1st Circuit Injunction Re: TSA's New Mandatory AIT Search Rule Fully Briefed (s.ai) 122
saizai writes: I just filed my reply to the TSA's opposition to an emergency motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (PI/TRO) against the TSA's new policy that arbitrarily mandates some people to go through electronic strip search ("AIT"). Case website here (will be kept updated). Court order expected soon, though impossible to know for sure.
I've also released 3 FOIA docs (see 2015-12-30 update), which I submitted as exhibits:
I've also released 3 FOIA docs (see 2015-12-30 update), which I submitted as exhibits:
- MD 100.4 2012-01-25 Transportation Security Searches (11p, full) — showing TSA's expansion to "bus, train, [and] other public conveyance"
- SPOT validation study Vol 1 Ch 4 — Descriptive analyses — summary of sources for items (1p) — showing 90% of what they find is immigration and drug related, not weapons
- SPOT validation study Vol 3 App F — Supporting tables — prohibited items data (2p) — giving breakdown list of "prohibited items" they find
See previously:
Thank you. (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm doing a fair amount of disclosure as well over the next few days, albeit via journalistic channels, with regard to joint activities undertaken by certain federal agencies and private sector entities. It's good to know there are a few other folks willing to stand up these days. Keep it going, my friend. -PCP
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To whom should I donate money to ensure that the fight against the TSA continues until the TSA is just a bad memory?
Re:Thank you. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, supporting Sai's Patreon is a decent place to start. I've been tossing him $10/mo for a while now, it's a pittance but at least it's something. He's been shockingly effective for someone who's just One Random Guy with practically no support. https://www.patreon.com/saizai [patreon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And thanks for that. :-)
There's also Bitcoin if people want it. http://s.ai/btc [s.ai]
Re: (Score:1)
You shouldn't have to spend a dime. What is needed is the vote to kick out the politicians that give the TSA life. Until that happens we just have to assume the majority is okay with it. If we have to buy votes, we're doing it wrong. And it just won't work.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, fine.. Just kick and enjoy the show if you can't be bothered. Voting should be like The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where the audience actually participates. We are all perfectly capable of turning our backs on those who take the money. The lack of will is the only real issue.
Re: Thank you. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
TSA has been supported by a majority of reds & blues since inception. Only real progress has been made through litigation.
Wish it weren't so, but it is.
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be cheaper just to sue poor people who vote for corrupt politicians? They'll have no way of fighting back. You can walk away with a summary judgement.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand what the big deal is. The TSA want to scan you in an effort to make flying safer. Isn't this a good thing?
What's there to be worried about? That a TSA agent will see you've got a tiny dick? Because I'm sure this is why TSA agents join up - they've all secretly got a fettish so looking at peoples dicks in gainy black and white.
This reminds me of my first job. I had a boss that was petrified I would spend all day reading everyone else email if I was given access to the production mai
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand what the big deal is. The TSA want to scan you in an effort to make flying safer. Isn't this a good thing?
What's there to be worried about? That a TSA agent will see you've got a tiny dick? Because I'm sure this is why TSA agents join up - they've all secretly got a fettish so looking at peoples dicks in gainy black and white.
This reminds me of my first job. I had a boss that was petrified I would spend all day reading everyone else email if I was given access to the production mail servers to do some security checks on. It took a lot on convincing to explain to him that
Do you have any support for the statement that TSA scanners make flying safer? Many security professionals doubt the efficacy of the scanners and pretty much the entire TSA problem even though it costs billions in direct costs, and billions more in indirect costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is something to consider. The TSA doesn't secure private aviation. How many private jets, or even Cessnas have you seen used in attacks?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any evidence that they make flying safer. This is a very hard question because
a) If I decide not be attack a plane because I fear getting caught by security - then the scanners have worked - but these stats aren't possible to record
b) You don't shout about most people you catch - because you don't want the bad people to know what things you can detect easily
Are they worth the X billion per year it costs the program? We'll never know. I don't know how much one plane attack costs - but I suspect it's in a billions, so if they just foil 1 attack per year they've made a good return on the investment
Ahh yes, the old "We're doing so good that we can't even tell you how good we are -- but we need more money so we can do it better!" excuse.
That's not a good way to ensure responsible spending of public dollars.
Fourth Amendment. (Score:1)
That's why, fucktard.
Re:Thank you. (Score:5, Insightful)
The scanning is not shown to be safe.
Some of these are X-rays, proven to not be safe, maybe a tiny number of medical X-rays a year are ok, and doctors and dentists will keep track of how many they give you to avoid too much. The big concern here is that they're subjecting their security agents to tons of this every year and they're not wearing dosimeters to how how much exposure they get. With even one dental x-ray you are given a shielded cover over your chest and the technician leaves the room. I trust the medical professionals over the TSA.
Some of these are not x-rays but high frequency electromagnetic radiation, over 30GHz. Medical effects of this are unknown. This is not about RF allergy fears but basically the effect of this technology has not been well studied and is being rolled out fast as a panicked reaction.
This scanning also shows no purpose. They are not finding weapons with these scanners, though they do find contraband. A real terrorist is going to get past these scanners. The only thing this does is provide security theater - fooling the gullible public into thinking that something is being done, and please keep voting for your clueless representatives to approved this. These agents are not highly trained, they're not the best of the best, this is a relatively low paying menial labor job. Other countries with actual threats do not have the style of security we have in the US, they prefer to have effective security instead.
There is also the very real matter of creeping expansion. TSA wants to expand to trains and buses if they can. They want a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna have to agree with the Citation Needed. I am not an airplane expert and I have stuff to do in a bit so no time for thorough research, but even if the x-ray exposure from cosmic and background radiation at cruising altitude is 3000 times higher than at sea level, how much of that is absorbed or reflected by the airplane itself, effectively shielded the passengers inside the giant metal tube?
Re: (Score:2)
I do. It's called Great Britain.
Re: (Score:1)
And you choose to get mugged. Are the thugs breaking down your door and mugging you in your bed? If you don't want to get mugged, don't walk down the street.
Your government and stupid fucks like you are why I expatriated from your shithole country and renounced my US citizenship over ten years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
So, as the summary points out, how do you expect to travel when they have the same things in Bus and Train terminals, and they are setting up checkpoints on highways now too?
Re: (Score:2)
The machines the TSA use are X-ray backscatter machines. They use less energetic x-rays than an actual medical x-ray, but you still get exposed to radiation. When a FOIA request was made on these scanners for their maintenance records, it was found that many of them were out of calibration and were giving significantly higher doses, as well as leaks outside the machine. Do you want to trust your medical health to an organization that isn't forced by law to maintain these machines in any way?
Re: (Score:2)
The x-ray ones are no longer used by TSA (or so thy claim). It's all millimeter wave now. I know of no proof one way or the other whether MMW scanners are safe long-term. They don't produce ionizing radiation, and aren't strong enough to burn, but that's not entirely convincing. (And even if it's safe, that's no answer to the 4th Amendment concerns.)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I hadn't heard that they stopped using the x-ray scanners.
The millimeter wave machines put out less radiation than the airport's radar, does the radar concern you? I have never heard of a study tying harm to millimeter wave machines, but I also haven't heard of studies being performed on them at all. As you are more keyed into this I am sure, have there been any studies that you have heard of?
Re: (Score:3)
Re. safety, see here [flyertalk.com]. Tl;dr: it's neither been proven safe nor unsafe in this context; a priori there's reason to believe it's safe short-term, but there've not been any long-term studies. It isn't ionizing radiation (unlike the backscatter x-ray), and isn't strong enough to outright burn (like a microwave), but who knows.
However, I don't care if it's safe, because I view it as a strip search. See my reply (link in OP), p. 9.
Re: (Score:1)
The millimeter wave machines put out less radiation than the airport's radar, does the radar concern you?
Nobody gets closer to the radar than, say, 1/4 mile. I'd be concerned if I was forced to walk directly in front of the radar, even at lower doses.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what they *want* - it only matters what they can *do*, and time and time again it's been shown that the TSA's actions are entirely ineffective. It's security theatre at it's finest, a pointless waste of time and money for everyone involved.
That's why we are 'worried' about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing about it is that they were formed to replace the private security that the airlines used to hire, which was more effective than the TSA.
Actual bravery (Score:4, Interesting)
You are no mere "Internet Warrior"; you are someone who is expending your time and effort on defending the Constitution. You have my respect.
How long until you're on the "no fly" list or some surprise police home invasion happens? I honestly hope that there is no retribution against you, but I'm wary.
Re: (Score:2)
You're welcome.
TTBOMK I am not on any TSA list yet. I'm almost insulted. ;-)
(Almost certainly on NSA's lists though. Howdy, NSA.)
Re: (Score:2)
This might surprise you - but you have no idea who you just replied to.
Yes, the NSA worries far more about him than about any mere terrorists. Because unlike the masses of us merely bitching about the NSA and TSA - Sai actually does something about them.
Now, personally I don't think we can reform such corrupt entities from within the system - But of those who do, Sai has literally dedicated himself to acting as a thorn
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just say that I have pretty solid, specific reasons for believing that I am on NSA's watch list that have nothing whatsoever to do with the TSA, my litigation, or being a "protestor".
Oh hell yes (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what I wish we'd see here more often. Please keep submitting details, IDGAF if this winds up on the front page constantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Please keep submitting details, IDGAF if this winds up on the front page constantly.
you dont give a fuck? no, Janice in accounting don't give a fuck. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Top killer in the US: heart disease. Number two: cancer. Over 40 thousand die from diabetes in the US a year. The terrorist threat? Miniscule. Gun violence kills vastly more people than terrorist attacks. Suicides have an alarmingly high number of deaths each year, dwarfing terrorism. Even deaths from falling in the home in one year outnumber all terrorists deaths in the US in the last 15 years.
The TSA screening is a political issue only, it is not about making the US safer or about providing effecti
Re: (Score:1)
The TSA screening is a political issue only...
Well, not only. There is plenty of money to be made. Turns out terrorism makes for a pretty good business model.
Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Someone who is not harmed lacks "standing" to bring a case in federal court, because the constitution requires there be an actual case or controversy--federal courts lack the power to issue advisory opinions. For a constitutionally protected interest, the plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
The TSA is arguing the plaintiff can't bring the case because he hasn't been body-scanned. The plaintiff is arguing only the TSA knows whether they will body scan him and they haven't told the court, so you have to assume they will. The plaintiff also goes on about plaintiff's protected liberty interest in international travel, but that doesn't address the question of whether the harm to plaintiff is the kind of concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent harm necessary to give the plaintiff standing to sue. Unless a lot more of that was in the complaint, the judge isn't going to find it sufficient to issue the injunction.
There are some merits arguments too, but IRL judges care a LOT about standing. This does not prevent someone from filing another lawsuit in the future, and there may be some opportunity to further the argument in the main part of the lawsuit after the injunction fails to issue.
Re:Summary (Score:5, Informative)
I do in fact have a ticket of that sort. I refuse to go through scanning. If they won't let me board because of that, then I will have much better standing than I do now, but there's no way to guarantee that, and there's chilling effect from the mere threat.
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't the threat of someone being forced through the scanner give someone valid grounds to sue? I know in Heller vs DC they looked for years for a reasonable someone living in DC wanting to buy a firearm for personal protection. They had at least 3 and the court threw out 2 of them leaving only Heller, a Capitol Hill security guard who wasn't allowed a fire arm at home for personal protection because he wasn't "qualified" but carried one while at work.
So I would assume this would stay in place until th
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is faced with a mandate to either go through the scanner or get denied boarding / fined / arrested / etc, then yes that would give standing. But IMHO it's better for us all if I can get an injunction before it gets to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. "See honey, the government already knows almost every legitimate threat against it, but in the interests of keeping their data collection methods a secret, they let your daddy die."
Of course, even that ignores the fact that you have literally a 100x higher risk of dying on your ride to the airport, than you do of dying in a terrorist attack.
Re: (Score:2)
You are far more likely to be killed by drowning in your bathtub or pool than by terrorists of any kind.
So no, I won't.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you going to explain why you wasted all of that money on scanners that are fooled by simple tricks ( http://www.wired.com/2014/08/study-shows-how-easily-weapons-can-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/ ) instead of actually tracking the people the government knows to be dangerous.
Are you going to explain that?!? Are you willing to take the heat for blowing all of our money on a tiger repelling rock?
I didn't think so, so sit down and be quiet. Grownups are talking.
Re:Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
The TSA is arguing the plaintiff can't bring the case because he hasn't been body-scanned. The plaintiff is arguing only the TSA knows whether they will body scan him and they haven't told the court, so you have to assume they will.
Specifically, the plaintiff already has a ticket from Canada, to the US, and on to England (he is a US citizen). He claims that the TSA knows in advance whether they are going to body-scan him or not (the TSA apparently didn't disagree), because Delta is required to transmit passenger information to the TSA. I have no idea if it's a valid claim or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty reasonable summary of the standing issue. The liberty interest part doesn't go to standing; it goes to irreparable harm, which is a factor for getting a preliminary injunction.
Yes, I can't prove that the TSA will ultra-special-select me under their new secret rule. Nobody can. I can just prove they've done it before, they could have but did not deny it, and that creates presumption. And also that there is chilling effect.
I've got about as good standing as someone can have short of having actually bee
Re: (Score:2)
So if it can't be proven, it's ok. Force the passengers to drink a yellow liquid, and the courts will say it's ok because no one knows what the liquid is and they can't stop it until someone proves a link? The problem is that it will be nearly impossible for anyone to prove harm by these machines. Even with industrial spill accidents these cases are usually settled out of court to avoid class action suits rather than any solid link being shown. We didn't win any cases against Tobacco companies for decad
UK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the US you are compelled to complete screening once you enter the line, so you can't say 'no thank you' and leave. You're going to be screened. It makes some sense as a malicious person could just keep going through the line until they get the scenario they want, but then it makes the laws about your choices more important.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. You have the right to avoid it, but only if you do so before you enter screening.
Don't know UK law.
Re: (Score:1)
You can opt-out and get an (enhanced) hand search. If you decline, you are escorted landside and can't fly.
(If the officers actually comply with the regulations is a different question.)
From the "Security Scanners Direction 2015", Annex C, Part 14:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for including actual source links. 3.
Re: (Score:2)
If TSA feels like it, evidently. >.>
Re: (Score:1)
Vote!
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a US citizen, call your senator or representative and ask them to (a) change the laws and (b) put pressure on TSA. http://www.contactingthecongre... [contacting...ngress.org]
They make a lot of money form this, thats MO. (Score:4, Insightful)
When I worked at Ebay we found that the TSA makes a LOT of money from selling things they steal from people.. and it often went unreported and into TSA agents pockets, that's a big MO.
Re: (Score:3)
It's good to hear that my suspicion was right all along.
I've a number of hand-made or specialized scientific hand-tools confiscated by the TSA. In every case, I have rendered the object non-functional. For example, bending my expensive tweezers completely out of shape before handing them over. (Tweezers are not knives, BTW.)
A TSA Rep insisted that the laptop of an acquaintance be put in the checked luggage, and was not allowed to be carried on (this was several years ago). Guess what? It disappeared ma
OP & litigator here (Score:2)
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a comment.
I 'opted out' of the cancer-scanner at LAX in December. It took 15 minutes for a "male pat-down" to appear, and the pat-down took about 10 minutes, plus five of waiting around while they gathered up my things.
Next time, I will simply strip off, and hold my ass open goat.se-style, asking if they want to check for any "bombs" that I might drop during the flight. (I've dropped trou before for the TSA, and they are going to see me naked, so why not opt to let them actually see me naked?) I als
Re:OP & litigator here (Score:4, Informative)
John Brennan did pretty much that, stripping naked in protest of invasive TSA procedures. He was arrested for indecent exposure, taken to jail, and fined $1000 by TSA for "interference with screening personnel." He was found not guilty on the indecent exposure charge, the fine is still in appeals 4+ years later, but I'm pretty sure his legal expenses are in five figures.
I wouldn't for a moment discourage you from this plan, but please do be aware of what you're getting into, and the extent to which they will fuck with you.
Re: (Score:2)
John Brennan did pretty much that, stripping naked in protest of invasive TSA procedures. He was arrested for indecent exposure, taken to jail, and fined $1000 by TSA for "interference with screening personnel." He was found not guilty on the indecent exposure charge, the fine is still in appeals 4+ years later, but I'm pretty sure his legal expenses are in five figures.
I wouldn't for a moment discourage you from this plan, but please do be aware of what you're getting into, and the extent to which they will fuck with you.
Do you mean John Brennan, the CIA Director? Kind of a powerful guy, who I would imagine travels with an entourage of security, and has some exception that even Congress-members do not get.
If so, I'd really appreciate a source. Your story rings true, oh-so-true, but I haven't been able to find a source confirming it.
I any case, I'll wear my "banana hammock" g-string swimsuit underneath, or a Speedo (which has a label) every time I fly. If it's not indecent on the beach or in a swim competition, then it'
Re: (Score:2)
John Brennan did pretty much that, stripping naked in protest of invasive TSA procedures.
Do you mean John Brennan, the CIA Director?
That would be hilarious :) But no, it's a different John Brennan.
Re: (Score:1)
*rimshot*
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone opted out (like you and I do) every single time, consequences to travel plans be damned, the scanners would be optional within a week and gone in a year. But they won't. Because people will always trade convenience and perceived safety for liberty. So it is important that people like the OP pick up the fight on a legal ground, doing the work that us sheeple should be doing for ourselves.
Also, while you may be able to opt out in the USA and Canada, you cannot in other countries (like GB). Thi
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't this amount to flooding?
Just because you get a larger dose over a 15 minute stay in the sun with no realistic harmful effects doesn't mean no harm will come to you from getting the same dose in 15 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
That question is part of what's at issue in my litigation. I think they can't, and so does Marc Rotenberg of EPIC. They don't seem to care. TBD what the court thinks.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is every comment of support thus far posted, at -1, Troll?
Do you fucking idiots even know what a troll mod is used for?
If you've been paying attention, you will notice what appear to be signs of concerted institutional agenda-pushing by silent mods acting in the interests of the US security apparatus, probably the oil lobby, and a few similar entities. I suspect other countries with meaningful cyberwarfare divisions (e.g. China, Israel) have similar units or at least interns whose job it is to do this. It's possible I'm wrong--I haven't attempted a serious study of the phenomenon--but it would be consistent with some real