1st Circuit Injunction Re: TSA's New Mandatory AIT Search Rule Fully Briefed (s.ai)

saizai writes: I just filed my reply to the TSA's opposition to an emergency motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (PI/TRO) against the TSA's new policy that arbitrarily mandates some people to go through electronic strip search ("AIT"). Case website here (will be kept updated). Court order expected soon, though impossible to know for sure.

I've also released 3 FOIA docs (see 2015-12-30 update), which I submitted as exhibits:

• MD 100.4 2012-01-25 Transportation Security Searches (11p, full) — showing TSA's expansion to "bus, train, [and] other public conveyance"
• SPOT validation study Vol 1 Ch 4 — Descriptive analyses — summary of sources for items (1p) — showing 90% of what they find is immigration and drug related, not weapons
• SPOT validation study Vol 3 App F — Supporting tables — prohibited items data (2p) — giving breakdown list of "prohibited items" they find

See previously:

• Motion Filed In 1st Circuit To Enjoin TSA's New Mandatory "AIT" Screening
• TSA Body Scanner Opt-out No Longer Guaranteed

Comments

Dat's racist!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should employ Ian Murdock's plan?

Maybe my suicide at this, you now, a successful business man, not a NIGGER, will finally bring some attention to this very serious issue.

Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm doing a fair amount of disclosure as well over the next few days, albeit via journalistic channels, with regard to joint activities undertaken by certain federal agencies and private sector entities. It's good to know there are a few other folks willing to stand up these days. Keep it going, my friend. -PCP

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

To whom should I donate money to ensure that the fight against the TSA continues until the TSA is just a bad memory?

Re:Thank you.

[jaffray]

Well, supporting Sai's Patreon is a decent place to start. I've been tossing him $10/mo for a while now, it's a pittance but at least it's something. He's been shockingly effective for someone who's just One Random Guy with practically no support. https://www.patreon.com/saizai

Re:Thank you.

[fustakrakich]

You shouldn't have to spend a dime. What is needed is the vote to kick out the politicians that give the TSA life. Until that happens we just have to assume the majority is okay with it. If we have to buy votes, we're doing it wrong. And it just won't work.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand what the big deal is. The TSA want to scan you in an effort to make flying safer. Isn't this a good thing?
What's there to be worried about? That a TSA agent will see you've got a tiny dick? Because I'm sure this is why TSA agents join up - they've all secretly got a fettish so looking at peoples dicks in gainy black and white.

This reminds me of my first job. I had a boss that was petrified I would spend all day reading everyone else email if I was given access to the production mail servers to do some security checks on. It took a lot on convincing to explain to him that
  a) We have a lot of email
  b) Most of it is really, really boring
  c) Even if I wanted to read it- I would get bored very quickly
  d) The web browsing logs are a lot more fun to read to catch the office pervs.

Re:Thank you.

[hawguy]

I don't understand what the big deal is. The TSA want to scan you in an effort to make flying safer. Isn't this a good thing?
What's there to be worried about? That a TSA agent will see you've got a tiny dick? Because I'm sure this is why TSA agents join up - they've all secretly got a fettish so looking at peoples dicks in gainy black and white.

This reminds me of my first job. I had a boss that was petrified I would spend all day reading everyone else email if I was given access to the production mail servers to do some security checks on. It took a lot on convincing to explain to him that

Do you have any support for the statement that TSA scanners make flying safer? Many security professionals doubt the efficacy of the scanners and pretty much the entire TSA problem even though it costs billions in direct costs, and billions more in indirect costs.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it all backwards. If you want to see real political change, you have to make real sacrifice. That is how the interplay of power *actually* works.

Casting a vote once in a while isn't a sacrifice at all. It is mostly a dog-and-pony show to make you feel like you are exerting political force when you are really just trading one liar for another.

Lobbying, on the other hand, is the business of applying cold hard cash to the task of changing the law. It is effective because it is real. And most people hate it for the same reason. People don't *want* to put their money where their mouth is. They want to do basically nothing and have everything work out. In what domain of life does anything ever work that way?

Real money is real power and can effect real change. All else is pie-in-the-sky bullshit.

Re:Thank you.

[saizai]

And thanks for that. :-)

There's also Bitcoin if people want it. http://s.ai/btc

Re:Thank you.

[saizai]

TSA has been supported by a majority of reds & blues since inception. Only real progress has been made through litigation.

Wish it weren't so, but it is.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am carrying on my own protest by personally taking a shit on the doorstep of every person involved with the TSA. Keep up the good fight my brothers! Don't forget your tinfoil hats!

Re:Thank you.

[fustakrakich]

Well, fine.. Just kick and enjoy the show if you can't be bothered. Voting should be like The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where the audience actually participates. We are all perfectly capable of turning our backs on those who take the money. The lack of will is the only real issue.

Re:Thank you.

[fustakrakich]

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to sue poor people who vote for corrupt politicians? They'll have no way of fighting back. You can walk away with a summary judgement.

Re:Thank you.

[Darinbob]

The scanning is not shown to be safe.
Some of these are X-rays, proven to not be safe, maybe a tiny number of medical X-rays a year are ok, and doctors and dentists will keep track of how many they give you to avoid too much. The big concern here is that they're subjecting their security agents to tons of this every year and they're not wearing dosimeters to how how much exposure they get. With even one dental x-ray you are given a shielded cover over your chest and the technician leaves the room. I trust the medical professionals over the TSA.
Some of these are not x-rays but high frequency electromagnetic radiation, over 30GHz. Medical effects of this are unknown. This is not about RF allergy fears but basically the effect of this technology has not been well studied and is being rolled out fast as a panicked reaction.

This scanning also shows no purpose. They are not finding weapons with these scanners, though they do find contraband. A real terrorist is going to get past these scanners. The only thing this does is provide security theater - fooling the gullible public into thinking that something is being done, and please keep voting for your clueless representatives to approved this. These agents are not highly trained, they're not the best of the best, this is a relatively low paying menial labor job. Other countries with actual threats do not have the style of security we have in the US, they prefer to have effective security instead.

There is also the very real matter of creeping expansion. TSA wants to expand to trains and buses if they can. They want a police state.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

To whom should I donate money to ensure that the fight against the TSA continues until the TSA is just a bad memory?

The answer lies within the limited power to actually fucking dismantle it.

That list is short. One might even say non-existent. Perhaps you should start with selecting the POTUS candidate who is vehemently against the TSA.

Oh, wait...

Re:Thank you.

[mhotchin]

It doesn't matter what they *want* - it only matters what they can *do*, and time and time again it's been shown that the TSA's actions are entirely ineffective. It's security theatre at it's finest, a pointless waste of time and money for everyone involved.

That's why we are 'worried' about it.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

you do know that flying at the altitude that planes fly at is like 3000x the dose that those machines put out right

so I mean if you're saying they aren't safe, you really shouldn't be flying at all and this isn't an issue for you.

Re: Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

citation needed

Re:Thank you.

[saizai]

The x-ray ones are no longer used by TSA (or so thy claim). It's all millimeter wave now. I know of no proof one way or the other whether MMW scanners are safe long-term. They don't produce ionizing radiation, and aren't strong enough to burn, but that's not entirely convincing. (And even if it's safe, that's no answer to the 4th Amendment concerns.)

Re:Thank you.

[Calydor]

Gonna have to agree with the Citation Needed. I am not an airplane expert and I have stuff to do in a bit so no time for thorough research, but even if the x-ray exposure from cosmic and background radiation at cruising altitude is 3000 times higher than at sea level, how much of that is absorbed or reflected by the airplane itself, effectively shielded the passengers inside the giant metal tube?

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but I *choose* to fly. I don't choose to go through the TSA's blackbox machines.

If someone mugged you for a dollar, would you care or would you say "fuck it, I spend that much on coffee every day"? CHOICE is the difference.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have any evidence that they make flying safer. This is a very hard question because
a) If I decide not be attack a plane because I fear getting caught by security - then the scanners have worked - but these stats aren't possible to record
b) You don't shout about most people you catch - because you don't want the bad people to know what things you can detect easily

Are they worth the X billion per year it costs the program? We'll never know. I don't know how much one plane attack costs - but I suspect it's in a billions, so if they just foil 1 attack per year they've made a good return on the investment

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do choose to go through the scanners. Are the TSA breaking your door down at home and force scanning you in your bed? I don't think so.

If the ruless say that to fly you must get scanned then you have a choice
  1. Fly and get scanned
  2. Don't fly and don'y get scanned

Seems like a choice to me .....

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing is ever 'proven safe' you fucking retard

that's why your mother makes you wear a helmet and doesn't give you a sharp knife when you're eating

literally - nothing is proven safe EVER

do you even science?

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

you do know that flying at the altitude that planes fly at is like 3000x the dose that those machines put out right

so I mean if you're saying they aren't safe, you really shouldn't be flying at all and this isn't an issue for you.

(note important point that X-ray machines aren't currently in use).

The effect of ionizing radiation does not seem to be linearly related to dose. It seems that a low dose of radiation can be handled by the body's self repair mechanisms. A high dose in a region of the body may go beyond that (e.g. one DNA mutation may be spotted and eliminated; two closely related ones will return to a valid DNA sequence and will not be spotted).

Whilst the dose from flying may be overall higher, it is highly penetrating radiation and so is spread evenly through the entire body. The airport scanners were non penetrating so the dose was concentrated just below the skin. This might (you would have to do somewhat unethical long term double blind experiments to be sure) make the X-ray machines much more dangerous than flying. Without clear testing it's unacceptable to use these on the general public. In fact the same thing goes for the millimetre wave machines, though at least in that case we don't know of a mechanism which could cause harm.

Re: Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell of a choice. And if you live on an island?

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you choose to get mugged. Are the thugs breaking down your door and mugging you in your bed? If you don't want to get mugged, don't walk down the street.

Your government and stupid fucks like you are why I expatriated from your shithole country and renounced my US citizenship over ten years ago.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also the very real matter of creeping expansion. TSA wants to expand to trains and buses if they can. They want a police state.

They already have. The TSA VIPR teams were boarding buses in Pittsburgh a couple years ago to harrass people, I mean "keep them safe". They also set up checkpoints in Time's Square, all to acclimate the public to this sort of thing.

Re: Thank you.

[pellik]

I you mean where the audience throws bread and shouts while the movie goes on unchanged? That's a great analogy.

Re: Thank you.

[saizai]

I do. It's called Great Britain.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

That statistic may be for an average dose spread over the body.

If the machine malfunctions and concentrates the dose to a specific bit of tissue, then I wonder if the dosage for that bit of tissue is still safe.

You don't have to start a Cancer in the whole body, just a small localized start can cause harm.

One would have to understand how the machine works to provide support to this line of logic.

I thought the deprecated the X-ray scanners in favor of the MM wave for this reason?

Re:Thank you.

[Coren22]

Here is something to consider. The TSA doesn't secure private aviation. How many private jets, or even Cessnas have you seen used in attacks?

Re: Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

it was the first link in google when looking for 'radiation dose flying'

you're telling me you don't have 3 seconds to do research?

Thats bias, dude.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/11/14/245183244/cosmic-rays-sound-scary-but-radiation-risk-on-a-flight-is-small

Re:Thank you.

[Coren22]

So, as the summary points out, how do you expect to travel when they have the same things in Bus and Train terminals, and they are setting up checkpoints on highways now too?

Re:Thank you.

[Coren22]

The machines the TSA use are X-ray backscatter machines. They use less energetic x-rays than an actual medical x-ray, but you still get exposed to radiation. When a FOIA request was made on these scanners for their maintenance records, it was found that many of them were out of calibration and were giving significantly higher doses, as well as leaks outside the machine. Do you want to trust your medical health to an organization that isn't forced by law to maintain these machines in any way?

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, dude, the dose is like 3000 times higher. The dose without the tube would be even higher than that.

Although, keep in mind, this article says you'd have to go through the scanner some 22,000 times before you even match the dose that aviation workers consider safe

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130627151642.htm

Re:Thank you.

[Coren22]

Oh, I hadn't heard that they stopped using the x-ray scanners.

The millimeter wave machines put out less radiation than the airport's radar, does the radar concern you? I have never heard of a study tying harm to millimeter wave machines, but I also haven't heard of studies being performed on them at all. As you are more keyed into this I am sure, have there been any studies that you have heard of?

Re:Thank you.

[Coren22]

The funny thing about it is that they were formed to replace the private security that the airlines used to hire, which was more effective than the TSA.

Re:Thank you.

[saizai]

Re. safety, see here. Tl;dr: it's neither been proven safe nor unsafe in this context; a priori there's reason to believe it's safe short-term, but there've not been any long-term studies. It isn't ionizing radiation (unlike the backscatter x-ray), and isn't strong enough to outright burn (like a microwave), but who knows.

However, I don't care if it's safe, because I view it as a strip search. See my reply (link in OP), p. 9.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between radiation that you can't avoid because flying inherently exposes you to it, and radiation that gets imposed on you by bad policy. I'd rather take a dose of 3000 than 3001.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't just provide security theater. They also provide fat government contracts to politically connected ex-politicians.

Re:Thank you.

[hawguy]

I don't have any evidence that they make flying safer. This is a very hard question because
a) If I decide not be attack a plane because I fear getting caught by security - then the scanners have worked - but these stats aren't possible to record
b) You don't shout about most people you catch - because you don't want the bad people to know what things you can detect easily

Are they worth the X billion per year it costs the program? We'll never know. I don't know how much one plane attack costs - but I suspect it's in a billions, so if they just foil 1 attack per year they've made a good return on the investment

Ahh yes, the old "We're doing so good that we can't even tell you how good we are -- but we need more money so we can do it better!" excuse.

That's not a good way to ensure responsible spending of public dollars.

Re: Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't the dose that you get when flying that needs a citation, but rather the dose these machines give you.

Re:Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you!

Re:Thank you.

[kmoser]

The millimeter wave machines put out less radiation than the airport's radar, does the radar concern you?

Nobody gets closer to the radar than, say, 1/4 mile. I'd be concerned if I was forced to walk directly in front of the radar, even at lower doses.

Re: Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

In light of the TSA eliminating the opt out, I choose NOT to use the nonrefundable tickets I already paid for, I chose to cancel the hotel reservations I already paid for, I chose to cancel the rental car I already paid for, and I choose never again to fly so long as my government abdicates its duty to protect my liberty from this kind of intrusion.

Gotta catch them all!

[Anonymous Coward]

Search us all baby - slashdotters rejoice!

Actual bravery

[Anonymous Coward]

You are no mere "Internet Warrior"; you are someone who is expending your time and effort on defending the Constitution. You have my respect.
How long until you're on the "no fly" list or some surprise police home invasion happens? I honestly hope that there is no retribution against you, but I'm wary.

Re:Actual bravery

[saizai]

You're welcome.

TTBOMK I am not on any TSA list yet. I'm almost insulted. ;-)

(Almost certainly on NSA's lists though. Howdy, NSA.)

Re:Actual bravery

[Anonymous Coward]

This might surprise you - but the NSA have bigger things to worry about than you. To entire idea that protestors magically get on lists so they can be harassed is BS. What is true is that protestors that break the law during there protests very quickly get put on watch lists - and for good reason If you believe that you have the right to break the law due to your protest - then it's very likely you will do so again ...

Re:Actual bravery

[pla]

This might surprise you - but the NSA have bigger things to worry about than you.

This might surprise you - but you have no idea who you just replied to.

Yes, the NSA worries far more about him than about any mere terrorists. Because unlike the masses of us merely bitching about the NSA and TSA - Sai actually does something about them.

Now, personally I don't think we can reform such corrupt entities from within the system - But of those who do, Sai has literally dedicated himself to acting as a thorn in their side professionally.

Re:Actual bravery

[saizai]

Let's just say that I have pretty solid, specific reasons for believing that I am on NSA's watch list that have nothing whatsoever to do with the TSA, my litigation, or being a "protestor".

Oh hell yes

[Sowelu]

This is exactly what I wish we'd see here more often. Please keep submitting details, IDGAF if this winds up on the front page constantly.

Re:Oh hell yes

[Gravis Zero]

Please keep submitting details, IDGAF if this winds up on the front page constantly.

you dont give a fuck? no, Janice in accounting don't give a fuck.

Re:Oh hell yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Details are nice, but as soon as somebody screams "terrorist!", you may as well toss them into the bin. The watering hole has been there for a long time, but the horse ain't drinking. As Mr. Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things".

Re:Oh hell yes

[Darinbob]

Top killer in the US: heart disease. Number two: cancer. Over 40 thousand die from diabetes in the US a year. The terrorist threat? Miniscule. Gun violence kills vastly more people than terrorist attacks. Suicides have an alarmingly high number of deaths each year, dwarfing terrorism. Even deaths from falling in the home in one year outnumber all terrorists deaths in the US in the last 15 years.

The TSA screening is a political issue only, it is not about making the US safer or about providing effective security screening. If we are spending money to make the US citizens safer then we're doing it wrong.

Re:Oh hell yes

[fustakrakich]

The TSA screening is a political issue only...

Well, not only. There is plenty of money to be made. Turns out terrorism makes for a pretty good business model.

Re:Oh hell yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The top killer in the U.S. is actually medical mistakes. This is not well known.

Ian Murdock: 'Race Warrior'

[Anonymous Coward]

Ian Murdock was a true race warrior.

“Maybe my suicide at this, you now, a successful business man, not a NIGGER, will finally bring some attention to this very serious issue.”

Re:Ian Murdock: 'Race Warrior'

[Anonymous Coward]

He invoked Hyperbole to prove a point. By saying 'finally bring some attention to this issue' he is saying it is a problem but one that is ignored because it only affect 'niggers'.

He is not rational after his ordeal which is obvious in that he fucking killed himself.

Re:Ian Murdock: 'Race Warrior'

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still racist.

Re: Ian Murdock: 'Race Warrior'

[Anonymous Coward]

Police are racist, he's anti-racialist, which is the opposite of racist.

I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference.

Re: Ian Murdock: 'Race Warrior'

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, he's a racist who can't fathom that the costumed thugs are now treating him the way that they have historically treated minorities, I mean "thugs".

What the fuck, mods?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is every comment of support thus far posted, at -1, Troll?

Do you fucking idiots even know what a troll mod is used for?

Re: What the fuck, mods?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck fuckity fuck fuck. Now THAT is -1 troll.

Re:What the fuck, mods?

[Etherwalk]

Why is every comment of support thus far posted, at -1, Troll?

Do you fucking idiots even know what a troll mod is used for?

If you've been paying attention, you will notice what appear to be signs of concerted institutional agenda-pushing by silent mods acting in the interests of the US security apparatus, probably the oil lobby, and a few similar entities. I suspect other countries with meaningful cyberwarfare divisions (e.g. China, Israel) have similar units or at least interns whose job it is to do this. It's possible I'm wrong--I haven't attempted a serious study of the phenomenon--but it would be consistent with some really inaccurate modding I've seen from time to time.

Re:What the fuck, mods?

[Anonymous Coward]

i've also been seeing that. head to lobste.rs, dice has ravaged /. to death

Re:What the fuck, mods?

[Anonymous Coward]

cold fjord got mod points again...

Summary

[Etherwalk]

Someone who is not harmed lacks "standing" to bring a case in federal court, because the constitution requires there be an actual case or controversy--federal courts lack the power to issue advisory opinions. For a constitutionally protected interest, the plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.

The TSA is arguing the plaintiff can't bring the case because he hasn't been body-scanned. The plaintiff is arguing only the TSA knows whether they will body scan him and they haven't told the court, so you have to assume they will. The plaintiff also goes on about plaintiff's protected liberty interest in international travel, but that doesn't address the question of whether the harm to plaintiff is the kind of concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent harm necessary to give the plaintiff standing to sue. Unless a lot more of that was in the complaint, the judge isn't going to find it sufficient to issue the injunction.

There are some merits arguments too, but IRL judges care a LOT about standing. This does not prevent someone from filing another lawsuit in the future, and there may be some opportunity to further the argument in the main part of the lawsuit after the injunction fails to issue.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The TSA is arguing the plaintiff can't bring the case because he hasn't been body-scanned. The plaintiff is arguing only the TSA knows whether they will body scan him and they haven't told the court, so you have to assume they will.

Can't the plaintiff just go buy a ticket to some place that has scanners, go through the device, and then have a case? Or is the argument that they'd have to request the blue shirt molestation, and then be sent through the scanner anyway, to have standing? If it's the former, a trip out of LAX should do ya. Last few times I've flown, they herded everyone straight through the cooker.

Re:Summary

[phantomfive]

The TSA is arguing the plaintiff can't bring the case because he hasn't been body-scanned. The plaintiff is arguing only the TSA knows whether they will body scan him and they haven't told the court, so you have to assume they will.

Specifically, the plaintiff already has a ticket from Canada, to the US, and on to England (he is a US citizen). He claims that the TSA knows in advance whether they are going to body-scan him or not (the TSA apparently didn't disagree), because Delta is required to transmit passenger information to the TSA. I have no idea if it's a valid claim or not.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't the plaintiff just go buy a ticket to some place that has scanners, go through the device, and then have a case?

The "case or controversy" clause gives the government a second ace up their sleeve: If whatever's been done can't be undone or if the government can claim that it can't happen again, then the government can declare that the issue is "moot" and get the case tossed. If he does sue on the grounds that he was scanned the very first move will be to file a motion to have the judge declare the issue moot because 1) the government cannot undo the scan and 2) he's not being scanned anymore.

The simple fact is that the Constitution only protects us from a government that is voluntarily obeying it.

Fun fact: As a side effect of this bullshit, this is why criminals get a free pass for their crimes when the government fucks up, because the government CAN "undo" an illegal search by throwing out the evidence. If we added actual criminal charges for violating the constitution and removed the requirement that the government "undo" its violations, we could throw BOTH criminals in jail AND improve the chances that the government would voluntarily obey the Constitution. Not holding my breath though, at this point the government would likely just remove the requirement that they undo their violations and continue to act with impunity thanks to sovereign immunity.

Re:Summary

[saizai]

Pretty reasonable summary of the standing issue. The liberty interest part doesn't go to standing; it goes to irreparable harm, which is a factor for getting a preliminary injunction.

Yes, I can't prove that the TSA will ultra-special-select me under their new secret rule. Nobody can. I can just prove they've done it before, they could have but did not deny it, and that creates presumption. And also that there is chilling effect.

I've got about as good standing as someone can have short of having actually been forced to undergo AIT, refused, and been refused boarding (with refusal continued pending submission to AIT).

I filed for a PI/TRO prevent anyone having to go through that test case scenario.

Re:Summary

[saizai]

I do in fact have a ticket of that sort. I refuse to go through scanning. If they won't let me board because of that, then I will have much better standing than I do now, but there's no way to guarantee that, and there's chilling effect from the mere threat.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the threat of someone being forced through the scanner give someone valid grounds to sue? I know in Heller vs DC they looked for years for a reasonable someone living in DC wanting to buy a firearm for personal protection. They had at least 3 and the court threw out 2 of them leaving only Heller, a Capitol Hill security guard who wasn't allowed a fire arm at home for personal protection because he wasn't "qualified" but carried one while at work.

So I would assume this would stay in place until they forced someone willing to sue on these grounds. I would suspect anyone willing to do that and mention it while at the TSA would get different treatment. I'll not go through those machines and I fly a couple times a year (I have a bonus because I have cancer and have had radiation therapy and would use those grounds to refuse). I'll let you know if it happens to me. Of course I usually go to Las Vegas and they are the most mellow calmest TSA agents in the world there where if you ask for an opt-out they just wave you through metal detector and send you on your way.

Chicago is were I've seen them be the most uptight and angriest and where I would think you would be most likely to find this happening to someone (Midway).

Re:Summary

[Darinbob]

So if it can't be proven, it's ok. Force the passengers to drink a yellow liquid, and the courts will say it's ok because no one knows what the liquid is and they can't stop it until someone proves a link? The problem is that it will be nearly impossible for anyone to prove harm by these machines. Even with industrial spill accidents these cases are usually settled out of court to avoid class action suits rather than any solid link being shown. We didn't win any cases against Tobacco companies for decades even though everyone knew it was unsafe.

So ya, you're right. But what's the alternative? The voting public just does not care. They are being fooled into thinking there's actual security happening in the airports when there is really only security theater.

Maybe bring your dosimeters with you next time you fly?

Re:Summary

[saizai]

If someone is faced with a mandate to either go through the scanner or get denied boarding / fined / arrested / etc, then yes that would give standing. But IMHO it's better for us all if I can get an injunction before it gets to that.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

So when you get the scanners removed and a terrorist blows up a plane I flying on - I assume you'll explain to my daughter why daddy isn't coming home?

If you want to do something useful - spend you time protesting to make plane better able to withstand terrorist attacks. Things like kevlar wrapping of baggage to prevent explosions in the hold from badly damaging a plane, independent routing of cabling so a bomb doesn't take out all 3 backup circuits - before some idiot made them run parallel to each other etc

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

So when you get the scanners removed and a terrorist blows up a plane I flying on - I assume you'll explain to my daughter why daddy isn't coming home?

The most likely cause of your death will be that there wasn't enough money to personally follow people already known to the government but just outside the group that is normally followed. This is caused by spending of anti-terrorist money on things that are useless such as more scanning (since terrorists know about it they just choose attack methods that go round it such as delivering bombs via normal airport deliveries). The only reason that the scanning is being beefed up is because of cowards like yourself who refuse to attempt to understand the security and instead threaten political consequences for lack of "security theatre". In other words, you will die through your own fault and probably deserve it for putting the rest of us at risk together with yourself. Sai has nothing to do with it.

If you want to do something useful - spend you time protesting to make plane better able to withstand terrorist attacks. Things like kevlar wrapping of baggage to prevent explosions in the hold from badly damaging a plane, independent routing of cabling so a bomb doesn't take out all 3 backup circuits - before some idiot made them run parallel to each other etc

How about you campaigning for that? Sai can campaign for what he believes in, you can campaign for safer planes. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Summary

[pla]

So when you get the scanners removed and a terrorist blows up a plane I flying on - I assume you'll explain to my daughter why daddy isn't coming home?

Yup. "See honey, the government already knows almost every legitimate threat against it, but in the interests of keeping their data collection methods a secret, they let your daddy die."

Of course, even that ignores the fact that you have literally a 100x higher risk of dying on your ride to the airport, than you do of dying in a terrorist attack.

Re:Summary

[saizai]

You are far more likely to be killed by drowning in your bathtub or pool than by terrorists of any kind.

So no, I won't.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to explain why you wasted all of that money on scanners that are fooled by simple tricks ( http://www.wired.com/2014/08/study-shows-how-easily-weapons-can-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/ ) instead of actually tracking the people the government knows to be dangerous.

Are you going to explain that?!? Are you willing to take the heat for blowing all of our money on a tiger repelling rock?

I didn't think so, so sit down and be quiet. Grownups are talking.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

And when we double down on the TSA and a plane blows up anyway, you're going to explain to MY daughter that daddy isn't coming home because you refused to free up money being wasted on an organization that just doesn't work so that it might be spent to find something that might actually work?

Ian Murdock: 'Race Warrior'

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are pussies who can't make a stand like a true race warrior such as Ian Murdock.

Maybe my suicide at this, you now, a successful business man, not a NIGGER, will finally bring some attention to this very serious issue.

Show me your papers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! USSR is back again! Bring on the Soviet America jokes!

UK

[ickleberry]

Does anyone know what the official UK policy on this is? I tried to refuse to go through one of these scanners once, but had no luck, there was no alternative. Either go through the scanner or go home.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US you are compelled to complete screening once you enter the line, so you can't say 'no thank you' and leave. You're going to be screened. It makes some sense as a malicious person could just keep going through the line until they get the scenario they want, but then it makes the laws about your choices more important.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I was there the nude ray was broken, so they did normal pat downs. Thus, at least they can theoretically do it.

Re:UK

[saizai]

Correct. You have the right to avoid it, but only if you do so before you enter screening.

Don't know UK law.

Re:UK

[EmTeedee]

You can opt-out and get an (enhanced) hand search. If you decline, you are escorted landside and can't fly.
(If the officers actually comply with the regulations is a different question.)

From the "Security Scanners Direction 2015", Annex C, Part 14:

An individual who has been selected to be screened by security scanner may opt out of being scanned but only if the individual being screened agrees to be searched by an alternative screening method, including at least an enhanced hand search in private. That search may require the loosening or removal of clothing.

Department for Transport - Security scanners implementation information Security Scanners Direction 2015

Re:UK

[EmTeedee]

As an aside, this should be the similar across the European Union as Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2011 states:

[...] by providing passengers with the possibility to undergo alternative screening methods, this Regulation, together with the specific implementing rules adopted pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including respect for human dignity and for private and family life, the right to the protection of personal data, the rights of the child, the right to freedom of religion and the prohibition of discrimination. This Regulation must be applied according to these rights and principles.

and

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2011 of 10 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security as regards the use of security scanners at EU airports

Re:UK

[saizai]

Thanks for including actual source links. 3.

"and other public conveyance"

[Anonymous Coward]

What, so now we get strip searched before every taxi ride also?

Re: "and other public conveyance"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a public sidewalk you're walking on? Assume the position please. And pick up that can.

Re:"and other public conveyance"

[saizai]

If TSA feels like it, evidently. >.>

How can we help?

[Anonymous Coward]

What can we do to help? How can we make our voices heard too?

Re:How can we help?

[fustakrakich]

Vote!

Re:How can we help?

[saizai]

If you're a US citizen, call your senator or representative and ask them to (a) change the laws and (b) put pressure on TSA. http://www.contactingthecongre...

They make a lot of money form this, thats MO.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I worked at Ebay we found that the TSA makes a LOT of money from selling things they steal from people.. and it often went unreported and into TSA agents pockets, that's a big MO.

Re:They make a lot of money form this, thats MO.

[Sir Holo]

It's good to hear that my suspicion was right all along.

I've a number of hand-made or specialized scientific hand-tools confiscated by the TSA. In every case, I have rendered the object non-functional. For example, bending my expensive tweezers completely out of shape before handing them over. (Tweezers are not knives, BTW.)

A TSA Rep insisted that the laptop of an acquaintance be put in the checked luggage, and was not allowed to be carried on (this was several years ago). Guess what? It disappeared magically between departure and destination – with no "TSA opened your bag" note inside, either.

Fourth Amendment.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why, fucktard.

Re:Fourth Amendment.

[Anonymous Coward]

so you've got a small dick them? :)

Re:Fourth Amendment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so concerned about the size of his dick? Is your ass sore from bending over and taking it so much?

OP & litigator here

[saizai]

Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Re:OP & litigator here

[Sir Holo]

Just a comment.

I 'opted out' of the cancer-scanner at LAX in December. It took 15 minutes for a "male pat-down" to appear, and the pat-down took about 10 minutes, plus five of waiting around while they gathered up my things.

Next time, I will simply strip off, and hold my ass open goat.se-style, asking if they want to check for any "bombs" that I might drop during the flight. (I've dropped trou before for the TSA, and they are going to see me naked, so why not opt to let them actually see me naked?) I also do not want to be blasted with x-rays.

The day I am turned away from the airport for opting out of a rape-scanner is the day I retain counsel.

Re:OP & litigator here

[Anonymous Coward]

I always just tell them I'm claustrophobic (and sometimes that I'm allergic to radiation -cough-) they can't actually force someone with a real medic condition to go through these things? Can they?

Re:OP & litigator here

[jaffray]

John Brennan did pretty much that, stripping naked in protest of invasive TSA procedures. He was arrested for indecent exposure, taken to jail, and fined $1000 by TSA for "interference with screening personnel." He was found not guilty on the indecent exposure charge, the fine is still in appeals 4+ years later, but I'm pretty sure his legal expenses are in five figures.

I wouldn't for a moment discourage you from this plan, but please do be aware of what you're getting into, and the extent to which they will fuck with you.

Re:OP & litigator here

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no medical condition in which the amount of radiation dosed by the machine would be considered harmful to, because you get a larger dose than that by standing in the sun for 15 seconds.

Re:OP & litigator here

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the idea with body scanners was that a male operative sees the male passengers naked and a female operative sees the females.
Then at LAX I watched carefully and the person whose job it is to trigger the scan start had only 1 button to press.

I've been quite entertained asking for pat downs since the inception of these machines. Most male TSA guys seems to truly hate having to pat down another guy and their discomfort at the whole event makes my day.

Re:OP & litigator here

[Calydor]

But wouldn't this amount to flooding?

Just because you get a larger dose over a 15 minute stay in the sun with no realistic harmful effects doesn't mean no harm will come to you from getting the same dose in 15 seconds.

Re:OP & litigator here

[saizai]

That question is part of what's at issue in my litigation. I think they can't, and so does Marc Rotenberg of EPIC. They don't seem to care. TBD what the court thinks.

Re:OP & litigator here

[lazarus]

If everyone opted out (like you and I do) every single time, consequences to travel plans be damned, the scanners would be optional within a week and gone in a year. But they won't. Because people will always trade convenience and perceived safety for liberty. So it is important that people like the OP pick up the fight on a legal ground, doing the work that us sheeple should be doing for ourselves.

Also, while you may be able to opt out in the USA and Canada, you cannot in other countries (like GB). This is apropos of nothing, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Re:OP & litigator here

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but since standing in the sun for 15 seconds is considered medically safe, your point is moot.

Re:OP & litigator here

[Sir Holo]

John Brennan did pretty much that, stripping naked in protest of invasive TSA procedures. He was arrested for indecent exposure, taken to jail, and fined $1000 by TSA for "interference with screening personnel." He was found not guilty on the indecent exposure charge, the fine is still in appeals 4+ years later, but I'm pretty sure his legal expenses are in five figures.

I wouldn't for a moment discourage you from this plan, but please do be aware of what you're getting into, and the extent to which they will fuck with you.

Do you mean John Brennan, the CIA Director? Kind of a powerful guy, who I would imagine travels with an entourage of security, and has some exception that even Congress-members do not get.

If so, I'd really appreciate a source. Your story rings true, oh-so-true, but I haven't been able to find a source confirming it.

I any case, I'll wear my "banana hammock" g-string swimsuit underneath, or a Speedo (which has a label) every time I fly. If it's not indecent on the beach or in a swim competition, then it's not indecent in the airport. I have a feeling the press coverage it would generate might get me a pro bono attorney – one who is trying to make their name.

Stay tuned...

Re:OP & litigator here

[jaffray]

John Brennan did pretty much that, stripping naked in protest of invasive TSA procedures.

Do you mean John Brennan, the CIA Director?

That would be hilarious :) But no, it's a different John Brennan.

Re:OP & litigator here

[Lotharus]

Your banana-hammock might get you a pro boner attorney!

*rimshot*

It seems that

[Anonymous Coward]

You really can't go home anymore.

LMAO @ U Coren22... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"You take every and all criticism personally, and won't admit when you are wrong. You also spam flood any dissenting opinions, even when every one of your points has been refuted" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @10:06AM (#51208675)

What's that you said, Coren22 after your massive technical blunders I crushed you with here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

?

APK

P.S.=> Can you say "hypocrite"? Can you say "pot calling a kettle black"?? Can you ADMIT you're full of shit??? apk

LMAO @ U Coren22... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"You take every and all criticism personally, and won't admit when you are wrong. You also spam flood any dissenting opinions, even when every one of your points has been refuted" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @10:06AM (#51208675)

What's that you said, Coren22 after your massive technical blunders I crushed you with here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

?

APK

P.S.=> Can you say "hypocrite"? Can you say "pot calling a kettle black"?? Can you ADMIT you're full of shit??? apk

LMAO @ U Coren22... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"You take every and all criticism personally, and won't admit when you are wrong. You also spam flood any dissenting opinions, even when every one of your points has been refuted" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @10:06AM (#51208675)

What's that you said, Coren22 after your massive technical blunders I crushed you with here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

?

APK

P.S.=> Can you say "hypocrite"? Can you say "pot calling a kettle black"?? Can you ADMIT you're full of shit??? apk

LMAO @ U Coren22... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"You take every and all criticism personally, and won't admit when you are wrong. You also spam flood any dissenting opinions, even when every one of your points has been refuted" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @10:06AM (#51208675)

What's that you said, Coren22 after your massive technical blunders I crushed you with here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

?

APK

P.S.=> Can you say "hypocrite"? Can you say "pot calling a kettle black"?? Can you ADMIT you're full of shit??? apk

LMAO @ U Coren22... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"You take every and all criticism personally, and won't admit when you are wrong. You also spam flood any dissenting opinions, even when every one of your points has been refuted" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @10:06AM (#51208675)

What's that you said, Coren22 after your massive technical blunders I crushed you with here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

?

APK

P.S.=> Can you say "hypocrite"? Can you say "pot calling a kettle black"?? Can you ADMIT you're full of shit??? apk