Slashdot Mirror
EPIC Files Motion About Ignored Body Scanner Ruling
OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a motion in court yesterday regarding the court's ignored year-old ruling on EPIC vs. DHS. EPIC is asking the court to require DHS to start taking public comment within 60 days or, as an alternative, forbid DHS from using body scanners in primary airport screening altogether. If the court orders the latter, that would give EPIC what it originally sought in its lawsuit. Meanwhile, for what it's worth, the related petition on whitehouse.gov has a little more than half the signatures it needs to get an official 'response.' The signing period ends on August 9."
You are a fool if you think the DHS will ever get smaller or less invasive.
So ask my not-so-smart alumni on facebook.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Like any political organization, TSA will only respond to pressure. The more points of pressure, the better. The petition is one point of pressure, the EPIC court petition is another. Letters to individual congress-critters would also help. Just keep up the pressure.
Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
As a typical conservative, I'm opposed to forcing all airline passengers to choose between a full body porno scan or receive a groping from a TSA employee.
Tolling fail.
Just put your name down on the list of travelers who get the full Monty of invasive security theatre, er... screening... I hear the TSA has hired a new batch of proctologists just for the petition signers...
If everyone in one major airport on one day decided to refuse to submit to these scanners - a simple word-of-mouth campaign with leaflets handed out by people outside the airport would do the trick - a domino effect would mean they'd be eliminated nationwide by the end of the month.
But that would require people not to want them.
The problem ain't your reps - it's the people they rep.
The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value. There's no law compelling the President to respond, although he's stated a response will be made. Several responses to petitions have been little more than filler material -- utterly worthless from a public policy standpoint.
Does anyone here really believe Obama's going to risk appearing 'soft' on terrorism in an election year? Nothing is going to happen on this issue this year, no matter how many judgements, rulings, petitions, etc., are made -- the status quo very rarely changes during an election year. Every effort will be made to delay this until after November...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
...the freakin' Italians ... bought them and ditched them, because they were found to be worthless (in terms of security value).
Cue circus sounds ...
Show "typical nuclear American" family participating in security theater...
Exit left with a loud sucking sound ... zoom out slightly to show two chins and a 48oz cola ... and a "man, I feel much better after getting my shoes back on after going through security."
Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!
Yeah! The balmy tropical days under the palms, with cooling sea breezes and spectacular ocean views will break all but the most callous, inhumane terrorists!
But for those few who still cling to their criminal ways after a year-long tropical holiday, we'll use our secret weapons: A year a the Hotel Fontainebleau Miami Beach combined with a generous cash allowance and a Ferrari GT will break them. It never fails!
well, Steve, you fucked this up like you fucked up that submission you made to me yesterday.
Stop reading slashdot and GBTW.
I'm all for the effort succeeding, but it won't. No one is going to create an account on whitehouse.gov and sign a petition that runs contrary to what the security state has in mind. "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists." Under the next administration, that member list is going to become a government shitlist. No thanks.
Ask yourself this: What good can come of getting an account on whitehouse.gov?
Just put your name down on the list of travelers who get the full Monty of invasive security theatre, er... screening... I hear the TSA has hired a new batch of proctologists just for the petition signers...
Seriously, I would be a little concerned. Since they create those no-fly lists, etc. from all over the place, even the internet...
A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.
Of course a real conservative would tell the government to fuck off with scanning, spying, and any warrentless invasive nonsense. And ignore liberal disinformation.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Oh, wait.....
I'm a conservative and I personally don't know any conservatives who like the TSA. We consider it another example of an overgrown government.
However, the conservatives I tend to be around are probably different than the type you are thinking of. Not all conservatives are rednecks living in trailers, just like not all liberals are actually hippies sitting around in drum circles.
So, liberals don't like the TSA. Conservatives don't like the TSA. Why do we still have the TSA again?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
As someone from Texas, I can tell you that the rednecks living in trailers hate the TSA as well. I have yet to find anyone outside of government that thinks the TSA is a good idea.
Because the powers that be who serve neither the conservative interests nor the liberal interests but rather their own political interests happen to like the TSA.
A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.
Actually, a *real* conservative would see it for what it is: a colossal waste of money with a marginal, at best, success rate. They'd advocate something that has a proven track record and costs a fraction of what the body scanners do: dogs. Make everybody go through a metal detector, and get a once-over from a drug dog and a bomb dog before they're allowed on the plane... everybody's actually safer, everybody feels safer, and you don't have to let a high school dropout look at a naked picture of yourself.
A fiscal conservative would say that, at least. Being a fiscal conservative, I can vouch for that. Being as socially liberal as they get, however, I guess the ultra-right wing neocons would lump me in the same category as the left-wingers. (gasp, you mean the government can actually *save* money by spending on education and social services? the devil, you say!)
Just ignore it. It's a national sport of liberals to invent the most odious strawmen and tell conservatives, "This is what you think!" Seriously, once you become aware of it, you start noticing it everywhere.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Genuine question, do you feel that the Republican party has abandoned conservatives such as yourself?
Just ignore it. It's a national sport of $POLITICAL_GROUP_A to invent the most odious strawmen and tell $POLITICAL_GROUP_B, "This is what you think!" Seriously, once you become aware of it, you start noticing it everywhere.
wrong, bitch. the scanners stay.
Why a drug dog? Drug mules are the least likely people to make trouble on a flight, they don't want to call any attention to themselves at all. Because of that, there is no public safety interest to weigh against the 4th amendment.
Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!
-Typical conservative
So...
Did you hear the news today? The guy who blew up that bus full of Israeli's yesterday in Burgas, was apparently a former Gitmo resident, who was sent back to Sweden. He was originally picked up in Afghanistan. Oops. To be fair, the government officials related to the case have refused to comment on this. And as a note, there are several dozen stories on this as well besides the one on RT. I'm just too lazy to link to something else, or something non-english. The Bulgarian media were the ones to release the information.
Om, nomnomnom...
I think that both parties have abandoned anything close to even giving a shit about what the people think.
They put out their spin with the knowledge that shitty education and addicting TV keep a high enough percentage of the Moo Cows inattentive and stupid enough to vote via talking points.
We get the government we deserve.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Because they have managed to convinve you that those with opposing views and political ideologies are your enemy. Those in power fear unity and solidarity and are pleased as pie that the citizens are busy fighting with each other instead of actually paying attention. The best tool the government has in its arsenal is your partisanship and willingness to hate your fellow man. Yes, you. You personally.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
My problem is that the body scanners not only violate my American rights within my own country, but they violate the international data privacy treaties we signed with other nations.
Time to pull the plug on this Make Work For Scanner Manufacturers farce.
As someone from Texas, I can tell you that the rednecks living in trailers hate the TSA as well.
Except they are the ones working for TSA.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
He's a fiscal conservative -- fining drug mules is how the program pays for itself! j/k
The drug dogs do kinda give the lie to GP's "as socially liberal as they get" line, eh?
Nope! Not so. Start looking around. You'll see it's true. Start watching MSNBC on a regular basis. And seriously, have some original ideas instead of parroting.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I don't know, but please tell your Mom to stop entering and exiting the TSA secured areas until we agree to do a full body cavity search.
Thank you,
The TSA
And? Even if that's true, nothing about that changes any of the reasons that pre-crime is a horrible idea.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
*I* get the government *YOU* deserve.
If the stupid people did not vastly outnumber the smart people, this might not be true. But since the stupid people are the overwhelming majority, the government THEY deserve is imposed upon the rest of us.
...to 28 years. Might as well sign that too:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-restoration-copyrights-their-original-duration-28-years/Z7skGfKk
If instead of this hi-tech stuff why not provide an armed guard on
the filght deck & some number of "hidden" armed guards in the passenger
area. use dogs & metal dectors in the terminal.
How long would it take for the added personal costs to
exceed the capital cost of the current TSA equipment?
Nope, it's there to provide a facade of "transparency", making people (who don't care enough to look deeper) feel good about the Obama administration and thus making them more likely to vote for him this fall.
In the US, self-described conservatives generally fall into at least 3 major groups:
1. Libertarians, who primarily believe that government should stay out of their business. Libertarian conservatives will oppose the TSA on the grounds that it infringes on personal liberty, and on the grounds that we have to pay for it. Other common libertarian-conservative positions include believing that taxes are too high and that people should be able to make any kind of contract that they want without government interference.
2. Authoritarians, who primarily believe that people who are in charge are in charge for good reason and should be followed. Major subgroups here would be the Religious Right, and military veterans who believe in the rightness of their cause. These folks generally support the TSA on the grounds that George W Bush was a good man and therefor must have been doing the right thing when he created it. Other common authoritarian-conservative positions include opposing abortion, and supporting the War on Drugs.
3. Group supremacists, who primarily believe that people who are like them are better than others and deserve to run things. These sometimes overlap with the authoritarians (e.g. Christian nationalists), but also include racists (which by most surveys comprise something like 10-15% of the US population). These folks vary: They like the fact that it's making life unpleasant for Arab Muslims, but dislike the fact that it's making life unpleasant for upstanding citizens like them. Other common group supremacist positions include support Christian prayers in public schools, English-only laws, and anti-Mexican immigration.
There are definitely overlaps between the groups, but you'll see arguments made from all 3 positions show up regularly in conservative circles.
And yes, liberals have similar divides. That's why boiling down all political positions to a 1-axis spectrum is stupid.
I am officially gone from
I assume the dog does bombs and drugs. I'd be okay with just a bomb dog though
I haven't seen Obama or any of his administration comment on one of them. From the beginning they seemed to just be punting on most issues outside of health care. There was a huge swell of signers for the anti PIPA/SOPA petition, it easily hit the required number to get a response from Obama, but their reply was effectively a total dismissal of the issue.
Pure politics, the Democrats are just as afraid as the Republicans of standing up for a true human rights issue when they fear their big money supporters might be upset. Make no mistake, internet freedom is a human rights issue.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
He was originally picked up in Afghanistan. Oops.
Oops indeed. There's nothing quite like a long detetention with torture to make someone lose it completely.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Because both sides keep re-electing the same d&mn representatives to Congress?
If you want the TSA to go away, it's time to stop being afraid to vote for an unknown 3rd party or party-less candidate instead of an entrenched Republicrat/Democan incumbent.
Ask yourself a simple question before you vote, do you really think that an uneducated, toothless wife-beater-wearing hick from Virginia will do worse for our country in Congress than people who have worked their for 20 years and base every decision on trying to keep their job next cycle? My answer is always "no" to that question, and I live in California.
Political office was never intended to be a career. It was supposed to be more like the jury system.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
So would a real liberal.
When something bad happens ...we all cower and agree to whatever the government does in the name of protecting the country...remember 2002/2003/2004....
no ?
.
I'm a conservative and I personally don't know any conservatives who like the TSA. We consider it another example of an overgrown government.
It's not that conservative dislike the job the TSA does, they dislike that the job is done by the Gov.
If the TSA were privatized and did exactly the same job, most conservatives would be hunky-dory with it.
Yeah yeah, I know, straw man. But if the shoe fits...
With the first link, the chain is forged.
No, he is in fact correct. Conservatives invent liberal strawmen all the time, too. This is neither exclusive to nor universal among either group.
> The guy who blew up that bus full of Israeli's yesterday in Burgas, was apparently a former Gitmo [rt.com] resident, who was sent back to Sweden.
No, he was not.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Mostly right - the body and limbs don't give a shit, but the two faces do - they both still rely on that smile to keep you thinking that it's doing the right thing, and less importantly to stop you voting for the other head.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
So who voted for them?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So, precisely what did gitmo achieve in this particular case? It doesn't sound positive to be honest.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
They're bureaucrats, no one voted for them. They were appointed by some politician (often by the advice of other bureaucrats) and rarely if ever re-examined by later politicians. They often develop a disdain for the voting populace, and will do what they can to manipulate the current politicians toward their ends.
Since 9 out of 10 Americans are damn stupid, 4 out of 5 supporting the scanners doesn't seem unreasonable.
Diebold.
But they'd be A-Ok with the spying, scanning, and warrantless invasive nonsense being carried by private industry.
See: Rand Paul.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Seriously? You've got to be a either Poe, or have an unparalleled degree of selection bias.
I can't even read through a thread about something completely un-political like a video game controversy without someone telling me what liberals think.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Yep. Real conservatives and real liberals would *both* be foaming at the mouth over this nonsense. It's unfortunate that we've got very few of either in office right now.
She, and no it doesn't... I think drugs should be legal and regulated. If you're illegally importing the drugs, that takes the opportunity to tax them away from the government.
I would love to sign the petition on whitehouse.gov, but there is no chance I'll give that presidency my info. Next thing I know I'll be bombarded by political info I don't care about.
tora
That's National Airport, I have no idea why people insist on calling it after some Alzheimer victim.
Perhaps because the airport's full, official name is "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport"? Has been since February 6, 1998 when President Clinton signed a law changing its name?
So, what is it; are you just trolling, ignorant, or feeling betrayed that a Democrat President would honor a Republican?
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
I would only be ok with it if it was privatized AND the airlines had the option to have as little or as much security as they deemed necessary. In other words, customers could go to the airlines that cater most to their desires.
So why do we have the TSA? Simple - airline insurance. 9/11 proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the airline security screening was worthless as far as keeping planes from crashing. Therefore the insurance confidence was shaken and what we would have seen as a followup was revocation of the policies for airlines.
Airlines don't fly without insurance. You can bank on that. So what would have happened if the TSA hadn't come along? Well, some type of far more invasive screening would have been required by the airline insurance companies. What I believe they got was the government told them "we're taking care of it, just be a little patient." I believe TSA was in place and screening passengers within a couple of months after 9/11 and I suppose the FAA, airlines and other government agencies convinced the insurance companies to keep coverage in place - even in the face of no confidence - for that couple of months.
So, we want to get rid of the TSA now. Fine, step 2 after deciding to get rid of the TSA is to put something in place that the airline insurance companies will accept as valid screening to prevent planes from being crashed. Failure to have this in place on day 1 post-TSA means no airlines will fly.
No, the airlines aren't going to be allowed by their insurance companies to resume screening independently. It was "proven" that they can't handle the job. And no airline is going to fly anywhere with the potential for a bankrupting event to happen without insurance coverage. One accident, even a minor one that most of the passengers walked away from would likely bankrupt an airline without insurance coverage.
So the first problem is to figure out how the airlines keep flying. Figure that out and you have the problem solved.
They exists. They are called air marshals.
Proven? How?
Boxcutters were not illegal to carry aboard commercial aircraft on 9/11/01. Mace and pepper spray were. However then, as now, a canister of pepper spray would be nearly invisible on Xray, and may or may not be seen on a person using AIT. 70% of simulated weapons and explosives still make it through the current screening regimen. I doubt that number is much different (either better or worse) than in the days of private security screening.
Two reasons that the 9/11 attacks were successful is because of the SOP which essentially said, "To reduce risk to passengers or flight crews, don't put up any resistance and comply with hijackers' demands." That thinking allowed three planes to be used as cruise missiles to disastrous effect. Which brings up the second major factor: Credible intelligence reports were mishandled. That student pilot(s) stated they wanted to know how to fly 747s, but were not interested in how to land them.
The first factor was corrected automatically the very same day with United 93's passengers upon learning what had happened earlier that morning took control of the situation and thwarted the attack.. Yes they all died, but they knew they would have anyway, but they prevented much more death and destruction. Reinforcing and locking cockpit doors was a very intelligent procedure change in the wake of that fateful day. That is something that I fully support, and I expect that the insurance companies do as well.
But what of all the other apparatus? Does anyone seriously believe that a bottle of water or a tube of toothpaste poses a credible security risk? Intelligence gathering has increased dramatically, but information sharing as a result has, if anything, only gotten worse.They've essentially created a much larger haystack from which to search for the same needles. Think of the "underwear bomber" attempted attack. It was reported that the terrorist's own father reported him to authorities. Yet he was still granted a visa into the U.S.? WTF? However tragedy was averted due to the important changes I cited earlier. Passengers (and an air marshal) recognized the threat that intelligence officials and security screeners missed and stopped the attack cold in its tracks! Even if he had managed to detonate his explosive, the worst case scenario would be that the plane crashed killing all aboard and possibly a few people on the ground as well. The odds that the plane would have crashed into a densely populated area, or a building of strategic and/or national significance would have been astronomically small.
But back to your insurance standpoint, do you believe any sane underwriter would think increasing the cost of the security apparatus 1000-fold or more to reduce the probability of a terrorist attack by a fraction of one-percent would be a wise choice? Considering that in the process, they've increased their liability to claims based on civil rights violations, delayed flights, stolen or damaged items in luggage, and health problems that may be (rightly or wrongly) attributed to backscatter radiation by passengers, screeners, flight crews, and airport staff?
No. If the companies who insured airports and airlines were the ones dictating security procedures, I would expect things to look a lot more like they did on September 10, 2001 than they do today.
Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
Oops indeed. There's nothing quite like a long detetention with torture to make someone lose it completely.
I guess you missed the point where he'd already been picked up previously before the fact with a suicide vest and $50k on him. Oh well, and that was well before hand. Just keep a spinning. I'm sure you can dig your way out of that one.
Om, nomnomnom...
Bingo!
I believe the governments of today cannot be easily pigeon-holed as liberal, conservative, left or right. They want power and money. However they market themselves is whatever serves their purpose at the time - that purpose often simply being to get voted back in.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
They can't retain enough air marshals to do the job. Most people won't keep a job where they have irregular hours, are cramped up in a coach airline seat every other day and can not reliably get home to be with their families, can't maintain a reasonable sleep or workout schedule, and have to eat crappy airline food all the time. Reportedly, the agency is also horribly run, as is attested to by former air marshals.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-6162291.html
http://www.propublica.org/article/air-marshals-dogged-by-discrimination-complaints-in-field-offices-201
It would be cheaper, easier, and provide more consistent coverage to allow passengers to carry concealed weapons.
The white house still reserves the right to deny whatever the petition demands. They've done it before.
Why?
Letting a police dog sniff me is (or should be) just as bad an invasion of my 4th amendment rights as the current TSA is.
And no, it won't make me or anyone else any safer than the current TSA. Well actually a little safer as their will no longer be large group of people standing by a garbage can full of suspected explosives waiting to go through a radiation machine.
The monster than is the TSA (and it's mother Homeland Security) is a major instrument in channelling the money of the US taxpayer into the pockets of powerful lobbyists in addition to supplying welfare to large numbers of people that might otherwise be doing a more difficult job. Killing it off would be political suicide at this point while keeping it going is a way to pretend to demonstrate some sort of care about terrorism without doing something more difficult.
Personally I think you should kill off the monsters and replace them with some sort of smaller but actually professional law enforcement (the way Israel, UK, etc dealt with terrorist threats), but it's not my country, and whatever Party in the US that does it would be painted as "siding with the terrorists" by the other, and be doomed at the ballot box for a decade or more. The Republicans might get away with it, but since a lot of that TSA money is going into pockets they like they probably would never try (apart from Ron Paul who never gets to see money from those sources anyway).
In other places those three groups would be called reactionaries (or anarchists for some of the libertarians), but the USA is the sort of place where you can scream "smash the state" and say you need your gun for a revolution and still call yourself a conservative.
I'm convinced that in the US dictionary "conservative" just means "good" to anyone that calls themselves that. "Libertarian" obviously means nothing when Koch, arse licking lovers of plutocrats that want to see them as royalty and outright anarchists all wrap themselves in flags to hide what they really are and call themselves by that label.
Incorrect. Rand Paul and other libertarians would be A-OK with a company requiring you follow their security procedures as a condition of you being admitted onto their aircraft. In no way would private industries be allowed to spy on or search you or your possessions in your own home or in any public location.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Here here! So get on that media, there are other candidates running for president other than Obama and Romney... Why aren't they being reported on? Or even polled about? Well no wonder they can't win, you won't give them a chance!
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Yeah, but a real neocon would get with the program and funnel bribes, err, lobbiests, to their local representative to promote the latest billion-dollar security theater prop their company has come up with.
They are already ignoring one court order, what makes you think this one will be any different?
Sorry for the delayed response but even IF this was an insurance thing, would they agree to it? LOL Probably not if they were the one footing the bill.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Anonymous Coward in name and in deed.
Mayhaps. . .and mayhaps not. Take the example of James Vandersloot. First, identified as a donor to Republican causes in general, and Mitt Romney in particular. Then, he finds a political operative digging for dirt about his divorce. Now he's being audited by both the IRS and Department of Labor. This COULD all be a coincidence.
But it's not the first time someone has been "targeted" for harassment after offering an opinion or making a contribution. Which make the ability to express an opinion without providing full personal information. . . prudent.