Appeals Court Wants To Know Why TSA Is Ignoring Court Order Over Public Hearings On Naked Scanners

from the we're-the-gov't,-we-can-ignore-stuff dept

Thu, Aug 2nd 2012 2:59pm — Mike Masnick

About a year ago, we wrote about a court ruling that the TSA's naked scanners were legal (they didn't violate the 4th Amendment's restriction on "unreasonable" searches), but that the TSA failed to hold the proper public hearings before buying and deploying them. The TSA appears to have only paid attention to the first part. After a bunch of folks asked why the TSA was ignoring the order for public hearings, now an appeals court has officially weighed in and demanded to know why the TSA has failed to hold public hearings more than a year after that court ruling. The order is pretty straightforward:

ORDERED that the Department of Homeland Security, et al., respond to the petition on or before August 30, 2012.

The TSA has said that it would hold hearings "next year" (or two years after it was ordered to do so). You would think that it wouldn't take the TSA two years to set up basic hearings -- especially while it has continued to roll out a variety of new scanning machines...

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: court order, privacy, public hearings, scanners, tsa

42 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

kenichi tanaka, 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:05pm

The court did not say "hold hearings two years from now", I didn't read that in the order. Just like the TSA to make up its own rules hoping that the courts would forget all about it.

That's the only thing that the Federal government knows how to do, trample all over our constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:59pm
  
  Re:
  +1
  Bunch of A-Holes in our Government
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 12:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not all of them, but most? Yep.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:10pm

DHS doesn't think they're above the law,,, they think they _are_ the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy, 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:09pm
  
  "National Security"
  ...means "we do this to keep you safe, so don't question."
  
  There were TWO lessons to learn from "A Few Good Men"
  
  1) Yes, in the world we live in, you need someone on that wall doing the dirty work to keep a nation safe just as Jack Nicholsen portrayed so well.
  
  2) Yes, we do in fact get to question how they do their jobs.
  
  Apparently the federal government now acts like only #1 applies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 11:06pm
    
    Re: "National Security"
    Actually, most of the 'dirty work' to keep a nation safe when it comes to assassinations and preemptive monitoring of everyone isn't necessary.
    
    We have created Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations today by butting into the Middle East's business when we should not have.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: "National Security"
      "We have created Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations today by butting into the Middle East's business when we should not have."
      
      *rolls eyes in annoyance*
      Yes, because Saddam Hussein, a man who commited genocide on the village of Dujail in 1982, got 100% of the yes votes from his people to reelect him for president under penalty of death for a no vote, and was scentenced to death for crimes against humanity is deffinitly a bad reason to leave the middle-east alone.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 6:49pm
  
  Unions thumb nose at Taxpayers
  "...with collective bargaining power over workplace issues such as work shifts and vacation time, unionized TSA screeners will be even less responsive to public complaints. Any changes that need to be made to address new security threats would need to be negotiated with the union."
  
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/8/union-power-at-tsa-airport-security-is-com promised/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 3 Aug 2012 @ 3:53am
  
  Re:
  Erm, given their experience so far they are correct, are they not?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve, 3 Aug 2012 @ 3:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't know how this got here, wrong reply..... sorry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 3 Aug 2012 @ 3:56am
  
  Re:
  Erm, given their experience so far they are correct, are they not?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:14pm

Columbus International Airport
Ok I have a question, the TSA agents are scanning naked people? I know it's usually just a high resolution, over glorified x-ray machine that gives no 3D images. Of course the x-ray type is what Columbus International uses. Maybe the TSA needs to train its officers that you don't need to strip people for the scans. The only clothing that should come off are shooes and belts. Maybe some states missed that memo.

But really, the TSA should do better to tell the public what the images actually show so nobody complains. Of all the Tomfoolery in top secrecy and national security, the TSA failed completely in realizing that people won't understand until the machine's capabilities (or lack thereof) are fully demonstrated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:21pm
  
  Re: Columbus International Airport
  Easy:
  
  1. Put up big monitors so everybody can see the scan--everybody can be equally humiliated.
  
  2. Put in place a "you can stab/hit/insert-into the stupid TSA Agent anything you can sneak thru the naked body scanner" policy.
  
  (3. Record all this crap and add some zany music for America's newest game show.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:39pm
    
    Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
    That second one would probably cause a huge boost to booked flights by people looking to attempt to even the score a bit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
    XD perfect im now LMAO :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re: Columbus International Airport
  But really, the TSA should do better to tell the public what the images actually show so nobody complains.
  
  I think they've done a reasonably good job of doing that. You can see sample images and everything at TSA's site and other places. That's one of the reasons that people are complaining.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
    Ok, they show the details. I've seen a lot of the protest come from people who don't notice that the screens these devices are attached to are behind blacked out windows and are hidden away from the public. Logic suggests that these examples on the TSA sites were volunteer models and if not, there should be blur in front of the faces and vital bits.
    
    As for the scans at the airport, it's no more revealing than an MRI or CAT scan.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
      Yes, but MRI and CAT scans are covered by HIPAA to protect your privacy. They are also handled by professionals who have studied their trade for years, and are held accountable to certain moral and ethical standards. I CANNOT say the same thing about the TSA airport security personnel.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
        Not going to argue, just straightening our statements out :-) My mother worked with homeland security as a nursing consultant on biohazzard containment and detectinon of foreighn objects in suspects. She has lead a colorful career as an Administrative RN and OB Nurse and currently works on auditing US hospitals for medicare fraud recovery services. I asked her about it. Turns out that HIPPA does apply which means that the examples on the site are either vullentary demonstration models, or to avoid HIPPA violation, certain body parts and identifying features must be blurred out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - LDoBe (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 10:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
        Also, don't forget that you aren't subjected to a CAT/PET scan or MRI whether you want one or not whenever you go to the doctor's office, even if you just want to refill a prescription.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
        Besides, CAT and MRI scans have actual, proven, use.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
        We are subject to going through metal detectors in the same way. I think that in time, these implants will die down. Unlike most other government agencies, the TSA doesn't give false or outlandish figures so I can give them credit for at least that. The scanners measure density in objects using a combination of x-ray and ultrasound and MRI which makes it much easier to detect explosives and illegal drugs.
        
        I think that the press made such a huge deal out of the "possibility" of an agent being a pervert because of a very small and few incidents of devience in protocol. Most of the agents I have run into are trained professionals and would never purposefully scan someone because they wanted to see them naked.
        
        As I stated before, it's the media making a mountain out of a mole hill. Fox and CNN are always quick to jump the gun on single isolated incidents. They only report speculation rather than facts and use speculation to milk the story into a drama.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
        I think that the press made such a huge deal out of the "possibility" of an agent being a pervert
        
        Ahh, I think I see why I was unable to understand your point.
        
        Neither myself, nor anyone I personally know who objects to the scanning (which hovers near 100% of the people that I know) object to it because they think the agents might be perverts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
        "Neither myself, nor anyone I personally know who objects to the scanning (which hovers near 100% of the people that I know) object to it because they think the agents might be perverts."
        
        Precisely, ^_^ and I do realize that people are really self conscious about their bodies too. I could hazard a guess to say that has a bit of a factor in it. But what people fail to realize is that the TSA agents that are actully looking at your body are trained medical professionals who are not inclined to share your "naked" photos online.
        
        I should clarify and merge a couple of things as well so hang in their I will do my best to explain.
        
        Say we have an incident where ONE agent goes out of line and decides to strip search a hot chick or a hunk of a guy, and that one person objects to the strip search. It gets spread that the person was quite violated. So what happens is, that one person tells their experience. Now maybe the person understands the fact that particular agent was out of line, maybe he or she doesn't. The story trickles on slowly and then WHAM!!! It reaches CNN and Fox. Both of whom make huge deals out of isolated unrelated incidents and both seem to make it like a conspiracy. They report on the fact that she was being hatrassed and make it look like the entire process is like that.
        
        Nothing on anyone to object to it because they are self conscious, but when I look back on how much hype these incidents got on CNN and Fox I start to realize how it has slowly been indoctrinated into viewers who actually rely on them for news eventually start believing the misinformation they receive from those two news agencies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
      As for the scans at the airport, it's no more revealing than an MRI or CAT scan.
      
      You say that like it makes the whole thing better somehow, but I don't think that it does.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Columbus International Airport
        Nah, they use MRI to make sure you aren't trying to hide things in your body. Some objects cannot be picked up by x-ray alone so they use a low res quick scan MRI (rubbers filled with cocain for instance). I was told to hold absolutely still in the times I was scanned.
        
        Most bodies show up as a white blob with no ID features. The only identifiable (and i mean just basic shapes) things are the naughty bits. Heck even with the naughty bits it's in such low detail you can't identify who it is.
        
        In other words, it's no porno, they don't see vitals, they only check for foreign objects.
        
        As for the illegal search and seizure bit, I personally think the TSA needs training from the police to determine the nessecity for that. A lot of the TSA policies were written by politicians and not law enforcement officers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:43pm

Enjoy your traveling now Mike. Get used to seeing the letters SSSS - you publicly pointed out they were liars. We already know they are domestic terrorists (following the DOD definition which says "�The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.
(Source: Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010))"
They've used 'threat of violence' (do this or you'll get blown up) to cooerce societies (ie the traveling public into nudie scanners) for ideological (that they're supposed to be in control) and political (ditto) beliefs, for a goal that's political 'anti terror legislation passage, and government control'

They are, by definition, terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:34pm

I'm curious, what would the repercussions be if the TSA were to simply ignore that court order?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re:
  Likewise, what would the repercussions be if everyone simply began ignoring the TSA as a result?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 5:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    For the 'ignoring the court order' one, not a gorram thing. If they were actually answerable to anyone, they wouldn't be able to get away with even half of the stuff they do. At most I'd expect some really stern language sent their way for flaunting in public what everyone already knows: that they are very much above such petty things as 'laws'.
    
    As for the second, say goodbye to ever flying into, out of, or around the US; defy the TSA and you're not boarding your flight, period.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dave (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 5:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you ever get out of jail for flaunting them!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 11:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Don't be too sure about that. The main reason that the TSA has been getting away with this shit is because no one has had the gonads to take them to court and get a severe judgment against them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 5:16pm

Don't look behind that curtain
Interesting question: has ANYBODY, besides a TSA insider, actually seen one of these machines in action at an active airport. Perhaps the "Theater" is more profound than we think. Maybe it's ALL theater, and they are just bullies getting off on humiliating the public. If the nudie machines were just empty, non-functional shells that we were paying millions for, that might explain the TSA's reluctance. Follow the money. FBI: who's getting rich off this scam I'm paying for? WE'd like to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 9:32pm
  
  Re: Don't look behind that curtain
  Unfortunately the FBI would likely find someone who is in the middle of being screwed over by one of the bailed out banks by foreclosing on that person and trick them into being a stooge, like the fake terrorist stooges they're so good at creating, and then arrest that stooge instead of the real criminals- federal law officers like TSA, FBI, Homeland Security, Congress, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ven, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:27am
  
  Re: Don't look behind that curtain
  I have seen TSA agents ask someone to check their pockets after being screened by a back-scatter x-ray machine, he had left a money clip in back pocket. So they do in fact do something, but from the TSA's own prior statements about their 'big finds' it's usually stupid things like pocket knives and such.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 6:33pm

"Appeals Court Wants To Know Why TSA Is Ignoring Court Order Over Public Hearings On Naked Scanners"

Because they can that's why...there's nothing to see here...move along citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 11:12pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, there is plenty to see here and it's about time that the United States people said "NO MORE!" and started telling the government about themselves and perhaps thinking about "Civil War 2" over this crap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 3 Aug 2012 @ 3:44am

You would think...
"You would think that it wouldn't take the TSA two years to set up basic hearings -- especially while it has continued to roll out a variety of new scanning machines..."

Actually, I would think it would take the TSA a lot more than two years to set up anything -- especially if it has a variety of new scanning machines still to be rolled out for taxpayer (=easy) money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:38am

The radiation is the problem.
These scanners are not regularly tested.

The TSA does not allow it's employees to wear dosimeters.

No one knows how much radiation passengers are exposed to.

If you're more concerned about the visibility of your genitals than you are about developing cancer from radiation exposure you're sadly misguided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:03am

In order for the TSA to stop, people would need to stop flying, which doesn't seem likely.

As for the dangers from being exposed to radiation, what do they care? Recently they've been putting truck drivers through the same thing.

Ironic how the TSA, supposedly charged with overseeing public safety, would just as soon clobber someone over the head if they protested their draconian measures.

Remember when they beat that Iraq soldier in Las Vegas just for carrying a can of Sprite?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaX0dSRl9zw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dr evil, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:46am

Opt out, nah.... Too hard for most americans
Guys/girls,
I opt out every single time, and i am very, very much in the minority. You all gave in and accepted the scanners, so the 'terrorists' won. So shutup and be scanned, you sheep.

/troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rapnel (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 9:23am

this just in...
Terrorism Sinks America!!

Millions flounder in Sea of Fire!

Shocked and awed onlookers do .. nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]