Slashdot Mirror


Appeals Court Caves To TSA Over Nude Body Scanners

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently filed a petition to force the Department of Homeland Security to start its public comment period on body scanners within 60 days or stop using them entirely. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has issued its ruling (PDF), and has refused EPIC's petition. DHS told the court earlier that it expected to have a formal rule proposal on body scanners by the end of February, so the court denied EPIC's motion on the expectation that public comment period would start by late March. TFA and this submission have a pessimistic headline on this ruling, but other sources seem to think the glass is half-full, and that EPIC in effect got what it wanted. Is this a victory or a defeat? Will the rulemaking process start on time, or will a TSA dog eat the proposed rule in late March and force further delay?"

169 comments

  1. Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If it means we still have the TSA and their nudie scanners then we all lose, whether we realize it or not.

    1. Re:Sounds like defeat by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, we'll all lose, but the problem isn't nudity.
      The problem is that the TSA acts as an extended arm of the DHS, and as such are constitutionally bound to the 4th amendment.
      The border search exception does not apply to domestic flights, and the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.

    2. Re:Sounds like defeat by tilante · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Governing is a privilege, not a right. The government needs to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the Constitution, or find another way to accomplish their ends. It's really that simple. Quit making excuses and just do it.

    3. Re:Sounds like defeat by kiriath · · Score: 5, Informative

      So being seen naked / groped-by-strangers is a valid requirement for flying and we should all just get over it?

      You're a moron.

    4. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm convinced these full body scanners are less about security and more about ensuring wealth doesn't leave the country. When the shit hits the fan, people wanting to leave and take their fortunes converted into say diamonds, will not be able to take them with them.

      For years you could only take up to $10,000 in cash/valuables to a foreign country. Diamonds were the only way to take more. If these scanners proliferate that will be the end of that.

      Food for thought in our future police state.

    5. Re:Sounds like defeat by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

      Then why ARE they ogleing my naked outline?

    6. Re:Sounds like defeat by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      OK, I'll feed the trolls today.

      Flying is a privilege, not a right.

      Having the government force you to submit to a search to complete your travel is a violation of several rights. Driving is "not a right" either. Should the government force you into a search before you get behind the wheel. By your logic, as long as walking is permitted all other modes of travel are available for infringement.

      Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

      If that is all that was at stake, it would be a different conversation.

      It's really that simple.

      No, it is not. But you seem to be.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    7. Re:Sounds like defeat by ewanm89 · · Score: 2

      Where in the US constitution does it say it is legal to give up your rights to some semblance of privacy to enjoy such privileges as being allowed to travel around the country. And the TSA has been seen at bus depots and train stations before now too.

    8. Re:Sounds like defeat by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Informative

      Flying is a privilege, not a right.

      Wrong.

      Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

      This comes out of the common law right to freedom of movement which includes the use of conveyances appropriate to the time. Our modern society operates on the assumption of a right to air travel.

    9. Re:Sounds like defeat by Githaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By your logic, as long as walking is permitted all other modes of travel are available for infringement.

      If they start searching for all non-walking modes of transportation, why do you think they will stop at walking?

    10. Re:Sounds like defeat by mr1911 · · Score: 2

      If they start searching for all non-walking modes of transportation, why do you think they will stop at walking?

      I don't.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    11. Re:Sounds like defeat by Eldragon · · Score: 1

      ...Says the person that doesn't even want to put their name on a slashdot post.

      Top notch, Anonymous Coward.

    12. Re:Sounds like defeat by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Flying is a privilege, not a right.

      Wrong.

      Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

      This comes out of the common law right to freedom of movement which includes the use of conveyances appropriate to the time. Our modern society operates on the assumption of a right to air travel.

      The way I read it is that your are perfectly within your inalienable rights to flap your arms hard enough to take off. Getting on a commercial aircraft, well, not so much.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting on a commercial aircraft, well, not so much.

      I get off on showing my junk to random people at body scanners. I'd have been pissed if I lost that right. I always work my way up to at least a semi before I walk through. Good times.

    14. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. You can take as much money as you want out of the country, you just need to report amounts over $10,000 by filling in a form.

    15. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that voting is a right not a privilege. As such people don't bother to worry about things like "facts" when they vote.

    16. Re:Sounds like defeat by isorox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm convinced these full body scanners are less about security and more about ensuring wealth doesn't leave the country. When the shit hits the fan, people wanting to leave and take their fortunes converted into say diamonds, will not be able to take them with them.

      For years you could only take up to $10,000 in cash/valuables to a foreign country. Diamonds were the only way to take more. If these scanners proliferate that will be the end of that.

      Food for thought in our future police state.

      If you've got that much money you can hire a jet. Or take them across a land border.

    17. Re:Sounds like defeat by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flying is a privilege, not a right.

      Please clarify. What does that even mean?

      How does one travel if every mode of transportation is a privilege that can be trivially revoked? Is travel then also a privilege?

      Is walking "right"? Or is it too a privilege?

      You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies, or find another way to travel.

      Are you alluding to the tired argument of needing a license to drive? And that a drivers license is not a right?

      Because I'm fine with that. But I don't need a drivers license to be a passenger in a taxi. I don't need to submit to government checks. I don't need to carry identification.

      Is taxi travel a priviledge? Can it be revoked?

      How exactly is plane travel different from taxi or bus travel? I enter a privately operated vehicle as a passenger, and I sit there.

      Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

      What about my daughter's?

    18. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traveling in this country is a right not a privilege. Due to the size of our country flying may turn out to be a right, but until the supreme court rules on it, you saying it's a privilege is not entirely accurate.

    19. Re:Sounds like defeat by isorox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.

      Aren't you being a little naive?

    20. Re:Sounds like defeat by Mr.+Ghost · · Score: 1

      If it means we still have the TSA and their nudie scanners then we all lose, whether we realize it or not.

      Seriously,

      If they can push this tech to the point where we see it in Total Recall (the original, haven't seen the remake so don't know if it is in there). I would absolutely love it, I would be thrilled to be able to go through airport security that quickly, YIPPEEE!!!!

      Besides, I can't really see how anybody would be either offended by or excited by these images... I mean seriously I know there are strange psychopathic individuals out there, but then are they really any different the the strange psychopathic individuals excited by shoes, socks, mud, etc...

    21. Re:Sounds like defeat by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Flying is a privilege, not a right.

      Perhaps this is an unduly pithy response, but I'm compelled to say "citation needed."

      It is often said that driving is a privilege, and not a right. However, that particularly pithy remark has only been offered when someone wishes to operate a vehicle -- not merely to ride in a vehicle, and certainly not merely to ride in licensed commercial passenger vehicles.

      Your ordinary air traveler is not a pilot, and is not demanding the "right" to operate the aircraft. Nor is the government operating the aircraft and merely reserving the "right" to offer its services to whom it chooses. The government is exercising a police power to regulate, and potentially negate, travel arrangements made between two private parties.

      Finally, you may wish to review the actual "rules of the road" as set forth by the governing bodies. 49 USC 40103 states that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace," and complements that pesky thing referred to as the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). While reasonable restrictions are permitted (as in all aspects of even enumerated rights under U.S. Constitution), freedom of movement is not merely a privilege subject to the whim of the soverign.

      Quit whining and just go through it.

      The battle cry of the authoritarian. You shall not challenge the rules; no reasonable person would have an opinion different than mine; I will not abuse the rules despite them giving me and my agents a clear opportunity to do so.

    22. Re:Sounds like defeat by Talderas · · Score: 2

      Wow. That reminds me... need to pop a viagra before the next time I pass through one so I have a raging megahard boner.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    23. Re:Sounds like defeat by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      "I'm going to be using the back of my hand and will feel between the knee and your groin until I meet resistance."

      "DO I LOOK LIKE I MIND" *Cue crazy eyes*

    24. Re:Sounds like defeat by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      ...and why are they sending hot chicks through multiple times? Sometimes calling their buddies over to make sure the scan is 'thorough'?

      --
      No sig today...
    25. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the US government get rid of their child porn machines? Doesn't their history of exploitation require such implements? Images not stored, blah blah blah. Facial recognition requires data be stored, and that is an obvious next step. The data stored may not be image data, but could probably be used to reconstruct a virtual model. Then there will be money-making opportunities for coordination with Hollywood. Just think, actors that don't need to be paid, but 3d models that can represent any true crimials that might be the subject of future films.

    26. Re:Sounds like defeat by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, the SCOTUS trumps the Constituion whenever they feel like it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    27. Re:Sounds like defeat by mellon · · Score: 1

      Because it pays the rent.

    28. Re:Sounds like defeat by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Link should be this: hot chicks

      --
      No sig today...
    29. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A commercial airline is a business. I give them money, they let me on the plane. This is a legal and valid contract between two willing participants.

    30. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving is "not a right" either.

      Technically wrong I'm afraid. We have the fundamental right to do anything not forbidden by law, and then we have laws that limit our rights in certain ways. The laws limit our right to driving in such ways as requiring that you hold a valid license, that you are not intoxicated, that you do not travel above an indicated speed, etc.

      Take away all laws involving driving, and we would still be able to drive.

    31. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving is "not a right" either. Should the government force you into a search before you get behind the wheel.

      I don't think they should, but they do.

    32. Re:Sounds like defeat by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      people use to make fun of communists for their "show me your paper" paranoia. What is your excuse?

    33. Re:Sounds like defeat by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

      Rights are a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the requirements set forth by the governing bodies, or find another country to live in. It's really that simple.

      /sarcasm

    34. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... Just wow. Someone needs a full cavity search from the TSA to change their mind :-)

      Flying might be a "privilege", but having your privacy violated and sexually harassed and/or assaulted by the TSA is way beyond the line. They are a security theater and a false sense of security. They have caused much more harm to our freedoms and rights then any terrorist ever has.

      Number one rule, the only real security is the security you create for yourself. The TSA is a joke and needs to be put out of business.

      You sir, are a joke!

    35. Re:Sounds like defeat by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I really I can not tell if your are joking. Obviously at least one mode thinks you are being serious since you got a +1 interesting. A right to do the impossible is no right at all.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    36. Re:Sounds like defeat by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I laughed out loud when I read that!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    37. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he/she meant "the constitution is SUPPOSED to trump federal law...."

      The reality of the situation is different, as we know.

    38. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure voting a right and not a privilege in the US?

      Because if it is a right, then prisoners should be able to vote.

      But if it's a privilege, then prisoners simply lost that privilege.

      Just something to think about.

    39. Re:Sounds like defeat by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      If you've got that much money you can hire a jet. Or take them across a land border.

      Jet? Yes. It is, on the other hand, pretty tough to drive to The Cayman Islands.

    40. Re:Sounds like defeat by isorox · · Score: 1

      Drive to mexico, fly from there.

    41. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public choice theory is very clear on this: in the realm of politics, concentrated privileges win out over spread out loss. If a couple thousand people make a living through inflicting a 'service' upon the rest of us, paid by us, they have all the reason in the world to use every bit of political dominance to keep their ill gotten income. The rest of us have a very small incentive to use similar means in opposition because the cost to each of us is small. This process is inexorable when coercion is the dominant means of association. This is why I specified only politics. In the realm of peace, cooperation and voluntary association, the cost of opposition is simply withdrawing support and choosing some other service. You cannot do this with the TSA. They force us(or petition other elements of government to force us) to fund them, and to threaten and bully airports to permit their presence and tolerate their actions. In peace, society can seek and provide the best we can all come up with. Violence restricts that provision to a subset of society which necessarily tends towards sub optimal results even disregarding the negative qualities of the violence itself.

      So when you say to quit making excuses, while I sympathize(and share your admirable interest in order), I would caution you to quit ignoring the nature of reality with respect to human action. These things are a necessary part of a society we have. Democracy is a system of bribery. Appealing to arbitrary mandates like the constitution to try to uphold order is a contradiction in terms. There is no order in rulers dominating others. That is chaotic and unpredictable. Their whims(even when curtailed by opposition by the ruled) are just that. Order, calm and predictability come from peace, not rulers(and their privileged dependents like the TSA) who are exempt from the supposedly universal and consistent rules they claim to uphold. An end cannot be achieved by means that contradicts it.

    42. Re:Sounds like defeat by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part about "the use of conveyances appropriate to the time"?

    43. Re:Sounds like defeat by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Governing is a privilege, not a right. The government needs to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the Constitution, or find another way to accomplish their ends. It's really that simple. Quit making excuses and just do it.

      This is the result of dispensing with the thirteenth amendment in 1812. It was not voted out of existence, but forcibly removed by a foreign invader. Happy Anniversary, you corporate toad-lickers.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    44. Re:Sounds like defeat by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 2

      Governing is a responsibility, not a privilege. That governors have repeatedly not lived up to their responsibilities does not change this fact.

    45. Re:Sounds like defeat by shentino · · Score: 1

      Flying is a privilege, but it is doled out by the airline industry, not the government.

      The government still has no right to deprive us of our civil rights whether or NOT flying is a privilege.

      Driving is likewise a privilege but it's still a violation of our rights to have our cars searched as a condition of driving.

    46. Re:Sounds like defeat by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Yes, we'll all lose, but the problem isn't nudity.
      The problem is that the TSA acts as an extended arm of the DHS, and as such are constitutionally bound to the 4th amendment.
      The border search exception does not apply to domestic flights, and the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.

      Except that the SC doesn't always "get it right".

      Like the Kelo case as the most recent example.

      They just shift the interpretation slightly, and suddenly there's a whole new paradigm to the law.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    47. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rights are not a whitelist. Free societies shouldn't need to enumerate the things we're allowed to do.

      Rights should be a blacklist. It should be correct for me to say "I have the right to do absolutely anything, unless specifically prohibited." The civil and criminal code can enumerate those prohibitions, whether it's for violent things like rape/murder or non-violent things like installing lead-based plumbing in a new house.

    48. Re:Sounds like defeat by shentino · · Score: 1

      Even if flying is a privilege, it's not a government granted privilege.

      It's a privilege granted in the private sector by an airline company.

    49. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Arizona sucks because of SB 1070.

      But get this, here in Arizona, if you are riding a horse while intoxicated, it will count as a DUI and you can be arrested. Even though you happen to be laying across the horse it will still count as a DUI. That is right, a creature with a mind of its own can be considered a vehicle in which you can be considered breaking the law.

      Now think about this. The Us government replaced most horse, cart, and foot paths with roads. These paths that we used to take to get from place to place now can only be traveled on by authorized motor vehicles. If you want to get somewhere using say a pogo stick and there is no sidewalk, you have to use a street. If you block that street because you can only pogo at 10 miles an hour, and the street is limited (another thing I dont get, how can a street be limited to 45 miles, its not moving) to oh lets say 35Mph, you could be cited for impeding the flow of traffic. Even though there is no other option to get from point A to point B.

      I know this is a strange rant but due to the government not providing any other opportunity, and limiting the way in which we travel, we have been shoehorned in to only one form of reliable transportation on our roads.

      Captcha: rhapsody

    50. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. By now everyone should realize there is no law. We live in a totalitarian state.

    51. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already don't stop at walking. Local cops will stop you for walking in certain neighborhoods. For suspicion of being too brown.

    52. Re:Sounds like defeat by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Flying is a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies,

      So we aren't allowed to discuss changing the rules of the road? We just have to sit down and shut up?
      The "rules of the road" are wrong. They are stupid, pointless, a waste of time and money, and need to be changed.
      We'll leave the "flying is a privilege" discussion for another day.

    53. Re:Sounds like defeat by dj245 · · Score: 1

      I'm convinced these full body scanners are less about security and more about ensuring wealth doesn't leave the country. When the shit hits the fan, people wanting to leave and take their fortunes converted into say diamonds, will not be able to take them with them.

      For years you could only take up to $10,000 in cash/valuables to a foreign country. Diamonds were the only way to take more. If these scanners proliferate that will be the end of that.

      Food for thought in our future police state.

      I'm not sure what your point here is. Yes, diamonds are a way to get around the currency restrictions of $10,000, but then they are considered goods if you plan on leaving them somewhere. Unless they are personal property (not used as a currency as you suggest), they need to be declared and any relevant duty paid. Are you saying that you advocated breaking the law and are upset that a new technology might make breaking the law harder?

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    54. Re:Sounds like defeat by samion.blanc · · Score: 1

      So being seen naked / groped-by-strangers is a valid requirement for flying and we should all just get over it?

      You're a moron.

      flagged as informative, lol

    55. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thirteenth amendment was ratified in 1864 and abolished slavery. The 12th amendment was ratified in 1804 and changes how Presidents and VPs were elected. There was a proposed amendment in 1810 to make it illegal to have titles of nobility.

      In the light of that information, your post makes absolutely no sense.

    56. Re:Sounds like defeat by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      Flying is a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies, or find another way to travel. It's really that simple. Quit whining and just go through it. Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

      Whether or not something is technically a right or a privilege is a semantic distinction that distracts from what really matters, which is necessity. Driving a car, having a job, having a place to live, and accessing the Internet are all privileges, but are also absolutely necessary for most people to pursue happiness and generally to feel like a productive member of society. We can tell when something is necessary because of what we will put up with in order to have it. In this case, people are--so far--willing to have naked pictures of themselves taken despite any evidence of efficacy because their need to fly on commercial airliners outweighs the humiliation.

      We constantly play this game with government and private companies. Raise your hand if you are happy with your cell phone provider or your Internet provider. How about public transportation infrastructure? Traffic during your daily commute? But everyone reading this is accessing the Internet, probably owns a mobile phone, most likely has a job, and probably has to deal with traffic or public transportation to get to that job.

      Now consider something that really isn't necessary; a restaurant. People will send back soup for being too salty or simply stop going to a restaurant because their selection of beer is sub-par. Restaurants come and go and have to run razor-thin profit margins to stay competitive--a couple of bad reviews on Yelp can put a restaurant out of business. Yet, at the airport, the TSA is serving you a salad with a thick turd right across the top of it and you're not only eating it, you're using a knife and fork, chewing each bite thoroughly, and washing it down with less than 100 mL of liquid.

      You cannot boycott a necessity, so your only recourse is to induce the government to do something about it. The US Government, however, is too broken even to be bothered to put salad dressing on the turd, let alone offer you a turd-free salad. Make every member of Congress eat that turd salad--that is a group of people that needs to fly frequently--and the body scanners will disappear without public debate, but good luck making that happen.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    57. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.
      >What about my daughter's?

      Not sure, maybe. Post pics and we'll let you know.

    58. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The border search exception does not apply to domestic flights

      Actually it can. They have this little thing provision which gives them jurisdiction not just at the border itself, but along various types of "access routes" TO (or from) the border which in some cases can extended hundreds of miles from the actual border. Any airport which counts as a Port of Entry would also fall under this exception, regardless of whether or not your specific flight is domestic or international.

    59. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thirteenth amendment was ratified in 1864 and abolished slavery. The 12th amendment was ratified in 1804 and changes how Presidents and VPs were elected. There was a proposed amendment in 1810 to make it illegal to have titles of nobility.

      In the light of that information, your post makes absolutely no sense.

      LOl you and the mods who ranked slick7 up to +2 got completely fooled. Here, I'll rephrase it so you get the point he was trying to make:

      "There's a Nigger in the Whitehouse."

    60. Re:Sounds like defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Obama created the TSA? Even the body scanners were beginning to be installed under Bush.

      Combined with 1812 and the "foreign invasion" line, I still say the OP isn't even a good troll... the post is too confusing

  2. Slashdot vs Impartiality by mumblestheclown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Impartial: "Appeals Court Rules that..."
    Slashdot: "Appeals Court Caves To TSA Over Nude Body Scanners"

    I have no dog in this fight, but the idea that some court "caved" to an agency rather than ruling on the merits of the case based on their particular principled and reasoned views (which you or I might not happen to personally like or agree with) sounds like conspiracybabble that should have no place on slashdot.

    1. Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that should have no place on slashdot.

      There are lots of things that have no place on slashdot.

      Increasingly, I realize I refer to myself.

    2. Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality by DanTheStone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You might not know this, but we the Internet share many views. One is that the TSA scanner stuff is ineffective, a waste of money, and potentially dangerous.

    3. Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's no need to be impartial when one side is clearly wrong.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      In the long run, I think your point is valid. But the sterility of a purely objective interpretation of a too-often unfair world beholding too many aspects for any group to contemplate, would have its own consequences. Surely human fallibility necessitates objectivity be a pillar of our perception if we wish to maintain any measure of sanity. While such can hopefully remain a social value, some subjects may warrant a touch of self-expression. A purely objective tone can be ineffectual under some circumstances. It could be argued that in order to increase the value of objectivity, experiences such as those of war-veterans should be interpreted and conveyed through someone who has never been to war -- and it could certainly be argued otherwise; or, that holocaust survivors should be heard only through proxy -- or again, otherwise and in-between.

      Though I do not promote the habitually biased, it doesn't seem to be a problem here at all. I also find that -- especially where sufficient data is supplied -- the responsibility of objectivity rests at least as much in the listener as the teller, if not more. On the subject of the TSA, more than a formidable portion of the citizenry have unfortunately acquired rightfully-held subjective bias. Since we as citizens fund them directly or inadvertently, a negative tone seems foretold. Now, if we could only get the DHS and other strange appendages of our government to be more objective, we might more easily reciprocate.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    5. Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality by isorox · · Score: 2

      ... that should have no place on slashdot.

      There are lots of things that have no place on slashdot.

      Increasingly, I realize I refer to myself.

      No! If Anonymous Coward leaves, who'll entertain us with decent trolls?

    6. Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reddit

    7. Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality by shentino · · Score: 1

      I don't care how you slice it.

      12 months late is 12 months late.

      If you or I or anyone else in the 99 percent tried to pull a stunt like that, we wouldn't get two words out of our mouths in the time it would take the bailiff to throw us in jail for contempt of court.

      Hell, even a 1 percenter might have exhausted a court's patience by then.

  3. List of Airports to Avoid by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

    Is there an updated list of the airports that use the scanners, so we can avoid giving them our business?

    1. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Do the airports have any choice in the matter?

    2. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      I don't know, nor do I care. I want to put economic pressure on the airports and airlines. I already avoid air travel as much as possible. When I absolutely have to fly, knowing which airports have the scanners (and therefore the molestation-pat-down searches for people who refuse to go through them) would help me decide how to plan my business travel.

    3. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by Githaron · · Score: 1

      How can you avoid an airport if you have to travel for business? Everywhere you go and come from has multiple airports?

    4. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by leppi · · Score: 1

      It's a TSA regulation (and other governments have similar authorities). The airports and airlines don't have say about where the scanners are placed. If you search google you will find a list of airports, but they are probably out of date (idk?).

      That said: you can opt out and get a pat-down, just like you would at the smaller airport. Just do that?

    5. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Take the bus or the train. If you travel to the DC area, and know one airport (Dulles) has scanners, maybe find out if BWI or DCA doesn't. Maybe you fly for part of your journey, and take the train or rent a car for the last leg. I've flown to Charlotte, NC, and driven to SC for business.

    6. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      I've done that. I've opted out, insisted it was in public (no private screening) so other passengers would see (everyone looked uncomfortable). I've made clear to the TSA officials doing the pat down that I would let them know if they acted inappropriately. Having been through the experience - I felt like a criminal. It was an invasion of personal space, privacy, and I felt disgusting afterwards. All because I didn't want to go through the x-ray machine like a good citizen.

    7. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by Talderas · · Score: 1

      So let's say you live in Chicago and have business in Miami. Let's also say that Miami has scanners while Chicago doesn't. How are you going to plan your business? Fly to Miami from Chicago then rent a car and drive back?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or charter your own plane, that way you can take what ever the hell you want on the plane with you.

      Captcha: classy

    9. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orlando? Daytona? or any of the other airports in Florida, it is a large state. Im sure at lest one of the airports is not using the scanners. so you dont have to rent a car for the long drive only a short one.

    10. Re:List of Airports to Avoid by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      It is difficult to not give an airport your business. You may as well just not fly.
      In the case of the scanners. Opt out. Sure it takes an additional 10 minutes to get processed. But if enough people opt out...
      And "enough people" isn't really all that many.

  4. Bad Track Record by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What happens when the TSA does not turn in their formal report in February?

    1. Re:Bad Track Record by kiriath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'll get moved back to the February after... duh...

    2. Re:Bad Track Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were an airport owner, I'd declare them an illegal organization and remove them as I'd remove all persons engaging in illegal activity from my premises.

    3. Re:Bad Track Record by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What happens when the TSA does not turn in their formal report in February?

      Why, the DoJ Inspector General police force will promptly confiscate all scanners, and the DHS Inspector General will take authority over the TSA during senate investigations of the TSA overstepping their authorities.

    4. Re:Bad Track Record by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      What happens when the TSA does not turn in their formal report in February?

      They'll get a very stern talking to and told they "better not do it again, and I mean it this time!" while getting a few more (b/m)illions from Congress to funnel towards some congressman's drinking buddy. So, same as always happens.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Bad Track Record by Githaron · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, by the time February comes around, 19 months would have passed since the court order. So far, there has been little bark and no bite.

    6. Re:Bad Track Record by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2

      The state of Texas threatened something like that. It didn't work.

    7. Re:Bad Track Record by isorox · · Score: 1

      If I were an airport owner, I'd declare them an illegal organization and remove them as I'd remove all persons engaging in illegal activity from my premises.

      They'd revoke your certificate to operate, airlines would abandon you, and you'd go out of business.

    8. Re:Bad Track Record by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      In the game of political chicken, Texas lost. It didn't work, because it wasn't tried. We need people willing to stand against Tyranny.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Bad Track Record by shentino · · Score: 1

      Texas lost because it was outmatched.

      You can't expect to win a chicken contest if you're driving a pinto and staring down a freight train.

      The feds, rightly, called their bluff, not because they were morally right to do so, but because they had more leverage and couldn't give two shits about what texas thought.

    10. Re:Bad Track Record by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Short answer: nothing. Long answer: nothing.

    11. Re:Bad Track Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh please, on the last day before the time is up, they'll just submit a two sentence report essentially saying "National security, can't tell you. Suck it. bitches."

      And then the courts will shrug with the "wah wah waaaaah" comical sound behind them, and life goes on getting worse for travellers, and society as a whole.

  5. It's the media's support by jd659 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is not the specific ruling, but rather the media’s brainwashing of population that body scanners somehow increase the security. Most people do not know that you can opt out of body scanners and the general thinking now became that the scanners are good.

    I fly about three times a week and I have never gone through a body scanner. A little known fact is that once more people opt out of body scanners, the security lines grow quickly and the scanners get closed in favor of faster metal detectors. As long as the people are OK with body scanners at the airport, there’s very little that can be done in a court.

    --
    There's no such thing as "illegal download"
    1. Re:It's the media's support by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure the media is "brainwashing" people into accepting them so much as "Most people have accepted them and none of the media really cares to beat a dead horse, they'd rather focus on which politician said which soundbite, because that's what people pay attention to."

      It's not a conspiracy, it's just apathy.

    2. Re:It's the media's support by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was out in Orlando for work in April and LA in May. At MSP (my home airport) and MCO we had a choice in scanner methods, in LA we didn't. I refused to use the scanner, instead opting for the manual pat down.

      At MCO I was through the "traditional" scanner method quickly, 10 minutes faster than my coworkers who got their chromosomes scrambled. In LA, I was 30 seconds behind my coworker.

      It's not fucking worth it to use the scanners. IMO we should all be opting out and forcing the TSA to work harder to get the job done. If people stood up against the intrusion it would be far more effective than the courts telling them to do X and them ignoring it.

      They can't as easily ignore an airport full of VERY angry passengers waiting in long lines to do it the "hard" way.

    3. Re:It's the media's support by jd659 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The opt out process is not bad at all in the US. I always do that. The airport in Amsterdam may get nasty, I had to spend five minutes to explain that I do not want to go through a body scanner (I was the only one opting out).

      Regardless of that, every time I go through security I have my video cameras ready along with the printouts from TSA site authorizing the use of video equipment:
      http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm

      I take it as my civil duty to record any irregularities.

      --
      There's no such thing as "illegal download"
    4. Re:It's the media's support by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Regardless of that, every time I go through security I have my video cameras ready along with the printouts from TSA site authorizing the use of video equipment: .

      Ha. Whenever I fly to the States I always take along nude photos of my body to save them scanning me or patting me down. Saves me no end of troubles of that kind.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:It's the media's support by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      As long as the people are OK with body scanners at the airport, there’s very little that can be done in a court.

      The court as nothing to do with the people. I'd argue that as long as people are OK with the body scanners, the only thing left to do is go through the courts.

    6. Re:It's the media's support by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The opt out process is not bad at all in the US

      Yes, yes it is bad. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a waste of time and money. Yes, they don't touch your junk, but they still stick their hands down your pants.
      Patdown in Amsterdam is generally easier and quicker than any I've had in the states. It still doesn't make it right.
      Just get rid of the theater. Let anyone in the airport. Let the airline decide who gets on the plane (got a ticket? get on)

    7. Re:It's the media's support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I walked at JFK through some strange gates on my way through the check, and that was not a metal detector. They are not marked as naked scanners so I was a little confused when and how to opt out. Have you flown from JFK recently?

    8. Re:It's the media's support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do think there is a significant societal influence on the mindset of America re: fear and terrorism. Going through the check in Japan was WAYYYY more lax than in the US. I kept my shoes on, no scanners... And look at their crime and terrorism rate versus the States'.

  6. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not yours, but what about your sister, or mom, or nana? There are some sick bastards in this world and we have already seen what sick bastards with a little power do. Just look at the current TSA outrages against personal dignity.

    I haven't flown since this scanner bullshit started, but I think that when I refuse the scanner I'll inform the TSA manager that if your thug gropes my nuts I'm returning the favor with a closed fist. There is a right to defend oneself from sexual assault, and that is what this. I've been frisked by police and GSA Security and they were professional courteous and apologetic. There is no reason for this kind of invasive procedure by untrained thugs (sounds like a back alley colonoscopy).

    Captcha = duress, how fitting

  7. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    I've opted out several times. Never once has the agent patting me down seemed to enjoy the process, and they have all been apologetic, and announce to you what they are going to do before they do it.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  8. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by dubbreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Never once has the agent patting me down seemed to enjoy the process...

    We'll if you're the average slashdotter I can't see how they would enjoy it.

    "Sorry sir, I'm going to have to move your beard aside so I can..."

    --
    "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
  9. Will the rulemaking process start on time? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2

    Will the rulemaking process start on time, or will a TSA dog eat the proposed rule in late March and force further delay?"

    For the answer to this, just ask if there is any penalty to any decision maker at the TSA sufficient to motivate them? If so, it will start on time. If not...

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      For the answer to this, just ask if there is any penalty to any decision maker at the TSA sufficient to motivate them?

      Considering the government is shielding the AG who illegally ran guns in to Mexico and was found in concept of Congress but his minions at the DOJ refused to do their duty and prosecute, it is certain no one in the TSA will receive so much as a harsh word if the current administration remains after November.

      If the administration changes in November, there is still little hope of the TSA being reigned in. Your freedoms do not bear weight in the agenda of politicians

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    2. Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you want to bring up the gun running operation, or 'Fast And Furious' as it is called, let's not forget that it was started during the last administration, Bush's administration that the right wingers religiously don't want to mention. Btw, assumming you meant 'contempt' and not 'concept', considering that it seem more of a political ploy by the Republicans to look the Obama administration look bad, especially, when they didn't even want to bring in any of Bush's DOJ people that started the program in the first place and tried to lay all the blame on a Black Eric Holder, seems a bit of the racist twist in it. But what do you expect from an all white bigotted Republican panel.

      Let's also not forget that the TSA was created under the Bush administration so let's lay the origins of the problems at the doorstep of which administration started it. The Bush administration started the two wars, the Obama Administration has gotten us out of Iraq and is trying to pull us out of Afghanistan, these are also two wars that were never put on the books. Which is a reason for the $15 Trillion debt, once the cost of the wars were added $2-$3 Trillion dollars were added to the national debt because the wars were never accounted for in the Bush administration. The economic depression that this country faced started with the Bush economic policies which the Obama administration is trying to pull us out of. The lost of millions of jobs that started in the Bush administration and Obama's administration has shown private sector job growth for every month, where the Bush's administration showed mostly lost of private sector jobs. And then you expect changing to the Romney who'll just follow Bush's legacy? We'll be fighting in Syria and Iran next, and cutting the taxes on the wealthy while raising everyone's else taxes. Romney who doesn't care about the poor people because they have a safety net but wants to pull the safety net out from under them, Romney who doesn't care about the 47% because he doesn't think they pay taxes, so he'll want to tax the vets, the senior citizens on social security and disadvantage, while people like Romney get tax cuts or doesn't pay any income tax.

      The country is finally pulling itself out of the hole that the Bush administration dug us into and then as soon as things start looking better, let's get the Black guy out of office because he isn't one of us. The racist elements of the Republican party are afraid that an uppity black person can do better than a wholesome 'White' person.

    3. Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never understood the rationale behind an appointed DA.

    4. Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      If the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, he'll never turn against him. That way the power of the Presidency (summarized by the Nixon quote "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.") is not threatened.

      Oh, you mean the public good rationale behind a presidentially-appointed AG? None. None whatsoever.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? by mr1911 · · Score: 1
      Ok, troll feeding time once again...

      let's not forget that it was started during the last administration

      Let's also not forget that the TSA was created under the Bush administration

      So, if Bush poked out your right eye, it is perfectly acceptable and even expected that Obama pokes out your left eye?

      Bush sucked, no doubt. However, Eric Holder's gunwalking program has directly and conclusively put American blood on the AG's hands, and he is not being held responsible. Try that yourself and see how it works out.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    6. Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, now it is Eric Holder's gunwalking program...not Bush's and his AG?

      How much American blood is on Bush's hands? Thousands of Americans lost their life in Iraq for an unjust war, tens of thousands of Americans are permanently disabled from an unjust war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead or crippled for an unjust war. Bush should be brought up on war crimes. I think Bush has more to answer for than Eric Holder does, but what does the Republican House want to do, they want to lay the blame for a messed up program that Bush started on Obama's doorstep. Very good thinking there. Let's not forget the leaked CIA operative information, that the White conveniently scapegoated Scooter for. Where's the prosecution of Cheney? Ah but because he was a Republican that the Republican house doesn't want to go after fellow Republicans. That's what we can expect from the Republicans, at least Obama didn't go on a witch hunt when he got into office, but the Republican House is all on a witch hunt to make Obama look bad to get a moron like Romney into office.

  10. Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Flying is a privilege, not a right.

    Well, yes, that is true; however, the government (which is making these rules) belongs to us. Do we chose to have intrusive searches using mostly-unproven technology? What our choice in the matter of giving away our privacy in the battle between fear and freedom?

    You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies, or find another way to travel. It's really that simple.

    And, likewise, the TSA needs to "abide by the rules as set forth by the governing bodies, which, as far as I can see requires a period of public comment, something that the TSA has failed to do. So, if somebody is "failing to abide by the rules," it apparently is the TSA

    Quit whining and just go through it. Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

    Whether you, anonymous coward, choses to think that somebody else's privacy concerns, or safety concerns, are valid or not is not your business

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by s.petry · · Score: 2

      What you say is true, however it's a tough road to get back to where we need to be. Media has become simply propaganda, and most people listen to them. More and more people are finding alternative news, but will we have enough people awake before the proverbial shit hits the fan? I'm not so sure. I have hope mind you, but I have no confidence.

      Socrates stated that politicians should be elected from those that showed no ambition or inclination to hold office. He was correct.

      Socrates also stated that the education of the police and military was critical, and if they were corrupted government would fail and become tyranny and oligarchy. We now see the results from years of bad education. In addition to this, the government has been found to be hiring police with below average IQs and specific dispositions we would consider psychopathic and authoritarian.

      Hell, we have known how to do things correctly for over 3,000 years. Do you think there are those that have figured out how to break things when they work correctly? Frankly, I'm amazed at how well they are doing and how so many are completely apathetic (or completely clueless) to what's going on.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      The process has become, that ugly place where the court has stated that they must start the comment period sometime before March of 2013.

      Socrates aside, one can still opt out, and as mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be no pleasure taken in the procedurally advised frisk.

      I don't agree that it's a good practice for many reasons, a lot of them presuming guilt, invasion of privacy and dignity, and so forth. But the constitutionally prescribed process is underway, although the TSA has been given too much time to comply. An enormous event occurs if/when the xray machines are removed, and I'm hoping they don't replace it with something even more draconian or fraught with travel delays or indignities. That's the message that I hope isn't lost. Yes, I like airport security, but better ways must be found of dealing with the issues than what the TSA does now.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Socrates aside, one can still opt out, and as mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be no pleasure taken in the procedurally advised frisk

      Their official policy is to make the frisk as embarrassing as possible, so that you opt in next time.

    4. Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how what you stated was relevant to my comments, but I'll play along for a moment.

      The process has become, that ugly place where the court has stated that they must start the comment period sometime before March of 2013.

      The majority of courts are corrupted, full of corrupt judges and lawyers. The NDAA is the best proof possible. It's a very sad joke that the TSA can ignore the courts and make them back down from a rightful decision. The TSA has been proven to be hiring people you would demand stay away from your child. Convicted felons, targeting pedophiles, are high on their hire list. No, I refuse to site anything since you can easily use Google to find the documents that were leaked.

      An enormous event occurs if/when the xray machines are removed, and I'm hoping they don't replace it with something even more draconian or fraught with travel delays or indignities. That's the message that I hope isn't lost. Yes, I like airport security, but better ways must be found of dealing with the issues than what the TSA does now.

      This is simply an argument from fallacy. No melt down would occur if the X-ray machines were removed. You do realize that we have had canine and other animals trained to detect all kinds of controlled substances which include explosives for over a century correct? Okay, our training methods may have been refined over that time, but there is no reason to subject anyone to intrusion of any type when non intrusive (and much more cost effective) methods exist. The military has had swabs and machines that detect chemical weapons since I was in, over two decades ago. So saying "but Joe is allergic to dogs" is a futile argument.

      You also mistakenly assume that terrorists are all over the place (wholly shit, is one in your back pocket now?). This hype has been brainwashed in to the public for over a decade, so I don't blame you per-say but do suggest you find truth instead of believing propaganda. The US has never had terrorists board a plane with bombs, not one time ever. Every time a bomb has been found on a plane, it is either 1) inbound to the USA or 2) A fabricated terror plot that a Government agency hatched and let happen. You do realize that you have a higher chance of dying to a bee sting than you do of dying to a terrorist right? This is using world wide statistics including places like Iraq where they can buy an RPG pretty easily, and not just in the US.

      Again, I refuse to cite something when Google is your friend.

      And before you "but but but" about box cutting terrorists, do you realize that a passenger with an umbrella could have beat the shit out of them? Do we ban umbrellas from planes also so Terrorists can't use them to threaten people? The truth is, bad people will do bad things. Bad people do exist, and probably are the ones telling you how bad other people are. They want you looking under park benches for things that don't exist, so that you never pay attention to what they are doing. They want you living in fear, because if you got over your fear you would probably find out what shitbags they are and fight against them.

      Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Where's that stated? As a frequent flier, it's never happened to me. No fun, yes. embarrassing? No. Necessary to opt-out? I believe so.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    6. Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with the frisk is that they do not have enough people to do the frisk. I had to wait an extra 15 minutes from some TSA agent to give me the pat down.

      The pat down itself, very professional. Two people, one guy doing the pat down and announcing every move he was making, (now I am using the back of my hand to pat the inside of your thigh) while the other guy was watching and making sure that nothing was inappropriate. Also I was given the option of a private, yes let me say that again, private screening room for the pat down if I felt uncomfortable. Now I did make it more uncomfortable for him due to the fact that I am comfortable with my sexuality, and just for kicks started asking him questions about where he would take me to dinner after the search. All in all make it a fun experience.

      P.S. the more people who opt out causes more backups for the body scanners. Get enough people to opt out at once and they have to revert to the old method of mettle detector, X-ray (like usual) and "random screenings".

    7. Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by V-similitude · · Score: 2

      The government (which is making these rules) belongs to us. Do we chose to have intrusive searches using mostly-unproven technology? What our choice in the matter of giving away our privacy in the battle between fear and freedom?

      As polls have consistently shown, the answer is yes. We, as a country, are quite okay with giving away our freedom and privacy to alleviate our fear.

      Unfortunately.

    8. Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, if you have to fly, do what I do.

      1) Wear a kilt (properly).
      2) Decline the scanner.

      So far, in my experience, you'll be able to smuggle a beach ball between your thighs if you follow these two simple steps.

  11. airlines with more sensible, less intrusive sec.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole thing is a joke.

    Where are the airlines which I can *chose* to use who *don't* mess about with security theatre?

    If I want to accept the risk, it's my business. Why can't an airline advertise specifically on the basis that it uses more sensible, less intrusive security?

    There is no such choice permitted to us, and that means the whole thing is a joke - we are not allowed a choice.

  12. Yes by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Is there an updated list of the airports that use the scanners, so we can avoid giving them our business?

    Here I have the set of airports that do not have the body scanners:

    { }

    Opt out if they concern you, just get there 30 min early (just in case, it usually doesn't take that long).

    If your goal is really economic pressure that is the way to pressure them, travel normally but do not use the scanners and if enough people do so the use of them is economically impractical. I hope to see them vanish within five years.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here I have the set of airports that do not have the body scanners:

      { }

      Not really true. I live in Tucson and our airport doesn't yet have the scanners. I'd guess there are other smallish airports around the country that also don't have them yet.

      However I'm sure it's only a matter of time and I agree, widespread opting out is likely the only way to make them disappear given how the court rulings have been going.

    2. Re:Yes by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Although all airports I've visited recently have them, Seattle didn't use them, but instead used metal detectors. I've even seen places that let you select your scanning method between the two (or opt-out). This is what I hope happens everywhere: mass refusal forcing them back to the older tech.
      To combat it though, they had a sign saying how it's less than 2 minutes of air travel's worth of radiation. Too bad it's all at once which is how we cook things.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
  13. We'll find out by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    In MARCH!!!!

  14. Get over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The truth is that there is no right to Fly, You have 3 options, Scanner, Patdown or don't Fly. Drive, take a train, bus or ship, or simply put one foot in front of the other.

    1. Re:Get over it by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      Not flying doesn't opt you out when they are screening buses, subways, and some highways.

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/don-phillips-tsa-vipr-teams/index.html

    2. Re:Get over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is that there is no right to Fly, You have 3 options, Scanner, Patdown or don't Fly. Drive, take a train, bus or ship, or simply put one foot in front of the other.

      As referenced in another post:

      49 USC 40103 (a) (2)
      "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

      Yes, there can be reasonable restrictions, but the right to fly exists.

    3. Re:Get over it by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Established federal law seems to disagree with you.

      Regarding 49 USC 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace, section a, paragraph 2: A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

  15. Name change... by JestersGrind · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a result, the group is changing their name to Electronic Privacy Information Center, For All Is Lost.

  16. same here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I opt out too.

    And, when it was in the news that the TSA were looking for people who act "suspiciously" - like avoiding eye contact - I started going out of my way to make eye contact - I stare them down until THEY turn their heads. I do the same to cops.

    I go in with the attitude of "go ahead fuck with me" because you fuckers step one toe out of line, we're on the 5 O'clock news and internet with a headline along the lines of "TSA fucks over yet another innocent traveler with their stupidity".

    And I'd like to add the best things that were out there, the explosives detectors, were removed because they were a "maintenance nightmare" according to a TSA agent I asked - GE makes them. They were great: they had a metal and explosives detector in one and it took 30 seconds - no strip search. Because let's face it, the only REAL threat now is just bombs. The metal detector will get the guns and as far as ceramic knives - please, they'll get their heads bashed in before they could do anyting and the reinforced cockpit doors will keep them out.

    I guess GE should hire ex-TSA or DHS heads for lobbyists next time.

    1. Re:same here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was passing a device looking much like a metal detector. this was on new york JFK. around 2011.

      I took off al metal stuff, and it went off. then they told me it picked people at random, and i was going to get the normal search.

      they used a cotton swab and rubbed it to my clothes, during the patdown. then they put it in the detector... which went off.

      I went over and looked, trace amounts of 19 different explosives were found (out of the 23 it can detect), clearly a malfunction. They only responded to the sound and did _not_ bother to check which stuff was found.

      they told me sometimes lotion can cause this, and I still had to undergo the extensive patdown. they rubbed me again, inside and outside of my bag and did the scan again. nothing was found and i was able to go.

      normally i don't mind the body scanner, but travelling with my pregnant wife last month, I advised her to refuse. in all 4 airports she did not use the body scanner, and she got different treatments, nothing more than a light patdown.

    2. Re:same here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maintenance nightmare" is right. The bomb sniffers were awesome, until farmer Joe with a bit of fertilizer comes into the booth and that fertilizer gets sucked up the sniffer's nozzle. Then it gets caught along the nozzle - now you either deal with the next ten or so people/sniffs being false-positives (most likely) or you hold the line while you clear the machine (run it without anyone in it until it's reporting negative for explosives). Each 'sniff' took several seconds meaning anytime you have an irregularity (not just fertilizer but the occasional lotion etc) you have to pause for at least one minute, and often several, causing the TSA's main goal of throughput to drop dramatically.

      The GE scanners objectively made us safer, but they did not provide the throughput needed by the TSA. Instead we get scanners with throughput near to that of metal detectors but without any additional safety added.

    3. Re:same here. by homb · · Score: 2

      I also systematically refuse the microwave scanners.
      I was on my way out of Chicago last week, and was instructed to go through it. I simply told the TSA guy "no". There was a regular metal detector next to it, but he told me I'd get a patdown. No problem I said, but had to wait a couple of minutes for the patdown guy ahead to finish. Then I had a pretty light gloved patdown (nothing to write home about, not even as effective as the one you get in any Arab country airport by default) and then he rubbed a cotton swap on his gloves and sent it through the explosives detector machine. Anyway, it all went without a hitch but the operation itself takes 3-5 minutes.
      As I was getting my stuff, I saw another person do the same thing. All we need is for a few more % of people to request the patdown and it'll be utterly impossible for the TSA to handle the demand, thus reducing it to getting rid of the microwave scanners.
      Those things need to go.

  17. We keep getting closer ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  18. Fact: the court caved by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I suggest reading up on this case a bit...

    In November 2010, EPIC sued DHS because the body scanners suck. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/05/158250/epic-files-lawsuit-to-suspend-airport-body-scanner-use

    In July 2011, a court found that DHS had improperly deployed the scanners by not providing a period for public comment. The court allowed the scans to continue on the condition that they have a public comment period. http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/07/17/0143233/Court-Approves-TSA-Body-Scans-But-Calls-For-Public-Comment

    By July 2012, there had STILL not been a public comment period. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/11/2113239/dhs-still-stonewalling-on-body-scanning-ruling-one-year-later

    And here we are, September 2012, and the appeals court says look, I know DHS was told to do public comment and it's been over a year and they still haven't done it, but they promise they're really going to do it this time in March 2013, so we're going to take their word for it even though they ignored the previous court order for a public comment period.

    Any characterization other than "cave" fails to describe the situation in historical context.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:Fact: the court caved by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      How about consequences for failure? Like for instance, firing the top 3 levels of the Department with cause for non-compliance, starting with Big Sis. Followed by complete disbanding of the TSA and firing all the pretend-a-cops.Keep firing people until they either comply, or nobody works there. We tried the carrots, now its time for sticks.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Fact: the court caved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but who has the power to actually fire people? Look carefully -- it's the executive branch, not the judicial. Generally, rulings by the judicial branch must be enforced by the executive, so it's tricky for them to just order things be done.

    3. Re:Fact: the court caved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fire and imprison the overacheivers in their ranks

  19. Checks and Balances.... LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Checks and Balances.... LOL

  20. Nice in theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In practice, governors like having power, and will not relenquish power based on theories and principles, no matter how loftly.

    The *only* thing they respond to is direct pressure applied by huge numbers of people. That is *it*.

    A legal proceeding performed by a small (and non-rich) special interest group, no matter how legally sound, will have no effect at all. Until people protest and buycott in sufficient numbers, the scanners are here to stay.

    1. Re:Nice in theory by shentino · · Score: 2

      Of all the ways to typo the word "boycott"...

  21. Civics: What a joke by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wish I could sue my old high school for wasting my time with civics class. It was there I was taught that we had three branches of government, and that part of the job for each branch was to keep an eye on the other two branches in a system of "checks and balances". Clearly this was just a lot of sentimental BS.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Civics: What a joke by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Instead, you should read up about J. Edgar Hoover and how he controlled the entire U.S. government by using the FBI to wiretap everybody who was anybody and then blackmailing them with the dirt he found.

      I smell a similar thing with Chertoff and DHS, only instead of covering up indiscretions, he wants money.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  22. Sample survey by jd659 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Public opinion gathering? Huh? Here’s a survey:

    "Would you jeopardize the lives of our children and the American citizens by asking us to remove Advanced Imaging Technology scanners from the airport?”

    [NO! I want to keep people safe] [yes, allow terrorists blow up the planes]

    --
    There's no such thing as "illegal download"
    1. Re:Sample survey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES!!! YES!!!! YES!!! GIVE ME BACK MY FREEDOM!!!! Your logic is non-sequitur, it does not follow that because we have freedom from illegal search and seizure that planes will be blown up. YOU ARE A COMPLETE MORON!!!!!!!!!!

  23. Re:airlines with more sensible, less intrusive sec by SScorpio · · Score: 1

    The airlines don't get any say in this, though you could try chartering a small plane from a small local airport. It may cost more but you have the choice.

  24. Americans who don't fly. by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

    Support the TSA.

    1. Re:Americans who don't fly. by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      What about foreigners who used to fly to the US multiple times per year, and have instead decided to spend their money elsewhere?

    2. Re:Americans who don't fly. by spauldo · · Score: 1

      No, I'm sure there's many like me who don't fly because of the TSA.

      Showing up three hours early for my flight? Be treated like some bomb-carrying nutjob because I (gasp!) only bring a carry-on and have my shampoo and conditioner with me? No thanks. I've got a '65 Galaxie that rides like a dream and has a trunk you could fit Rhode Island in, I've got the money to keep the tank full, and I've got the time to take the scenic route. Screw the TSA.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  25. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by mellon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh please. This is a lame argument against these scanners. There are two good arguments against them:

    1. They don't work.
    2. They are more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

    Do you honestly think anyone wants to see your junk on one of these things? Have you seen the images they produce? _Not_ chubby-inducing.

  26. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really think those that would enjoy it are going to stand there with raging boner and a smirk on their face the whole time?

  27. The puppet court strikes again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuff said.

  28. Executive summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US citizens are pussies.

  29. Love the way you lie... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    It doesn't have to work well to be useful and dissuade terrorists.

    See also the fraud that is the lie detector.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Love the way you lie... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I mean, you didn't think the border agents were being rude because they were Nazi lackies, do you? They are trying to fluster you.

      Ahh, I've said too much.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  30. Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did they start forcing people to undress when going through the scanners?

  31. ACTUAL FORTUNE COOKIE by almitydave · · Score: 2

    ... that my wife opened contained this message:

    "Man who walks sideways through airport security is going to Bangkok."

    --
    my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
    I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  32. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    I know you're being funny, but I'm not a horrible person to look at. I'm one of the "stealth nerds" - you have no idea until I start talking, and if I watch my words you'd still never know.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  33. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Yes?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  34. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same here, Also, just start commenting on how good it feels and they tend to do it a little faster. The only one that was a little weird was the waist band search, but nothing too bad.

  35. Wow, how shocking ... by epp_b · · Score: 1

    One arm of government decides in favour of another.

  36. Support the people who can change by jd659 · · Score: 1

    This is not enough to complain on /. about how bad things get at the airport, and more action is required. I would support a good cause and I found a guy who runs TSA Out Of Our Pants blog. Consider donating a coffee cup to him (there's paypal button). I'm not affiliated in any way with the site, but looking at how quickly our freedoms are dissolving, I do want to make sure that people like do not disappear:
    http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/

    --
    There's no such thing as "illegal download"
  37. I can't believe no one has said it... by vectorious · · Score: 1

    ...but does this story constitute an EPIC fail?

  38. The Fagots Won This One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fagot TSA.

    This is what we gets with a Lesbian running shop and calling shots.

  39. Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

    I know you're being funny, but I'm not a horrible person to look at. I'm one of the "stealth nerds" - you have no idea until I start talking, and if I watch my words you'd still never know.

    Heh, "stealth nerd," that's funny. Like a closet nerd that pokes his head out once in a while.

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
  40. Welcome Comrade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Soviet russia. DHS = KGB. Show us your papers, slave.