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?"

Comments

Sounds like defeat

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[arth1]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[tilante]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[kiriath]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[interkin3tic]

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

Then why ARE they ogleing my naked outline?

Re:Sounds like defeat

[mr1911]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[ewanm89]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[ZeroSumHappiness]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Githaron]

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?

Re:Sounds like defeat

[mr1911]

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

I don't.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Eldragon]

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

Top notch, Anonymous Coward.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[isorox]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[vux984]

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?

Re:Sounds like defeat

[isorox]

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

Aren't you being a little naive?

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Mr. Ghost]

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...

Re:Sounds like defeat

[DRJlaw]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Talderas]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[ZeroSumHappiness]

"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*

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Joce640k]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Hatta]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[mellon]

Because it pays the rent.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Joce640k]

Link should be this: hot chicks

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Dan667]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[oracleofbargth]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[s.petry]

I laughed out loud when I read that!

Re:Sounds like defeat

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[isorox]

Drive to mexico, fly from there.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[reboot246]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[slick7]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[shentino]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[BlueStrat]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[shentino]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[chrismcb]

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.

Re:Sounds like defeat

[dj245]

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?

Re:Sounds like defeat

[samion.blanc]

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

Re:Sounds like defeat

[fearofcarpet]

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.

Slashdot vs Impartiality

[mumblestheclown]

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.

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality

[DanTheStone]

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.

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality

[X0563511]

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

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality

[Penurious Penguin]

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.

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality

[isorox]

... 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?

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality

[shentino]

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.

List of Airports to Avoid

[ohnocitizen]

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

Re:List of Airports to Avoid

[Githaron]

Do the airports have any choice in the matter?

Re:List of Airports to Avoid

[ohnocitizen]

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.

Re:List of Airports to Avoid

[Githaron]

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

Re:List of Airports to Avoid

[leppi]

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?

Re:List of Airports to Avoid

[ohnocitizen]

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.

Re:List of Airports to Avoid

[ohnocitizen]

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.

Re:List of Airports to Avoid

[Talderas]

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?

Re:List of Airports to Avoid

[chrismcb]

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.

Bad Track Record

[Githaron]

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

Re:Bad Track Record

[kiriath]

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

Re:Bad Track Record

[arth1]

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.

Re:Bad Track Record

[Baloroth]

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.

Re:Bad Track Record

[Githaron]

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.

Re:Bad Track Record

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

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

Re:Bad Track Record

[isorox]

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.

Re:Bad Track Record

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Bad Track Record

[shentino]

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.

Re:Bad Track Record

[Patent Lover]

Short answer: nothing. Long answer: nothing.

Re:Bad Track Record

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's the media's support

[jd659]

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.

Re:It's the media's support

[interkin3tic]

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.

Re:It's the media's support

[garcia]

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.

Re:It's the media's support

[jd659]

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.

Re:It's the media's support

[Kittenman]

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.

Re:It's the media's support

[chrismcb]

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.

Re:It's the media's support

[chrismcb]

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)

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage

[X0563511]

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.

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage

[dubbreak]

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..."

Will the rulemaking process start on time?

[Maximum Prophet]

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...

Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time?

[mr1911]

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

Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time?

[idontgno]

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.

Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time?

[mr1911]

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.

Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat]

[Geoffrey.landis]

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

Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat]

[s.petry]

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.

Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat]

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat]

[realityimpaired]

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.

Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat]

[s.petry]

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.

Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat]

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat]

[V-similitude]

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.

Yes

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Yes

[snadrus]

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.

We'll find out

[PortHaven]

In MARCH!!!!

Name change...

[JestersGrind]

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

same here.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:same here.

[homb]

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.

We keep getting closer ...

[damn_registrars]

... to what Dilbert predicted back in 2004

Fact: the court caved

[DeadCatX2]

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.

Re:Fact: the court caved

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Civics: What a joke

[wcrowe]

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.

Re:Civics: What a joke

[steelfood]

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.

Sample survey

[jd659]

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]

Re:airlines with more sensible, less intrusive sec

[SScorpio]

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.

Americans who don't fly.

[Stirling Newberry]

Support the TSA.

Re:Americans who don't fly.

[realityimpaired]

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

Re:Americans who don't fly.

[spauldo]

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.

Re:Get over it

[SScorpio]

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

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage

[mellon]

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.

Re:Get over it

[flimflammer]

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.

Love the way you lie...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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

See also the fraud that is the lie detector.

Re:Love the way you lie...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

ACTUAL FORTUNE COOKIE

[almitydave]

... that my wife opened contained this message:

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

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage

[X0563511]

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.

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage

[X0563511]

Yes?

Wow, how shocking ...

[epp_b]

One arm of government decides in favour of another.

Support the people who can change

[jd659]

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/

I can't believe no one has said it...

[vectorious]

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

Re:Nice in theory

[shentino]

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

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage

[fearofcarpet]

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.