Group Trying To Get Backscatter Airport Scanners Banned
from the good-luck-there dept
EPIC, the "privacy" activist group, is apparently asking a court to ban the new full body "backscatter" airport scanners, saying that they're violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches. The group is also claiming that the unilateral decision to start using those scanners also violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which would require public review of the plans before the government could implement them. I honestly doubt that this will win in the courts, but it's about time someone went a bit deeper in questioning the TSA's security theater.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, airport scanners, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(Meant about the litigating risk away comment.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child pornography?
Is that now the production of child pornography?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child pornography?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btw -the dude watching the screen is in another area so he doesn't even know "who" "you" are, nor does he even care. Quit complaining and enjoy the freedom you have to move about the cabin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...
There's a dude, in a dark room watching people all day.
And you don't think that's going to start affecting him in anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, because terrorists are more likely to use the same method again after it's been tried (and failed more times, statistically). Instead of, you know, using an unforeseen and original method of causing terror. Like our government is doing, for example.
"The idea here is to keep us SAFE."
Ok... but it doesn't even work. Go do some research online where these scanners FAILED to find the numerous items that the demonstration "terrorist" had on him. Including a detonator, plastic explosive material, and a cigarette lighter, just to name a few.
"btw -the dude watching the screen is in another area so he doesn't even know "who" "you" are, nor does he even care."
And the government officials who illegally wiretap you and search your computer aren't in the room with you either... so that's OK too?
"Quit complaining and enjoy the freedom you have to move about the cabin."
We have the 'freedom' to move about the cabin after we bow down to the government's agents and give in to their control in exchange for the (false) illusion of safety. No thanks. I'll walk. And when more and more THINKING consumers (yes, oxymoron, I know) start doing the same thing, the airlines will help us do away with this farce themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I, for one, would rather take my chances with the bomb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seize-Accuse-Forbid-Enslave?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
About 2 billion people fly every year. If you assume half of these are at airports that may actually use this kind of tech, then about 5 people will die every year to cancer caused by backscatter xrays and countless others will just get regular cancer that won't kill them within the year.
Ohh, and don't have sex for several days after getting on of these. They greatly increases the chance of having deformed babies.
There goes your honeymoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There goes your honeymoon.
If you're flying on a jet aeroplane, you probably also have access to contraception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@keybored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backscatter
When was the last time one of their airliners was hijacked?
This country is too stuck on technology; a dog�s nose is 40,000 more sensitive than any human or machine sniffer.
Also, a well trained dog can spot a nervous person and, dogs make terrorist nervous...
And, dogs are a whole lot cheaper than the gazillions of dollars that we are spending on trying to implement a technological solution to a problem that has already been solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Backscatter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Backscatter
You know, on second thought... I'll bring the popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Backscatter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Backscatter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Backscatter
And what's a semi-automatic machine gun? You mean the M-15 assault rifles they use (and bought from us)? or maybe the AR-15's? Because those weapons have many fire configurations, but I wouldn't describe any of them as a "machine gun".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Backscatter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Backscatter
PS The new backscatter units produce images that make the Pillsbury Doughboy look like porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Backscatter
It took me a minute, but I think you're saying the images are utterly non-erotic. Well don't underestimate the ability of *someone* to get turned on by something. Almost anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Backscatter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't they know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't they know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Israeli Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
So its OK for google but bad for the government to invade your privacy. I guess you would consider it free speech if the Government decided to post all the captured pictures under a CC license and posted them to "Google backscatter pics"..
Hey they could even tie it to street view and enable you to see naked pictures of the residents of the house, (great for rapists).
Then we can post assasination clips on youtube, so that your 11 year old daughter, can EASILY stumble across some person having their head cut off with a big sword !!!..
Great, If that is what you want Mike... Well I just dont know..
You might want to be a bit carefull with what you wish for, it might just come true..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1_DWYEIhgMK54_sBDMj5UnuW0bHmdADnCY3099_9ffF g
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
Google doesn't invade privacy, it only aggregates *PUBLIC* data. The data they use is already publicly available. There is no expectation of privacy with public data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bull SH**
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
backscatter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]