EPIC Files For Rehearing In Body Scanner Case 95
OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed for a rehearing in their case against DHS regarding airport body scanners. In their latest court filing (PDF), EPIC argues that last month's ruling requiring a public comment period but no other changes was based on incorrect information. From TFA: '"The court overstated the effectiveness of the body scanner devices and understated the degree of the privacy intrusion to the travelling public," stated EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. EPIC's petition challenged the Court's finding that the devices detect "liquid and powders," which was never established and was not claimed by the government. EPIC also argued that the court wrongly concluded that the TSA is not subject to a federal privacy law that prohibits video voyeurism. The panel found that TSA body scanner employees are "engaged in law enforcement activity," contrary to the TSA's own regulations.'
Note that this is a request for a rehearing with the same court that rejected their request to stop TSA's use of body scanners. It is not an appeal to a higher court. Is EPIC likely to obtain a more favorable ruling from the same court?"
Re:Public safety should be the priority (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Probably not (Score:5, Informative)
In Court you have to dot your t's and cross your i's or the higher court will refuse the hear the appeal. You have to show essentially negligence by the lower court for an appeal to succeed and that's what EPIC is doing. Presenting the errors in judgement and asking the lower court to overrule their own previous ruling. If the court refuses to go ahead with that (and it does happen that courts overturn their own judgments, reference the RIAA case against Jamie Thomas where the court overturned their own previous bad ruling) then they appeal that decision and the basis for courts ruling is then open to appeal due to the errors outlined in the previous ruling. People forget there are strict rules in the appeals courts about what is open for appeal. You can't appeal everything and the kitchen sink and it becomes a shell game to find the right avenue of appeal to get a judgement overturned.
Re:has anyone tried to follow the money ? (Score:4, Informative)
Michael Chertoff.
He's became security lobbyist, and the go-to guy on air travel security after being replaced as head of DHS. Meanwhile, he has interest in one of the larger companies that manufacture the back-scatter x-ray imaging devices. He gets paid to talk influence government to buy the machines, and he started shilling them while in office.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Like fourth link when Googling his name.
Re:Public safety should be the priority (Score:5, Informative)
The TSA should engage in profiling, as the Israelis do.
They do not. Who made up that myth? In fact, the Israelis explicitly state that they don't trust profiling because terrorists will find out what the profile is, and use terrorists who don't match it. They do intensive, one-on-one interviews with all passengers.
Re:has anyone tried to follow the money ? (Score:5, Informative)
The money trail leads to (among other places) former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who made the decision to buy the body scanners while he had a financial interest in the company selling them. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.