×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court Denies EPIC's Rehearing Request, Awards Fees

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the good-thing-I'm-on-the-no-fly-list dept.

Security 30

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center posted a news release about the DC Circuit Court awarding them attorneys fees yesterday. They are to receive $21,482 in attorneys fees for an open government lawsuit against DHS that ultimately released documents about DHS's airport body scanner program. EPIC used these released documents in EPIC v. DHS, another lawsuit that attempts to end the use of airport body scanners. At the end of an e-mailed version of this news release (EPIC Alert 18.18, not yet posted on the Web), EPIC states that 'EPIC requested an en banc review of the court's decision not to suspend, but, on September 12, 2011, the court declined the request.' Is this the end of EPIC v. DHS, or does this simply open the door for an appeal to the Supreme Court?" The complete ruling (PDF) is available.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

30 comments

Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (1, Interesting)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37390608)


The use of the DHS body scanners is a crime against everything we hold dear as Americans. When you fly, you should insist on a manual body search by one of the DHS security people. It may take more time, but if you allow yourself just an extra 10-15 minutes you'll make your flight AND be radiation free!

The DHS scanner ("Cancer Coffins") hammer your body from all angles with radiation. This particular frequency penetrates your clothing and the top few layers of thinner skin. The radiation causes neurological, DNA, and RNA damage. If the right chromosome gets mutated by these devices... congratulations! You have cancer! Off to the Oncologist to get cut up by his butcher knives and prescribed all sorts of ineffective drugs.

If the radiation hits a nerve the wrong way... hurrah! You have a subluxation! The double-whammy with this is that the initial subluxation is very small, they're call micro-subluxations for a reason. What happens next is throwing fuel on the fire: you sit in an airplane virtually motionless for hours on end. At the end of a 4 hour flight, the once virtually undetectable subluxation has morphed into something causing nerve blockages in a large area of your back. Ever feel sore in the back after sitting for a long period? That's the exact same thing at work. When you stretch and feel things pull, you're effectively breaking smaller subluxations. That's why a good stretch feels darn great! For larger problems where stretching won't do, you need to see a reputable Chiropractor who will treat the subluxation with due diligence.

If you are are one of the DHS employees working near these scanners, there are ways you can protect yourself against the subluxation-causing effects of the radiation. Being that this particular type of radioactivity doesn't penetrate far into the skin, you can apply a silver-empregnated bandage down your back. They look similar to an "Elastoplast" brand bandage but are 6" across and come in rolls. The outside has a metallic shine, that's the active silver which protects the wearer.

Have a partner start the bandage at the Coccyx ("Tailbone" for the lay-person) and apply it all the way up to the top of C1, the vertebrae at the base of the skull. There's no need to have the bandage between the buttocks as the fat there keeps the radiation from getting further, so start just above. Keep the spine centered in the middle of the bandage all the way up to the skull. [Of course this won't help prevent cancer, only subluxations!]

If you still feel stiff in the back after taking these precautions, visit a Chiropractor before things progress too far. Tell the Doctor you work around the DHS radiation scanners. He or she will know where to look for the tell-tale signs of vertebral subluxation and should be able to treat it before more serious issues arise.

Take care,
Bob.

Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37390842)

Uh, dude... hate to tell you this... but I think you got in too big a hurry and copied and pasted the wrong text for your GNAA first post.

Better luck next time.

Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (2)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37390914)


The article is about the lawsuits concerning the DHS scanners.
I am simply hoping to inform those who think for themselves, not those who believe everything The Government and Big Pharma tell them.

Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391596)

You're a lying quack who should be sitting in a prison sell for defrauding your witless "patients".

Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37397690)

You know he's joking, right? Like the Pizza Analogy Guy.

Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37390936)

Let me guess - these "micro-subluxations" are sooo small that only your licensed chiropractor can see them? What do I win?

Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37390992)

Chiropractor

I stopped reading right there.

Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (2)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391006)

Dammit Dr. Bob, while you're screwing around over here, there's actual people in distress that need your expertise over in this thread [slashdot.org]!

Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391404)

So, I guess I shouldn't have an X-Ray done either, huh?

...yeah, yeah, I know. Don't feed the trolls.

SMBC sums it up well. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37390670)

Re:SMBC sums it up well. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37390952)

...That is the second time I have seen that linked today, on another forum on a 9/11 remembrance thread...

But I don't really see how it applies to this topic.

Re:SMBC sums it up well. (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391158)

10 years and 2 days ago, you walked through a metal detector, showed your boarding pass and got on the plane. Five years ago, you walked through a metal detector, electronics get checked for explosives, showed your boarding pass and ID and got on a plane.

Today, you go through a metal detector, an X-Ray machine, take off your shoes, get hand checked so thoroughly that sexual abuse victims have panic attacks at the thought of going through security, show an ID, boarding pass, get checked against at least 3 government DBs, get on the plane and hope that you don't have a case of diarrhea on the plane (lest they scramble F16s for your "unusually long bathroom break").

And you don't see the point that the comic is using satire to communicate?

Re:SMBC sums it up well. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391516)

That last line was added after that comment sat idle for 15 minutes, somewhat lost track of what I was posting.

No real surprise (3)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37390868)

Nowadays, whenever somebody sues the government, particularly those agencies that deal with military or law enforcement, for breaking its own laws, the executive branch just says "National security requires we can't reveal the information that would allow us to defend this case" and the judiciary is happy to throw out the suit. This response seems to be true even if the information in question was previously on the front page of major newspaper, and the only reason the executive is claiming the "state secrets" privilege is because it's plainly guilty.

It's not the fault of all federal judges, because all this kind of thing requires is 5 SCOTUS judges willing to go along with it.

Re:No real surprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37391012)

...because all this kind of thing requires is 5 SCOTUS judges willing to go along with it.

Which, oddly enough, we happen to have right now.

Re:No real surprise (2)

Saxophonist (937341) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391484)

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with this case.

SCOTUS has already decided [supremecourt.gov] that the reason for which the trial court upheld the denial of EPIC's FOIA request is no longer valid. Unfortunately, the ruling did not come in time to help EPIC, whose attorneys apparently knew about the case before the Supreme Court but did not appeal EPIC's case in the allowed time for appeal.

See the linked decision.

Re:No real surprise (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37392622)

They should word it "We can't defend this case without endangering National Security", which can be true even if they can't defend the case at all.

My Cynicism runs High (1)

fortfive (1582005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37390940)

And I highly doubt the Supremes will rule differently, if they agree to hear it at all.

Re:My Cynicism runs High (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391016)

would be a nice opportunity to set a SCOTUS precedent though....

Re:My Cynicism runs High (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393928)

So you believe they'll second that emotion?

Re:My Cynicism runs High (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37395078)

The idea these scanners may be put to pasture as the invasive, dangerous machines they are is what keeps me hangin' on.

No, no doors were opened in this ruling. (2, Informative)

Saxophonist (937341) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391034)

Read the opinion linked from the summary. The basis of the ruling denying the motion for reconsideration was that it was untimely and filed after the deadline for appeal. EPIC had options to delay the ruling in their case pending the outcome of Milner v. Department of the Navy in the Supreme Court, and apparently, the attorneys for EPIC knew about that case. So, the underlying reason that EPIC lost initially was overturned by the Supreme Court, but because EPIC did not appeal within sixty days, they have no further relief. The relevant appellate court would dismiss the appeal as untimely, so it would never get to a petition for certiorari.

Re:No, no doors were opened in this ruling. (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391560)

Please excuse what may be a silly question (IANAL, nor do I play one on /.), but what would that mean for an appeal to a higher court (SCOTUS, I believe, but I could easily be mistaken)?

Re:No, no doors were opened in this ruling. (2)

Saxophonist (937341) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391682)

I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that EPIC would have to appeal (to the relevant Court of Appeals -- I'm not sure what that is officially called for the D.C. Circuit) and lose before they could make a petition for certiorari, which is a petition to persuade the Supreme Court to hear their case. EPIC can't even appeal because they missed the deadline for doing so. That means they don't get to appeal to the Supreme Court either.

Re:No, no doors were opened in this ruling. (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391944)

to the relevant Court of Appeals -- I'm not sure what that is officially called for the D.C. Circuit

It's the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Re:No, no doors were opened in this ruling. (4, Informative)

OverTheGeicoE (1743174) | more than 2 years ago | (#37391714)

The opinion linked in the summary is not for the case seeking to suspend airport body scanners. The opinion linked here is for a case where EPIC tried to force DHS to release additional documents about body scanners. It does not address the suspension lawsuit at all. All we know about the suspension suit is that, according to information in an e-mail from EPIC, the request for a rehearing was denied.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...