Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Transportation Government Privacy The Courts United States Your Rights Online

DHS Still Stonewalling On Body Scanning Ruling One Year Later 242

Posted by Soulskill
from the maybe-they're-just-really-lazy dept.
OverTheGeicoE writes "About a year ago, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on EPIC v. DHS, a lawsuit that sought to end TSA's use of body scanners. The Court found that DHS violated federal law by not seeking public comment before using body scanners as a primary search method. They ordered TSA to take public comment on its body scanning policy but did not require TSA to suspend its use of the scanners during the comment period. Several months later nothing had been done yet. One year later TSA has still done nothing, and even EPIC, the original plaintiff, seems to have given up. Others have apparently picked up the torch, however. Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, has posted a piece on Ars Technica about TSA's violation of the court order. He also started a petition on Whitehouse.gov asking TSA to comply with the order. An earlier petition ended with a non-response from TSA Administrator John Pistole. Will the latest petition fare any better, even in an election year?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DHS Still Stonewalling On Body Scanning Ruling One Year Later

Comments Filter:
  • Ve haf vays to make you submit to full body scans. <puffs cigarette>
    • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @05:20PM (#40621653) Homepage Journal

      I remember a country called the United States of America. It never really lived up to its boasted promise or potential, but hey! It was something at one time, you know?

      Now it's gone. So it really doesn't matter, I guess.

      • by hairyfeet (841228) <.bassbeast1968. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @05:50PM (#40622063) Journal

        What amazes me is how many waste their time with those stupid petitions. I mean after the first two or three prettily worded 'Fuck you peasant LOL" responses shouldn't everyone have learned by now those things are as fucking worthless as a suggestion box with a waste basket for a bottom?

        The sad part is there really isn't any choice anymore, hell you may as well not even vote. I mean WTF are you gonna vote FOR? Rich money whoring sellout A, or rich money whoring sellout B? Does anybody think a McSame presidency would have been any different from a Nobama? Or that Mittens will do ANYTHING differently, other than put a different spin on it?

        Lets face it folks, until things get bad enough we have a full on collapse and an Arab Spring all we are gonna get is what the 1%ers want us to have, nice little corporate puppets that do what they are told and heel when their chains are yanked. In the end we'll end up with MORE draconian laws, MORE power and control for those at the top and LESS for everyone that isn't in their little club. As Buffet said years ago "There has been class warfare for years, and we've won"

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It's easier to do nothing.

          Personally, I only see 3 possible end games:
          1. We take back our society by voting.
          2. We take back our society by (violent) revolution.
          3. Some horrible doomsday scenario where the rich people are rich until the world ends.

          If you don't want to try option 1, all that's left are 2 and 3. I really don't like those options, and thus don't see the need to give up on voting and educating the public just yet. Obama IS better than the alternative, he's just not jesus.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Obama's stance on copyright is every bit as draconian. He doesn't care about the constitution at all. Neither do his opponents.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @07:16PM (#40623079)

            I've heard it said that Democracy depends on four boxes; soap, ballot, jury and ammo, use in that order.

            It's up to each individual to decide where they stand in this order.

            • Which is why we're screwed. The 99% have the soap and the ballot. The 1% have the money to heavily influence the soap and the ballot and they have all the money for the jury and ammo.

              • It wouldn't matter. The society lacks essential components of compassion and enlightened awareness. The entity that emerged from any such revolution in America today would be as horrible as the result of the English civil war of the 17th century.

                Think "Protestant Taliban" laced with "Fuck You" brand Libertarianism.

                Out here in the fields
                I fight for my meals
                I get my back into my living...

          • I take issue with your #3.

            The most valuable form of wealth is freedom, not money. This nation was founded upon principles of freedom, not of people having the same amount of money--that's communism.

            That is one of the big problems facing our nation today: people value money above all else. Not only does this lead to the rich getting richer, but it also leads to people being discontent unless they are also financially wealthy--relative to whom, I suppose, varies.

            People who are demanding that wealth be redis

            • Yet, what is the loudest protest we hear? "The rich are too rich!" Such has always been, and always shall be, the case.

              OK, so let's check some boundary conditions with you.

              1. Would you approve if one man legally owned all the land available on the planet?

              If the answer to that is "yes," then I give up. You and I will never find agreement.

              2. How about two men, each legally owning half the planet?

              Again, if that thought doesn't also send a chill down your spine, then we're not going to find agreement.

              If you can answer "no" to those two questions, then we're getting somewhere. You and I can agree there should be legal limits pl

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Crosshair84 (2598247)
          Lets be honest, many of the 99% are just as culpable. They continue to believe the lie that there is a free lunch and they can continue to get something for nothing. There is no NEED for the two parties to change because the 99% will continue to vote depending on who has the R or D in front of their name. If the masses of people really wanted change then Ron Paul or whoever would win as a write in candidate and nobody could stop them.

          The only way I see the system changing right now is when we go the way
        • by dgatwood (11270)

          What amazes me is how many waste their time with those stupid petitions.

          It amazes me that anyone bothers to write them. It only takes five seconds to click "Sign". That's a fairly small amount of effort, so even if there is only an infinitesimal chance of any forward progress, it is worth spending those five seconds. :-)

        • Arab Spring? Engineered "colour revolutions".

          You really don't want one...

        • To be honest, I think the answer may be to vote for a third party (Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, etc.) and look at places to live elsewhere. Despite what the media tries to tell you, the "third world" isn't just grass huts and civil wars. Granted, you might not have a Starbucks every 3 blocks but most of those countries are truly more free and they have many more opportunities. Plus the cost of living is much lower.
          • by gottabeme (590848)

            Do any of those countries have constitutions with bills of rights? If not, their governments are free to impinge upon their rights at any time--there is no security in such a place, and ultimately no freedom.

            Whether the U.S. government respects the Constitution, et al, is another matter.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by thomst (1640045)

          hairyfeet inquired:

          Does anybody think a McSame presidency would have been any different from a Nobama?

          I do.

          If McLame had been elected, there'd have been no auto industry bailout, and most of the American automakers would have gone the way of the dodo - taking with them all their employees' jobs, plus those of their parts and raw materials suppliers, and their dealerships (think "service departments", not just salemen). Plus their credit acceptance organizations would have gone with 'em, and that would have added more tens of billions in bad debt to the meltdown, and greatly contributed to

          • there'd have been no auto industry bailout, and most of the American automakers would have gone the way of the dodo

            Except, of course, for Ford, and the manufacturing plants in Kentucky (Toyota), Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Oh, and of course the Rolls Royce engine manufacturing plant in Virginia. Probably forgotten some others.

            Plus no healthcare reform of any kind

            I seriously doubt that. It may not have been a gigantic tax that fell 70% on the middle class, and it may not have cut $500 billion from Medicare, but it needed reform. Not that McCain is any less of a big government tyrant than Obama, but whatever refor

          • You're right about most of that but McCain still would have bailed out GM. The US government likes to keep GM around for the industrial capacity in case WW3 breaks out somehow. GM knows this and takes advantage of the fact.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          What amazes me is how many waste their time with those stupid petitions

          Well, I don't use the ones that require javascript (which means no whitehouse petitions) but I think it's useful to add your name to a list of people willing to be counted. Of course, it's also potentially dangerous if our government lives up to its promise to become the next iteration of the fucking third reich.

          • by hairyfeet (841228)
            I sign those by the EFF as well, but I have ZERO doubt that me and you are on a list somewhere. Whether they will actually DO anything with that list is unknown ATM but I have zero doubt they exist and anybody that doesn't follow the line most likely are on at least one if not multiple.
        • by dbIII (701233)
          Well, somebody has put cash behind it instead of just a signature. The Cato institute may push just about anything, but they never, ever do it for free.
        • by Joce640k (829181)

          Rich money whoring sellout A, or rich money whoring sellout B? Does anybody think a McSame presidency would have been any different from a Nobama? Or that Mittens will do ANYTHING differently, other than put a different spin on it?

          One of those things could add a lot more religion into the system. The other one isn't good but at least it has that going for it.

          PS: Please glance through conservapedia [conservapedia.com] before dismissing this...

      • I remember a country called the United States of America. It never really lived up to its boasted promise or potential, but hey! It was something at one time, you know?

        Now it's gone. So it really doesn't matter, I guess.

        Too bad you can't be modded up to 100.

  • The signers will still vote for Obama and toe the party line.

    • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @05:37PM (#40621899)

      Hi. I already signed the petition. I have no intention of voting for Obama (or the other guy). I'm not particularly enamored with either major party. I'd just like to see the TSA held accountable and forced to respond to public criticism. Isn't that something every person who travels through America can agree on?

    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @05:55PM (#40622129)

      some will vote for O. some will vote for R. some will not vote.

      and yet ALL will be ignored.

      petition or not, those who rule by fear will not care what the population wants!

      and guess what, both 'guys' have enjoyed ruling by fear. and the next one, will to! bet on it.

      • Re:Pure distraction (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dishevel (1105119) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @07:04PM (#40622989)

        Which is the real reason for the second amendment.
        With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.
        With an unarmed populace the people fear the government. This is tyranny.
        Get guns. Film the police. Vote no on almost every new law. Vote in every election. Vote for the nobody. Vote for the new guy.
        Never vote for the incumbent. Never vote for his most likely opponent. Stay involved. Question authority. Do not fly.
        Break their power over us by arming yourself. (Guns/Information)
        Break their power over us by disarming them. (Money)
        You do not get a small accountable government by just demanding it of them. You must demand it of yourself.
        You must be self sufficient as much as possible. You can not effectively hold power over those you owe everything to.
        Pay your bills. Do not over spend. Save. Work. Expect nothing from them and more from yourself.
        Support your family. Hold your values.
        Remember. These people are elected. This is our fault. We must fix it.

        • by jrroche (1937546)

          Which is the real reason for the second amendment. With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.

          Let's be honest, even if every person in America bought a gun, the government still has tanks, jets, bunker busters, and enough other high tech, high yield weaponry, armor, and other gadgets, a full-on rebellion would be almost impossible to pull off. The Second Amendment may have kept people safe from the government in 1776, but that was when pretty much anyone could arm themselves as well as the military. The handgun you keep in a safe in your closet is not going to protect from the police state you're so

          • by dbIII (701233)

            Amendment may have kept people safe from the government in 1776, but that was when pretty much anyone could arm themselves as well as the military

            Artillery and a pile of other expensive and effective things mean that even back then the argument doesn't hold. The origin myth of the USA being won by a few civilians with antique muskets freezing in the woods is rubbish. Professional military (eg. Washington, a LOT of other soldiers, and real military equipment) and the support of the French (don't you guys h

          • All you would need to do is get the guys running the various bases in %area% to

            1 actively support you: hint they all swore "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am abo

          • by Dishevel (1105119)

            Civilian weapons are of course not meant to go up against the Army or the National Guard.
            If it comes to a massive portion of the populace of the US standing against the tyranny of the government. Armed and steadfast. The Army will not use force against us.

            Vote no on "ALMOST" every new law.
            And almost all of the time voting "yes" on the repeal of laws would be good.
            I would say that since it seems to me that over 95% of all new legislation passed is harmful, not well thought out, a handout to a contributor or

        • With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.
          With an unarmed populace the people fear the government. This is tyranny.

          You are a child. You may be 30, or 40, or 50 years old, but you are a child. Life is so much more complex than your simplistic little assertions. The government doesn't fear you because you're armed -- they have bigger guns, better guns, more guns. Nor does a gun give a sane man courage. A gun won't protect you from chemicals in your drinking water. It won't make the insurance company approve your claim, or stop your job from being sent overseas. The world can, and will, make you hurt and your pitifu

          • by Dishevel (1105119)

            Our guns are not meant to go against the US Army.
            The Army if ordered to kill thousands of US citizens would of course revolt.
            Almost is a key word. And since if you look at legislation passed. Even you have to admit that almost all of it is crap.
            And yes. Incumbents must go. A professional politician is a bad thing. Even if they are currently good at it.

        • by dkleinsc (563838)

          Do you really think that your small arms are any real defense against violent suppression by the US government? That's the bit of Second Amendment ideology I've never understood: there's this fantasy that the civilians of the US with enough guns could stand up to the US military. If it came down to US Army and Marine units versus a semi-organized group of gun-toting libertarians, my guess is that the professionals would wipe the floor with the amateurs. That's for the simple reason that they're professional

          • you are right. things are not how they were 200+ yrs ago.

            balance of power is forever lost when you have mega-super-giga-powers like the US and all the arms it controls.

            you may have guns, but they have planes, tanks, chemicals, and even people that will shoot their own people. witness the brutality of the OWS and these were peaceful protesters that had force used against them. big wake-up call there to see our military police force. if the army won't fight the citizenry, the police surely will!

          • by Dishevel (1105119)

            Here is what I do not understand.
            When you arm everyone two things can happen.
            19 dipshits with guns and an attitude can hold out in a compound and get killed by the National Guard.
            OR
            50,000 civilians can stand up armed and politely state that the federal government can take their law stating we must all submit to random TSA pat downs on the highway.
            When that happens the Army while technically superior, Better trained and much better armed will not fire. The citizens will win.

            • by dkleinsc (563838)

              How do the guns help the 50,000 civilians in the second scenario? If anything, I'd think they'd hurt your chances.

              Consider being in the role of an Air Force pilot being told to bomb a large gathering of Americans, and being told this from your commanding officer:
              "There's a large gathering of 50,000 people armed with assault rifles, stating that they're getting together to resist the government's policies. Our intelligence reports strongly suggest that they intend to rebel against the US government, and we h

        • by dbIII (701233)
          The USA, a place where people can scream "smash the state" and still think that they are conservatives.
          A government only really runs when it has the support of a lot of people, guns or not.
        • The funny things is , widespread distrust and fear of the governement is typically an US thing, most people I know from other countries (European) do not distrust or fear the governement (on the contrary they trust it too much IMHO) and we do not have the right to bear arm.
        • by Kijori (897770)

          With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.
          With an unarmed populace the people fear the government. This is tyranny.

          Really?
          So in the US the availability of firearms means that the government fears the people? It doesn't simply mean that the police are more militarized and heavy-handed, while the Government is no more accountable than it otherwise would be?
          Presumably Russia and Mexico are other bastions of freedom, while in most of Western Europe the populace lives under the heavy yoke of tyranny.
          Does it work in increments? China has less restrictive gun laws than much of Western Europe, so is it freer?

          Enough sarcasm - th

          • by Dishevel (1105119)

            Simplistic statements are always wrong.
            It is awesome how you failed to see that the statement you made invalidated itself.

            • by Kijori (897770)

              Heh, I hadn't noticed that. I suppose what I mean is that simplistic statements are almost always too simple to be accurate, but in my attempt to find a more pithy formulation I did pretty much what I criticised.
              In substance though I still stand by my point.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @06:04PM (#40622251)

      Some, sure. But here's the problem: The USA's first-past-the-post system all but guarantees that the winner of a presidential election will be one of two parties. In an ideal world, a third (or fourth, ...) party would be viable, but the reality is that it's not.

      As such, it's perfectly rational to complain about some of the policies of candidate X while still voting for candidate X. You say, "Realistically speaking, the winner of the election will be candidate X or candidate Y. I have a problem with a specific policy of candidate X, but overall, I much prefer the policies of X over Y. Therefore I will complain about this policy, but still hope candidate X wins (or candidate Y loses)."

      You can argue that the third-party stance creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, but you can also be pragmatic and realize that that's life.

      I personally have a number of problems with Obama, but the things I don't like about him are basically the areas where he's acted like a Republican (or, at least, like the modern Republican party). Realistically, I can have a pro-police-state candidate who is at least somewhat socially tolerant, or a pro-police-state candidate who is not as socially tolerant. It may be "hold your nose and vote", but I also realize that the ideal candidate for me could never get elected, so why not vote for the less-bad guy?

      Although if my state is more or less guaranteed to go for Obama, I might just vote Dave Barry.

      • by shentino (1139071)

        What's much more insidious is that the two party system effectively locks out any little guys that won't accept bribes from corporate america.

        It's easier to keep the gravy train from derailing when you don't have any competition with scruples.

    • The signers will still vote for Obama

      I'm guessing that many of the signers of a petition started and promoted by someone associated with the Cato Institute wouldn't vote for Obama independently of his position on this issue.

      But, yeah, I doubt that there are many who will sign the petition but who, aside from this issue, would be likely to vote for Obama that would switch based on this issue.

  • by gallondr00nk (868673) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @05:29PM (#40621805)

    This is exactly the sort of shit that happened with Hoover's FBI. More and more resources and power are granted to the point where the organisation can effectively be above the law, especially local or state rulings.

    This is the result of 11 years of the "war on terror". These sort of behemoth power structures were inevitable.

    • No (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @05:32PM (#40621841)

      History teaches us that we do not learn from history.

    • War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Homosexuality
      • by dcw3 (649211)

        Was there a point, or were you just trolling with your completely unrelated topics, and fantasy?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dbIII (701233)
      The TSA and Homeland Security in general are well beyond Hoover's FBI. It's turned into a vast welfare organisation funnelling so much money into so many pockets that it would probably be political suicide to kill it. You'll probably have to wait for an outgoing President that hates his own party before anyone seriously takes it on.
    • My question is why aren't people going to prison? The Supreme Court gave a legally binding order and nobody complied, that means somebody's got to go to prison.
      • My question is why aren't people going to prison? The Supreme Court gave a legally binding order and nobody complied, that means somebody's got to go to prison.

        I think we all know the answer to that, don't we?

  • There were around 900 this morning when I signed; currently nearing 6000 out of 20,000 needed.

    • Thank you, citizens, we now have your names for our no-fly, terrorists, and political enemies lists.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        I've been running my mouth online and signing petitions online (and not online) since I don't know when and I'm not on any no-fly list. I may well be on the political enemies list, though. I've never decided to FOIA myself, since I figure that's a bigger, redder flag than anything I've done yet.

      • Big. Fucking. Deal.

        The US has been on my no-fly list since they started fingerprinting tourists at the border, never mind the enhanced fondling and perv scanners.
    • As of this moment, there are 6143, including mine. I've also sent the link to a friend of mine who (I think) has a login there. He's pretty far out to the left and tends to vote for the Democrats without even thinking about it, but he'll probably sign this one. As I pointed out to him, this is exactly the type of transparancy Obama was talking about four years ago.
  • by Normal Dan (1053064) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @05:51PM (#40622083)
    Isn't someone supposed to get arrested?
  • I wonder if anyone in the judiciary branch enforcing rulings against the TSA ends up unable to fly/etc. They would have pretty much the same recourse as the rest of us.

  • This administration has a proven track record of obstructing justice, ignoring court orders and subpoenas, and pretty much doing whatever the hell it wants and ruling by fiat with executive orders.

    As far as power-consolidating dictators go, Obama makes Bush look like a rank amateur.

Moneyliness is next to Godliness. -- Andries van Dam

Working...