Motion Filed In 1st Circuit To Enjoin TSA's New Mandatory "AIT" Screening (google.com)

New submitter saizai writes: TSA has made electronic strip search mandatory whenever they feel like it. "TSA is updating the AIT PIA to reflect a change to the operating protocol regarding the ability of individuals to opt out of AIT screening in favor of physical screening. While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security." I've filed for an injunction against new TSA policy on mandatory AIT, in my general lawsuit challenging TSA's "orders". The court says TSA will respond to my motion by Tuesday. I'll reply immediately. Hopefully will have it put on hold before January. (Note that "AIT" stands for "Advanced Imaging Technology," the term TSA applies to walk-through body scanners.)

Comments

Slowly

[Anonymous Coward]

Slowly tightening their grip. Where's all those people who said it was fine because you'd always be able to opt out? Called us crazy for saying it was a slippery slope?

Re:Slowly

[Anonymous Coward]

Slowly tightening their grip. Where's all those people who said it was fine because you'd always be able to opt out? Called us crazy for saying it was a slippery slope?

People opted out because they were NOT fine with it.

Everyone else didn't care enough to opt out, which is so easy, I have to assume they really don't care.

Re: Slowly

[AvitarX]

What's crazy to me is this:
If I were trying to bring a weapon, I would definitely usenthe body scanner (or my bag).

The physical screening is far more likely to find something. A metal detector is too.

The imaging tech is very ineffective.

Re: Slowly

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax. Only attractive women have anything to worry about.

Re:Slowly

[daq man]

I went through one of these in August. I didn't want to and the TSA staff there gave me no option. I could have kicked up a fun but I'd stood in line for twenty minutes to get to the front and everyone behind me was well and truly pissed enough. Not to mention that my son was with me and having dad lead off in irons wasn't an image I wanted to leave behind. Also, I was on the way home after my own father's funeral.

For thirty years I was a frequent traveller, my family lives in the UK and I live in the USA. I am also a US government contractor so I flew to Europe and Asia yearly on business. Since the mid 2000's I've almost stopped flying at all. Sad really since I missed the last years of dad's life. Stupidly, despite my ticket being paid for by the US government and travelling on government business I was often selected for "extra screening", before anyone thinks "profiling" I am a white and of European descent. The whole thing just pissed me off. So don't say "didn't care enough to opt out" more like blackmailed and shamed into it.

Re:Slowly

[daq man]

damned spell corrector (messer upper) fun should be fuss...

Re:Slowly

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean you didn't have an option? You can always opt-out. If the TSA refused to let you, ask to speak to their supervisor. If that doesn't work, get the names of the TSA lackeys involved, leave the airport and file a report with the local police. Follow up by filing lawsuits against each TSA lackey involved.

They can't arrest you for no reason. Just refrain from punching the TSA fuckers in the face and you'll be all right.

Re:Slowly

[Jason Levine]

They've slid down the slope a bit and are now saying that the TSA is only doing this to protect against terrorists and that you're free not to fly if you don't like it.

When the TSA expands to other methods of transportation, they'll slide down the slope a bit more and defend the TSA (and the government) with new arguments all the while denying that we are all sliding down the slope.

Re:Slowly

[saizai]

It's pretty common for TSA grunts to violate their policies and try to intimidate people against doing what they're allowed to. And TSA claims that it can issue civil penalties (~$10k) if you exit screening once you've entered. The only case I know of where they actually pursued that was John Brennan, though.

Re: Slowly

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Was in Atlanta a couple of months ago. I paid for their damned precheck too. Went through the metal detector with no metal and it went off. The agent actually told me it was a random alarm but then I had to go through one of those damned body scanners anyway. (The published rules of precheck say you might not alwats get it, but there's nothing about this horse crap AFTER you've already gotten in the precheck line)

Making up random crap needs to end. Actually, the TSA needs to be disbanded. Now. It should never have been created in the first place.

Re:Slowly

[Anonymous Coward]

And TSA claims that it can issue civil penalties (~$10k) if you exit screening once you've entered.

That is just a scare tactic and there is no force of law behind it. Anyone can "issue" civil penalties against anyone else for any reason at any time. That doesn't mean it's going to happen or be successful in court if it does happen.

Re:Slowly

[saizai]

Actually, it does have force of law. 49 USC 114(v)(2)(A): "A person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for a violation of a regulation prescribed, or order issued, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under an applicable provision of this title."

Re:Slowly

[ToddInSF]

Those people are always silent when they're obviously wrong. What can they say, after all ? They helped us lose Liberty ? You can't educate most people. "History's a stranger, memory's a fool."

Re:Slowly

[saizai]

Once you start, they claim you can't stop. Courts have agreed. United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 2007).

Re:Slowly

[sjames]

You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

Re:Slowly

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. I've flown often over the course of decades and I have never gone through any of the x-ray machines. I have also left the airport a couple of times after entering the "secure" area without any problem. In fact, I can't find a single incident of anyone being arrested just because they wanted to leave the airport.

You're talking out of your inexperienced little ass.

Re:Slowly

[saizai]

That's not what I was citing it for. No US court has ever ruled on a mandatory-AIT policy, because it's never been the policy before (in the US).

Read the comment I was responding to: "Except there is no violation for leaving the airport."

Then read my cite:
"The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593; 49 C.F.R. 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine."

That directly supports what I said: "Once you start, they claim you can't stop. Courts have agreed."

PS Insults do not make your argument better.

Re:Slowly

[saizai]

Leaving the airport after you passed security is way different than leaving midway through security.

Re:Slowly

[sjames]

People get arrested for no (legal) reason all the time. That's where the phrase comes from. The post claimed CAN'T as if the attempt would be physically stopped by the hand of God or something. They CAN physically do it even if it would be illegal.

It seems you are the inexperienced one.

thanks - too lazy to do it myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. As one of the many people who are aghast at what is going on, but don't want to make a social/political fight my career, I appreciate that people like you do challenge the slide into authoritarianism.

Re:thanks - too lazy to do it myself

[saizai]

Gladly done. (Wish I had more resources, but I do what I can.)

OP here

[saizai]

Sai here (OP & person who filed this lawsuit). Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell are you?

Re:OP here

[saizai]

did you read the comment you replied to? If yes, please ask a more specific question.

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

If you saw video this before you followed their orders, would have have acted the same?

Do you believe you acted morally in this situation?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/...

93 / 93

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, this is a good fight. It's a good thing you are doing, and I hope you succeed. A lot of us are disturbed by the direction of things over the last 14-odd years, and we're doing the best we can to halt the slide in our own ways.

My question would be: do you not worry that talking about it online is unwise given a pending lawsuit?

Re:OP here

[saizai]

Thanks. :-)

Fair question, but with a simple answer: I've not said anything online that I haven't already said in court and/or isn't very blatantly obvious. I don't disclose pending litigation strategy or the like that might be damaging, nor anything private, privileged, etc.

I think it's beneficial to raise public awareness. Part of why they responded to me at all was because TSA's PR people (howdy, Curtis!) read the 2013 BoingBoing article about my SFO experience and had a subsequent internal shitstorm. (How do I know? Several hundred pages of FOIA docs — ones I haven't published yet.)

Re:OP here

[saizai]

I've not watched the video yet; will try later. But the only things I've ever read about "natural law" have seemed to me to be fundamentally philosophically unsound, and basically just ways to bootstrap "I like / don't like this" into a claim of objective morality. I reject that philosophy.

Perhaps my manifesto on civil obedience would answer your question?

Re:OP here

[saizai]

I think any machine capable of telling whether or not someone is circumcised is a strip search under the 4th Amendment, regardless of whether it shows the image to a human or not.

Re:OP here

[penguinoid]

Thank you for your part in the fight against encroaching authoritarians. We'll be cheering for you from our mothers' basements.

Re:OP here

[SumDog]

That's awesome. It's crazy how every other country in the world said the backscatter x-rays were unsafe, and most EU states (except for the UK) banned them entirely. Then the US switched to millimetre wave machines, yet never once acknowledging the safety issues with the x-ray systems!

I know personally that in Australia, you cannot opt out. If you try, they tell you that you have to wait 24 hours before you can come in and board the plane. And no, there's no refund for your ticket and no rescheduling the flight from the airline. Nothing about waiting 24 hours makes anything more secure. It's basically to force people to go through the scanner or risk missing their flight and having to pay for another ticket.

I've read a lot and it seems like the millimetre wave scanners don't have any serious safety issue (although long term exposure in humans is really impossible to gauge). Even so, they're totally ineffective. I can't find it now, but one of the heads of German airport security said they had a huge false positive rate. I've often experienced this myself. In Australia it said I had something in my left pocket. That pocket was completely empty. Nothing even behind or around it at all

These machines are multi-million dollar failures that provide no additional security. They're about as good as those bomb detectors that one dude sold that were nothing more than random parts stuffed in a box.

Good on you and good luck in your lawsuit.

Re:OP here

[saizai]

Re. Australia: do you have a pointer to the law or regulation that says so? (First I've heard of it.)

As far as I know, at least US, Canada, UK, & EU law all permit opt-out if you submit to "patdown". However, IANAL, especially for non-US law.

You might enjoy this video of a German guy demonstrating he could smuggle an entire bomb past the scanners (German w/ subtitles).

Re:OP here

[DaHat]

Being raped & tortured by the police is only worth a 1.6 million dollar slap on the wrist with no criminal penalties against the offenders... the 4th amendment seems to have fallen out of favor.

Re:OP here

[saizai]

Yeah. Popehat's collection of such stories is pretty disturbing.

And on this case, the APA & 49 USC 46110 don't allow me to recover damages (and Kay v Ehrler says I can't recover for my time spent on it), so I won't be getting a single cent from this litigation.

Possibly from suing them over what happened to me at BOS / SFO (see s.ai/tsa), but that's a whole different thing, and probably will take years.

Re:OP here

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Sai here (OP & person who filed this lawsuit). Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Bravo to you, sir, for standing up for your rights, and by extension, everyone else's rights as well.

I've always opted-out of the scanner on general principles and so far they've never tried to force me to use it. I can see that this is likely not to be the case the next time I fly. We'll see what happens...

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

If you object so strongly to a rectal probe that you call it "rape", I don't understand why you won't allow imaging methods where nobody touches you. I understand that some people feel invaded by any method that visualizes their body contour. But I'd rather have some people feel uncomfortable than a bomb on my plane.

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for fucks sake! What is the big deal about walking through a damn security scanner? Do you prefer to be felt up by security officers? Do you think that there should be no security precautions at all? If you have to complain about something complain about the requirement to remove your shoes. That requirement is a pain in the ass. I am all for disbanding TSA. I am more than willing to take my chances of my plane exploding in mid-flight. If the TSA ceased to exist and a plane did blow up the people complaining about the TSA would be throwing a hissy fit and asking why the government did not provide more security.

Re:OP here

[khallow]

If you object so strongly to a rectal probe that you call it "rape", I don't understand why you won't allow imaging methods where nobody touches you.

I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe anal penetration isn't the only reason to object to intrusive and privacy destroying tyranny. There could be other downsides too. /sarc

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wanted to say thank you for doing this.

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw you. You've made your choice, but don't make it for others.

Because after billions funneled into chronies' pockets and so many blunders with the different iterations of these machines, I can't trust the TSA to do what they say they do. They say these newest machines don't store images and that radiation is non-ionizing, but *I* don't want to take any chances. And *I* shouldn't have to.

It's all a huge theater anyway. Do they really need to swipe the clothes near my crotch to pretend to detect bomb residue? I doubt it. I saw the twitter feed (and sai's original tweet about the injunction) yesterday, where one guy claimed that he worked with explosives and traveled afterwards, and the machine didn't detect anything. It's all bullshit.

But whatever, I'd rather walk through the metal detector or let them feel me up if that's what it takes instead of walking through that slow cancer death machine. I'm pretty sure the agents don't enjoy it.

Re:OP here

[drinkypoo]

I've not watched the video yet; will try later. But the only things I've ever read about "natural law" have seemed to me to be fundamentally philosophically unsound,

"Natural law" is as ridiculous a concept as "natural rights". Rights aren't natural, that's why we have to fight for them. Gravity is a natural law, even if it's also "only" a theory since we still haven't found a graviton, or what have you. You don't fight for it; if anything, you fight it. Rights are things we hope for, and have to protect. The argument over what is "natural" only obscures the discussion over what is "right" or "necessary".

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

The scanners can't see past objects with a similar density to human skin. So in theory you can conceal a weapon in something like silicone.

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

I have permanent metal in my arm thanks to a biking accident. Last time I flew, just being near the machines when they were on made the metal caused me discomfort bordering on pain in my arm. Hate to think what being inside them would do. I opted for the grope, both ways, which the TSA really didn't want to do and took their time getting to me. I suspect now they can just say no, they will, especially since I'm not pretty female.

Until and unless the OP wins, I can't fly. Thanks TSA. The TSA, bringing more terror to flying than actual terrorists.

Re: OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/bodyscanners/faq.aspx#anc_e

Re: OP here

[saizai]

Perfect response. Thanks!

Re: OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

I've opted out of the scanner every single time I've flown since they were introduced, well over twenty times by now (there is the ridiculous requirement to re-clear security when arriving from the EU and I return to the US probably twice a year from Europe). I have never been through the body scanners, but I'm now concerned that my right to opt out is finally being taken away.

Ironically the most difficult place to opt out was in Schiphol in October, where they no longer even have metal detectors and only have body scanners. It was good to see they got rid of the silly practice where you finally went through security at the individual gate, but it looks like the new general security line means I'll have to deal with rude Dutch TSA-equivalent every single time.

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

For one thing, these things are reinforcing transphobia.

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anyone read Locke anymore?

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

"one guy claimed that he worked with explosives and traveled afterwards, and the machine didn't detect anything" So some guy on Twitter made this claim and you have concluded that this guy is telling the truth and then extrapolated this one claim to mean the whole system doesn't work? The TSA security procedures are riddled with some gigantic holes which anyone with half a brain and some real motivation could smuggle something on a plane that causes a bang. The TSA is a government entity which automatically means it is bureaucratic laden nightmare of incompetence at all levels intermixed with private contractors who submitted the lowest bid and whose competence is rarely audited unless a problem arises that catches media attention. The scanners are hardly foolproof or 100% effective and the manual procedures are only as good as the people performing their duties and I seriously doubt there effective rate hits 50%. And why are you upset that the scanner may store your image? And it has not been established that they actually do store the images and if they do for how long? You are on security camera footage from the minute you get to the airport to the time you get to your gate and takeoff? And when I have been scanned by machine or a human they ask for my boarding pass before I get to the actual security scanners so how would they identify my x-rayed image without knowing who I am? If something happened and they were specifically looking for me they could use all the security camera footage and any transactional records since I arrived at the airport. And I suppose you can point out the credible evidence that these machines are cancer causing deathtraps? Or did you pick that up that piece of in-depth knowledge from someone's twitter post? Sounds like you should just stick to traveling by ground or sea so you and put your TSA worries to bed.

Re:OP here

[Anonymous Coward]

That particular post had enough details to sound credible, but that isn't the point. We know they don't work, because their own sting operations were able to bypass their security. IIRC, it was a 93% success rate (from the point of the sting operation, failure from the point of TSA).

Being clothed on a security camera isn't the same as being naked on an x-ray. Also AFAIK the security cameras are operated by the airport, while the scanners by the TSA. I don't care what an airport (not a branch of the federal government) does with their security feeds.

Re:OP here

[mrchaotica]

But I'd rather have some people feel uncomfortable than a bomb on my plane.

FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR SOPHISTRY! Terrorists aren't the dangerous ones; totalitarian cowards like you are the dangerous ones!

'We have a policy'

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do organizations think this is a magical phrase that makes everyone turn their brains off?

Re:'We have a policy'

[sumdumass]

Because established policies route around singling specific people out or explain actions that if independent could create liability. It doesn't always remove liability but that is the intent. It is more or less establishing plausible deniability.

So suppose you have a business in the inner city and don't want to hire the locals. You create a policy of requiring a hogh school diploma and drug testing. Either one will stop a lot of people from applying for the jobs. If someone is qualified, you institute another policy like working swing shift or weekends to disinterest others. Or let's say you think all minorities are shoplifters, you make a policy where people follow them around while in the store except your policy is to pick random people of all types. Or suppose you're a government of some town and you want to pull over people for driving while black. You create a policy to stop people and give them gift certificates or something for good driving - except now that questionable lawful contact is made, you you can ask what they are doing in your town or question about drugs and so on.

A policy also shifts blame from those following it and places it on the organization which created it.

Re:'We have a policy'

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Why do organizations think this is a magical phrase that makes everyone turn their brains off?

If it's optional, the victims can try to argue the front line workers out of it, which slows things down. They can also threaten the workers with personal suits and other difficulties, which the workers may not be sure the organization will defend them against.

If it's policy, the front line worker gets to just refuse to do things any other way than the policy. The victim knows that the worker won't be exercising discretion and can chose to go along, create a useless scene (and maybe get busted but not get a change), or just not come to play. Any legal attack will pretty much have to go up against the organization. (Sure the line worker may still have some responsibility, Neuremberg style. But short of mass murder or an obvious (to the worker) continuing criminal enterprise, it's hard to get much attention to that line of reasoning in a court.)

Mess With the scanners?

[Anonymous Coward]

is there something that I can paint on a tshirt that would show up on AIT scanner?

Re: Mess With the scanners?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lead paint :-)

Re:Mess With the scanners?

[saizai]

Previously, anything that would show up on x-ray - e.g. lead or barium sulfate. Don't know whether they would work on the new millimeter wave scanners. (Anyone have a spare one lying around to test? :-P)

Expansion on a broken system

[ssufficool]

They haven't been able to point to a single instance where the TSA has prevented an attack. It's all security theater. So what do we do? Make it more invasive. More government for no tangible benefit.

In all, TSA security procedures are all reactive, not proactive. Failed shoe bomb, everyone now takes off shoes. Mixed liquid bombs, no liquids over X ounces. No sharp thingies. etc... etc...

The only improvement has been procedures on locking the pilot cabin. Sound, sensible security practice.

It seems one of the primary purposes of our government, to keep us safe from foreign threats, has jumped the shark. Instead of a comprehensive and well thought out system, we have many moving parts once again scrambling to make us feel safe. You know, that system we tried to fix after 911? Federal, state and local law enforcement all operating behind their own walls and not sharing. Now we are rebuilding that same broken system with the DHS and TSA.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't been able to point to a single instance where the TSA has prevented an attack. It's all security theater.

You know at some level that's like saying speed limit enforcement doesn't stop speeding. You don't measure their performance by how many times they prevented speeding.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[ShanghaiBill]

They haven't been able to point to a single instance where the TSA has prevented an attack.

The TSA's goal is not to catch terrorists in the act, but to deter them from even trying. I am not saying that the TSA is effective, I am just pointing out that the absence of attempts is not a negative indicator of the TSA's effectiveness.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[OhPlz]

There was a recent undercover test conducted by the feds where the majority of restricted items they tried to sneak through the checkpoints actually made it through. Counting actual terrorist incidents may not be effective, but those undercover test results are scathing. My own inner-cynic thinks that the TSA is a politicians gift to the labor unions and all the high tech scanners is likewise a gift to the companies that manufacture and maintain them. The government is operating its own economy with our money.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't been able to point to a single instance where the TSA has prevented an attack.

The TSA's goal is not to catch terrorists in the act, but to deter them from even trying. I am not saying that the TSA is effective, I am just pointing out that the absence of attempts is not a negative indicator of the TSA's effectiveness.

The problem is the number of news reports of either people forgetting the weapon in a brief case and making a complete round trip without getting caught or the 95% success rate of red teams making it through TSA security once again without getting caught (carrying guns, knives, explosives).

Anyone that believes the TSA is successful at what they do .. just isn't paying attention.

Further more, the lines that the TSA creates are a wonderfully simple and predictable target.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[Anonymous Coward]

Absence of attempts outside of the one off of 9/11 is also not a positive indicator of the TSA's effectiveness. We were safe for decades with a far less expensive, less invasive, and more effective system. We changed it because some people pissed in their pants.

Re: Expansion on a broken system

[Anonymous Coward]

When the TSA was created, by Republicans btw, unionization was prohibited.

Everybody stop with the anti worker, anti union bullshit we are too often around here. There's plenty of reasons to hate the TSA and DHS. That is not one of them.
   

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[Anonymous Coward]

If too many weapons go undetected, that means they need to do more invasive searches, not less. Unless you never-nudes propose a working alternative, but you never do.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[ChrisMaple]

Alternative: get the government out of it. Airlines assume full responsibility for a safe flight, with no limit on liability. Plane goes down by terrorist action, airline executives are stripped of all possessions.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point, the TSA exists solely for the benefit of the TSA, just like a lot of other parts of the federal government.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think TSA is bad, just wait until private corporations get a pass on the constitution. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[currently_awake]

The airline would create a front company to handle the security. Any problems and the company with no assets goes broke. Next problem, there is no way to prevent all attacks. Losing your life savings because they fired a modern anti-aircraft missile at your plane from 100 miles away is excessive.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[saizai]

Ironically, corporations would have fewer restrictions. 4th Amendment only applies to the government (or people acting on the government's behalf or directions). If it were a purely company policy to give everyone an ultrasound probe before boarding, unprompted by any government requirement, there'd be nothing illegal about it. (Of course, they also wouldn't be able to force you to do it, which the government can)

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[mrchaotica]

Here's an alternative: give up. Recognize the fact that 99.99999999999999% of travelers aren't, in fact, trying to do anything nefarious and that it's not worth shitting all over everyone's civil rights to find that 0.00000000000001% who are.

Re:Expansion on a broken system

[saizai]

Plus, you're far more likely to be killed by a horse than a terrorist.

Policy Regulation

[sandbagger]

I have a policy that my customers pay me on time. Unfortunately I tend to get strung along for 90 days. Since my policy doesn't have the force of regulation I tend to have to suck it up.

I suspect that the nudie scanner that doesn't work is entering the polygraph zone. The people who buy them want everyone else to believe that these contraptions work. In the TSA's case millions have been spent on these things so I presume some congress critter has decided to make them mandatory to justify the expense.

So what's next?

[NormalVisual]

Sai - should they deny the motion, what do you intend to do next? Like others here, I appreciate the lengths you've gone to get rid of this illegal, silly nonsense.

Re:So what's next?

[saizai]

Depends on exactly what the 1st Circuit rules. I very strongly doubt they would rule I don't have standing (which would be the worst case outcome for my ability to prosecute this).

It's possible they might not want to allow an emergency PI/TRO, in which case it'll get delayed on fuller briefing, probably ~1-6 months. They also might deny preliminary injunction and TRO, without prejudice to an ordinary motion for injunction, in which case we're talking 6-12 months.

It's also possible that they'll rule that yes the TSA violated the APA (again) but they'll let 'em get away with it anyway (like in EPIC v DHS, 653 F3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). That would be the worst case outcome on substance. I'd probably try for SCOTUS cert petition if that happens.

We'll find out in about a week, anyway, so no need to speculate too much. Follow me on G+ or Twitter, or watch my TSA litigation page if you want updates. ;-)

Re:So what's next?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

First, thank you for the work you've been doing.

Second, can we help? If so, how?

Re:So what's next?

[saizai]

You're welcome. How to help:
a) Supporting me financially would be very appreciated (I'm broke and can't legally get paid for the time I spend on this even if I win the lawsuit). Patreon, Bitcoin, PayPal, physical check.
b) I need pro bono legal counsel for this case and my BOS case. If you know lawyers who might be interested (or are one), email me.
c) Share. TSA HQ does pay attention to social and mainstream media, and the only two things that make them do things are bad PR and litigation.
d) Contact your senator/rep to ask them to pass laws to reign in the TSA.

Re:So what's next?

[saizai]

(Also on sharing, it may help to follow me on Twitter @saizai or Google+ +saizai, if you want to stay updated. I also send an aggregate email update about once a month to my Patreons.)

Re:Policy Regulation

[NormalVisual]

I suspect that the nudie scanner that doesn't work is entering the polygraph zone.

I suspect you're right. I get tagged in the millimeter wave machine almost every time I walk through, when there's nothing there it should be triggering on. It's a multi-million dollar boondoggle.

Re:Policy Regulation

[saizai]

FWIW, there's no evidence of congressional involvement. My personal guess is that it was just dictated by Peter Neffenger, the new head of the TSA.

Re:I also have a policy

[Antique Geekmeister]

The TSA does not screen effectively, and never has. See http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/... and numerous other tests of TSA procedures.

They have no right to waste so many billions of American dollars, and so many hours out of so many people's lives, for such demonstrably poor results.

Re:I also have a policy

[saizai]

FWIW, I actually very much don't want to have personal fame. I like having a semi-private personal life. I filed this because it's illegal and I actually believe in upholding civil rights. If you're too cynical to believe m on that, I doubt there's anything I can say that'd convince you.

Lies and More Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Since a pat down is far more reliable how is forcing someone to go through a machine more "secure"? How many times in tests have weapons been smuggled through the detectors without being flagged where a pat-down would easily find such weapons.

This is not about security. This is a means of removing the opt-out entirely so TSA doesn't have to be hassled by people not wishing to expose themselves to radiation. (Of course its safe since the government says so).

This is an assault on our liberties. We need protection from the government most of all. Our founding fathers knew this.

This country needs some real leadership. The greatest assault on our liberties is not coming from the outside.

Re:Lies and More Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's appears that the "change" that all those suckers "hope"d for was just bullshit. The Great Diversity Candidate is laughing his ass off at them.
Vote for Cankles and you'll get a shit ton more of this bullshit.

Re:Lies and More Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's appears that the "change" that all those suckers "hope"d for was just bullshit. The Great Diversity Candidate is laughing his ass off at them.
Vote for Cankles and you'll get a shit ton more of this bullshit.

I'm sure someone will get on here and post how it would have been much worse had "your" candidate been elected.

Re:Lies and More Lies

[saizai]

This isn't a partisan issue. Majority of both blues and reds have wholeheartedly supported all the TSA legislation since inception. The only ones who didn't were the minority of socialists and libertarians.

Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "we HAVE to do something!" argument does not justify doing something that is harmful, wasteful, and ineffective.

Cheaper, more effective methods (trained sniffer dogs, passenger interviews, locks on the cockpit door) are already well-proven and in use at some airports. We should be following their examples, rather than continuing the facade that only serves to funnel taxpayer money into Michael Chertoff's personal accounts.

Re:Agreed.

[TapeCutter]

You don't use sniffer dogs at airports? They use them here in Oz all the time, not just for explosives, eg: there's a beagle at Hobart airport trained to sniff out apples in luggage (quarantine rules).

Re:Agreed.

[saizai]

TSA does use sniffer dogs, though not a lot of them and not very widely. Neffenger (the new TSA head) told Congress he'd be expanding the TSA's sniffer dog program.

Re:Agreed.

[swillden]

Cheaper, more effective methods (trained sniffer dogs, passenger interviews, locks on the cockpit door) are already well-proven

I agree with the others, but passenger interviews are more expensive, not cheaper.

Re:Agreed.

[saizai]

They're also ineffective. Corbett is already suing to block them (Corbett v TSA, No. 15-10757-A 11th Cir). (Full case docs are in my gdrive archive if you're interested. See link on s.ai sidebar -> case law -> tsa / dhs -> corbett -> corbett v tsa no 15-10757-a.)

It's ongoing, in initial stages.

Re:Agreed.

[swillden]

They're also ineffective. Corbett is already suing to block them (Corbett v TSA, No. 15-10757-A 11th Cir). (Full case docs are in my gdrive archive if you're interested. See link on s.ai sidebar -> case law -> tsa / dhs -> corbett -> corbett v tsa no 15-10757-a.)

It's ongoing, in initial stages.

They can be effective, c.f. Israeli airport security. However, they're manpower-intensive, time-consuming (when flying out of Ben Gurion it's advisable to arrive at 3-4 hours before your flight. If you are an Arab, make it 5+ hours) and very intrusive and invasive. We really, really don't want effective passenger interviews.

Re:Agreed.

[saizai]

Let me rephrase: they're ineffective at finding weapons in any way attempted by TSA. The sort practiced by CBP is aimed at discovering drugs, immigration, and smuggling — not weapons. TSA isn't allowed to do that, though that is in fact the main thing that their attempts (e.g. BDO/SPOT) result in. (Source: 2011 TSA validation study on SPOT, which I have from FOIA but haven't yet released; also GAO's public study of SPOT.)

Whether El Al's version is effective is debatable, but in any case irrelevant, because it would neither be practicable nor constitutional in the US.

Re:Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

El Al does not discriminate based upon ethnicity so much as it does based upon nationality. As an Israeli Jewish citizen, I've had the same exact interrogation as the Israeli Arab brothers who were in front of me in line. Now, if somebody is an Arab and not a holder of Israeli citizenship, it would throw some bells for additional screening. But even then, I've not heard of any of the groping-and-feeling that the TSA "enhanced" pat-downs do. Effectively, Israeli security is done in a very different, multilayered manner than we do things here in the USA. Aside from this, I'm not sure what other potential constitutional issue there would be. Remember, the No-Fly list isn't very constitutional either and just as mutable as the ethnicity that one was born a part of.

Stop flying

[AndyKron]

Anyone who flies is promoting the system.

Re:Stop flying

[dcollins117]

Anyone who flies is promoting the system.

One of many reasons I don't fly. A lot of issues just go away when you refuse to participate. It's not an option for some people but it works for me.

Re:Stop flying

[saizai]

TSA is already expanding to trains, busses, & highways. So that's not going to save you for long.

Re:Stop flying

[rcase5]

TSA is already expanding to ... highways.

Oh really? How is that going to work exactly?

Re: Stop flying

[saizai]

Google "VIPR" to see the first generation of it. That's just the start; they're actively expanding their asserted jurisdiction, to cover *all* methods of travel.

Medical Devices Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

My spouse's insulin pump (that she obviously can't just do without) cannot be passed through an x-ray machine. Nor can it go through a body scanner. This is all according to its manufacturer. Every time we fly through airports using body scanners she needs to opt and do the pat down. It's an invasive, slow, and frustrating experience, but at least it doesn't put her in medical jeopardy. Making her pass through the scanners potentially causing her pump to deliver too little or too much insulin while she's 10,000 ft in the air does.

Re:Medical Devices Problem

[silas_moeckel]

An insulin pump should need an inspection for explosive compounds so it's a pat down + extra no matter what.

Re:I also have a policy

[Ian A. Shill]

you put too much effort into that for someone who wishes to disregard

I hate this type of post

[Okian Warrior]

I have a policy that my customers pay me on time. Unfortunately I tend to get strung along for 90 days. Since my policy doesn't have the force of regulation I tend to have to suck it up.

I hate this type of post.

It's defeatist and dispiriting to the reader. By advocating no action ("suck it up"), it supports and encourages loss of freedom, authoritative control, and hopelessness.

It's also uncreative - there's *lots* of things we could do, both as a group and individually, to try to change the situation.

You don't have the will to fight, so go drown your despair in drink. Don't being down everyone else as well.

The OP took the trouble to file suit against the TSA. Looking at his website, he might be a rare case of a lawyer doing an open source 'kind of thing.

I haven't seen a lot of this type of "open source good for the community" from the legal profession. I'm not saying that there's *none*, but it's very rare compared to the number of lawyers around.

Engineers are pretty generous with their time. There's a ton of open source software and designs for hardware, people answering questions, things you can make and modify and use.

A lot of lawyers I talk to claim to be unemployed or under-employed. Looking through the myriad number of social abuses we come across at Slashdot, I've always wondered why some of them don't put their spare time into fixing some of our problems using the court system. If it's their own time and they are otherwise unemployed, it wouldn't be very expensive.

They'd also get a big boost of popularity (and business) from having defended a rights issue. When the police decided unilaterally that recording them was illegal, it took an incident to take it to court, and not a pair of lawyers who had set up a situation, with proper witnesses and affadavits.

Anyway, this guy appears to be doing some legal things in the manner of open source.

Cut him some slack, OK?

Re:I hate this type of post

[saizai]

Thanks. :-) FWIW, I am in fact not a lawyer, though I am applying to law school this year, and I've managed to win a fair amount of legal proceedings without a JD.

Re: I hate this type of post

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only defeatist from your perspective. Some people don't see the world as series of victories and losses and don't need to continually prove something, because not everything requires a battle. Non-action is entirely appropriate much of the time.

Re:I also have a policy

[j-turkey]

Your premise is incorrect on many levels.

First, your claim that the lawsuit is on the basis of a person's desire for 15 minutes of fame appears to be completely baseless. If you had to read the comments thread, the originator of the suit posts here. S/he explains the motives several different times. S/he does not ever state that he seeks fame from this. Instead, there are several principles that are outlined. Did you happen to read something that I didn't, or yours just a massive, unsupported assumption? For what it's worth, several very important Supreme Court rulings have come from lawsuits just like this. They're not all just people looking for a few minutes of fame...and I don't see any indication that this is, either.

Secondly, can you provide any evidence that AIT would make airline travel any safer? Google is your friend here (see "security theater"). Without going into several links that you can dig up for yourself from independent sources, the answer is an overwhelming and easy "no". I do appreciate one of your points - when there is another terrorist attack involving airline passenger travel (and there probably will be), the public will ask what was missed, why, and how to prevent it in the future...but let's not fool ourselves and act like baseless additional security measures are actually doing anything beyond wasting our time and violating civil liberties.

Re:I also have a policy

[saizai]

FWIW on pronouns: male or gender neutral, please. Kudos for not assuming, though. :)

Policy started 12/20

[saizai]

Update: according to an anonymous but credible source, this policy was started on 12/20. Will find out more once TSA files its official response to my motion on Tuesday.

Re:Policy started 12/20

[Sir Holo]

Update: according to an anonymous but credible source, this policy was started on 12/20. Will find out more once TSA files its official response to my motion on Tuesday.

I opted out both directions of my trip home for the holidays –both after 12/20.

The pat-downs were excessively long, and they insisted on going through their little script regardless of my repeatedly saying, "I know the drill—get on with it."

Re:I also have a policy

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

My policy is I disregard people who object to something solely to get 15 minutes of fame. If TSA didn't screen and a terrorist brought down a plane with a personal explosive device the same people would sue because they should have made AIT mandatory.

I'd agree with you, but from the moment the TSA began operations they've been a dismal failure. And I mean dismal- they've stopped no one, not a single terrorist, and they've stopped no plots or plans, again, not a single one.

Meanwhile they've assaulted/accosted thousands of ordinary people just trying to get from point A to point B. They've beaten and humiliated people, sexually molested others, and harassed many innocent travelers just because they had the power to do so. They've tased people for no reason, confiscated literally tons of items that posed no threat, and they display a breathtaking lack of common sense (like taking away a kid's Buzz Lightyear toy because it "looked like a gun" Really? That thing looks like a fucking gun?).

They've missed screening for and detecting weapons (guns, knives, etc) up to 97% of the time when they've been tested. The employees themselves admit that what they do is basically a joke that accomplishes nothing. They miss fake test bombs and explosives on a regular basis, over and over again. Meanwhile they're busy confiscating 3 oz bottles of shampoo and baby bottles full of breast milk.

So no, I'm sorry, but at this point the TSA has been a total failure and has shown quite clearly that they serve no useful purpose.

Re: I don't have a problem with these scanners

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off. Go suck on a cock and die. The whole "don't fly" bullshit does not work with me. I fly for my job as a government agent, and I have a top secret clearance. The TSA monkeys i met don't even have a public trust clearance so they are no better than the janitor in a local high school. I don't trust the bullshit they say about stopping terrorist attacks.

Just say no, don't go

[hughbar]

We effete Europeans have found the solution, don't travel to the USA. This is not criticism of the 'people' who are usually generous and friendly (though a little weaponised for our wimpy UK tastes) but government and big business really need fixing. Perhaps we could put on our red coats and invade? Then swap all these guns, paranoia etc. for cucumber sandwiches, with the crusts cut off and a little pepper and vinegar. Cricket is good, too.

Re:Just say no, don't go

[saizai]

Don't travel through or over the USA either, or TSA rules will apply to you.

Isn't it time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it past time we treat the TSA like a child asking for something they want incessantly? If they could even remotely prove all the funding/law breaking they 'need' to do is necessary it would be a different story but at this point in time they have produced bumkiss.

They cant do it to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just dont fucking fly.
I use to fly to Hawaii for lunch and come back home.
Now fuck it.

Re: I don't have a problem with these scanners

[saizai]

They haven't stopped a single one, because according to their own "intelligence", there hasn't been a single real threat against domestic flights. But that's SSI (aka "fake classified"; 49 USC 114(r)). It was leaked when TSA fucked up by publicly filing Corbett's sealed brief.

Compare:
Redacted
Unredacred

See also:
House oversight hearing
Joint staff report

Ask the romans, greece and sparta

[Anonymous Coward]

How well being a giant jerk worked out form them. Also note irony that from the 70s to 90s when there was some legit concerns for a global conflict not a single airplain exploded, we had simple rules: If it don't fit in the overhead bin, or might poke or explode the airlines reseve the privlidge to put them in the cargohold. Didn't have any issues.

TSA and paranoid aholery didn't work. end of story.

Want to keep people from being an ass to us? treat them well.

The system failed, and from what I can tell we need to just admit we have a some failed paranoid systems that haven't achieved anything, now we need to replace them.

Thanks

[waspleg]

I just wanted to say thanks. I read through some of your website and I've watched about half of your TSA video and I sent you a donation.

I hope you win. This shit is ridiculous and extremely anti-American. I hope other people donate to you as well and don't just post some empty platitudes. I haven't flown since 1995 and after seeing this kind of shit I wouldn't blame anyone for avoiding the U.S.; Land of the free, indeed.

Re: Thanks

[saizai]

Much appreciated. FWIW, though this motion should be resolved quickly, for me at least, it's just one part of a much larger lawsuit. Will probably take years. Hopefully some sanity may eventually prevail â¦

Re:I don't have a problem with these scanners

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with the chlorine gas requirements imposed by the Nazis. If you don't like it, don't breathe.

See how stupid that sounds?

New canonical link for this case

[saizai]

I've revamped the part of my website about my TSA litigation.

The case with the pending emergency PI/TRO motion now has its own page.

Please use that as the canonical link from now on.

Response & reply filed; FOIA docs released

[saizai]

TSA response & my reply are now filed. And I've released some FOIA docs as a bonus.

http://slashdot.org/firehose.p...