EPIC Files Lawsuit To Suspend Airport Body Scanner Use 559
nacturation writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a petition for review and motion for an emergency stay, urging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to suspend the Transportation Security Administration's full body scanner program. EPIC said that the program is 'unlawful, invasive, and ineffective' (PDF). EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom."
another Obama disappointment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Add the embrace of these devices to my list of disappointments in the Obama administration. Not that I'm surprised -- he telegraphed himself very plainly on civil liberties when he backtracked on FISA -- but I'm still disappointed.
Congrats! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad to see not everyone is taking this issue laying down. Seems like technology is getting more and more invasive as time goes by. Pretty soon everyone is going to be tracked even in there own home. Some already are!
It's either full body scanning (Score:5, Insightful)
or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy [marco.org]. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.
Personally, I'll go for the public. If they're going to be obnoxious, authoritarian jerks, they should be forced to do it where everybody can see them. I'll act like I'm gay and I enjoy it. I will act like I think they're gay, and they enjoy it. I will turn the humiliation tables around and ask them if they like feeling people's balls and vaginas up in public, if it turns them on.
If enough people take my stance on it, they will quit this garbage in a hurry.
Yeah, all you scaredy cat cowards people who think that somehow this will come back on me and make my life miserable. You know what, up yours. It's people like you that've gotten us where we are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. For once in your life, show a little backbone and self-respect.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they MIGHT make a change. If they do it will be because they are afraid of Obama wielding more power, not because they have suddenly decided to embrace civil liberties. Such is what passes for "checks and balances" these days -- we don't check the other branches of Government but we do check the other political party because by god they are out to destroy America as we know it.
Think about all the Republican ranting and raving about Bill Clinton when he was in office. Then Bush came into office and they rolled over and played dead. GOP Congress-critters accused Clinton of wagging the dog when he took us into the Balkens. Those same Congress-critters were silent when Bush took us into Mesopotamia....
Washington was dead on about political parties.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Me too, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere on that without voters really being outraged about it. Seems like everyone outside of slashdot regards them as no different from the metal detectors.
One time when flying with a friend, they had the backscatter machine. I decided to take a stand for privacy and said I didn't want to be scanned and submitted to a patdown. Everyone looked at me strange, and my friend loudly commented "Dude, you must have an embarrassingly small penis." Which was just plain mean and hurtful and totally not true at all (my gun collection is for defense, not compensation). But anyway, I don't think most people care about this. Naturally we're not going to get a politician shutting it down if no one cares abougt it
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:5, Insightful)
The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same. Obama is just like Bush, Clinton, Bush before him. If you don't like the power of the Bush's but you like the power of Obama and Clinton (or visa versa) you're just a tool for those seeking more power.
The best defense we (the citizens) have is to limit power of ANYONE in office.
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, your a smart ass, the remove you out of the public areas for holding, and the social service to take care of the child you were traveling with. You're not allowed to talk to your child or call a lawyer. You might be held for 72 hours.
Think about that a bit.
Chamberlain (Score:2, Insightful)
He may look like Wilt, but he plays like Neville.
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:1, Insightful)
I am always amused and disgusted by the stupidity of the "DO NOT FLY" contingent, who apparently don't realize how many tens of thousands of fliers are not doing so by choice, but because it is a job requirement. Do you honestly expect several hundred thousand people to quit their jobs so they don't have to fly? Where are we going to get new jobs that don't require flight? How much of a pay cut do you expect us to take (my salary cut would be no less than 40%)? How many airline and airport employees would you prefer to see unemployed because everyone chose not to fly, therefore the airlines lay off thousands more employees -- if they don't go out of business altogether?
"Drive for vacation instead of flying." When you only have two weeks' vacation time per year to begin with? Even if you haven't burned through half of that thanks to family care requirements, or the odd special occasion that you want to attend?
Sorry, folks, but we no longer live in a world where "do not fly" is an option for the majority of people.
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology isn't becoming more invasive. The use of technology by people in power is become more invasive.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:5, Insightful)
The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same.
That's not true. By voting for (R) or (D) you are expressing a preference for WHICH civil liberties you want to lose first.
Want to lose your 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Vote Democrat.
Want to lose your 4th and 5th amendment rights? Vote Republican.
Want to lose your 10th amendment rights? Vote for any of the above....
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:2, Insightful)
My planned response is to say "You can play with my balls all you like, but you can't take a picture of them."
Hardly any fuss over the democrats? (Score:1, Insightful)
Something that amuses me about you Americans is that most of your internet media outlets like /. are so rabidly against the Republicans, but instantly run to the defense of your party of Democrats. Surely they do wrong things, too?
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because Republicans and Democrats are a difference without distinction. For starters, a two party system is beyond idiotic. Anyone who believes we ONLY need two parties is a certifiable idiot.
The sad, sad truth is, everyone moans and groans about their pet project and party x or y not supporting it but the real problem is, neither party cares. They only care about what issues who pay them the most. The ONLY way you can hope to begin to change things to is drastically change election laws, change lobbying laws, strike down the recent anonymous campaign and advertising laws, and stop allowing companies to be represented twice (company and the people of the company).
As a starter, until we stop empowering a system which gives companies twice the political clout of every day people, there is zero hope for any real change; no matter how much the word, "change", comes out of their mouth. So everyone get that through your head. Any politician who isn't seriously talking and working for serious reform in Washington, by default, is doing nothing but pandering lip service which promoting the status quo. Period.
If your candidate talks about change and improvement but does not *actively* work to change lobbying and election laws and rules, he's lying to you. Period. The sad fact is, this is literally, almost everyone in office today.
Re:Flying is a privilege, not a right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your right, flying is a privilege, but your argument is straw man at best. That is like saying if a restaurant want people to take off all their clothes to enter it should be done because it's a privilege not a right to eat there.
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:2, Insightful)
This often happens in oppressive regimes like governments... you offer a new taboo practice / a majority of people will be extremely uncomfortable with at first as an "OPTION", so the majority who would resist authority will not object.
For example... voting, jury duty, institutional schooling, legal representation, keeping money in the bank, alimony/child support, charitable donations, armed forces recruitment (draft), auto insurance, social security, full body scan, health insurance / gov't health care public "option", abortions, filing 1099s for people you pay money to, . Our history is full of things becoming mandatory or de-facto mandatory that were at first snuck in as something else, using it's actually just optional as an excuse to introduce it to placate any objectors, until the thing becomes well-entrenched. This isn't even the tip of the iceberg, it happens over and over and over again, reliably. Options can easily be made the only way with some simple manipulation; it can be fought, but it is an uphill battle and a long fight... I hope EPIC succeeds, but you know, they are fighting a gov't who believes they have a legitimate security interest in their policies. The gov't think they are security experts, and picks arbitrarily oppressive policies, even though they are obviously not using sound mathematics and science to evaluate the risk VS cost...
Presumably if body scanning is accepted, the message is clear there will be little the gov't cannot do. It would be almost impossible to fight "backscatter machines", since that is just a furtherance of the 'body scan option' which can become mandatory.
The way these things get introduced is the gov't answers any objection with "You don't have to submit to X. You can opt for Y instead." Where Y is less invasive, but less convenient for authorities.
At first Y may be on equal footing, but is increasingly and intentionally made less convenient, discouraged by officials, OR officials [unofficially] are directed to implement things counter to policy -- for example, refusing option Y, but doing so in a way that will diffuse or deflect criticism away from the government... such as denying it in private, and in public denying that they denied the option.
The less convenient option Y becomes, the greater the portion of the population will opt for the uncomfortable but more 'convenient' or faster option.
This means, that eventually the societal norms are adjusted. So many people opted for the convenience over time that full body scanning is considered "the norm", and is therefore socially acceptable.
Now all the government has to do is take option Y away, by making it unpallatable.
All they have to do is ensure anyone who picks option Y is embarrassed or harassed, and the people who see it will learn a lesson to never pick option Y.
The final stage is to make option Y socially unacceptable, and then do away with it altogether.
Re:Flying is a privilege, not a right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hijackings used to be about money. Passengers would sit them through and get let go when it was all done with a pretty good chance of making it.
Nobody holds to that illusion anymore. Myself (and I'm sure many others) would curb stomp to death anyone who tried to hijack a plane I was on, or die trying. That, and the staff and pilots are better prepared for this now.
These things are just unnecessary.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be an idiot. Do you think Obama ordered these? do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments?
Here's a small lesson in American government for you: the TSA reports to the Department of Homeland Security, which is a cabinet department of the Executive Branch. For anything under the Executive, the buck stops at the person residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. If the President makes an order not to use full-body scanners, the TSA would have no choice but to obey.
While Bush was responsible during his term, don't pretend that Obama has nothing to do with current policies of TSA/DHS. He's been in charge for the past two years.
Re:Congrats! (Score:4, Insightful)
so I don't expect this post to be visible for very long
I think your opinion is foolhardy but if you get modded down it's an abuse of the system. If I had mod points I'd toss one your way just for being brave enough to share your thoughts on this matter.
I don't think you could make the case that airports don't have a legitimate interest in screening passengers.
That legitimate interest needs to be balanced against individual rights and liberty. At what point do we decide that we've tilted too far against individual rights and give up on the notion of playing whack-a-mole with the people that seek to harm us?
It's not perfect, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than hoping something won't happen.
But even when something has happened it's been halted by the efforts of the passengers. No attack on an American airline in the post 9/11 world has been successful. The question I would posit is why do we respond like frightened little children to failed attempts at doing us harm?
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
The 4th Amendment would seem to answer your question. A person has a right to no unreasonable searches. Removal of clothing (electronically) is unreasonable. The invasive pat-down is worse. Both are unconstitutional.
Further, there is no evidence that these intrusive (and they are intrusive) searches makes the fliers any safer. This makes an unconstitutional act further unconstitutional, as it is even more unreasonable. The Federal invasion of privacy is unconstitutional and unconscionable.
Most importantly, America is not and was never meant to be a safe country. It was meant to be a free country. Don't forget, had there been a Texan with a pistol on each of those airplanes on 9/11, there would have been no terrorist attack. We gave up the 2nd Amendment and the terrorists killed 3000 of us. How many will die from giving up the 4th?
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote 3rd party.
Send the message that the status quo isnt going to cut it.
Re:Nobody is forcing anyone to fly against their w (Score:3, Insightful)
If you dont like it, then dont fly.
"Hey boss, rather than take the 5 hour flight across country to meet with that critical customer in person and sign off on that that big $$$ deal, I'm going to take about 50 hours to drive one way and about the same back. I won't be able to do any work during the trip, but hey, you'll pick up the expenses for this won't you?" .. Yeah as if that will work.
Oh and by the way, you may not have noticed but there are some places you can't get to without flying .. pro tip - take a look at a world atlas and look for all those places separated or surrounded by water
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:3, Insightful)
That thought is precisely what went through the head of that dude in the front of that tank column in Tiennemen Square, no doubt...
I mean, whole 72 hours!!!
Such abject cowardice as you exhibit is how all the despots of the world came to power.
It is also the fundamental idea behind terrorism: that whiny "but what will happen to my lifestyle!?" or "but they will break my family apart!!!" people will always outnumber those who bleed and suffer in the fight for their freedom and that majority with the mentality of a sheep herd will trample the few steadfast resisters in their panic induced brainless stampede to whatever pen has the least cattle prods.
Re:Transsexuals (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, *everybody* has a right to privacy, not just some special cases.
PS: The machines won't stop anything, explosives fit inside body cavities just as well as heroin/cocaine does.
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you are trying to be funny, but what about transgendered persons? If a trans-female walks through one of these things (pre-op), should she be subjected to the questions that will bring up? It seems like an unnecessary and humiliating search.
Re:Not so cut and dry (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks [rawstory.com] (was outlawed, now legal)?
BTW, not to reply twice, but I visited Mammoth Caves National Park a few weeks ago and that policy really isn't all it's cracked up to be. They've got huge "No guns allowed" signs on all of the buildings, cave tours, etc. Hooray for the 2nd amendment, I'm now legally allowed to carry my gun in the parking lot at a National Park.....
Of course they don't actually enforce this policy with metal detectors so in reality it's a victim zone not a gun free zone. I'm sure the guy planning on committing a crime is going to be deterred by that sign on the front door.....
Re:Hardly any fuss over the democrats? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Wall Street Journal is generally fairly Republican-happy; it's a lot less free-to-view, though. The Drudge report is Republican-happy most of the time, but they're about this close --> <-- to being a tabloid. (Ever-so-convenient, though.) The media at large is not infrequently accused of being "liberal" Democrat-huggers, but some parts are more so than others (e.g. the New York Times.)
If you want a balanced view of the politics in America, you're not going to get it from just one news source, one way or another.
Agreed (Score:3, Insightful)
Some rights are so obvious the protection thereof just did not occur to the Founding Fathers. They just never imagined the right to vehicular travel could be infringed, would become licensed, and subject to for-all-practical-purposes strip searches.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:3, Insightful)
These scanners were initially installed during the Bush administration. How is it Obama's fault?
Because Obama was elected in 2008, 2010 is almost gone and he has taken no steps to remove them during the intervening two years? No, implementation wasn't Obama's fault, but since he has left them in place -- and he has had ample time to remove them, if he really believed they were ineffective and/or a violation of civil liberties -- then I'd argue he shares the blame for the fact that they are still in use.
I didn't believe all of Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign rhetoric in 2008, but when he was elected, I hoped I was wrong. Unfortunately, I've never been so disappointed to be proven correct.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:2, Insightful)
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the whole system of government is set up to ensure that nothing happens fast
That's the general idea.
Re:Congrats! (Score:1, Insightful)
With all due respect, we have been testing low dose everyday radiation exposure for decades, on airline pilots and flight attendants.
Every person taking a coast-to-coast flight gets the equivalent of a chest X-ray. That's abouta six-hour hop. Airline pilots and flight attendants routinely fly coast-to-coast several days a week, for months and years at a time. The trans-Pacific hop is about 13 hours, gate-to-gate, which includes 12 hours at altitude, or two chest X-rays per hop.
If there was an elevated risk for that level of exposure, we would see one hell of a cancer cluster among senior pilots and flight attendants. We don't.
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:3, Insightful)
Advertent or not, it was a red herring... the muckety-mucks in charge will likely handle that sort of complaint with “okay, we’ll write in a special exemption for them... but the rest of you whiners still have to submit to our screening!!”
They shouldn't do this at all, of course, for so many of the reasons others have posted.
Exactly. Best just to leave it at that. Or, when you do point out that it’s particularly embarrassing for certain people, follow up with that caveat. Invasion of privacy is equally wrong for everyone; it’s just particularly harmful to some.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Transsexuals (Score:3, Insightful)
I think part of the concern the GP was expressing is because it isn't just a privacy concern for cross-dressers and pre-op transsexuals, it's a safety concern. Those individuals' personal safety depends on their ability to pass as their preferred gender, and forcing them to submit to what amounts to a strip search destroys that ability.
Having read the article posted on the subject a week ago (that I won't link because somebody else already has), I think it's a legitimate concern. It mentionned one person having been arrested after taking a swing at a TSA officer who made a joke about the size of his penis as he walked through the scanner. That isn't exactly the level of professionalism I'd trust for a significantly more sensitive situation like a transsexual....
9th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Groundless stripping & groping normal innocent citizens who just want to fly isn't a power granted government.
Had the Founding Fathers imagined infringement of the right to vehicular travel, no question they would have included it in the Bill of Rights - and realizing they may have missed some, they DID include the catch-all 9th Amendment.
And they DID include an explicit denial of warrant-less searches by government agents, which is what this case is about.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, most infringements on civil liberties are bipartisan.
1st Amendment: Both major parties have embraced "Free Speech Zones", both have regularly beaten up and arrested protesters at their conventions since at least the 1970's, both have at various times suggested that saying or writing certain things is aiding and abetting the enemy. Also, the people targeted in violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments were universally adherents to a particular religion, which falls afoul of the Free Exercise clause.
2nd Amendment: On this one, you're right that Democrats are primarily behind bans on assault weapons and the like.
4th Amendment: Clinton started spying on Internet traffic, Bush increased it to a massive scale, Obama continues the practice and defends it in court. John Ashcroft captured people (including US citizens on US soil) and imprisoned them without ever showing probable cause to a judge. And of course the National Security Letters and other nonsense in the Patriot Act had massive support from both Democrats and Republicans.
5th Amendment: Both Bush and Obama have deprived people of liberty and sometimes life without due process of law by locking them up in Gitmo or sending them to foreign countries to be tortured. Both Dick Cheney and Barack Obama have targeted civilians for killing by the CIA without any sort of trial.
6th Amendment: Both Bush and Obama deprived "enemy combatants", including several US citizens, of the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of their peers. In the BS military tribunals, the enemy combatants are not presented with the evidence or witnesses against them, have no access to witnesses in their defense, and no protection against double jeopardy.
7th Amendment: Both Democrats and Republicans are enthusiastic in their support for binding arbitration, replacing jury trials for civil matters by arbiters who are paid by one side of the arbitration. Judges regularly throw out lawsuits due to binding arbitration agreements.
8th Amendment: Gitmo prisoners, as well as prisoners in Abu Graib, and prisoners sent to foreign countries via "extraordinary rendition", all have received what any reasonable person would term cruel and unusual punishment.
9th and 10th Amendments: Might as well forget about those, since any other rights the people had are long gone.
So suffice to say, we the people are screwed, unless EPIC, the ACLU, and other groups like them start getting some legal successes. With one exception: If the government tries to force you to quarter troops in your home, you can probably win that case.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Tenth amendment is about government powers, not people's rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Perhaps you meant the Ninth?
No, I did mean the 10th, but the 9th certainly qualifies as an amendment that both parties ignore.
Or perhaps you've been confused by the "tenthers" out there who don't comprehend that taxing, spending, and regulating interstate commerce are explicitly Constitutional federal powers.
All of which have grown way outside of the Federal Government's original mandates. Do you honestly believe that the interstate commerce clause was intended to grant the Federal Government the power to criminalize the growing of cannabis for personal consumption [wikipedia.org]?
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, your a smart ass, the remove you out of the public areas for holding, and the social service to take care of the child you were traveling with. You're not allowed to talk to your child or call a lawyer. You might be held for 72 hours.
Think about that a bit.
Think about that, indeed. We now live in a country that uses the threat of the things you mentioned to get us to allow them to treat us like criminals and curtail our rights.
Re:Not so cut and dry (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny you should mention California there and blame the Democrats for gun control. Check your history about Ronald Reagan and the Mulford Act [google.com].
Re:I would prefer these to other types of screenin (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not against these types of screenings at all. I would prefer them to pat downs or strip searches.
Lets face it. People have to be screened before the board a plane and I prefer the safety that these provide vs being a victim of someones terror. (being blown up, or being touched by a security officer)
Then refuse to be a victim YOURSELF. The authorities cannot (some would argue will not) stop every possible threat. If we can't keep drugs, shivs, shanks, cellphones, and zip guns out of prisons what makes you think we can stop threats with less than prison level security at airports?
Chap next you tries to light his shoes on fire? You punch him in the skull holler for help and don't stop until he stops being a threat.
Achmed starts acting funny and pulling something out of his ass? You do what you have to do to stop the threat.
Someone mugs you and seems to want more than your wallet? You fight, stab, kick, and shoot until he stops being a threat.
Fall down and get injured? You had damn well better be able to patch yourself up enough to get to where you can get professional help.
You may be comfortable being a victim and relying on centralized services to be there all the time and be omniscient. I am not.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:3, Insightful)
That just shows your political inclination. A liberal would say the opposite.
The simple fact of the matter is that people tend to remember disappointments much better than they remember successes. Your excitement is quickly forgotten over the campaign promises that the Republicans actually kept, and you’re similarly not going to be too enthused over the ones that the Democrats have been prevented from pushing through.
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a fucking break. Had there been a "Texan on board with a pistol", there would have been 4 armed terrorists on each plane (and most likely, they would have exploited security flaws to ensure they had more and better guns than your hypothetical Texan Freedom Fighter)
The terrorists exploited a flaw in how we dealt with hijackers. It wasn't about a lack of guns at all.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:0, Insightful)
Uhhhh, what?
The Dems don't try to take away 2nd amendment rights, and the Reps also try to remove 1st amendment rights and trample church/state.
Re:Very easy solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama could have easily prevented this January 21, 2009. Anyone claiming "he hasn't had enough time" for fixing the DHS/TSA is either lying or ignorant of how the office works.
Yeah. Its one of those two things. Only liars and idiots would ever say something is more complicated than a snap decision for the president.
The bureaucracies have a lot of momentum, and while sure certain key people in key places do have the technical authority to direct something. Its rarely that simple.
Closing guantanamo bay turned out to be more difficult... where do all the prisoners go. Giving them trials is controversial and is causing debate. We can't set the actually dangerous ones free. Nobody wants them in their local prison... that would invite local terrorist acts... blah blah blah.
Full body scanners were floating around in 2005, they were aready installed in airports in 2006/2007... orders have been placed, contracts signed, contractors hired, training done, policies and protocols written, multitudes of careers exist around these infernal things... you don't just step in and undo all that with a snap decision.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:1, Insightful)
Good old slashdot: where 3% can blame 47% for letting the other 50% win, and no one is around to point out how insane that sounds.