?

  2. Strip the machines for parts and move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, I have a rock that keeps terrorists away, how do I know it works? Well duh, no terrorist attacks near the rock. Specious reasoning perhaps, but no different than irradiating travellers at every airport in your country.

    FOR YOUR SAFETY we will expose you to IONISING RADIATION

    Bravo USA, bra-fucking-vo

    1. Re:Strip the machines for parts and move on by wiedzmin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, I have a rock that keeps terrorists away, how do I know it works? Well duh, no terrorist attacks near the rock.

      Yes, but does your rock pull billions of dollars of federal funding for some ambiguous rock provider, who can take me out to a nice game of golf or gift me some of their stock options? No? Then we don't want it.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    2. Re:Strip the machines for parts and move on by Moonrazor · · Score: 2

      Except paper, everyone knows paper beats rock!

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea........
    3. Re:Strip the machines for parts and move on by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Well you could detect most weapons with something like a metal detector but my confidence in the TSA's ability to do anything is limited. I have sent a coat through the x-ray machine and they have missed rifle rounds and shotgun shell numerous times. Granted I had forgotten that they were in there, but I thought these people were suppose to be trained professionals. And it wasn't I forgot one in there but lots of ammo, one time I threw away almost an entire box (18 or 19 rounds) of 7.62x54r since I forgot the box in the inner coat pocket, on another occasion I threw away 10 or so shotgun shells that made it through security.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Strip the machines for parts and move on by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      You raise a valid point. However, I would argue that, before the government has the right to ignore the prohibition upon unreasonable search in the 4th Amendment and before the government has the right to subject you to potentially dangerous radiation, the burden of proof is upon them to show that what they are doing actually provides a deterrent effect.

      Furthermore, since there have been at least two would-be terrorists since TSA took over airport security (the "underwear bomber" and the "shoe bomber"), both of whom slipped past TSA and were stopped by other passengers on the airliners, there is a valid counter-argument to the deterrent effect. This is even more apparent when you compare the number of people who have mistakenly (we hope...) carried weapons through TSA checkpoints despite body and baggage scanners, metal detectors and "enhanced patdowns."

      In light of the evidence available, I am skeptical of any claims that TSA actually provides any kind of deterrent...except for people like me, who are deterred from flying at all due to the TSA's increasingly outrageous behaviour.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    5. Re:Strip the machines for parts and move on by treeves · · Score: 2

      Theory should not trump empirical evidence. Evidence for rock is solid.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    6. Re:Strip the machines for parts and move on by NoobixCube · · Score: 2

      Give me $5 Billion in funding, and I can make a rock that does it better.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  3. Re:Public safety should be the priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Behavioral profiling is effective. Ethnic profiling is not.

  4. Re:Public safety should be the priority by slippyblade · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except for the fact that it's been shown by explosives experts and chemists alike that the "liquid explosive" theory is not viable. It is difficult to do under lab conditions and nearly impossible to do in the bathroom of an airplane. So, once again, it's knee jerk BS response.

  5. has anyone tried to follow the money ? by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This body scanning stuff seems so inefficient and stupid, I'm guessing someone in the decision process must be lining their pockets ?

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    1. Re:has anyone tried to follow the money ? by Matt.Battey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Michael Chertoff.

      He's became security lobbyist, and the go-to guy on air travel security after being replaced as head of DHS. Meanwhile, he has interest in one of the larger companies that manufacture the back-scatter x-ray imaging devices. He gets paid to talk influence government to buy the machines, and he started shilling them while in office.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html

      Like fourth link when Googling his name.

    2. Re:has anyone tried to follow the money ? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

      The money trail leads to (among other places) former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who made the decision to buy the body scanners while he had a financial interest in the company selling them. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. Re:Public safety should be the priority by tgd · · Score: 2

    Better off bringing a quart of bleach and a quart of ammonia.

    TSA regulations are about security theater, not reality.

  7. Re:Public safety should be the priority by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    The TSA should engage in profiling, as the Israelis do. Although it's controversial [breitbart.com], the Israelis have managed to prevent any hijacking incidents since 1969 so they must be doing something right. Even the Israelis aren't perfect and sooner or later it's possible someone will slip through and cause a calamity, but so far they have demonstrated a more intelligent approach to airport security that does not require body scanner imaging technology such as the TSA has enthusiastically promoted.

    Oh jeez not this shit again. Is it going to take a string of Anders Behring Breivik-looking dudes to blow up American buildings before you idiots get the point? Profiling does not improve security. It lays down a temporary speedbump and introduces many vulnerabilities. An attacker only has to match the low-security racial profile to get through with reduced scrutiny. From a security standpoint alone it is a bad idea, the same reason AV apps don't only scan files handled by IE, Adobe Reader, JRE and Flash, the same reason there isn't an Express Lane for rich white folks to return to the US from Mexico, the same reason that we don't just block all traffic from outside the Western world as our only network security solution.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. Re:Public safety should be the priority by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    The TSA should engage in profiling, as the Israelis do.

    They do not. Who made up that myth? In fact, the Israelis explicitly state that they don't trust profiling because terrorists will find out what the profile is, and use terrorists who don't match it. They do intensive, one-on-one interviews with all passengers.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  9. Re:Public safety should be the priority by element-o.p. · · Score: 2
    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  10. Re:Public safety should be the priority by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bruce Scheier cites a number of sources here. The short answer is that it is very, very unlikely. First, the chemicals are difficult to work with under the best of circumstances. An airplane is not the best of circumstances. Second, the chemicals, being volatile organic compounds, have strong, unpleasant odors. While people may be expecting "strong, unpleasant" odors to be emanating from a bathroom, these would be unusual enough that even the least observant passengers on the airplane would become more than just a little suspicious. Third, you can't just mix up a batch of binary explosives in a few minutes. It is a long, drawn-out process, and as the line to the loo began to grow suspiciously long, someone would be bound to intervene.

    Bottom line: We've already lost the war on terror. TSA is a political entity, and that means that every time some potential terrorist yells, "Boo!" TSA jumps, because if EVER, even once, they don't jump and something does happen, there will be a lot of Congress Critters on the streets looking for work. Consequently, the terrorists don't have to blow anything up ever again. All they have to do is let it be known that maybe they are thinking about some new attack vector and our fear will do the rest for them.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  11. Re:Public safety should be the priority by treeves · · Score: 2

    A piranha bath, in the semiconductor industry, is a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid, not caustic (alkaline) but definitely corrosive, and used to clean organic residues from silicon wafers. I've seen chromic/sulfuric baths used to glass labware, but I've not heard that referred to as a piranha bath, and it is also acidic.
      Did you mean something else?

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  12. Re:Public safety should be the priority by kbg · · Score: 2

    The liquid sizes I have never understood. What is there to stop the terrorist to combine their liquids? For example if there are five terrorists like on 9/11? Then you have about half a liter of explosives, so this arbitrary rule basically has no effect