×

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!

EPIC Files Motion About Ignored Body Scanner Ruling

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the naked-ambition dept.

Privacy 183

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a motion in court yesterday regarding the court's ignored year-old ruling on EPIC vs. DHS. EPIC is asking the court to require DHS to start taking public comment within 60 days or, as an alternative, forbid DHS from using body scanners in primary airport screening altogether. If the court orders the latter, that would give EPIC what it originally sought in its lawsuit. Meanwhile, for what it's worth, the related petition on whitehouse.gov has a little more than half the signatures it needs to get an official 'response.' The signing period ends on August 9."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

183 comments

Fool (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700625)

You are a fool if you think the DHS will ever get smaller or less invasive.

Re:Fool (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701147)

Why on earth is this modded down? I guess people don't like the bitter truth.

Re:Fool (4, Informative)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#40701889)

You are a fool if you think the DHS will ever get smaller or less invasive.

This may have been phrased abrasively. More informative would have been this little gem [whitehouse.gov] , that should tell you all you need to know about petitions
The "Abolish TSA" petition had successfully gathered a needed number of signatures and, as a reward, the director of TSA had copy-pasted what looks like a brochure that could be entitled "Why TSA is awesome and what are our plans for next 10 years"

The most galling part (besides the fact that TSA director responded to the abolish-TSA request) is the fact that he didn't feel the need to fake it and say "We are working to address some of your complaints." I am not surprised TSA is ignoring courts, too.
So, yeah, good luck with that next petition.

Re:Fool (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#40702059)

You are a fool if you think that any government agency or program will get smaller or less invasive without an all out battle.

Re:Fool (2)

CelticWhisper (601755) | about 2 years ago | (#40702111)

We can at least help stop them from getting MORE invasive and let them stagnate for a while. Below is a link to another White House petition to stop TSA from fulfilling their oft-touted plan to expand into rail travel "screening." For many, many reasons, not least of which is the fact that attacks against trains can happen anywhere along the tens of thousands of miles of tracks in the US, TSA screening at train stations is a really, really fucking stupid idea.

"We The People" requires petitions to hit 150 signatures before they're publicly visible. Please consider signing to at least help push it to that point.

(Disclaimer: I created this petition and also submitted it as a Slashdot story - it did not get accepted.)

http://wh.gov/Okf6 [wh.gov]

Re:Fool (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40702241)

True, but we don't have to make it easy for them. If we can't win, at least we can shame them at every opportunity.

LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700633)

Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!

-Typical conservative

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700715)

As a typical conservative, I'm opposed to forcing all airline passengers to choose between a full body porno scan or receive a groping from a TSA employee.

Tolling fail.

Re:LOL (-1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#40700949)

As a typical conservative, I'm opposed to forcing all airline passengers to choose between a full body porno scan or receive a groping from a TSA employee.

A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.
Except that those unAmerican pinko commie pedophile pirate terrorist pervert traitors at EPIC would be guaranteed to get the "rough" version of the groping. Repeatedly.

Re:LOL (4, Interesting)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#40701383)

A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.

Of course a real conservative would tell the government to fuck off with scanning, spying, and any warrentless invasive nonsense. And ignore liberal disinformation.

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

tycoex (1832784) | about 2 years ago | (#40701495)

I'm a conservative and I personally don't know any conservatives who like the TSA. We consider it another example of an overgrown government.

However, the conservatives I tend to be around are probably different than the type you are thinking of. Not all conservatives are rednecks living in trailers, just like not all liberals are actually hippies sitting around in drum circles.

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#40701637)

So, liberals don't like the TSA. Conservatives don't like the TSA. Why do we still have the TSA again?

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

harperska (1376103) | about 2 years ago | (#40701765)

Because the powers that be who serve neither the conservative interests nor the liberal interests but rather their own political interests happen to like the TSA.

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

KGIII (973947) | about 2 years ago | (#40702281)

Because they have managed to convinve you that those with opposing views and political ideologies are your enemy. Those in power fear unity and solidarity and are pleased as pie that the citizens are busy fighting with each other instead of actually paying attention. The best tool the government has in its arsenal is your partisanship and willingness to hate your fellow man. Yes, you. You personally.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702585)

I don't know, but please tell your Mom to stop entering and exiting the TSA secured areas until we agree to do a full body cavity search.

Thank you,
The TSA

Re:LOL (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#40701687)

As someone from Texas, I can tell you that the rednecks living in trailers hate the TSA as well. I have yet to find anyone outside of government that thinks the TSA is a good idea.

Re:LOL (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 2 years ago | (#40702445)

As someone from Texas, I can tell you that the rednecks living in trailers hate the TSA as well.

Except they are the ones working for TSA.

Re:LOL (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#40701969)

Just ignore it. It's a national sport of liberals to invent the most odious strawmen and tell conservatives, "This is what you think!" Seriously, once you become aware of it, you start noticing it everywhere.

Re:LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702029)

Just ignore it. It's a national sport of $POLITICAL_GROUP_A to invent the most odious strawmen and tell $POLITICAL_GROUP_B, "This is what you think!" Seriously, once you become aware of it, you start noticing it everywhere.

Re:LOL (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#40702559)

Nope! Not so. Start looking around. You'll see it's true. Start watching MSNBC on a regular basis. And seriously, have some original ideas instead of parroting.

Re:LOL (0)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40702005)

Genuine question, do you feel that the Republican party has abandoned conservatives such as yourself?

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#40702119)

I think that both parties have abandoned anything close to even giving a shit about what the people think.
They put out their spin with the knowledge that shitty education and addicting TV keep a high enough percentage of the Moo Cows inattentive and stupid enough to vote via talking points.
We get the government we deserve.

No (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702647)

*I* get the government *YOU* deserve.

If the stupid people did not vastly outnumber the smart people, this might not be true. But since the stupid people are the overwhelming majority, the government THEY deserve is imposed upon the rest of us.

Re:No (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#40702683)

We put up with it.
We have decided that it is not as of yet worth the personal cost to demand change.
When we do it will.
Till then it is only us who can make the change. Till we do we get what we deserve.

Re:LOL (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40702715)

In the US, self-described conservatives generally fall into at least 3 major groups:
1. Libertarians, who primarily believe that government should stay out of their business. Libertarian conservatives will oppose the TSA on the grounds that it infringes on personal liberty, and on the grounds that we have to pay for it. Other common libertarian-conservative positions include believing that taxes are too high and that people should be able to make any kind of contract that they want without government interference.

2. Authoritarians, who primarily believe that people who are in charge are in charge for good reason and should be followed. Major subgroups here would be the Religious Right, and military veterans who believe in the rightness of their cause. These folks generally support the TSA on the grounds that George W Bush was a good man and therefor must have been doing the right thing when he created it. Other common authoritarian-conservative positions include opposing abortion, and supporting the War on Drugs.

3. Group supremacists, who primarily believe that people who are like them are better than others and deserve to run things. These sometimes overlap with the authoritarians (e.g. Christian nationalists), but also include racists (which by most surveys comprise something like 10-15% of the US population). These folks vary: They like the fact that it's making life unpleasant for Arab Muslims, but dislike the fact that it's making life unpleasant for upstanding citizens like them. Other common group supremacist positions include support Christian prayers in public schools, English-only laws, and anti-Mexican immigration.

There are definitely overlaps between the groups, but you'll see arguments made from all 3 positions show up regularly in conservative circles.

And yes, liberals have similar divides. That's why boiling down all political positions to a 1-axis spectrum is stupid.

Re:LOL (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 2 years ago | (#40701825)

A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.

Actually, a *real* conservative would see it for what it is: a colossal waste of money with a marginal, at best, success rate. They'd advocate something that has a proven track record and costs a fraction of what the body scanners do: dogs. Make everybody go through a metal detector, and get a once-over from a drug dog and a bomb dog before they're allowed on the plane... everybody's actually safer, everybody feels safer, and you don't have to let a high school dropout look at a naked picture of yourself.

A fiscal conservative would say that, at least. Being a fiscal conservative, I can vouch for that. Being as socially liberal as they get, however, I guess the ultra-right wing neocons would lump me in the same category as the left-wingers. (gasp, you mean the government can actually *save* money by spending on education and social services? the devil, you say!)

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40702065)

Why a drug dog? Drug mules are the least likely people to make trouble on a flight, they don't want to call any attention to themselves at all. Because of that, there is no public safety interest to weigh against the 4th amendment.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702529)

He's a fiscal conservative -- fining drug mules is how the program pays for itself! j/k

The drug dogs do kinda give the lie to GP's "as socially liberal as they get" line, eh?

Re: cost of direct force (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702655)

If instead of this hi-tech stuff why not provide an armed guard on
the filght deck & some number of "hidden" armed guards in the passenger
area. use dogs & metal dectors in the terminal.

How long would it take for the added personal costs to
exceed the capital cost of the current TSA equipment?

Re:LOL (1)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40701051)

Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!

Yeah! The balmy tropical days under the palms, with cooling sea breezes and spectacular ocean views will break all but the most callous, inhumane terrorists!
But for those few who still cling to their criminal ways after a year-long tropical holiday, we'll use our secret weapons: A year a the Hotel Fontainebleau Miami Beach combined with a generous cash allowance and a Ferrari GT will break them. It never fails!

Re:LOL (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#40702081)

Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!

-Typical conservative

So...

Did you hear the news today? The guy who blew up that bus full of Israeli's yesterday in Burgas, was apparently a former Gitmo [rt.com] resident, who was sent back to Sweden. He was originally picked up in Afghanistan. Oops. To be fair, the government officials related to the case have refused to comment on this. And as a note, there are several dozen stories on this as well besides the one on RT. I'm just too lazy to link to something else, or something non-english. The Bulgarian media were the ones to release the information.

Re:LOL (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40702621)

And? Even if that's true, nothing about that changes any of the reasons that pre-crime is a horrible idea.

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700691)

I would like to file this First Post!

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701103)

well, Steve, you fucked this up like you fucked up that submission you made to me yesterday.

Stop reading slashdot and GBTW.

Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40700701)

So ask my not-so-smart alumni on facebook.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700709)

Than molested every day for the rest of my working life? Yes.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (3, Funny)

DeTech (2589785) | about 2 years ago | (#40700867)

molested every day for the rest of my life? Yes.

I know some people who would pay for that.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701205)

I depends. A curvy girl dressed as a naughty cop I think is something I could work with.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701331)

based on my experience, it's usually an overweight black guy or a possibly gay white man.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

Firehed (942385) | about 2 years ago | (#40701335)

Have you had an opt-out pat-down? If you can get off to that, I'd be impressed. They go out of their way to make it slow and embarrassing ("MALE OPT-OUT OVER HERE!") to hope you won't do it again, but even 1% of passengers doing it would probably overload the system.

Also, you *do* pay for it - there's a TSA fee in your airfare (it may be taked on or built-in)

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702415)

I've been opting out for, what, two years now? I've never been through one of those machines. I think the patdown stinks. I think if someone tried to do that without a badge they'd find their ass on the floor. And I feel essentially the exact opposite of embarassed when I proudly say, "Opting out!" in a loud, clear voice. Others seem so impressed that I often have the three or four people around me opt out as well, and, yes, we create a little clog in the security line (and several times, after is it clear that they are short on agents to do pat downs, I've been sent on my way WITHOUT one). Why, last week in Reagan the scanners were roped off - don't know why - and no one was going through them, and no one was getting pat downs. If that doesn't show us what nutso security theater it is, I'm not sure what will.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40700929)

Even if there was no security whatsoever on planes beyond a cursory visual inspection of passengers to make sure there weren't any guns or knives on the plane, it would still be safer than travel by car in terms of risk of death per miles travelled. Very few planes fall out of the sky because of bad piloting. A great many cars are as I am typing this right now crashing into other cars, catching fire due to poor maintenance, etc. And let's not forget that all of them are driven by "above average" drivers. -_-

Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically... My odds of dying in a freak accident at home are far higher than death by terrorist. If only my rubber ducky got as much government funding for it's potential to kill me as counter-terrorism does...

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | about 2 years ago | (#40701621)

Even if there was no security whatsoever on planes beyond a cursory visual inspection of passengers to make sure there weren't any guns or knives on the plane, it would still be safer than travel by car in terms of risk of death per miles travelled. Very few planes fall out of the sky because of bad piloting. A great many cars are as I am typing this right now crashing into other cars, catching fire due to poor maintenance, etc. And let's not forget that all of them are driven by "above average" drivers. -_-

Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically... My odds of dying in a freak accident at home are far higher than death by terrorist. If only my rubber ducky got as much government funding for it's potential to kill me as counter-terrorism does...

Scariness:

Sharks > Terrorism > Car Crash

Likelyhood:

Car Crash > Terrorism > Sharks

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701815)

Unless you surf...

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (2)

CelticWhisper (601755) | about 2 years ago | (#40702265)

Editor's note: The above comment does not account for fatality statistics involving laser-equipped sharks, land sharks, genetically-engineered supergenius sharks, or robot sharks.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (4, Insightful)

Tangential (266113) | about 2 years ago | (#40701639)

The days of hijacking a plane and flying it into a ground target are over. With the cockpit doors bolted and the passengers wary (and often pissed off) the only real chance a terrorist has is to blow up a plane and hope for some collateral damage on the ground. If they are reasonably determined, they can accomplish that without even being on board the aircraft.

So not only are you correct, statistically speaking, but it is incredibly hard to justify the dollars spent by the TSA. As a nation we make safety versus convenience and cost tradeoffs every day. This is no different and there's no way a terrorist event on a plane could cost the nation even a fraction of what we spend annually to theoretically prevent them from occurring.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (3, Funny)

element-o.p. (939033) | about 2 years ago | (#40702275)

...and the passengers wary (and often pissed off) the only real chance a terrorist has...

Dang...I never thought of that. TSA *IS* effective counter-terrorism, just not in the way I ever thought. They get the passengers pissed off before boarding the airplane, the more pissed off the better. Then, if someone *does* try to hijack or blow up an airliner in flight, the rest of the passengers, eager to vent their frustration on someone, ANYONE, rip the terrorist to shreds. Voila! Terrorism problem solved!

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702749)

Exactly. If I was a terrorist determined for whatever reason to kill approximately 250 people on an airplane, I'd just load up an 18-wheeler with my favorite explosive material, drive it through the flimsy gates that food service trucks go through to get on the tarmac and ram a taxiing plane in the nose.

There are more holes in the TSA's security theater than swiss cheese.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701801)

Your facts are insignificant. The masses are too stupid to grasp them, and governing officials on both sides of the fence play to this stupidy in their continued grabs for power.

If the government took all-and-only those measures that were actually reasonable in the wake of 9-11, the public would have booted every last one of them out of office for "failing to protect us."

Don't blame this mess on your politicians, blame it on your fellow voters.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#40701807)

Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically

The solution is obvious: We need TSA officials in every bathroom in America making sure you pass by a security checkpoint before getting into the bathtub. Sure, they'll be completely ineffective, but what other choice do we have if we want to win the War On Bathtubs?

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#40702413)

The solution is obvious: We need TSA officials in every bathroom in America

So what you're saying is we need a tinkle fairy [youtube.com] in every bathroom?

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702035)

I see the quote about risk of death per miles traveled and I wonder if that's another one of those sneaky statistical mis-directions. What would risk of fatality per vehicle trip look like? What is the risk of boarding a bus for the trip, vs flying your own airplane?

What I'd really care about, generally, is what the risk is of my dying for each of the alternatives for a single trip I might be planning.
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html has some interesting takes (caveat: I haven't validated the math used).

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702411)

If you really are an above average driver though then the statistics will look different. Radically different in some cases because the range is huge. The average driver is way down the scale from some drivers.

Generally speaking people are idiots that don't care about anything. Now think about how many people it takes to keep a plane in working order. Average and below people can trust them because well, it's at least as good or better than what they could do. For those very far above average then the odds don't seem so great.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#40701735)

More people in this country have won the lottery than have been killed by terrorists. Do you feel in imminent danger of winning the lottery?

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | about 2 years ago | (#40702217)

FWIW, your post is slightly ambiguous -- you ask a question in the subject, as if you think the answer should be, "No, of course not!" However, the body of your post suggests that you might really be commenting that the question in the subject isn't really what *you* think; it's what your "not-so-smart alumni on facebook" think.

I recognize your nick; you and I have often argued the same points (from the same side, just to be clear), so I suspect you are trying to state the latter rather than the former. However, since I've often heard people arguing from the point of view as your not-so-smart alumni, I think it bears mentioning that the question in your subject is based upon a false premise: EITHER get nudie-scanned and/or groped prior to boarding an airplane OR get blown up by terrorists. The fact, however, is that any given person has roughly a one in 30 million chance of dying in a terrorist attack in the United States. Therefore, the choice is actually 1) get nudie-scanned and/or molested by a TSA thug prior to boarding an airplane or 2) take the one in thirty million chance of being killed in a terrorist attack. Quite frankly, I'll take the extremely minimal risk over the certainty of being felt up by a (barely) trained, borderline psychotic monkey every single time, thanks.

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702615)

FWIW, your post is slightly ambiguous

Thank Poe's law for that, but FWIW it was entirely clear to me he was pointing out the false dichotomy by stating it -- under the (mostly correct IMO) assumption that /. is a room full of people smart enough to that you don't need to say "Look, the dichotomy, she is false!"

Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (1)

coats (1068) | about 2 years ago | (#40702607)

Measure the amount of travelers time that TSA costs in waking lifetimes, and then tell me which is more deadly: the terrorists or the TSA. Run the numbers and you'll see that the TSA is the most deadly terrorist organization on the planet.

Keep up the pressure (5, Insightful)

OldGunner (2576825) | about 2 years ago | (#40700705)

Like any political organization, TSA will only respond to pressure. The more points of pressure, the better. The petition is one point of pressure, the EPIC court petition is another. Letters to individual congress-critters would also help. Just keep up the pressure.

Re:Keep up the pressure (5, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 2 years ago | (#40700745)

It says a lot about government when a court order isn't enough pressure! Why do we bother following the rule of law again?

(I know. It's because it's actually the rule of force. Look up rhetorical in the dictionary.)

Re:Keep up the pressure (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#40700937)

Did you miss the part where Congress has the Consitutional power to define the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the federal judiciary and can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? When did you think they were ever beholden to court orders when it's the body given sole authority to create the courts and vest them with authority. The only thing Congress can't limit is anying that falls under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but that doesn't apply in this case.

Re:Keep up the pressure (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40700997)

I see your court order and raise you one national security handwave...

Re:Keep up the pressure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702097)

I see your court order and raise you one national security handwave...

You mean national security "finger-wave", don't you?

Re:Keep up the pressure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702579)

They could in theory fine (or punish) them in contempt of court for ignoring court order.

Sure, Sign the Petition for some "Extra Screening" (0)

SirBitBucket (1292924) | about 2 years ago | (#40700721)

Just put your name down on the list of travelers who get the full Monty of invasive security theatre, er... screening... I hear the TSA has hired a new batch of proctologists just for the petition signers...

Re:Sure, Sign the Petition for some "Extra Screeni (1)

SirBitBucket (1292924) | about 2 years ago | (#40701191)

Just put your name down on the list of travelers who get the full Monty of invasive security theatre, er... screening... I hear the TSA has hired a new batch of proctologists just for the petition signers...

Seriously, I would be a little concerned. Since they create those no-fly lists, etc. from all over the place, even the internet...

democracy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700727)

If everyone in one major airport on one day decided to refuse to submit to these scanners - a simple word-of-mouth campaign with leaflets handed out by people outside the airport would do the trick - a domino effect would mean they'd be eliminated nationwide by the end of the month.

But that would require people not to want them.

The problem ain't your reps - it's the people they rep.

Re:democracy (2)

OldGunner (2576825) | about 2 years ago | (#40700787)

Didn't that get attempted once, and IIR, TSA shut down the scanners for the day so no one could refuse.
They then claimed victory because on one complained.

Re:democracy (3, Informative)

MichaelJ (140077) | about 2 years ago | (#40700901)

Last year, day before Thanksgiving. They called it "Opt-Out Day."

Re:democracy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701497)

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar.

With feeling. [slashdot.org]

Re:democracy (1)

OldGunner (2576825) | about 2 years ago | (#40701725)

Perfect! Wonder how many read /. readers even know what you are referencing. You may have to submit an 8x10 glossy photo with circles and arrow and a paragraph on the back explaining the nature of the crime.

Re:democracy (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#40701803)

So should I add...

"I don't want you to grope my pickle.
I just want to ride my motor-cickle.
I don't want to die.
I just want to ride my motor-ci,
cle.

Re:democracy (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40702755)

You know, I think it would be kind of awesome to have a chorus of people in line for airport security to break out into a rousing chorus of Alice's Restaurant on Thanksgiving Day. I mean, if you did that, the "WTF?" factor would be high enough that people would take notice.

I'd participate, but I haven't taken a plane anywhere for several years precisely because I oppose the security measures.

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701509)

Your plan requires that people think enough to consider the consequences of their actions. Thus, it is infeasible.

Re:democracy (4, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#40702349)

If everyone in one major airport on one day decided to refuse to submit to these scanners - a simple word-of-mouth campaign with leaflets handed out by people outside the airport would do the trick - a domino effect would mean they'd be eliminated nationwide by the end of the month

Everyone who wasn't near the beginning of the line would miss their flight. Do you think the TSA people doing the frisking care if you miss your flight? The airline would blame you for not showing up early enough to make it through security. About all that would be accomplished would be a lot of inconvenienced travellers. You have to vote for political candidate who promise to do something about TSA, not cute shennanigans.

whitehouse.gov "petition" == LOLz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700743)

I'm convinced that site is there for the Whitehouse staff to have some laughs.

Re:whitehouse.gov "petition" == LOLz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702661)

Nope, it's there to provide a facade of "transparency", making people (who don't care enough to look deeper) feel good about the Obama administration and thus making them more likely to vote for him this fall.

Petition is worthless (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40700753)

The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value. There's no law compelling the President to respond, although he's stated a response will be made. Several responses to petitions have been little more than filler material -- utterly worthless from a public policy standpoint.

Does anyone here really believe Obama's going to risk appearing 'soft' on terrorism in an election year? Nothing is going to happen on this issue this year, no matter how many judgements, rulings, petitions, etc., are made -- the status quo very rarely changes during an election year. Every effort will be made to delay this until after November...

Re:Petition is worthless (2)

saveferrousoxide (2566033) | about 2 years ago | (#40701151)

Actually, if Obama really wants to win this election, he would get a LOT of support across party lines by signing an executive order banning the use of scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" (i think they call them) as a primary screening method until some demonstration of safety and usefulness was satisfied (which it wouldn't be). Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals would all sing his praises.

Re:Petition is worthless (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701575)

he would get a LOT of support across party lines by signing an executive order banning the use of scanners

The problem is, that doesn't seem to be true. 4 out of 5 Americans support the use of full body scanners.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html

There have been other polls about the same thing with slightly different results, but they all show a significant majority favor their use - such as this one with 2/3 in support: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112205514.html

Americans value the illusion very highly, and will trade almost any amount of freedom for it.

Re:Petition is worthless (2)

OldSport (2677879) | about 2 years ago | (#40701585)

Those petitions are *worse* than worthless: they give people the illusion of participatory democracy when in reality nothing tangible will ever come from them, and in doing so distract people from other forms of participation (writing representatives, say) that actually have tangible effects, however marginal.

As for the scanners, it always amazes me how the political party that is supposed to be all about individual freedom and liberty, personal privacy, and limited government consistently spearheads the erosion of those very same ideals. That the Republicans are not out in force against the use of these things is one of many signs that they are ideologically bankrupt.

Re:Petition is worthless (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about 2 years ago | (#40701705)

Does anyone here really believe Obama's going to risk appearing 'soft' on terrorism in an election year? Nothing is going to happen on this issue this year, no matter how many judgements, rulings, petitions, etc., are made -- the status quo very rarely changes during an election year. Every effort will be made to delay this until after November...

Honestly, I figure it would be beneficial for him to come out fully against the TSA. He's a democrat. The people who think that's equal to appearing soft on terrorism are the republicans, who are not going to vote for him anyway. He takes a stand against the TSA and he has most of the liberals, some of the republicans who see through the security theater, and a bunch of the libertarians. It's a win all around.

Not that I think he's going to do it, but it's not the election stopping him.

Re:Petition is worthless (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40702547)

The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value

I disagree. They are excellent examples of just how impoverished our democracy is.

Even the Italians got rid of them ... (1, Funny)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#40701043)

...the freakin' Italians ... bought them and ditched them, because they were found to be worthless (in terms of security value).

Cue circus sounds ...

Show "typical nuclear American" family participating in security theater...

Exit left with a loud sucking sound ... zoom out slightly to show two chins and a 48oz cola ... and a "man, I feel much better after getting my shoes back on after going through security."

Re:Even the Italians got rid of them ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701875)

Don't be ridiculous.

A 48oz cola would never make it through security.

Seriously? (1)

yt8znu35 (1202731) | about 2 years ago | (#40701161)

I'm all for the effort succeeding, but it won't. No one is going to create an account on whitehouse.gov and sign a petition that runs contrary to what the security state has in mind. "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists." Under the next administration, that member list is going to become a government shitlist. No thanks.

Ask yourself this: What good can come of getting an account on whitehouse.gov?

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701255)

Ask yourself this: What good can come of getting an account on whitehouse.gov?

Lots of spam from whitehouse.gov!!

Re:Seriously? (1)

yt8znu35 (1202731) | about 2 years ago | (#40701311)

May His Noodley Goodness forgive me for using your in place of you're.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701649)

May His Noodley Goodness also forgive you for forgetting to use quotation marks in your request for forgiveness.

Another imperial move by Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701447)

Oh, wait.....

you thought this was a democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702043)

wrong, bitch. the scanners stay.

Body scanners violate EU/US and US/Canada treaties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702331)

My problem is that the body scanners not only violate my American rights within my own country, but they violate the international data privacy treaties we signed with other nations.

Time to pull the plug on this Make Work For Scanner Manufacturers farce.

There's also a petition to shorten copyright terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702653)

...to 28 years. Might as well sign that too:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-restoration-copyrights-their-original-duration-28-years/Z7skGfKk

I've signed Whitehouse petitions... (4, Insightful)

BMOC (2478408) | about 2 years ago | (#40702825)

I haven't seen Obama or any of his administration comment on one of them. From the beginning they seemed to just be punting on most issues outside of health care. There was a huge swell of signers for the anti PIPA/SOPA petition, it easily hit the required number to get a response from Obama, but their reply was effectively a total dismissal of the issue.

Pure politics, the Democrats are just as afraid as the Republicans of standing up for a true human rights issue when they fear their big money supporters might be upset. Make no mistake, internet freedom is a human rights issue.

Load More 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...