Slashdot Mirror
DHS Still Stonewalling On Body Scanning Ruling One Year Later
OverTheGeicoE writes "About a year ago, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on EPIC v. DHS, a lawsuit that sought to end TSA's use of body scanners. The Court found that DHS violated federal law by not seeking public comment before using body scanners as a primary search method. They ordered TSA to take public comment on its body scanning policy but did not require TSA to suspend its use of the scanners during the comment period. Several months later nothing had been done yet. One year later TSA has still done nothing, and even EPIC, the original plaintiff, seems to have given up. Others have apparently picked up the torch, however. Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, has posted a piece on Ars Technica about TSA's violation of the court order. He also started a petition on Whitehouse.gov asking TSA to comply with the order. An earlier petition ended with a non-response from TSA Administrator John Pistole. Will the latest petition fare any better, even in an election year?"
Ve haf vays to make you submit to full body scans. <puffs cigarette>
The signers will still vote for Obama and toe the party line.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is exactly the sort of shit that happened with Hoover's FBI. More and more resources and power are granted to the point where the organisation can effectively be above the law, especially local or state rulings.
This is the result of 11 years of the "war on terror". These sort of behemoth power structures were inevitable.
Can't the TSA be held in contempt of court and its officers jailed?
History teaches us that we do not learn from history.
so is it an ..... EPIC FAIL?
I've experienced similar at a local level. The only way to get action is if some high level TSA official goes to prison for contempt of court.
And don't hold your breath that will even happen.
There were around 900 this morning when I signed; currently nearing 6000 out of 20,000 needed.
And the worms ate into his brain.
I like your trolling style. Can I subscribe to your troll newsletter?
Isn't someone supposed to get arrested?
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
In other words, our fascist government just does whatever the hell it wants and no one can do a damn thing about it. Film at 11.
We are Germany in 1935 or so. Back then, low level German civil servants did a splendid job enforcing the fascist Nazi policies. Today, our own low level civil servants are doing the same, or well on their way.
The rise of the Nazis in Germany and oppression of Jews and others was not spontaneous. It was planned. Likewise, today in the US, though I can't prove it, we certainly seem to be in the midst of a planned manipulation of the population of the US, if not the world. Back then the scapegoat was Jews (and others). Today....maybe it's the so-called "rich"? Maybe it's the boogey-man, terrorism?
We are over taxed, over regulated, and under the ever present fear of our own government bullying citizens through intimidation from local police, TSA agents, the EPA, and on and on. It makes me sick to witness this in my own lifetime.
Only governments and regulators are allowed (by misguided courts) to stall. Everyone else has to deal. Before you claim "sovereign immunity", I remind you the CITIZENS are the sovereigns in this country. The "alleged sovereigns" (regulators) in this case are delegations of the legislature, under the sole control of the executive, of the very government, our constitution warned us against!!
JJ
Substance free comment. Thanks for reading.
Yes you may, try this:
http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2012/06/mark-levins-epic-take-down-of-supreme-court-over-obamacare-ruling-audio/
I wonder if anyone in the judiciary branch enforcing rulings against the TSA ends up unable to fly/etc. They would have pretty much the same recourse as the rest of us.
Bot you do seem to be a coward huh? No substance whatsoever? Nothing? Come on drone, back up your man?
Here's another.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0712/1224319860184.html
"In an indication that the most likely next step is QE3 – in which the Fed would make outright purchases of assets such as long-term treasury bonds..."
Do you understand the mechanics behind "quantitative easing"?
It's a TAX on all citizens and non citizens alike. The sate steals your money (by printing more dollars reducing the value of the dollars you own - if you even have a job.). Obama is a liar, and you know it. Enjoy paying your taxes drone.
Hurry up and provide some substance drone before admins delete this thread because we all know they hate to see truth.
Go on genius, we are all waiting.
http://www.conconcon.org/
They wont change because no one has the balls to stand up and rally people for what really needs to be done. People will talk a lot of shit on the internet but when it comes down to it no one will do anything because everyone is a pussy and afraid of losing their mcdonalds meals to eat in their chairs infront of the tv. Personally Id do something but Im not a organizer, never have been. But if the people of this country got together and went to the white house demanding we get our rights back, everyone gets good health care, better paying jobs and so on to improve the quality of the 99% of americans what are they going to do against their entire country? Sure a bunch might show up but soon as threats are made most of them will run and others will be in jail because americans have no backbone anymore.
So my advice is just to forget this garbage and go on with your life. Things suck and its OUR fault for letting it happen because were all weak willed children that are scared of being yelled at by our parents.
Forget about the bad stuff and go back to your game shows and video games because you might complain about this country but you wont do anything about it.
Don't just say "hurr guns 2nd amendment." That's stupid. That's beyond stupid, it's empty and vapid and useless.
Say: here's what we're going to do. Here's how it's going to be _better_. Here's how we're going to run the country. "Small accountable government" is nice, but empty and vapid and useless. My "small accountable government" gives free education and health care to everyone, and cuts the military to 1/1000th of its current size. I'd guess yours does something different.
Don't just offer meaningless "rah rah we need guns" nonsense. Offer new, real, detailed, focused plans on what you want to see. Get others to sign onto your plans. Describe what the transition period would look like. Offer a safe way through. (Families won't sign onto anything unless it's safe, and that's a fair requirement.) Don't just suggest an armed revolt--how moronic is that idea, anyway??--offer something on the other side. That way, we may not even need an armed revolt to get there. We may be able to just build new systems, and replace the current old-and-busted with new hotness without violence or bloodshed.
But not until we know what new hotness looks like, and I mean really looks like, down to what we'd need to do to get there, and what we'd do once we got there.
This administration has a proven track record of obstructing justice, ignoring court orders and subpoenas, and pretty much doing whatever the hell it wants and ruling by fiat with executive orders.
As far as power-consolidating dictators go, Obama makes Bush look like a rank amateur.
When are we going to start killing these scumbags for not doing what they're told. Now might be a good time.
I realize that you do not want this. However, my position allows me to force this on you, and get away with it. Further, I benefit from doing so.
Therefore, your desires will not prevent me from forcing this upon you. You will just have to accept it, and benefit me by doing so, whether you like it or not.
Good day.
It's interesting that the petition served failed just as this thread was gaining steam. Big Brother is watching, and he's getting pissed.
Stay skeptical, my friends.
With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.
With an unarmed populace the people fear the government. This is tyranny.
You are a child. You may be 30, or 40, or 50 years old, but you are a child. Life is so much more complex than your simplistic little assertions. The government doesn't fear you because you're armed -- they have bigger guns, better guns, more guns. Nor does a gun give a sane man courage. A gun won't protect you from chemicals in your drinking water. It won't make the insurance company approve your claim, or stop your job from being sent overseas. The world can, and will, make you hurt and your pitiful little chunk of metal won't do anything to stop it. A rabbit's foot would be as effective.
Even if you had an army behind you, that won't give you utopia. It'll give you Somalia.
Vote no on almost every new law. Vote in every election. Vote for the nobody. Vote for the new guy.
Never vote for the incumbent. Never vote for his most likely opponent.
Simplistic rules never work. What if the law is trying to help? Do you vote no because its not perfect? What if the incumbent is better than the alternatives? Do you vote against the better candidate just because? That's not a path to improvement. You know how when people are driving, and catch themselves slipping off the road, and start a cycle of overcorrection that makes things even worse? That's what you're doing.
The path to a better country is the obvious, pragmatic one. Do your homework, and vote for the best candidate in every election. Even if you hate him, if he's better than the alternative, he should get your vote. Local elections and primaries are the best targets, as the smaller pool of voters means that motivated, informed people can make a bigger difference. The people with the money and power are playing a long game. They want you to give up hope and stop fighting for progress, which is exactly what you're doing when you throw away a vote or put your trust in guns. You must never give up. It's not gonna get better next year, or five years from now, or ten. It took over thirty years to dig the hole we're in. It'll take at least that long to get out of it.
Funny how that never happens in Australia, you have excellent public health care and none of the problems idiots in the US
claim exist with public healthcare. A society without public health care is not civilized. And why do I hear so many stories of your much vaunted private system not covering a lot of treatments. typical AC bullshit.
Posting as AC then calling someone else a coward is cognitive dissonance at its best! Obviously you do notm understand the word truth.
you're correct in saying "Let's be honest, even if every person in America bought a gun, the government still has tanks, jets, bunker busters, and enough other high tech, high yield weaponry, armor, and other gadgets, a full-on rebellion would be almost impossible to pull off.".
I note how much trouble dedicated combatants caused us in Iraq and continue to cause us in Afghanistan (and how much trouble they caused us in Vietnam, as well). The critical ingredient is dedication, the willingness to die for one's cause. Their effectiveness is amplified by the degree to which they cause us to hemorrhrage money, which is after all the *real* lifeblood of our country - just ask any of the 1% when they're not on camera.
I think that if a substantial fraction of Americans (say, ~5%, which these days is 15 million people) actually decided that it was worth their lives to bring down the government we have, it could well happen. Not saying I'm certain of that outcome, but I have a lot more respect for dedication, numbers, and low-tech weapons vs. high-tech, well-trained but sparse military than I used to.
a tipping point? That is, the increasing concentration of wealth and power to control our society has degraded the measures you recommend to the point that they are genuinely no longer effective, no matter how patiently and vigorously pursued?
I concur with your sentiments almost completely. However, I'm no longer confident that our societal system remains connected to the control levers we have relied on for a couple of centuries. What then?
The Grim Reaper Waits for the clock to count down.
Then Napolitano and her lap dog Pistol will die along with 100k of the 'Unelected Government of the USA'.
LoL
The funny things is , widespread distrust and fear of the governement is typically an US thing, most people I know from other countries (European) do not distrust or fear the governement (on the contrary they trust it too much IMHO) and we do not have the right to bear arm.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Apparently, the average time to get one of these public comment things going is about 2 years. There is a bunch of economic cost-benefit analysis stuff that must be prepared first by law. They claim that they have initiated this process. How long should they be given before they are in contempt of court? A year seems like a long time, but apparently, it isn't. I think it would have been better if the court had told them that they needed to not roll this out anywhere else until they had gotten through the public comment period. Since they court didn't do that, they will probably end up not having to do it at all.
DHS and TSA are stonewalling the court, so the public should stonewall them.
Line them up against a wall. Stone them.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Attempt to do a hearing and public comment period outside DHS.
The congress would be ideal, but perhaps some private entity could petition the court to do so since DHS hasn't.
(It DHS had any sense, they would at least go through the motions of compliance to prevent this,
but it's not a surprise that they don't.)
Just say no. ;-)
If any significant percentage of the flying public asked for pat downs instead of scans, the silly stuff would end.
A peer reviewed scientific study showing definite health problems from scanning might help.
(Perhaps showing the differences in radiation spectrums for high altitude versus scanning
and calling the DHS dosage calculations into question because of where/how the two spectrums are absorbed in the body.)
Alternatively, if a real study shows the dosage calculations to be ok, then so perhaps are the scans.
It doesn't seem a privacy argument will win the day here.
Arguments about the Constitution haven't helped.
News on DHS abuse haven't helped to date.
News on simple scanning countermeasures haven't helped.
Perhaps a patdowns are fun campaign?
All you would need to do is get the guys running the various bases in %area% to
1 actively support you: hint they all swore "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
2 Stand Down:not as good but would also work
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
It's just a guess, but I would say the court will not require it until somebody beats the crap out of the judge, or worse. THEN the court would get all over HSA
only 5 seconds to get your name added to a gov watchlist.
(no, I'm not at all kidding)
There is a way to make those watchlists useless.
How hard is it to write malware which sole purpose is to make the users of the infected machines sufficiently suspicious and visible to be added to as many watchlists as possible?
Here he is telling us how seriously he took public comments around Thanksgiving a couple years back, when these scanners were first thrust upon us.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SecurityandPr/start/1561/stop/1580
I take issue with your #3.
The most valuable form of wealth is freedom, not money. This nation was founded upon principles of freedom, not of people having the same amount of money--that's communism.
That is one of the big problems facing our nation today: people value money above all else. Not only does this lead to the rich getting richer, but it also leads to people being discontent unless they are also financially wealthy--relative to whom, I suppose, varies.
People who are demanding that wealth be redistributed from the rich to the poor are fighting for a goal of lesser importance, and one that vaguely reeks of communism. Now I will be the first to admit that there are serious problems with corporations in this nation concentrating far too much wealth and power, and with issues like CEOs' bailouts, etc. The day of the Citizens' United ruling was a sad day for our country, as it gave corporations equality with--nay, superiority to--individual citizens, who are real human beings with finite lives and natural vulnerabilities.
But there are more serious, yet subtle, issues facing our nation today. If we have not freedom, it matters not what our standard of living is; it matters not how wealthy our neighbor is; it matters not how wealthy some "VIP" is.
In the end, money is not life; it does not give life; it does not take life. Freedom is the ability to live in the pursuit of happiness according to one's free will; freedom gives life to new ideas and new possibilities; not having freedom takes away the fabric of life itself. Freedom equally benefits all mankind, irrespective of race, sex, age, beliefs, or wealth.
We should be advocates of, chiefly, freedom. Our ancestors understood this, and so they were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. Shame on us for allowing ourselves to be distracted by worldly things such as money; shame on us for devaluing that which was bought with blood. Lives were not willingly given for the sake of having more money, or food, or a nicer house or car, or more leisure time--they were given for the sake of freedom.
Yet, what is the loudest protest we hear? "The rich are too rich!" Such has always been, and always shall be, the case. Indeed, freedom includes the right to pursue happiness, which some people believe is best acquired by pursuing wealth. It is their God-given right to make that decision, however misguided it may be.
The rich people being rich is not a doomsday scenario. A real doomsday scenario is what people feared during the Cold War. Almost as bad is to willingly or obliviously give up that which was very painfully acquired many years ago. It will never be as possible as it was then to do what was necessary to give power to the citizens in whose hands it rightfully belongs.
Choose your priorities at your own peril. As the saying goes, "The best things in life are free." Or perhaps you are fond of the Firefly theme: "...I'm still free, You can't take the sky from me."
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Though you are modded Troll, I basically agree with this. Dynastic wealth is detrimental to society and democracy. Once a person becomes wealthy enough they can exert undue influence on society. I think we need a new (or a few more) top marginal tax rate. Set it at 90% of income over $10 million (yes, I'm pulling that number out of my ass). People can still make a lot of money. But people should not be allowed to amass unlimited wealth.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You think this all started with Obama? You have some catching up to do...
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
... TSA wants to keep using untested body scanners and says naked pictures aren't being seen by some perv hammering his salami in a back room.
TSA says; "trust us."
Which is ironic because the whole point of the TSA is that we stopped trusting EVERYONE because on a planet of nearly 7 billion, a few people want to blow things up -- even some without FBI handlers I suppose.
Did the TSA make sure that none of their workers are people who are totally honest? Oh, just Trust them -- it's all under control. Until something really bad happens and we are forced to send them a lot more funding without investigation -- I think that's the new form of accountability since 2001.
With the tone you're using, I'm surprised you're not changing more minds. Do you want to speak, or do you want to be heard? If you want to be heard, insulting people will not work. Calling people drones is insulting.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
How can the TSA be imprisoned? It's not a person. How can the government imprison itself? How can the government freeze its own assets? The judicial branch does not enforce rulings, the executive branch does. How can the executive branch imprison itself? Whose responsibility is that branch? Who's responsible for replacing the TSA officials who have not complied with the ruling?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Australia suffers from other problems which the USA does not. Censorship, for one. Choose for yourself which you value more: freedom or security.
I'm not claiming one nation to be superior--that is a matter of opinion. One should be free to choose where he lives.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Of the candidates being offered to you, which one fills you with confidence?
Ron Paul.
If it came down to US Army and Marine units versus a semi-organized group of gun-toting libertarians, my guess is that the professionals would wipe the floor with the amateurs. That's for the simple reason that they're professionals - they've trained much more than you have, many of them have seen serious combat before, they're much better equipped than you are, and they have trained officers to lead and direct them.
Uh huh. And yet a bunch of fucking camel herders in Iraq and Afghanistan are still kicking our asses and blowing our boys' legs off to this day. How's that work? You're gonna sit there and tell me that Americans---with 10x the education, skill, resources, etc mind you---on our own turf couldn't put a bullet through politicians' head or build big ass bombs and blow shit up on a far more massive scale if shit got that bad? Have you ever even fucking met any of these "highly trained and skilled" U.S. Army dimwits you speak so highly of? LOL.
Bottom line is,
#1 you don't know what the fuck you're talking about,
#2 why OH WHY do retards like you feel the need to shout so loudly and angrily any time this subject comes up with your FALSE assertion that an armed populace couldn't beat the government? Is it because you're one of those crazy, fearful anti-gun nuts who despises all guns? Is it because you want to see the government win? WHY, idiot?
Nice way to sidestep the guy's actual argument...peon.
You must be new around here.
Yet, what is the loudest protest we hear? "The rich are too rich!" Such has always been, and always shall be, the case.
OK, so let's check some boundary conditions with you.
1. Would you approve if one man legally owned all the land available on the planet?
If the answer to that is "yes," then I give up. You and I will never find agreement.
2. How about two men, each legally owning half the planet?
Again, if that thought doesn't also send a chill down your spine, then we're not going to find agreement.
If you can answer "no" to those two questions, then we're getting somewhere. You and I can agree there should be legal limits placed on the amount of land one man should be allowed to own. Better yet, land ownership, like water rights, radio spectrum or IPv4 ownership, is exactly a "zero-sum" game. Land you have is land I don't and vice versa. Our libertarian friends love to argue that wealth is not a zero-sum game. I think the flaw in their argument is that wealth -- ultimately -- comes from mining and agriculture, both of which depend on the zero-sum equation of land ownership. "Intellectual Property and Services" are only as valuable as the actual goods they can buy. Come talk to me when you can eat a song or seek shelter under the binary digits of a software program.
OK, so if we can place limits on how much of the water or radio spectrum anyone is allowed to own, then we can take those exact arguments and apply them to land ownership. Land is a limited commodity which must be apportioned to meet the public good. This is in fact the entire reasoning behind seizure under eminent domain, so we're still within "black letter" law.
If we're comfortable saying that "No one should own all of the land in the United States," or even "No one should own all of the land within any state in the union," then let's talk acreage. What would be a reasonable limit to put on the acreage one man can own?
Well, your local realtor will tell you that a "large" lot for a single family dwelling is a quarter acre. Forty acres is the traditional size of a farm considered workable by one man. The Oklahoma land rush handed out 160 acre parcels to let the cows roam. Give a man a tractor, and he might farm a couple of hundred acres. Give that man nineteen children, each with their own tractor, and now we have twenty times two hundred acres, or four thousand acres, 6.25 square miles.
Let's triple that to 12,000 acres, or 18.75 miles. Distance to the horizon is roughly three miles, so to be "the master of all you survey," you need pi*r^2, so pi*9 or let's just call it 28 square miles, roughly 18,000 acres.
Now, one family alone can't possibly work that amount of land, and you'd be very hard pressed to even cover it all in one day on an ATV, but you can absolutely turn to your trophy wife and declaim "I am the master of all I survey," so there is that I suppose. Let's round it up. 20,000 acres. It's an absurd number, but surely we can agree that 20,000 acres would be a reasonable upper boundary on land ownership.
Let's go from the absurd to the entirely insane and multiply that number by five. 100,000 acres. That's approaching half the size of Mount Rainier National Park at 230,000 acres. Can we agree that since land is a limited, finite resource like the radio spectrum and IPv4 ownership, and is exactly a zero-sum game, can we agree that 100,000 acres in one man's hand is sufficient?
Ted Turner owns Six. Hundred. Thousand. acres of contiguous land in Colorado. 600,000 acres, almost three times the size of Mount Rainier national park. His entire holdings top . Billionaire Archie Emmerson owns 1.9 million acres.
OK, so now I hear the Libertarians snort "So what, how does that affect you?" Well, it affects me because I've been trying to find five to ten acres of arable, contiguous land to farm to feed my family.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Or perhaps you are fond of the Firefly theme: "...I'm still free, You can't take the sky from me."
You saw the movie "Serenity" right, not just the TV show? You remember the argument between Mal and Simon about River going on the job? Simon argues it's too dangerous, and Mal argues that with Alliance power has expanded so far that:
Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all. This job goes south, there well may not be another. So here is us, on the raggedy edge. Don't push me, and I won't push you.
The whole point of that movie is that they took the sky from him, or did you miss the scene where Shepard Book died? We're halfway through act two, and Mal's only move left on the board is Reaver territory.
The Alliance shattered River's mind, took Simon's career and sister, took Mal's honor and turned him into a criminal, and left Zoe a widow and Wash dead.
And your answer to that is:
Choose your priorities at your own peril. As the saying goes, "The best things in life are free."
Can we mail you back to your parents in a box? Because my answer to you is "yes, in every way possible."
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
People say that they would not sacrifice freedom for safety. I got got news for you folks. There is no safety in freedom. No free society in the history of mankind has ever survived. In the absence of a strong central government anarchy prevails. There is no safety in anarchy. The masses of people who have no chance of knocking off the top dog in an anarchist society always end up joining forces to create of strong government for the purpose of restoring law and order. It has happened time and time again. If they are lucky it will be a "democratic" strong central government that will let a select few lottery winners acquire wealth and give everybody else some hope of being the next winner. Other times a Fascist government or Military Dictatorship prevails in restoring order and safety to the masses. Lets say for argument sake that by some unbelievable chance a society emerges that is the perfect utopian society, love and sharing rule the day. Some say Britannia was like that after the Romans left. It didn't last long. Eventually the Huns heard about this, got on boats, invaded Britannia and killed every one of them. There was no organized military machine in place for protection. We live in a voluntary police state with a voluntary large military machine. This has proven too be the most stable government humanity has come up with yet, because its our choice. If you force a police state on the people they will eventually rebel but if the people demand a police state, well, this government could last forever. It could be argued that our society is raising children in a way so that a certain percent will become criminals. Look at the violent, drug filled, public school systems we have to send our children to. Laws are created that the government know a certain percentage of the population will not follow. Making this police state we live in necessary. This is a society where there are databases of people's DNA, photographs and fingerprints, we would have it no other way! The government must keep an eye on the criminals they created demanding this massive police infrastructure, that can also repel an enemy attack in a moments notice. What we have in this country is an illusion of freedom. You have the right to stand on a soapbox and demand we do things differently, to raise children that won't become criminals. To have laws that all the people agree with and none will break. The government will be more than happy to let you try any idea you want as long as they know it won't work. Come up with a good idea and see what happens. You might spur a witch hunt and find yourself burning at a stake. Is this a bad thing, safety? Do we really want to be free? Freedom, true freedom, in a human society is always temporary and never ends well. Yes, airport screeners are seeing me naked with x-ray vision and some are in fact immature about it. When was the last time we had a hijacking?
Oh, Gottabeme, your politics are entirely brain-dead, and you made the rookie rhetorical mistake of quoting works you haven't completed...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."