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>
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.
History teaches us that we do not learn from history.
Hi. I already signed the petition. I have no intention of voting for Obama (or the other guy). I'm not particularly enamored with either major party. I'd just like to see the TSA held accountable and forced to respond to public criticism. Isn't that something every person who travels through America can agree on?
Isn't someone supposed to get arrested?
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
some will vote for O. some will vote for R. some will not vote.
and yet ALL will be ignored.
petition or not, those who rule by fear will not care what the population wants!
and guess what, both 'guys' have enjoyed ruling by fear. and the next one, will to! bet on it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Some, sure. But here's the problem: The USA's first-past-the-post system all but guarantees that the winner of a presidential election will be one of two parties. In an ideal world, a third (or fourth, ...) party would be viable, but the reality is that it's not.
As such, it's perfectly rational to complain about some of the policies of candidate X while still voting for candidate X. You say, "Realistically speaking, the winner of the election will be candidate X or candidate Y. I have a problem with a specific policy of candidate X, but overall, I much prefer the policies of X over Y. Therefore I will complain about this policy, but still hope candidate X wins (or candidate Y loses)."
You can argue that the third-party stance creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, but you can also be pragmatic and realize that that's life.
I personally have a number of problems with Obama, but the things I don't like about him are basically the areas where he's acted like a Republican (or, at least, like the modern Republican party). Realistically, I can have a pro-police-state candidate who is at least somewhat socially tolerant, or a pro-police-state candidate who is not as socially tolerant. It may be "hold your nose and vote", but I also realize that the ideal candidate for me could never get elected, so why not vote for the less-bad guy?
Although if my state is more or less guaranteed to go for Obama, I might just vote Dave Barry.
Posting as AC then calling someone else a coward is cognitive dissonance at its best! Obviously you do notm understand the word truth.
You know, I'm not in favor of pedophilia or child molestation, but I'm not in favor of murder either. To me, you are precisely the same as him. You would do violence to another because you think it is acceptable.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe you're right about some in the government fearing armed citizens. But there are plenty of gun rights friendly politicians who are more than happy to intrude on individual liberty in other ways, so they at least aren't particularly scared that Americans with guns will rise up and demand their liberties. This ridiculous scanner program was started under an administration that received NRA's endorsement, and was continued under an administration that did not, so I'd say "gun rights" as defined by the premier gun rights organization in the country have nothing to do with this particular invasion of liberty.
Guns are not the sine qua non of revolution. You point out the thing we really need yourself: fearlessness, and thinking outside the framing boxes drawn by your political masters. If the US electorate had the determination and courage to use guns to bring down the government, we wouldn't need guns to bring down the government. Not until the election system is completely subverted by non-auditable voting machines. Do you want a revolution? Get people to stop paying attention to political advertising. Get them to question propaganda masquerading as journalism. Open their mind to ideas they've been taught to regard as scary. Then you'd have a revolution.
Guns are neither good nor bad. Or rather guns are in themselves *good*, but can be misused for evil. Most people who own guns own them for sport or self-defense, but obviously those same guns could be used for robbery. A gun that can be used in a democratic revolution can be used to suppress other citizens who disagree with you. So guns alone won't secure anyone's liberty. Before you can turn to the gun, you've got to free peoples' minds.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.