Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Federal Appeals Court Orders TSA To Explain Delay In Body Scan Public Hearing 186

Posted by Unknown Lamer from the resist-delay-obstruct dept.
New submitter rhsanborn writes "One year ago the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered the TSA to hold public comment on the use body scanners in EPIC vs. DHS. The order has been ignored prompting a WhiteHouse.gov petition asking for the Obama Administration's response. One year later, Wired reports, the court has ordered the TSA to explain why it hasn't responded to its original order (PDF). The TSA has until August 30th to respond."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Appeals Court Orders TSA To Explain Delay In Body Scan Public Hearing More

Federal Appeals Court Orders TSA To Explain Delay In Body Scan Public Hearing

Comments Filter:

  • Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (Score:5, Insightful)

    by icebike ( 68054 ) * on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:22PM (#40858129)

    Oh, this ought to work wonderfully.

    Watch this be ignored as well.
    Obama is above the law, and the Appeals court is powerless to do anything to force the TSA's hand. How many divisions of bailiffs can the Appeals Court muster?

    The only solution to this is to get rid of the Security Theater senators and congressmen and start cutting budgets and repealing ill conceived panic legislation put in place a decade ago.

  • Would love to see... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by houstonbofh ( 602064 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:28PM (#40858219)
    I would love to see some bench warrants going out on this stuff!

  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:31PM (#40858261) Homepage

    In case the judge is reading this, let me do your job for you. The order needs to be:

    DHS will respond by _________ or I will hold ________ in contempt and order them jailed until you respond.

    Without consequences, your order is something to laugh at, frankly. And that's what they're doing. They've been laughing at you for the last year.

    • Haha what a noob judge. We will all have a good laugh at this judge's incompetence just as soon as we're done waiting in line for our mandatory irradiation and sexual molestation.

  • In unrelated news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:31PM (#40858267) Homepage Journal

    All the judges on the District of Columbia Court Of Appeals have been added to the "No Fly" list.

    • Do you have any idea how fast that would get somebody a red card? The entire TSA would have to move their headquarters to Jagd.

  • Civil Disobedience Idea (Score:3)

    by ZeroSumHappiness ( 1710320 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:33PM (#40858281)

    So, on August 31st, when the TSA hasn't responded, how about everyone go to their local airport and just walk through security. Straight on through. If the TSA can't follow lawful orders from the courts why do we need to follow their orders? Mind you, this would be true civil disobedience -- you walk through security peacefully then sit down and wait to be arrested.

    • Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (Score:5, Interesting)

      by danbert8 ( 1024253 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:36PM (#40858325)

      Actually you DON'T need to follow any TSA orders... The TSA 'officers' may not know this, but they have no legal authority to detain you as they are not law enforcement officers. The local police are the only ones who can arrest you. Of course good luck getting that to work for you in court.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by icebike ( 68054 ) *

        TSA can't ARREST you, but they sure as hell can detain you, and order an airport shutdown the minute you walk past them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tnk1 ( 899206 )

        However, many airports have actual police departments that have sworn officers under this or that Metropolitan Airports Authority who the TSA can probably call on their walkie-talkies, if they aren't already standing there watching the lines. You'll be detained and arrested in short order.

        I'm not sure that slowing down airport lines for a protest is the best way to make people mad at the TSA. They're more likely to get mad at you for fucking up their travel plans. Write your damn congresscritter or prote

        • Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (Score:4, Interesting)

          by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @02:48PM (#40860149)

          I'm not sure that slowing down airport lines for a protest is the best way to make people mad at the TSA. They're more likely to get mad at you for fucking up their travel plans. Write your damn congresscritter or protest OUTSIDE the security zone, please.

          What about going through the security line stating you don't want to be groped or scanned and then turn around and leave?

          You didn't break any laws but have the same effect. If enough people did it with insured/refundable tickets a point would be made at several levels. The airlines have bigger lobbying pockets than rape-scan.

          What the TSA is allowed to do is sick and discusting. If people are only annoyed by being inconvienced it is really rather difficult for me to to find enough sympathy to care.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tnk1 ( 899206 )

            Unfortunately, your sympathy is not relevant. As long as those people are more annoyed at you than the TSA, then the TSA will stay. Democracy in action.

            On one hand, you are protesting the TSA but not annoying people, they will probably be "right on" while they are stuck in line and having to throw away their toothpaste containers.

            If on the other hand, you are pissing those same people off with a bit of theater, you're not telling anyone something they don't already know, but now you are just making them m

          • Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (Score:4)

            by MichaelJ ( 140077 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @06:23PM (#40862641)

            What about going through the security line stating you don't want to be groped or scanned and then turn around and leave?

            You didn't break any laws but have the same effect.

            Sure you did. Once you enter the line you must complete the security scan. You can not say no thank you and turn around. It's a $10,000 fine, too.

    • Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:45PM (#40858459)

      So, on August 31st, when the TSA hasn't responded, how about everyone go to their local airport and just walk through security. Straight on through.

      ...singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant [slashdot.org], and walk out. 'Ceptin it should be done on Thanksgivin', which ain't too far from August 31st.

      You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's a 'bro and they'll just taze 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 anywhere except Chick-Fil-A. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking through the scanner 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 think it's a movement.

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

      With feeling.

      *pause*

      That was horrible. If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud. I've been typing this post now for twenty five minutes. I could type for another twenty five minutes. I'm not proud... or tired.

      If the TSA can't follow lawful orders from the courts why do we need to follow their orders? Mind you, this would be true civil disobedience -- you walk through security peacefully then sit down and wait to be arrested.

      Now friends there was only one or two things that Obie coulda done at the secondary inspection, and the first was he could have given us a medal for being so brave and honest at the counter, which wasn't very likely, and we didn't expect it, and the other thing was he could have made us dump out our water bottle and told us never to be seen bringin' water bottles around his station again, which is what we expected, but when we got to secondary inspection, there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon, and we was both immediately arrested. Handcuffed. And I said "Obie, I don't think I can dump out the water bottle with these handcuffs on." He said, "Shut up, kid. Get in the back of the luggage cart..."

      - with apologies to Arlo Guthrie and various [slashdot.org] sources [slashdot.org]

      • I love it, and I think just about everybody know the song if you jog their memory, the refrain if nothing else. Add a few supporters seeded throughout the line to join in and act as agent provocateurs to make your point glaring clear and you're golden - and since they won't actually be engaged in civil disobedience themselves, just voicing support, you'll have a better chance of finding recruits. I suppose maybe they could be hauled in as "inciting to riot", but any judge worth his robes would throw such

      • I want to make full color, glossy 8x10 pictures of this comment.. with notes and arrows and a description on the back..

      • You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's a 'bro and they'll just taze 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 anywhere except Chick-Fil-A. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking through the scanner 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 walk

  • All Bark and No Bite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deweyhewson ( 1323623 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:34PM (#40858295)

    What in the world kind of justice is this? "We're going to tell you to do something, and then, if you don't, we're going to tell you tell us why!"

    I'm sure the TSA are just quaking in their boots.

    Why don't the courts and judges grow some balls, and start issuing warrants for arrests, for contempt of court, if nothing else? At this point, the system is so laughably broken I don't know why anybody even bothers using it in the first place. Vigilante justice is more justice than this farce.

    • Re:All Bark and No Bite (Score:5, Insightful)

      by David Chappell ( 671429 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:52PM (#40858579) Homepage

      What in the world kind of justice is this? "We're going to tell you to do something, and then, if you don't, we're going to tell you tell us why!"

      The court has to take this step-by-step. The TSA was told to do it, but not given a date. I year has gone by and they still haven't done it. EPIC says that this is too long. The judge has asked the TSA to try to explain why it is taking so long and when they intend to comply. Since he didn't give them a hard deadline, this is only fair.

  • Who enforces the law? Homeland security? The courts? Who do they arrest?

  • I am ordinarily not a fan of e-petitions because they're generally useless; but at least the petition system at whitehouse.gov will require *some* action from the administration. Even if it ultimately serves to highlight how there is no accountability, there is value in that too.

    I know from the 'slashdot effect' that we have far more than the required 25k readers necessary to get this petition through, yet instead people would rather complain about how nobody is doing anything.

    Folks, it doesn't get any easier to "do something" than this.

    Or do you think that the BATF is going to come barging down your front doors because you gave your email address and zip code to register to sign the petition?

    • The administration's action will be a short statement along the lines of 'The administration has taken note of your concerns, and is entirely dedicated to protecting the American people.' That's all.

      • Which provides a convenient excuse for people to do nothing - not even take 2 minutes out of their lives to attach their real name to a petition. I understand.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Mitreya ( 579078 )

      at least the petition system at whitehouse.gov will require *some* action from the administration.

      Have you read the response to the last ban-TSA petition that already succeeded?
      It was almost like the poster below suggested ("'The administration has taken note of your concerns, and is entirely dedicated to protecting the American people.'")
      Except that they didn't feel the need to pretend that they have "taken note" of any "concerns". The answer was written by the TSA director and has outlined two things a) why TSA is awesome and b) what are the TSA's expansion plans for next 10 years
      I didn't expect

    • Their responses to petitions I have signed are generally along the lines of explaining existing policy, with no hint of intent to make changes.

  • Only in Washington DC (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:45PM (#40858465)

    "by the people, for the people" gets so corrupted in DC because of all of the lobbying and grandstanding that goes on. This whole hype of the TSA was unnecessary and now we've created a bigger bureaucracy in Washington. The whole body scan thing was a lobbied effort. [usatoday.com] Since we know nobody in DC actually does their own work and relies on lobbyists and staff to come up with things to do, twist enough arms, throw enough cash around and you can usually get what you want. Also don't forget all of those ex-government directors and leaders who've gone into lobbying for those companies as well. [thehill.com] All under the guises of

    “Lobbyists are not the problem. Terrorists are the ones who can do harm to innocent victims."

    Really? what an astute observation from somebody who gets paid to lobby in favor of this horseshit.

    Blah

    Lobbyists and the way Washington DC operates are at the core of our greater ills and as long as we have revolving door policies allowing ex government officials to join lobbying groups and legal practices that attempt to influence our government, it will always be driven by money because we all know fear pays. Especially for Chertoff. [huffingtonpost.com]

    Eventually people in this country will come to their senses and realize that this is all theater and doesn't make them safer, it does cost them more and makes their lives inconvenient and more exposed. So much for the land of the free.

    Until then I shall continue to work on my mind scanning device that will sense brainwave patterns and automatically recover memories and thoughts so we can weed out terrorists everywhere. Once I've figured out the electronics and made it sufficiently unsafe in terms of radiation exposure, I will then get a lobbying firm and sell it on the hill. It will eliminate the need for body scans entirely however there will be some side effects I fear: Loss of Memory, False prosecutions, Secret Lists and longer lines at the airport, bus terminal, subway and any other public transit location where people congregate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bigby ( 659157 )

      The easiest way to make lobbying completely ineffective is to get rid of representatives. They wouldn't have anyone in particular to lobby. So they would have to convince the general public of their idea. How novel!

      You may be thinking, "how do we get rid of representatives?" I don't know exactly, but I would think if we used some math, statistics, and technology, we can have the people acting as the legislature. At least some anonymous or random representation.

      • It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

        - Winston Churchill

        It's not the representative form of government that's at fault, it's the influence that money has on the political process. Representatives want to get elected and keep their jobs, that takes money but also if you serve in the Government you shouldn't be allowed to go back and lobby that same Government when you leave your job or to be able to go to work for somebody who has significant financial interest in your former position or influence within the government. It creates undue influ

  • This obviously calls for escalation: (Score:5, Funny)

    by tenex ( 766192 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:46PM (#40858479)

    The Federal Appeals Court should repeat ultimatum in an even firmer tone of voice. Add the words, "or else".

  • John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! [wikipedia.org]

    It's not a new problem: Any time the executive wants to flip off the judiciary, it can.

    • It's not a new problem: Any time the executive wants to flip off the judiciary, it can.

      Sure, but time was the judiciary had balls. See Watergate.

  • Response from the TSA... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Coolhand2120 ( 1001761 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:09PM (#40858837)
    Because fuck you.

  • Why is the court considering a writ of mandamus? Hasn't the DHS /already/ been ordered to hold these hearings? Why not an order to show cause why the DHS shouldn't be held in contempt?

    • Because they weren't told to hold them within X time periods, so they haven't disobeyed the order yet. Apparently the court is dumber than most five year olds.

  • Because, at the end of the day, they will have spent 100x the amount of money it would cost to screen previously, and the only thing they have to show for it are a few "tucked to the body" small pot busts.

  • See, Shit Like This (Score:3)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @02:35PM (#40859933) Homepage Journal
    Shit like this is why you should always travel in heavily-armed groups.

    TSA goons may have no qualms about taking out one 'wacko' with a gun, but 20 of them (or, even better, an entire airport full) all traveling together will force them to reconsider their position.

    Our forefathers made sure we had a right to keep and carry weapons, to ensure we would always have a means of throwing off the shackles of tyranny - let's not disappoint them.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close