TSA Refuses To Provide Body Scanner Info In Lawsuit... Claiming Copyright Prevents Handing Over The Info
from the uh,-what? dept
Last year, we mentioned that privacy advocates EPIC were suing over the TSA's decision to use the naked scanners at airports. Reader jilocasin alerts us to a bizarre update in that lawsuit. Apparently the TSA is refusing to provide specific evidence to the court first claiming that it was "sensitive security information," but also saying that it won't hand over the info because it's copyrighted material. Say what? This makes no sense. If it's US government documents, then it's almost certainly not covered by copyright. But even if it's a private company's documents and covered by copyright, there's nothing stopping it from being handed over to the court.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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government would love to answer your question, but unfortunately the answer is copyrighted too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...now that song is stuck in my head...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course the judge could always view it in his chambers, separate from the court to decide, regardless of it's copyright status. It's amazing how many times copyright comes out as a reason to do things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps they would put it on their existing Puppy Gallery:
http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/editorial_multi_image_0009.shtm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only if it's transformative and original, which is why I long ago replaced my biological phallus with a dual-tipped mega-wang made to look like it's wearing a Derrick Rose jersey....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I bet if you added "On the Internet" you could manage to get a patent on it too.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Once a dick, always a dick ...
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if a plastic surgeon who designs their own implants go with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]