EPIC Files Motion About Ignored Body Scanner Ruling 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."
Fool (Score:5, Insightful)
You are a fool if you think the DHS will ever get smaller or less invasive.
Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Than molested every day for the rest of my working life? Yes.
democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Petition is worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
I see your court order and raise you one national security handwave...
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
So, liberals don't like the TSA. Conservatives don't like the TSA. Why do we still have the TSA again?
Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
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:democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I've signed Whitehouse petitions... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
He was originally picked up in Afghanistan. Oops.
Oops indeed. There's nothing quite like a long detetention with torture to make someone lose it completely.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Proven? How?
Boxcutters were not illegal to carry aboard commercial aircraft on 9/11/01. Mace and pepper spray were. However then, as now, a canister of pepper spray would be nearly invisible on Xray, and may or may not be seen on a person using AIT. 70% of simulated weapons and explosives still make it through the current screening regimen. I doubt that number is much different (either better or worse) than in the days of private security screening.
Two reasons that the 9/11 attacks were successful is because of the SOP which essentially said, "To reduce risk to passengers or flight crews, don't put up any resistance and comply with hijackers' demands." That thinking allowed three planes to be used as cruise missiles to disastrous effect. Which brings up the second major factor: Credible intelligence reports were mishandled. That student pilot(s) stated they wanted to know how to fly 747s, but were not interested in how to land them.
The first factor was corrected automatically the very same day with United 93's passengers upon learning what had happened earlier that morning took control of the situation and thwarted the attack.. Yes they all died, but they knew they would have anyway, but they prevented much more death and destruction. Reinforcing and locking cockpit doors was a very intelligent procedure change in the wake of that fateful day. That is something that I fully support, and I expect that the insurance companies do as well.
But what of all the other apparatus? Does anyone seriously believe that a bottle of water or a tube of toothpaste poses a credible security risk? Intelligence gathering has increased dramatically, but information sharing as a result has, if anything, only gotten worse.They've essentially created a much larger haystack from which to search for the same needles. Think of the "underwear bomber" attempted attack. It was reported that the terrorist's own father reported him to authorities. Yet he was still granted a visa into the U.S.? WTF? However tragedy was averted due to the important changes I cited earlier. Passengers (and an air marshal) recognized the threat that intelligence officials and security screeners missed and stopped the attack cold in its tracks! Even if he had managed to detonate his explosive, the worst case scenario would be that the plane crashed killing all aboard and possibly a few people on the ground as well. The odds that the plane would have crashed into a densely populated area, or a building of strategic and/or national significance would have been astronomically small.
But back to your insurance standpoint, do you believe any sane underwriter would think increasing the cost of the security apparatus 1000-fold or more to reduce the probability of a terrorist attack by a fraction of one-percent would be a wise choice? Considering that in the process, they've increased their liability to claims based on civil rights violations, delayed flights, stolen or damaged items in luggage, and health problems that may be (rightly or wrongly) attributed to backscatter radiation by passengers, screeners, flight crews, and airport staff?
No. If the companies who insured airports and airlines were the ones dictating security procedures, I would expect things to look a lot more like they did on September 10, 2001 than they do today.