EPIC Sues FBI Over Terrorist Screening Database

octaene writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has applied for an emergency court order (pdf) requiring the FBI to release information about the Terrorist Screening Database and its role in Secure Flight, the government's proposed passenger prescreening system. Secure Flight will compare passenger records against information in the database, which will include expanded 'Selectee' and 'No-Fly' lists. EPIC argued that information about the database must be made available prior to the October 25 deadline for public comments on the Transportation Security Administration's plans for testing Secure Flight."

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that if the "government" were to come after you, your petty weapons would stop "them"?

Re:In other news...

[Mattcelt]

If there are more of "us" that have them than there are "them" that have them, then you bet.

What's scary is that we're most likely below the critical mass required to be able to stage a rebellion if one were needed against a truly oppressive government.

"People will not rebel until not rebelling becomes more painful than rebelling." So we have a ways to go, for better or for worse...

Re:In other news... Grass Roots Movement...

[davidsyes]

n: That action the result of government trampling over, on or across grown sod... (DOH!)

If worse comes to worse, the (or some alternate-earth) government would issue pagers to all their VALUED personnel in a target area and give them 4 hours to vacate before the:

"Tactical-to-Practical" Anti-Grassroots Overhead Neutron-Yttrium

bomb is dropped..., ahme, LOST...ahem, regrettably prematurely-detonated after being mis-directed to populated coordinates domestic.

Talk about an A.G.O.N.Y. bomb. (I almost wrote "b

Re:In other news...

[aminorex]

if? were?

the u.s. today is considerably more repressive than, say, germany in 1939. the top layer of leadership is similarly demonic, and behaves similarly. i guess rebellion in berlin, 1939, would have been unwarranted as well?

agree, disagree, i don't care. but i ask the question because i'm genuinely interested in your answer.

Re:In other news...

[Zak3056]

the u.s. today is considerably more repressive than, say, germany in 1939. the top layer of leadership is similarly demonic, and behaves similarly

Six million jews and millions of other "undesirables" would disagree with you... at least they would disagree with you if they hadn't been exterminated by the Nazis. I'm not denying the US has its problems right now, but to compare us to the Nazis is just absurd.

Re:In other news...

[Famanoran]

Genocide is merely one aspect of oppression. A nasty one I'll grant you, but let's face it. If the Jews didn't want to die, why the fuck didn't they try to fight? A few thousand Jews in an extermination camp, even unarmed, would have been able to overwhelm the comparitavely (sp?) small number of guards in each camp.

Get with the program. The US today is just as Nazi as the Nazi government was, they're just not as overt about it.

I'm sure a large percentage of the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq would ha

Re:In other news...

[aminorex]

i don't think there is any suggestion that concentration camps were killing people on an industrial scale in 1939.

i'd like to know why its off limits to make a comparison to the nazi administration. i mean, if the shoe fits...

Re:In other news...

[Stephen Samuel]

Oh yeah???? Just ask some of the guys trying to pin down Iraq! -- and we're not getting defections there. If the government got overt about it's crackdown on civil rights, I expect that you'd find a good number of 'good soldiers (cops, etc)' refusing to follow orders.

They've sworn to uphold the constitution first, and their orders second. I expect that some would take that oath seriously.

Re:In other news...

[__aaxtnf2500]

You live in an urban area and have little to no experience with firearms, correct? I think you underestimate the trust that a great many Americans have in their government, the number of soldiers that would refuse to fight against Americans, hunters' knowledge of rural areas, and the collective firepower of American civilians. No military could withstand the rebellion a hostile occupation of America would create.

Re:In other news... Do you REALLY think

[davidsyes]

that if EPIC wins the case, it would be an:

EPIC VICTORY??? DOH!!!

Re:In other news...

[DAldredge]

What assault weapons are more available now? Most of the things the 'assault' weapons ban banned were just cosmetic changes. They didn't change what they weapon did, they just changed the way it looked.

You also ignore the fact that states that have conceled carry have lower gun crime rates than states that ban guns.

And don't get me started on CALIFORNIA banning a class of gun that has never been used in a crime.

Re:In other news...

[julesh]

There's a class of gun that has never been used in a crime? I'm impressed. Have any been sold to the public yet?

Re:In other news...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I believe DAldredge was referring to California's ban on .50 caliber breech loading rifles. You see the thing is, there is not alot of criminal application of a rifle that costs thousands of dollars plus $4 a round. Violent crime is usually an act of desperation. It is a lot easier to pay 5 guys a hundred bucks each to go kill someone, then to hire someone who can afford to buy that kind of expensive specialty gun.

P.S. they are a lot of fun to shoot if you can find a long enough range.

Re:In other news...

[macdaddy]

They've done more assinine things than that when it came to their gun bans. Read my reply to the parent. My favorite was a shotgun they banned. I forget the make and model (really weird brand). It looked like a couple pieces of pipe screwed together (similiar to the grease gun, M3A1, but bigger of course). It had a couple grips on it IIRC. A really weird looking gun. Now you want to believe the CA folks that put this list together were honest and had a reason for banning it. It must have a dru mag.

Re:In other news...

[kinzillah]

To play devils advocate for a moment... The part about "shall not be infringed" thats so hard to understand is the "well regulated" part, and specifically that a militia is no longer required for the defense of the country, as we have a standing military thats quite proficient at making things go boom. Its quite a two sided thing.

Re:In other news...

[DAldredge]

Check out the history and crime rate of people who have a fed license to have fully automatic weapons. Two people in the past 40 years have used those licensed weapons to commit a crime and one was in 'Law Enforcement'

Re:In other news...

[macdaddy]

Thank you! For the first time EVER I've seen someone argue the facts about guns on Slashdot besides me! Thank you thank you thank you! BTW, California banned guns not by function but by appearance. Literally. They took a book of guns with pictures and decided what should be banned by what LOOKED lethal. In fact that banned a number of extremely common deer rifle models that happened to have black synthetic stocks while leaving their siblings with identical actions alone. The California ban is a joke. Somewhere I have a link to an article about the 2 people that put it together. I want to say it was the CA AG and Lt. Governor. The email was a response to the other's question about involving CA's Bureua of Investigation and some other professional group. The author said that he didn't want to invole that state's BI or the other professional LEO group because their conclusion wouldn't support the position that they wanted to take on guns. That's mighty telling if you ask me. I unfortunately live in one of 4 states that doesn't permit some form of concealed carry and our crime rate is abnormally high. You would think that here in Kansas we would have a low crime rate. Nope. We were the 32nd largest state in population in 2000 but had the 19th highest TCI (crime rate). You sir are going on my friend list.

Re:In other news...

[DAldredge]

First, I like guns and, just like cars computers food EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET they are safe if used correctly.

Second, facts are facts. If the facts support my side I am happy, if they don't I rethink my position (which seams to rarely happen on the internet)

Re:In other news...

[julesh]

"1" is not [...] a way to indicate a probability of something happening.

Yes it is.

Re:In other news...

[macdaddy]

The Assault Weapon Ban DIDN'T BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS !! Assault weapons have had a hefty tax on them since 1934. If you had the patience and lots of $$ you could still legally buy one though. They've been banned outright since 1986 by a poison pill amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The Assault Weapons Ban wasn't an assault weapons ban at all. It had nothing to do with assault weapons. Assault weapons are by definition a selectable fire military weapon that can be fired as a fully

Re:In other news...

[ScrewMaster]

Only the fact that MY Glock 22 has the factory 13.

But seriously, don't expect any semblance of rationality, numeracy or even simple common sense when dealing with any issue of political import. That means that the right to bear arms, global warming, abortion, separation of Church and State, stem-cell research, privacy and civil liberties, copyright and software patents, and/or any number of other issues that actually do impact our life and liberty are unlikely to be resolved in a manner beneficial to s

Re:In other news...

[homer_ca]

So-called assault weapons are involved in a small fraction of gun crimes compared to handguns, *but* those shootings are often notorious, high profile crimes like mass shooting rampages and big shootouts with police. In that kind of scenario, a large capacity magazine is an advantage. In a more common scenario like robbing a store or killing one person, 10 shots is plenty. I've also heard interviews where the law enforcement side complains about flash suppressors which might be a legitimate concern. A foldi

Re:In other news...

[__aaxtnf2500]

While your definition of assault weapon is close enough, they didn't exist in 1934 (Sturmgewehr 42 is generally recognized as the first assault weapon). And they have not been banned outright. I know firearms dealers who possess and shoot them in South Florida. 1986 further regulated the transfer and possession of specific parts of machine guns, specifically, drop in auto sears. Illegal != Regulated. As a fellow Glock 22 owner and patriot(in the constitutional sense), please be careful about these phrases,

Fact Sheet: The Terrorist Screening Center

[Mstrgeek]

This is a site that has a well-written write up dealing with Terrorist Screening

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=1598