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?"

9 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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...
  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. 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 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: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.
  5. 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
  6. 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?

  7. 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"