Judge Says No To FOIA Request For TSA Body Scan Images
from the suspect-reasoning dept
Julian Sanchez points us to the news that a district court judge has rejected an attempt by the privacy-rights group EPIC to force Homeland Security to release some 2,000 full body scans from the TSA's new airport scanners. EPIC has been suing to get the new scanners banned, saying that the machines violate both the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches) and the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a public review of such plans before the government can implement them.The group had filed a Freedom of Information Act for a variety of information about the scanners a while back, and while Homeland Security provided some documents, it withheld 2,000 test images that were done with volunteers. EPIC then went to court, but the judge claimed that the government has no obligation to hand over such info, and that providing such info could "provide terrorists and others with increased abilities to circumvent detection by TSA and carrying threatening contraband onboard..." In other words, the judge buys into the TSA's strategy of security by obscurity.
Frankly, if it's really true that releasing some images of what these scans look like make it possible for terrorists to beat these machines, then these machines are clearly useless. The TSA is delusional if it thinks that terrorists can't get their hands on these kinds of images. If the machine is so weak that having some images teaches you how to beat it, then the machine shouldn't be used in the first place.
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: freedom of information, scanners, tsa
Companies: epic, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
irony?
I am somewhat surprised you didn't comment on the irony of EPIC, a privacy rights watchdog organization, seeking the disclosure of 2000 body scan images. I understand the strategy they were pursuing, but I am torn on whether it is an appropriate one. In a certain respect it would be like a pro-gun control organization seeking to distribute assault rifles to as many people as possible in order to be able to point to the violence that would ensue as evidence of the need for gun control laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: irony?
Yeah, actually, I was originally thinking of saying something like that. However, it does note that the images were all of people who volunteered specifically for this, so I'm not sure there's really a privacy angle...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not saying it is. I just don't know what the review process was for this, and who had to sign off on the technology to get it approved. I'm sure lots of people would ooh and ahh at seeing a gun clearly defined in an example run, but that isn't a difficult item to pick out. We've been able to find them for ages with basic metal detectors.
I hope I'm not sounding like -- or turning into -- a conspiracy nut. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Terrorists will figure out the holes. That's their job. It's important we find them first. The more people you let test the system (or at least the data set), the more likely someone will help you find a problem with it, before it really becomes a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's time to stop making these mass-murderers under a more terrifying name out to be more of a 'danger' than they actually are/were ever.
I'm more worried about my right to not be treated like a criminal to use a service that I PAY FOR going down the drain for no good reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's time to realize that all of this stuff is SECURITY THEATER and is not necessary to protect us. Focus on keeping people from getting into the cockpit of the plane by reinforcing the door very well/never having to have the pilot come out of the cockpit (put a bathroom in the cockpit, as well as meal services for long flights) and move on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think it's important to test the proposed solutions to see if they if they're effective. My suspicion is that these backscatter machines will be proven ineffective, and thus not worth the cost/hassle/etc.
A metal detector and well-trained people interviewing every passenger is far more effective than the nonsense we trot out in this country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
:p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No qualifiers necessary
Or how about this?:
"The machine shouldn't be used in the first place."
No qualifiers necessary in my opinion.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
INVASION OF PRIVACY!
I will NEVER fly again as long as they use them naked scanners!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They should just release the images
then again if you request the information enough times maybe you could piece it all together and get a whole set.
(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/18050412224/fbi-almost-entirely-arbitrary-redacting -info-freedom-information-requests.shtml)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The issue is over Exemption (b)(2) High, or 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(2): "This section does not apply to matters that are ... related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency". (b)(2) is seperated in to "high" and "low." "Low" encompasses trivial matters with no legitimate public interest, like parking policies or bathroom breaks. "High" applies to more substantial information if disclosure would potentially lead people to circumvent rules or statutes.
In short, the (b)(2) High exemption is precisely "security through obscurity." There could be arguments of why this shouldn't be, but regardless, the law says that it is a perfecly acceptable exemption to FOIA disclosure.
As for the "internal personnel rules and practices" (b)(2) has been ruled as an acceptable exemption for "vulnerability assessments." Test images by volunteers seems to fall under the same category, especially considering the whole point was to determine effectiveness.
tl;dr - The ruling is legit. If you have issue, it should be with the law itself. "Security through obscurity" is enshrined in the case law of the FOIA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Liar, you DID know why...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]