Group Trying To Get Backscatter Airport Scanners Banned

from the good-luck-there dept

Thu, Nov 4th 2010 7:30am — Mike Masnick

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.

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

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:04am

Expect Homeland Security to give this group extra scrutiny and single them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  Naw they will just delay their FOIA requests ... :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:07am

im curious to see how far we will really allow the risk of living to be litigated away..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:22am
  
  Re:
  Eventually, we'll all be in the Matrix
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eugene (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    And then, in the Matrix, someone will invent backscatter sanners. And then our virtual selves will also start sacrificing personal liberties for safety. And then *they'll* end up in the Matrix-Matrix
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ...niner??, 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:27am
  
  Re:
  this is one of the best questions/statements that I've heard of late. I've often wonder this myself. Thanks for posting what I've never been able to quite put into the right words.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ...niner??, 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    this is one of the best questions/statements that I've heard of late. I've often wonder this myself. Thanks for posting what I've never been able to quite put into the right words.
    
    (Meant about the litigating risk away comment.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Silverstein (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:23am

Child pornography?
Since this backscatter scanners produce images without clothes of all people going through it, what about children?

Is that now the production of child pornography?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 10:28am
  
  Re: Child pornography?
  Brilliant ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keybored, 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:40am

Look you imbeciles, do you really want to be blown out of the sky never to see your loved ones again? Get over it. The idea here is to keep us SAFE.

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 ]
- Chris in Utah (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
  - Benjamin Franklin
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CoCo Was Screwed, 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  you really are misinformed aren't you...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Its either sarcasm, he works for DHS, or he works for the company that makes the scanners ....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think Lewis Black said it best when he talked about how if you need the pat down, then do the pat down. But if you need the pat down, then all the other bullshit you made us do obviously isn't effective, so do away with it and just pat us the fuck down....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A not so funny thing occured to me after reading Bill Silversteins comment (above). Since these scanners can record I wonder how long it will be before someone posts kiddie porn online based on these scanners ... think of the children.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dawn (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  And what are the real probabilities that there will be someone carrying a bomb onto the plane under someone�s clothes? I think that the risk is such that I would rather my personal privacy not be invaded. However, if they would like to run me past some kind of explosive �sniffer�, that would be fine with me. Airplanes are still the safest method of travel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  "btw -the dude watching the screen is in another area so he doesn't even know "who" "you" are, nor does he even care."
  
  ...
  
  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 ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  "Look you imbeciles, do you really want to be blown out of the sky never to see your loved ones again? "
  
  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 ]
- PRMan, 4 Nov 2010 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  The risk of melanoma is probably higher than the risk of getting blown out of the sky.
  
  I, for one, would rather take my chances with the bomb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2010 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  I guess you welcome the comming police-state or are profiting from measures now...What you described ended in a corn-field in Pennsylvania...SAFE
  Seize-Accuse-Forbid-Enslave?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 8 Nov 2010 @ 5:52am
  
  Re:
  If you look up the "safety" on these back-scatter xray machines, they caused about one death per ~200mil people.
  
  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 ]
  - nasch (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 8:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    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.
    
    If you're flying on a jet aeroplane, you probably also have access to contraception.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Ryan, 16 Nov 2010 @ 5:13am
  
  @keybored
  Yes, we want our loved blown out of the sky. What an idiotic statement. I suppose if they told you that from now on you could only travel in hospital gowns, you'd be for that too? Well, I work with scanners - this is not some amorphous, fuzzy picture they come up with. These are recognizable (in color, no less when the software is adjusted) nude photos. And as far as the guy not caring - why do you think porn is soooo very prevalent on the web. This about what works, what doesn't and, most importantly, how far do we bend over in the name of "security". I am no libertarian but people taking naked pictures of the public (and so what if they are in another room - if nothing else, it gives them the opportunities for mischief that the public can't see).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:47am

We're imbeciles because we believe in personal privacy? We're not safe, we never will be safe. Get used to the idea and stop forcing the rest of us to subject to a legal screwing by the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:54am

dog cat mouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAC, 4 Nov 2010 @ 9:11am

Backscatter
The Israelis use dogs.
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 ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Backscatter
  You're right! We need properly trained Israeli Robo-Dogs!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gabriel Tane (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re: Backscatter
    Yeah, but MS would probably get the software contract, the dogs will BSOD and go on a killing rampage thru the concourse...
    
    You know, on second thought... I'll bring the popcorn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2010 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Backscatter
  The Israelis also use semi-automatic machine guns and don't give a rat's ass about your rights. Either you comply (at gunpoint) with the search or get your head blown off. Travelers need to remember (and understand) that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Something's gotta give. Either it's your safety or your privacy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - scarr (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 11:02am
    
    Re: Re: Backscatter
    Clearly, you've never been through Israeli airport security. If you think machine guns at the airport is unusual, you can't have visited many international airports; it's not uncommon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChadBroChill (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 5:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Backscatter
    Having been through the Tel-Aviv airport 5 times, I have found their security to be very thorough and long, but not invasive at all. They have armed soldiers on guard, but I have not experienced anyone being threatened, even a friend of mine with a Syrian stamp in his passport who got held up and questioned. They are very security-conscious (with good reason) but they don't invade your privacy on a whim like they do here in the good ol' USA. They are courteous and respectful until you lie to them or do something threatening yourself (such as my dumb dad forgetting about the knife in his bag). So it seems you can have privacy and security at the same time. But never safety, no one has that.
    
    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 ]
    - nasch (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 8:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Backscatter
      Hardly anyone knows the difference between an automatic rifle and a machine gun, or even that there is a difference.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pgz (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: Backscatter
  The Israelis also have no qualms about profiling, and many citizens are armed to the teeth. If you are ready to pursue the Israeli model due to its success, you better be ready to go the whole nine yards.
  PS The new backscatter units produce images that make the Pillsbury Doughboy look like porn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 4 Nov 2010 @ 2:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Backscatter
    The new backscatter units produce images that make the Pillsbury Doughboy look like porn.
    
    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 ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 5 Nov 2010 @ 6:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Backscatter
      internet rule# 34. -shudder-
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 4 Nov 2010 @ 9:28am

Don't they know?
Naked is the new secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2010 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re: Don't they know?
  I wonder what effect this will have on streakers in airports...if any.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 4 Nov 2010 @ 5:02pm

The Israeli Model
Bruce Schneier looked at this recently, and concluded that the Israeli model cannot scale to the workload of major international airports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 4 Nov 2010 @ 10:29pm

But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
Oh I see, I get it now, its not Ok for the Government to take pictures of you and invade your privacy. But its OK for Google to do it, why is that ? is it because the Governnment is trying to stop bombs and smuggling, and Google are trying to extract more money from the entire population.

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 ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Nov 2010 @ 12:46am
  
  Re: But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
  Darryl, do you come up with this sort of humor on your own, or do you have help?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 5 Nov 2010 @ 8:04am
  
  Re: But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
  I wonder how hard it would be to write a Greasemonkey script that collapses all darryl threads. I may look into that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 5 Nov 2010 @ 4:27pm
  
  Re: But if it was Google streetview it would be 'OK' by Mike.
  Not too hard! If someone wants to host this somewhere, go for it. If you use Firefox, install Greasemonkey and then add a new script using this script below. It could probably be adapted to some other browsers, feel free to experiment.
  
  https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1_DWYEIhgMK54_sBDMj5UnuW0bHmdADnCY3099_9ffF g
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 8 Nov 2010 @ 7:45am
  
  Re: 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."
  
  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 ]
Mr.Paul, 14 Nov 2010 @ 11:40pm

Bull SH**
If ANYONE came up to me or especially my wife and said to submit to one of those,Id be outraged and Refuse to do so..They dont kno what kinda problems people have with that!! It's all crap,and the poor people who accually have to work there in the airports.Im sure they have tons more of sexual harrassment there now..How unfortuanate that this country(USA) is going to shit..I'm totally outta here,screw this government..bunch of ignorant politicians..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wakawaka, 16 Nov 2010 @ 8:04pm

backscatter
backscatter images are extremely precise. sometimes on tv we see deliberately altered backscatter images designed to hide genitalia, but that deliberate alteration is done because the actual image is completely accurate picture of you without clothes. and as for backscatter porn--i've already seen some. to do backscatter porn you take a video camera, videotape the person standing on the backscatter machine, then walk over to the video display of their naked image, and video tape their naked body. This technology is going to destroy the morality of the people who monitor it--they are going to see every conceivable body type completely naked, children, men, women, old men, old women. backscatter is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]