×

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!

Appeals Court Caves To TSA Over Nude Body Scanners

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the privilege-of-free-movement-and-assembly dept.

Security 169

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently filed a petition to force the Department of Homeland Security to start its public comment period on body scanners within 60 days or stop using them entirely. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has issued its ruling (PDF), and has refused EPIC's petition. DHS told the court earlier that it expected to have a formal rule proposal on body scanners by the end of February, so the court denied EPIC's motion on the expectation that public comment period would start by late March. TFA and this submission have a pessimistic headline on this ruling, but other sources seem to think the glass is half-full, and that EPIC in effect got what it wanted. Is this a victory or a defeat? Will the rulemaking process start on time, or will a TSA dog eat the proposed rule in late March and force further delay?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

169 comments

Sounds like defeat (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466433)

If it means we still have the TSA and their nudie scanners then we all lose, whether we realize it or not.

Re:Sounds like defeat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466483)

Flying is a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies, or find another way to travel. It's really that simple. Quit whining and just go through it. Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

Re:Sounds like defeat (5, Insightful)

tilante (2547392) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466597)

Governing is a privilege, not a right. The government needs to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the Constitution, or find another way to accomplish their ends. It's really that simple. Quit making excuses and just do it.

Re:Sounds like defeat (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467177)

The problem is that voting is a right not a privilege. As such people don't bother to worry about things like "facts" when they vote.

Nice in theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467277)

In practice, governors like having power, and will not relenquish power based on theories and principles, no matter how loftly.

The *only* thing they respond to is direct pressure applied by huge numbers of people. That is *it*.

A legal proceeding performed by a small (and non-rich) special interest group, no matter how legally sound, will have no effect at all. Until people protest and buycott in sufficient numbers, the scanners are here to stay.

Re:Sounds like defeat (5, Informative)

kiriath (2670145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466599)

So being seen naked / groped-by-strangers is a valid requirement for flying and we should all just get over it?

You're a moron.

Re:Sounds like defeat (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466657)

I'm convinced these full body scanners are less about security and more about ensuring wealth doesn't leave the country. When the shit hits the fan, people wanting to leave and take their fortunes converted into say diamonds, will not be able to take them with them.

For years you could only take up to $10,000 in cash/valuables to a foreign country. Diamonds were the only way to take more. If these scanners proliferate that will be the end of that.

Food for thought in our future police state.

Re:Sounds like defeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467145)

Wrong. You can take as much money as you want out of the country, you just need to report amounts over $10,000 by filling in a form.

Re:Sounds like defeat (3, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467213)

I'm convinced these full body scanners are less about security and more about ensuring wealth doesn't leave the country. When the shit hits the fan, people wanting to leave and take their fortunes converted into say diamonds, will not be able to take them with them.

For years you could only take up to $10,000 in cash/valuables to a foreign country. Diamonds were the only way to take more. If these scanners proliferate that will be the end of that.

Food for thought in our future police state.

If you've got that much money you can hire a jet. Or take them across a land border.

Re:Sounds like defeat (2)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466867)

Where in the US constitution does it say it is legal to give up your rights to some semblance of privacy to enjoy such privileges as being allowed to travel around the country. And the TSA has been seen at bus depots and train stations before now too.

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466645)

Not yours, but what about your sister, or mom, or nana? There are some sick bastards in this world and we have already seen what sick bastards with a little power do. Just look at the current TSA outrages against personal dignity.

I haven't flown since this scanner bullshit started, but I think that when I refuse the scanner I'll inform the TSA manager that if your thug gropes my nuts I'm returning the favor with a closed fist. There is a right to defend oneself from sexual assault, and that is what this. I've been frisked by police and GSA Security and they were professional courteous and apologetic. There is no reason for this kind of invasive procedure by untrained thugs (sounds like a back alley colonoscopy).

Captcha = duress, how fitting

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466709)

I've opted out several times. Never once has the agent patting me down seemed to enjoy the process, and they have all been apologetic, and announce to you what they are going to do before they do it.

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage (4, Funny)

dubbreak (623656) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466767)

Never once has the agent patting me down seemed to enjoy the process...

We'll if you're the average slashdotter I can't see how they would enjoy it.

"Sorry sir, I'm going to have to move your beard aside so I can..."

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467917)

Do you really think those that would enjoy it are going to stand there with raging boner and a smirk on their face the whole time?

Re:defeat my ass, sounds like outrage (3, Informative)

mellon (7048) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467731)

Oh please. This is a lame argument against these scanners. There are two good arguments against them:

1. They don't work.
2. They are more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

Do you honestly think anyone wants to see your junk on one of these things? Have you seen the images they produce? _Not_ chubby-inducing.

Re:Sounds like defeat (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466779)

Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

Then why ARE they ogleing my naked outline?

Re:Sounds like defeat (5, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466801)

OK, I'll feed the trolls today.

Flying is a privilege, not a right.

Having the government force you to submit to a search to complete your travel is a violation of several rights. Driving is "not a right" either. Should the government force you into a search before you get behind the wheel. By your logic, as long as walking is permitted all other modes of travel are available for infringement.

Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

If that is all that was at stake, it would be a different conversation.

It's really that simple.

No, it is not. But you seem to be.

Re:Sounds like defeat (5, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466931)

By your logic, as long as walking is permitted all other modes of travel are available for infringement.

If they start searching for all non-walking modes of transportation, why do you think they will stop at walking?

Re:Sounds like defeat (2)

mr1911 (1942298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466963)

If they start searching for all non-walking modes of transportation, why do you think they will stop at walking?

I don't.

Re:Sounds like defeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468435)

Driving is "not a right" either.

Technically wrong I'm afraid. We have the fundamental right to do anything not forbidden by law, and then we have laws that limit our rights in certain ways. The laws limit our right to driving in such ways as requiring that you hold a valid license, that you are not intoxicated, that you do not travel above an indicated speed, etc.

Take away all laws involving driving, and we would still be able to drive.

Re:Sounds like defeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468531)

Driving is "not a right" either. Should the government force you into a search before you get behind the wheel.

I don't think they should, but they do [wikipedia.org] .

Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] (5, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466873)

Flying is a privilege, not a right.

Well, yes, that is true; however, the government (which is making these rules) belongs to us. Do we chose to have intrusive searches using mostly-unproven technology? What our choice in the matter of giving away our privacy in the battle between fear and freedom?

You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies, or find another way to travel. It's really that simple.

And, likewise, the TSA needs to "abide by the rules as set forth by the governing bodies, which, as far as I can see requires a period of public comment, something that the TSA has failed to do. So, if somebody is "failing to abide by the rules," it apparently is the TSA

Quit whining and just go through it. Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

Whether you, anonymous coward, choses to think that somebody else's privacy concerns, or safety concerns, are valid or not is not your business

Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] (2)

s.petry (762400) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467467)

What you say is true, however it's a tough road to get back to where we need to be. Media has become simply propaganda, and most people listen to them. More and more people are finding alternative news, but will we have enough people awake before the proverbial shit hits the fan? I'm not so sure. I have hope mind you, but I have no confidence.

Socrates stated that politicians should be elected from those that showed no ambition or inclination to hold office. He was correct.

Socrates also stated that the education of the police and military was critical, and if they were corrupted government would fail and become tyranny and oligarchy. We now see the results from years of bad education. In addition to this, the government has been found to be hiring police with below average IQs and specific dispositions we would consider psychopathic and authoritarian.

Hell, we have known how to do things correctly for over 3,000 years. Do you think there are those that have figured out how to break things when they work correctly? Frankly, I'm amazed at how well they are doing and how so many are completely apathetic (or completely clueless) to what's going on.

Re:Breaking the rules [Re:Sounds like defeat] (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467711)

The process has become, that ugly place where the court has stated that they must start the comment period sometime before March of 2013.

Socrates aside, one can still opt out, and as mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be no pleasure taken in the procedurally advised frisk.

I don't agree that it's a good practice for many reasons, a lot of them presuming guilt, invasion of privacy and dignity, and so forth. But the constitutionally prescribed process is underway, although the TSA has been given too much time to comply. An enormous event occurs if/when the xray machines are removed, and I'm hoping they don't replace it with something even more draconian or fraught with travel delays or indignities. That's the message that I hope isn't lost. Yes, I like airport security, but better ways must be found of dealing with the issues than what the TSA does now.

Re:Sounds like defeat (5, Informative)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466923)

Flying is a privilege, not a right.

Wrong.

Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

This comes out of the common law right to freedom of movement which includes the use of conveyances appropriate to the time. Our modern society operates on the assumption of a right to air travel.

Re:Sounds like defeat (2, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467037)

Flying is a privilege, not a right.

Wrong.

Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

This comes out of the common law right to freedom of movement which includes the use of conveyances appropriate to the time. Our modern society operates on the assumption of a right to air travel.

The way I read it is that your are perfectly within your inalienable rights to flap your arms hard enough to take off. Getting on a commercial aircraft, well, not so much.

Re:Sounds like defeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467119)

Getting on a commercial aircraft, well, not so much.

I get off on showing my junk to random people at body scanners. I'd have been pissed if I lost that right. I always work my way up to at least a semi before I walk through. Good times.

Re:Sounds like defeat (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467519)

Wow. That reminds me... need to pop a viagra before the next time I pass through one so I have a raging megahard boner.

Re:Sounds like defeat (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467565)

"I'm going to be using the back of my hand and will feel between the knee and your groin until I meet resistance."

"DO I LOOK LIKE I MIND" *Cue crazy eyes*

Re:Sounds like defeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468205)

A commercial airline is a business. I give them money, they let me on the plane. This is a legal and valid contract between two willing participants.

Re:Sounds like defeat (1)

Eldragon (163969) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467023)

...Says the person that doesn't even want to put their name on a slashdot post.

Top notch, Anonymous Coward.

Re:Sounds like defeat (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467215)

Flying is a privilege, not a right.

Please clarify. What does that even mean?

How does one travel if every mode of transportation is a privilege that can be trivially revoked? Is travel then also a privilege?

Is walking "right"? Or is it too a privilege?

You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies, or find another way to travel.

Are you alluding to the tired argument of needing a license to drive? And that a drivers license is not a right?

Because I'm fine with that. But I don't need a drivers license to be a passenger in a taxi. I don't need to submit to government checks. I don't need to carry identification.

Is taxi travel a priviledge? Can it be revoked?

How exactly is plane travel different from taxi or bus travel? I enter a privately operated vehicle as a passenger, and I sit there.

Trust me, nobody really wants to ogle your naked outline.

What about my daughter's?

Re:Sounds like defeat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468127)

" But I don't need a drivers license to be a passenger in a taxi. I don't need to submit to government checks. I don't need to carry identification."

Actually depending on the state you live in and the color of your skin you do need to carry identification (even if your walking).

Re:Sounds like defeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467227)

Traveling in this country is a right not a privilege. Due to the size of our country flying may turn out to be a right, but until the supreme court rules on it, you saying it's a privilege is not entirely accurate.

Re:Sounds like defeat (4, Informative)

DRJlaw (946416) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467441)

Flying is a privilege, not a right.

Perhaps this is an unduly pithy response, but I'm compelled to say "citation needed."

It is often said that driving is a privilege, and not a right. However, that particularly pithy remark has only been offered when someone wishes to operate a vehicle -- not merely to ride in a vehicle, and certainly not merely to ride in licensed commercial passenger vehicles.

Your ordinary air traveler is not a pilot, and is not demanding the "right" to operate the aircraft. Nor is the government operating the aircraft and merely reserving the "right" to offer its services to whom it chooses. The government is exercising a police power to regulate, and potentially negate, travel arrangements made between two private parties.

Finally, you may wish to review the actual "rules of the road" as set forth by the governing bodies. 49 USC 40103 [cornell.edu] states that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace," and complements that pesky thing referred to as the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). While reasonable restrictions are permitted (as in all aspects of even enumerated rights under U.S. Constitution), freedom of movement is not merely a privilege subject to the whim of the soverign.

Quit whining and just go through it.

The battle cry of the authoritarian. You shall not challenge the rules; no reasonable person would have an opinion different than mine; I will not abuse the rules despite them giving me and my agents a clear opportunity to do so.

Re:Sounds like defeat (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468543)

people use to make fun of communists for their "show me your paper" paranoia. What is your excuse?

Re:Sounds like defeat (1)

oracleofbargth (16602) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468713)

Rights are a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the requirements set forth by the governing bodies, or find another country to live in. It's really that simple.

/sarcasm

Re:Sounds like defeat (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466561)

Yes, we'll all lose, but the problem isn't nudity.
The problem is that the TSA acts as an extended arm of the DHS, and as such are constitutionally bound to the 4th amendment.
The border search exception does not apply to domestic flights, and the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.

Re:Sounds like defeat (4, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467261)

the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.

Aren't you being a little naive?

Re:Sounds like defeat (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467679)

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS trumps the Constituion whenever they feel like it.

Re:Sounds like defeat (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467427)

If it means we still have the TSA and their nudie scanners then we all lose, whether we realize it or not.

Seriously,

If they can push this tech to the point where we see it in Total Recall (the original, haven't seen the remake so don't know if it is in there). I would absolutely love it, I would be thrilled to be able to go through airport security that quickly, YIPPEEE!!!!

Besides, I can't really see how anybody would be either offended by or excited by these images... I mean seriously I know there are strange psychopathic individuals out there, but then are they really any different the the strange psychopathic individuals excited by shoes, socks, mud, etc...

Re:Sounds like defeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467673)

Why would the US government get rid of their child porn machines? Doesn't their history of exploitation require such implements? Images not stored, blah blah blah. Facial recognition requires data be stored, and that is an obvious next step. The data stored may not be image data, but could probably be used to reconstruct a virtual model. Then there will be money-making opportunities for coordination with Hollywood. Just think, actors that don't need to be paid, but 3d models that can represent any true crimials that might be the subject of future films.

Slashdot vs Impartiality (5, Insightful)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466485)

Impartial: "Appeals Court Rules that..."
Slashdot: "Appeals Court Caves To TSA Over Nude Body Scanners"

I have no dog in this fight, but the idea that some court "caved" to an agency rather than ruling on the merits of the case based on their particular principled and reasoned views (which you or I might not happen to personally like or agree with) sounds like conspiracybabble that should have no place on slashdot.

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466577)

... that should have no place on slashdot.

There are lots of things that have no place on slashdot.

Increasingly, I realize I refer to myself.

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality (2)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467313)

... that should have no place on slashdot.

There are lots of things that have no place on slashdot.

Increasingly, I realize I refer to myself.

No! If Anonymous Coward leaves, who'll entertain us with decent trolls?

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality (3, Insightful)

DanTheStone (1212500) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466609)

You might not know this, but we the Internet share many views [popvox.com] . One is that the TSA scanner stuff is ineffective, a waste of money, and potentially dangerous.

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality (5, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466719)

There's no need to be impartial when one side is clearly wrong.

Fact: the court caved (5, Informative)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467137)

I suggest reading up on this case a bit...

In November 2010, EPIC sued DHS because the body scanners suck. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/05/158250/epic-files-lawsuit-to-suspend-airport-body-scanner-use [slashdot.org]

In July 2011, a court found that DHS had improperly deployed the scanners by not providing a period for public comment. The court allowed the scans to continue on the condition that they have a public comment period. http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/07/17/0143233/Court-Approves-TSA-Body-Scans-But-Calls-For-Public-Comment [slashdot.org]

By July 2012, there had STILL not been a public comment period. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/11/2113239/dhs-still-stonewalling-on-body-scanning-ruling-one-year-later [slashdot.org]

And here we are, September 2012, and the appeals court says look, I know DHS was told to do public comment and it's been over a year and they still haven't done it, but they promise they're really going to do it this time in March 2013, so we're going to take their word for it even though they ignored the previous court order for a public comment period.

Any characterization other than "cave" fails to describe the situation in historical context.

Re:Fact: the court caved (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468357)

How about consequences for failure? Like for instance, firing the top 3 levels of the Department with cause for non-compliance, starting with Big Sis. Followed by complete disbanding of the TSA and firing all the pretend-a-cops.Keep firing people until they either comply, or nobody works there. We tried the carrots, now its time for sticks.

Re:Slashdot vs Impartiality (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467247)

In the long run, I think your point is valid. But the sterility of a purely objective interpretation of a too-often unfair world beholding too many aspects for any group to contemplate, would have its own consequences. Surely human fallibility necessitates objectivity be a pillar of our perception if we wish to maintain any measure of sanity. While such can hopefully remain a social value, some subjects may warrant a touch of self-expression. A purely objective tone can be ineffectual under some circumstances. It could be argued that in order to increase the value of objectivity, experiences such as those of war-veterans should be interpreted and conveyed through someone who has never been to war -- and it could certainly be argued otherwise; or, that holocaust survivors should be heard only through proxy -- or again, otherwise and in-between.

Though I do not promote the habitually biased, it doesn't seem to be a problem here at all. I also find that -- especially where sufficient data is supplied -- the responsibility of objectivity rests at least as much in the listener as the teller, if not more. On the subject of the TSA, more than a formidable portion of the citizenry have unfortunately acquired rightfully-held subjective bias. Since we as citizens fund them directly or inadvertently, a negative tone seems foretold. Now, if we could only get the DHS and other strange appendages of our government to be more objective, we might more easily reciprocate.

List of Airports to Avoid (2)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466541)

Is there an updated list of the airports that use the scanners, so we can avoid giving them our business?

Re:List of Airports to Avoid (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466583)

Do the airports have any choice in the matter?

Re:List of Airports to Avoid (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466745)

I don't know, nor do I care. I want to put economic pressure on the airports and airlines. I already avoid air travel as much as possible. When I absolutely have to fly, knowing which airports have the scanners (and therefore the molestation-pat-down searches for people who refuse to go through them) would help me decide how to plan my business travel.

Re:List of Airports to Avoid (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466807)

How can you avoid an airport if you have to travel for business? Everywhere you go and come from has multiple airports?

Re:List of Airports to Avoid (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468045)

Take the bus or the train. If you travel to the DC area, and know one airport (Dulles) has scanners, maybe find out if BWI or DCA doesn't. Maybe you fly for part of your journey, and take the train or rent a car for the last leg. I've flown to Charlotte, NC, and driven to SC for business.

Re:List of Airports to Avoid (1)

leppi (207894) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467585)

It's a TSA regulation (and other governments have similar authorities). The airports and airlines don't have say about where the scanners are placed. If you search google you will find a list of airports, but they are probably out of date (idk?).

That said: you can opt out and get a pat-down, just like you would at the smaller airport. Just do that?

Re:List of Airports to Avoid (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468083)

I've done that. I've opted out, insisted it was in public (no private screening) so other passengers would see (everyone looked uncomfortable). I've made clear to the TSA officials doing the pat down that I would let them know if they acted inappropriately. Having been through the experience - I felt like a criminal. It was an invasion of personal space, privacy, and I felt disgusting afterwards. All because I didn't want to go through the x-ray machine like a good citizen.

Re:List of Airports to Avoid (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468177)

So let's say you live in Chicago and have business in Miami. Let's also say that Miami has scanners while Chicago doesn't. How are you going to plan your business? Fly to Miami from Chicago then rent a car and drive back?

Yes (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466933)

Is there an updated list of the airports that use the scanners, so we can avoid giving them our business?

Here I have the set of airports that do not have the body scanners:

{ }

Opt out if they concern you, just get there 30 min early (just in case, it usually doesn't take that long).

If your goal is really economic pressure that is the way to pressure them, travel normally but do not use the scanners and if enough people do so the use of them is economically impractical. I hope to see them vanish within five years.

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467371)

Here I have the set of airports that do not have the body scanners:

{ }

Not really true. I live in Tucson and our airport doesn't yet have the scanners. I'd guess there are other smallish airports around the country that also don't have them yet.

However I'm sure it's only a matter of time and I agree, widespread opting out is likely the only way to make them disappear given how the court rulings have been going.

Bad Track Record (4, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466547)

What happens when the TSA does not turn in their formal report in February?

Re:Bad Track Record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466675)

If I were an airport owner, I'd declare them an illegal organization and remove them as I'd remove all persons engaging in illegal activity from my premises.

Re:Bad Track Record (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467335)

If I were an airport owner, I'd declare them an illegal organization and remove them as I'd remove all persons engaging in illegal activity from my premises.

They'd revoke your certificate to operate, airlines would abandon you, and you'd go out of business.

Re:Bad Track Record (4, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466747)

What happens when the TSA does not turn in their formal report in February?

Why, the DoJ Inspector General police force will promptly confiscate all scanners, and the DHS Inspector General will take authority over the TSA during senate investigations of the TSA overstepping their authorities.

Re:Bad Track Record (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466855)

According to TFA, by the time February comes around, 19 months would have passed since the court order. So far, there has been little bark and no bite.

Re:Bad Track Record (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466765)

What happens when the TSA does not turn in their formal report in February?

They'll get a very stern talking to and told they "better not do it again, and I mean it this time!" while getting a few more (b/m)illions from Congress to funnel towards some congressman's drinking buddy. So, same as always happens.

It's the media's support (5, Insightful)

jd659 (2730387) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466607)

The problem is not the specific ruling, but rather the media’s brainwashing of population that body scanners somehow increase the security. Most people do not know that you can opt out of body scanners and the general thinking now became that the scanners are good.

I fly about three times a week and I have never gone through a body scanner. A little known fact is that once more people opt out of body scanners, the security lines grow quickly and the scanners get closed in favor of faster metal detectors. As long as the people are OK with body scanners at the airport, there’s very little that can be done in a court.

Re:It's the media's support (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466811)

Not sure the media is "brainwashing" people into accepting them so much as "Most people have accepted them and none of the media really cares to beat a dead horse, they'd rather focus on which politician said which soundbite, because that's what people pay attention to."

It's not a conspiracy, it's just apathy.

Re:It's the media's support (5, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467401)

I was out in Orlando for work in April and LA in May. At MSP (my home airport) and MCO we had a choice in scanner methods, in LA we didn't. I refused to use the scanner, instead opting for the manual pat down.

At MCO I was through the "traditional" scanner method quickly, 10 minutes faster than my coworkers who got their chromosomes scrambled. In LA, I was 30 seconds behind my coworker.

It's not fucking worth it to use the scanners. IMO we should all be opting out and forcing the TSA to work harder to get the job done. If people stood up against the intrusion it would be far more effective than the courts telling them to do X and them ignoring it.

They can't as easily ignore an airport full of VERY angry passengers waiting in long lines to do it the "hard" way.

Re:It's the media's support (5, Insightful)

jd659 (2730387) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468073)

The opt out process is not bad at all in the US. I always do that. The airport in Amsterdam may get nasty, I had to spend five minutes to explain that I do not want to go through a body scanner (I was the only one opting out).

Regardless of that, every time I go through security I have my video cameras ready along with the printouts from TSA site authorizing the use of video equipment:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm [tsa.gov]

I take it as my civil duty to record any irregularities.

same here. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466987)

I opt out too.

And, when it was in the news that the TSA were looking for people who act "suspiciously" - like avoiding eye contact - I started going out of my way to make eye contact - I stare them down until THEY turn their heads. I do the same to cops.

I go in with the attitude of "go ahead fuck with me" because you fuckers step one toe out of line, we're on the 5 O'clock news and internet with a headline along the lines of "TSA fucks over yet another innocent traveler with their stupidity".

And I'd like to add the best things that were out there, the explosives detectors, were removed because they were a "maintenance nightmare" according to a TSA agent I asked - GE makes them. They were great: they had a metal and explosives detector in one and it took 30 seconds - no strip search. Because let's face it, the only REAL threat now is just bombs. The metal detector will get the guns and as far as ceramic knives - please, they'll get their heads bashed in before they could do anyting and the reinforced cockpit doors will keep them out.

I guess GE should hire ex-TSA or DHS heads for lobbyists next time.

Re:same here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467417)

I was passing a device looking much like a metal detector. this was on new york JFK. around 2011.

I took off al metal stuff, and it went off. then they told me it picked people at random, and i was going to get the normal search.

they used a cotton swab and rubbed it to my clothes, during the patdown. then they put it in the detector... which went off.

I went over and looked, trace amounts of 19 different explosives were found (out of the 23 it can detect), clearly a malfunction. They only responded to the sound and did _not_ bother to check which stuff was found.

they told me sometimes lotion can cause this, and I still had to undergo the extensive patdown. they rubbed me again, inside and outside of my bag and did the scan again. nothing was found and i was able to go.

normally i don't mind the body scanner, but travelling with my pregnant wife last month, I advised her to refuse. in all 4 airports she did not use the body scanner, and she got different treatments, nothing more than a light patdown.

Will the rulemaking process start on time? (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466771)

Will the rulemaking process start on time, or will a TSA dog eat the proposed rule in late March and force further delay?"

For the answer to this, just ask if there is any penalty to any decision maker at the TSA sufficient to motivate them? If so, it will start on time. If not...

Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466901)

For the answer to this, just ask if there is any penalty to any decision maker at the TSA sufficient to motivate them?

Considering the government is shielding the AG who illegally ran guns in to Mexico and was found in concept of Congress but his minions at the DOJ refused to do their duty and prosecute, it is certain no one in the TSA will receive so much as a harsh word if the current administration remains after November.

If the administration changes in November, there is still little hope of the TSA being reigned in. Your freedoms do not bear weight in the agenda of politicians

Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467815)

Since you want to bring up the gun running operation, or 'Fast And Furious' as it is called, let's not forget that it was started during the last administration, Bush's administration that the right wingers religiously don't want to mention. Btw, assumming you meant 'contempt' and not 'concept', considering that it seem more of a political ploy by the Republicans to look the Obama administration look bad, especially, when they didn't even want to bring in any of Bush's DOJ people that started the program in the first place and tried to lay all the blame on a Black Eric Holder, seems a bit of the racist twist in it. But what do you expect from an all white bigotted Republican panel.

Let's also not forget that the TSA was created under the Bush administration so let's lay the origins of the problems at the doorstep of which administration started it. The Bush administration started the two wars, the Obama Administration has gotten us out of Iraq and is trying to pull us out of Afghanistan, these are also two wars that were never put on the books. Which is a reason for the $15 Trillion debt, once the cost of the wars were added $2-$3 Trillion dollars were added to the national debt because the wars were never accounted for in the Bush administration. The economic depression that this country faced started with the Bush economic policies which the Obama administration is trying to pull us out of. The lost of millions of jobs that started in the Bush administration and Obama's administration has shown private sector job growth for every month, where the Bush's administration showed mostly lost of private sector jobs. And then you expect changing to the Romney who'll just follow Bush's legacy? We'll be fighting in Syria and Iran next, and cutting the taxes on the wealthy while raising everyone's else taxes. Romney who doesn't care about the poor people because they have a safety net but wants to pull the safety net out from under them, Romney who doesn't care about the 47% because he doesn't think they pay taxes, so he'll want to tax the vets, the senior citizens on social security and disadvantage, while people like Romney get tax cuts or doesn't pay any income tax.

The country is finally pulling itself out of the hole that the Bush administration dug us into and then as soon as things start looking better, let's get the Black guy out of office because he isn't one of us. The racist elements of the Republican party are afraid that an uppity black person can do better than a wholesome 'White' person.

Re:Will the rulemaking process start on time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468451)

I have never understood the rationale behind an appointed DA.

airlines with more sensible, less intrusive sec.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466895)

The whole thing is a joke.

Where are the airlines which I can *chose* to use who *don't* mess about with security theatre?

If I want to accept the risk, it's my business. Why can't an airline advertise specifically on the basis that it uses more sensible, less intrusive security?

There is no such choice permitted to us, and that means the whole thing is a joke - we are not allowed a choice.

Re:airlines with more sensible, less intrusive sec (1)

SScorpio (595836) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467457)

The airlines don't get any say in this, though you could try chartering a small plane from a small local airport. It may cost more but you have the choice.

Get over it (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41466961)

The truth is that there is no right to Fly, You have 3 options, Scanner, Patdown or don't Fly. Drive, take a train, bus or ship, or simply put one foot in front of the other.

Re:Get over it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468109)

The truth is that there is no right to Fly, You have 3 options, Scanner, Patdown or don't Fly. Drive, take a train, bus or ship, or simply put one foot in front of the other.

As referenced in another post:

49 USC 40103 (a) (2)
"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

Yes, there can be reasonable restrictions, but the right to fly exists.

Re:Get over it (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468255)

Established federal law seems to disagree with you.

Regarding 49 USC 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace, section a, paragraph 2: A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

Name change... (5, Funny)

JestersGrind (2549938) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466971)

As a result, the group is changing their name to Electronic Privacy Information Center, For All Is Lost.

Checks and Balances.... LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41467153)

Checks and Balances.... LOL

Civics: What a joke (4, Interesting)

wcrowe (94389) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467321)

I wish I could sue my old high school for wasting my time with civics class. It was there I was taught that we had three branches of government, and that part of the job for each branch was to keep an eye on the other two branches in a system of "checks and balances". Clearly this was just a lot of sentimental BS.

Sample survey (5, Insightful)

jd659 (2730387) | about a year and a half ago | (#41467431)

Public opinion gathering? Huh? Here’s a survey:

"Would you jeopardize the lives of our children and the American citizens by asking us to remove Advanced Imaging Technology scanners from the airport?”

[NO! I want to keep people safe] [yes, allow terrorists blow up the planes]

The puppet court strikes again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468439)

Nuff said.

Executive summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468479)

US citizens are pussies.

Love the way you lie... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468495)

It doesn't have to work well to be useful and dissuade terrorists.

See also the fraud that is the lie detector.

Re:Love the way you lie... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41468549)

I mean, you didn't think the border agents were being rude because they were Nazi lackies, do you? They are trying to fluster you.

Ahh, I've said too much.

Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41468789)

When did they start forcing people to undress when going through the scanners?

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...