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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone looked at me strange, and my friend loudly commented "Dude, you must have an embarrassingly small penis."
You know how to take care of a friend like that? You should have instantly replied, "At least I am not smuggling a key of heroin up my ass". Be really indignant for a second, but then instantly switch to shocked and terrified when you look back at the TSA agent. Then mouth, "I'm so sorry", to your friend.
Good chance he will be walking really funny onto the flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be an idiot.
Do you think Obama ordered these? do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments? How about he discuss thinks Obama does that's in his realm or responsibly? Plus, the order to go to this technology was made during the Bush administration; however even then it would be stupid to blame Bush. I can g on and on with factual reason on why Bush was a terrible president, but I will not put blame on him for things outside his responsibility, and for things he did not do. Ris
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:5, Informative)
do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments?
You know it was a Democrat that said "The Buck Stops Here", right?
How about he discuss thinks Obama does that's in his realm or responsibly?
TSA comes under Homeland Security which is a part of the Executive Branch the last time I checked. Guess who is in charge of the Executive Branch?
OMG, my school board made a decision I don't like, that damn Obama!
That's a stupid analogy. My school board is a local agency that's independent of the Federal (and State, for the most part) Government. TSA is nothing of the kind. Obama could fire the director of TSA tomorrow and end this bullshit policy if he was so inclined.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:5, Informative)
Department of Homeland Security is a Cabinet level department, which means President Obama personally picked Janet Napolitano to be Secretary and she answers to him.
On November 5, 2008, Napolitano was named to the advisory board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project. On December 1, 2008, Barack Obama introduced Napolitano as his nominee for United States Secretary of Homeland Security, she was confirmed on January 20, 2009. Janet Napolitano assumed the office of Secretary of Homeland Security on January 21, 2009.
This isn't some minor functionary of the Federal Government deciding this, she has been pushing backscatter X-ray since the day she got her job.
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: (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: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.
Chamberlain (Score:2, Insightful)
He may look like Wilt, but he plays like Neville.
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: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: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: (Score:2)
+1 Deeply Insightful! Or, I dunno... +1 Deeply Informative!
I really fucking hate you for pointing out what is so, so sadly true! Damn you!
A two party system is stupid! There are real ways to change things but almost none of it has anything to do with voting for an R or a D.
Ugh...you've made me sad...damn you!
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote 3rd party.
Send the message that the status quo isnt going to cut it.
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, voting anything but third party is "Throwing away your vote".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Voting for a third party is (unfortunately) a pretty ineffectual protest move. Due to the majority-vote ballot system generally used in the US, there is a chicken-and-egg problem for third parties: People tend to vote for someone they think might win, but the only way a candidate has a chance to win is by getting a significant number of votes. Plus, people remember Ross Perot (and to a lesser degree Ralph Nader) as a third-party electoral spoiler.
If you want to make a real difference, get out and organize
Re:another Obama disappointment... (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, people remember Ross Perot (and to a lesser degree Ralph Nader) as a third-party electoral spoiler.
The problem is that third party candidates are seen as spoilers at all. They are the only candidates not spoiling everything. I saw an article about the governor race in Illinois, and how it went to a republican, and the author of the article blamed Green party voters for letting the republican take office. Well fuck you, Mr. Political Analyst guy, the Green party voters were the only sane ones. Maybe if the democratic voters had voted for the Green candidate, then the republican wouldn't have taken office either, huh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No - the way to really make third party vote extremely effective is to reform our voting system to make better use of game theory to make decisions. As it is we tend to throw away about half of the information provided by our citizens votes (give or take depending on the election). Systems like instant runoff, approval voting, ranking, and etc... put to use much more information to come up with a (mathematically) better selection. Some are more "accurate" than others and some are "simpler" than others.
Th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I vote straight ticket 3rd party every election just out of the hope that a 3rd party candidate gets enough votes that the next time around they might get equal footing in a debate, or news coverage and maybe some other people might wake up and realize that there are more than 2 choices.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I vote straight ticket 3rd party every election just out of the hope that a 3rd party candidate gets enough votes that the next time around they might get equal footing in a debate, or news coverage and maybe some other people might wake up and realize that there are more than 2 choices.
The number of votes isn't going to get anyone into a debate. On their website, the Commission on Presidential Debates describes themselves as a non-partisan non-profit organization. Somewhere along the line, the definition of "non-partisan" changed from "not associated with any political party" to "associated with both republicans and democrats, as opposed to only one". The Commission decides which presidential candidates debate each other on prime time TV. The wiki page on them includes a little histor
Not so cut and dry (Score:5, Interesting)
Want to lose your 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Vote Democrat.
You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks [rawstory.com] (was outlawed, now legal)?
Don't paint with too broad a brush.
Now if we could only also vote for those appointed positions that hold so much power (SoS,NSA,CoS, etc).
Re: (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:another Obama disappointment... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't see how you're thinking the 1st Amendment rights would go away first under the Dems.
Remember that it was under Bush that we had "free speech zones" so that he didn't have to see people that disagreed with him.
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: (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 lobb
Re:Hardly any fuss over the democrats? (Score:4, Funny)
"Surely they do wrong things, too?"
No.
Re: (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, o
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I have no grand delusions about that with Congress in a stalemate and the President still wielding the veto pen. But at least everything will hopefully grind to a halt... that would be an improvement over the past 2 years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a really neat trick to refuse to engage in bipartisan politics then
Re: (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
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!
ALERT (Score:5, Funny)
The GRAMMAR BOT 9001 has determined you have confused the words "their" and "there". An infraction has been added to your permanent record and your mother has been notified.
Re:ALERT (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology isn't becoming more invasive. The use of technology by people in power is become more invasive.
Re:Congrats! (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly, what offends people here is the invasive nature of the screening. But is it really all that invasive? They get what's essentially a contour map of your body. Big deal. The really invasive alternative is the pat down, or worse, the strip search. With these screeners, you just walk through, no clothing removal necessary.
The problem is that you have an extremely low-probability event which causes a large amount of damage. This is where most Slashdotters have their heads in the sand. You are right that the amount of physical damage is minimal, but actual physical damage is not the goal of terrorists: spreading the message is the goal, and the spreading of that message is greatly heightened by a dramatic delivery, such as the deaths of innocent people. I think it's understandable that people would want to prevent that from happening as much as they want the physical harm from happening. In that light, I think a non-invasive (as in, you just walk through it) scanner is a nice technological solution. It's not perfect, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than hoping something won't happen.
I eagerly await your civil responses.
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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:5, Informative)
I've gotten around every single pat down without having my genitals felt up by simply making eye contact with the security guard, eyeing him up and down once, and cocking an eyebrow.
I'm sure one day I WILL come across a homosexual security guard and that will eventually backfire, but to this day I haven't had them reach more than 6 inches above my knees.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've gotten around it by not flying anymore. Road trips for the win. Drove all the way to Salt Lake City last year. Drove all the way to NOLA this year. Sure, it limits me to visiting Canada and 49 of the 50 US States but it's better than the alternative, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:5, Funny)
"I haven't had them reach more than 6 inches above my knees."
Well, that might be fine for you, but I'm still outta luck. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
I loved the guy around here (and I wish I could find his post) that said something like: In 200 years we've gone from "Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" to "Sure, you can pat me down, I don't want to miss my connecting flight."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the airlines will get a bailout from the government, like they always do.
Re: (Score:2)
there is one simple alternative: DO NOT FLY.
Fuck that. It's not the airlines screwing you in this case, why punish them*?
Let's make the TSA employees feel like the assholes their bosses are instead. I find that much more agreeable.
TSA is a joke. A former co-worker of mine accidentally carried a large box cutter, very similar to those used to hijack the planes on 9/11, through TSA security about six times before he realized it was in there and removed it. If there was one thing they should have figured out how to spot, it was that. But hey, they'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (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 mental
Re: (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:It's either full body scanning (Score:5, Funny)
I want to make a pair of pants where I can make the fly pop open automatically. Then I'll go commando so my wing-wang will flop out when they touch my crotch.
I can scream "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!" at that point.
Re: (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."
Re: (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 ca
Re:It's either full body scanning (Score:5, Funny)
Personally I want to see a woman wear sweat pants through the checkpoint and wear fake silicone balls under them. I would absolutely love to see the look on the guards face when she runs into those.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It seems humiliating because it is humiliating, and transgendered people shouldn’t get any special treatment. It wouldn’t help anyway...
“Excuse me, why do I have to go through this and she didn’t?” “She’s transgendered.” “Oh...”
Re: (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.
4th Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
the ACLU has been calling for a ban since 2002 (Score:4, Informative)
/. is broken and I often can't paste into the text box, so no link. However go to ACLU.ORG and search for TSA.
IN fact, they have been calling for a ban of this kind of scanner in airports since 2002
Re:the ACLU has been calling for a ban since 2002 (Score:4, Interesting)
Fellow chrome user!
See this bug here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=60057 [google.com]
Based on comment #10, I made a little bookmark in the bookmark bar called "Fix /." with the site
And now I can click that whenever I want to reply.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how it starts. you call for a ban. You don't jump straight to sue. They sue for immigrants because an immigrant comes forward with a complaint.
Maybe after you are refused to board a flight after refusing to use one of these device you should go to the ACLU?
Did you go to the ACLU and search to see all the things they have been doing? no, of course not. That would require rationality.
But... (Score:2)
But, you don't have to go through the scanner. You can always opt for a genital pat down instead! You can trade _seeing_ your genitals for _touching_ them if you want!
So creepy...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/10/31/0234232/TSA-To-Make-Pat-Downs-More-Embarrassing-To-Encourage-Scanner-Use [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll whip my junk out for the security guards before I go through the scanner.
Full body scanners up in the club (Score:4, Funny)
This Friday night, come on down to Club Big Brother! We got a full body scanner, some disco balls, strobe effects, and some kickin' bass! The crowd will go wild when you step into the full nude scanner and it's shown on our 2 story high video wall! No cover for ladies and half-price drinks! Club Big Brother-because privacy violations are one big party!
Re: (Score:2)
This Friday night, come on down to Club Big Brother! We got a full body scanner, some disco balls, strobe effects, and some kickin' bass! The crowd will go wild when you step into the full nude scanner and it's shown on our 2 story high video wall! No cover for ladies and half-price drinks! Club Big Brother-because privacy violations are one big party!
No no no no no .. no no ...you cannot advertise this event this way."No cover charge for ladies and half-price drinks!" is sexist and not allowed under anti-sexual discrimination laws.
My plan.... (Score:3, Funny)
Salon and the Atlantic report that you have to take off your belt when you go through these things. And that you have to raise your hands.
So my plan (which all slashdotters should copy) is to wear loose pants and go commando.
Re: (Score:2)
Last week, I was going into Terminal 7 at LAX (United), and they were funneling people through a scanner. Eventually, the line got backed up (only one scanner for two lines) and they had to switch back to the metal detector about four people before I got to it. However, the requirements for the scanner got a little irritating beyond privacy issues. The TSA staff (who were actually being pleasant and helpful for once) said that everything had to be removed from the pockets: no wallets, cash, coins, jewelr
EPIC WIN! (Score:4, Funny)
,,,
There is a religious law against body scanners? (Score:2)
Just curious to see the "religious freedom" point in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let alone submit to naked pictures.
They can have nekkid pics taken of themselves, but only their husbands are allowed to see them
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are modesty requirements for several religions, including forms of Islam (well-publicized) and Judaism (not as well-known). Any sort of display of the flesh other than face or hands (and sometimes limits on those) is a violation of the religion, with narrow exceptions for family and doctors.
Same problem as cameras (Score:2)
Personally I am fine with these. I don't care who appears naked on the screen, myself included. I won't loose my mind if attractive woman is scanned or if an unattractive man is either. I consider that part of being a grown up.
People are way too uptight about both their sexuality and their 'security.' This is best thing that could happen to American hypocrisy. IMO
Fly Naked (Score:3, Interesting)
Just you wait until someone does blow up a plane and went through the body scanner. Sooner or later they will make a bomb from threads of C-4 or whatever, sew it into a set of pants and shirt, and then we'll have to fly naked because the TSA is scared of clothing.
They are already scared of shoes, toothpaste, hair gel, nail clippers, bottled water, yadda-yadd, ad-infinitum.
Here's what I don't get. We had the "shoe-bomber" which in turn, made the TSA remove and inspect our shoes. Then last year we had the "underwear-bomber"... So how come the TSA doesn't make us remove and inspect our underwear?
Just wait till some guy detonates a bomb he shoved up his ass. Then it's cavity searches for all.
And the airline industry will slowly crumble from pissed off passengers refusing to fly. Or we'll just accept it by that time, just as we now accept the humiliation we currently go through.
Re:Where can I sign up? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shopping in Walmart is definitely not a right, but I *do* have a right to not have my balls scanned or grabbed by Walmart staff when using their services.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my right to tell you to quit being afraid of your own shadow.
Re: (Score:2)
if you don't like how the system treats you for flying: you have a pair of legs for a reason. start walking.
Re: (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 t
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.
NO. Flying is a right, not a privilege. (Score:5, Interesting)
The framers of the Constitution of the US had a lively debate on whether or not to include the Bill of Rights. They felt that such an enumeration would lead to damaged thinking about how people get a specific set of rights, listed by a government, and anything else is "not a right." Your post is evidence that the concern was well founded.
I have the absolute and sovereign right to conduct transactions with any other party as I see fit. That includes paying an airline to provide travel services... or a boat company, or a train company, or gasoline vendors so I might power my car. These are my rights, just as providing those services are the rights of those individuals or entities.
The US federal government and its child governments have made decrees that our rightful ability to make such transactions should be hindered or outright prohibited (see drug and prostitution laws).
A free people, in a free country, could easily go about choosing to purchase travel services from whichever entities they choose, and be subject to agreed upon security arrangements with those entities. Some airlines could specialize in extensive strip-searchy, genital-feely security theatrics, and some could specialize on a more distributed "hand every non-drinking passenger a little baseball bat as they board" approach. Then you could exercise your "right to feel" safe, while the rest of us exercise our rights, sans conflict.
What you seek is less and less respect from government, in exchange for absolutely nothing other than a baseless "feeling" of security. Plenty of cowards felt the liquid ban made them safer... until the wannabe crotch-bomber showed them it meant nothing... Plenty of cowards will feel safer now that everyones genitals are felt or photographed, until the next elevation in this arms race. Then the cowards will be ready for the next bit of demeaning, useless, costly garbage, further hindering our freedoms and rights, such as travel at will within the borders of "our" supposed country.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like it doesn't penetrate very well and is better suited to finding spare change instead of explosives buried under the fold of a beer belly. You occasionally see shin bones or lungs, but nearly everything else below the skin is too diffused to see. And it doesn't work on shoes, either.
I personally don't mind, especially the ones that display a generic image instead of the actual image, I just think it is a waste of resources.
Re: (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 f
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good for a laugh, sure, but we all know that if they were actually charged along those lines, MSNBC would have Chris Hansen conducting entrapment operations at every pediatrician's office across the country.
For $deities sake please don't encourage him.
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: (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 ha
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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