5 ms·
Court OKs Airport Body Scanners, Rejects Constitutional Challenge
- geuis 15y agoGonna make a rare politic statement here: Who's up for a sit-in protest at SFO?
- a3camero 15y agoI was happy to return to my domestic airport security after coming back through SFO. This type of "security" is alienating foreigners. I opted out of these scanners at SFO and was hassled by security as to why I would want to do that and then they waited about five minutes before beginning manual screening, despite having staff on hand. I assume it's to discourage people from opting out. Nice city, nice airport, bad security.
- calloc 15y agoI love it when they start yelling "Opt-out" into their radio's to let some supervisor know and then they give you the scowling look while asking you why you'd want to opt-out.
- 1010011010 15y agoYes, they intend to make the screening as unpleasant as they can get away with to encourage use of the nakie-scanners.
- ams6110 15y agoThese security procedures have got to be having a depressing effect on domestic air travel also. I know that I now fly only if I absolutely have to.
- jdp23 15y agoYes it has; the specific amount isn't known. Back in the early 2000s when they changed the checked baggage search policy, it's estimated that it had a 6-8% affect on travel -- there are some nice papers from profs at Cornell who analyzed it. Somebody I know who's talked with airline CEOs confirms that they're concerned, but still hopeful that it will be transient. Airlines were ridiculously profitable in 2010; 2011 will be a tough year for them in any case because of fuel prices. When people ask me what they can do to help get rid of these policies, I tell them the best way to make an impact is to stop flying [or reduce as much as possible], tell your airline why, and suggest that all your friends, relatives, and colleagues do the same.
- rdl 15y agoDomestic security procedures are responsible for about 50k extra miles on my car in the past 24 months of driving. Anything from Vancouver, BC to San Diego to Colorado is pretty much in a driving radius from SF; Austin, DC, NYC, Miami, and Boston are the only CONUS destinations I'm likely to travel to which are beyond it.
- drags 15y agoWhy not apply for a permit, dress up as business travelers and pass out literature promoting your position? Seems that would avoid feeding into the "Why are a bunch of crazy leftists clogging up my airport" stereotype _and_ ensure you get to stay there for more than 5 minutes before being hauled away by airport police. See: https://www.sfoconnect.com/public/sfo-rules-and-regulations https://www.sfoconnect.com/public/sfo-rules-and-regulations for more info.
- subway 15y agoI dunno about you, but when I'm going through SFO, I actively avoid the folks in the "Free Speech" cubicles.
- Sukotto 15y agoEvery time I see one of these signs[1] at the airport I feel strongly tempted to paste the word "theater" at the end of the last sentence. I'm too scared of getting arrested and, in turn, having that arrest blow my chances of immigrating[2]. [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/katiekills/5616870009/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/katiekills/5616870009/ [2] Though the more of this sort of BS I see, the less I really want to stay here in the US. :(
- roc 15y agoWhoa... take out liquids? When did that start?
- benmccann 15y agoI think quite awhile ago, but I always ignore it and they rarely care. Perhaps once they made me take them out after they'd gone through the x-ray machine and made me put my bag through the x-ray again.
- pyre 15y agoThey rarely do care, but they did the one time that I was trying to get some luggage through with a couple of Xmas gifts that were jars of food. Also while trying to take a souvenir snow globe home I found out that TSA says that snow globes are banned even from checked luggage. Huh? I had to ship the fucking thing home. edit: Just checked the TSA site and apparently they can go into checked luggage. That's a change because I remember looking it up at the time and thinking that it was insane the ammunition was allowed in checked luggage but snow globes weren't.
- StavrosK 15y agoWhenever I see one of those signs, I always think "in ten seconds, security will occur". They're absurd.
- geuis 15y agoYou have a perfectly valid reason to fear about that too. We need the best people from around the world to come to the US and make a life here if they want.
- rdl 15y agoWho's up for: * Boston-Washington Chinatown Bus style service on the West Coast -- LTE/wifi enabled, clean bathrooms, non-sketchy people, luxury. Cover SFO-SAC-SJC-MRY-SLO-LAX etc. Maybe buses to/from Vegas, Portland, Seattle. The problem is the distances are much longer, but maybe it would work? * Charter service taking off from non-TSA airports, using IT to allow last minute bookings, etc. Priced around domestic first class, maybe around full-fare coach for long prebooking, or at coach rates if a company commits to e.g. 8 interchangeable-passenger seats per flight on every monday and friday flight or something. I think a lot of companies could use 2 seats every week from SFO-NYC, and then just book commercial or buy at higher prices if they end up needing more for periods of peak demand. A lot cheaper than a corporate jet.
- law 15y agoI didn't read the news article; I don't have time for sensationalist tripe. Instead, I went straight to the source: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/B3100471112A40DE852578CE004FE42C/$file/10-1157-1318805.pdf http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/B310047... Congress directed the TSA to "give a high priority to developing, testing, improving, and deploying" at airport screening checkpoints a new technology "that detects nonmetallic, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, and explosives, in all forms." The TSA responded by contracting to develop the scanner in two forms: one that uses millimeter wave technology and another that uses backscatter technology. Each technology is designed to produce a crude image of an unclothed person. No passenger is ever required to submit to an AIT scan, and signs at security checkpoints notify passengers that they may instead opt for a pat down. Each image produced by the scanner passes through filters that obscure facial features and is viewable on a computer screen only bay an officer sitting in a remote and secure room. After the passenger is cleared, the image is deleted. In April 2010, the EPIC argued that the use of the AIT for primary screening violates the Privacy Act, the Fourth Amendment, a provision of the Homeland Security Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Here, the court focused mostly on the procedural argument that the TSA should have engaged in notice-and-comment rulemaking. The petitioners argued that the TSA refused to process and effectively ignored their 2010 letter that putatively "petitioned" for rulemaking; the TSA claimed that this letter did not "petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the rule," because the relief actually sought was the immediate suspension of the AIT program. This court didn't buy that argument. The TSA anticipated the court would feel this way, so they next argued that they appropriately responded to the petition by denying it. The court can only set aside the TSA's denial if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Moreover, the court is compelled (by Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez) to give a high level of deference to an agency action under 'arbitrary and capricious' review. Here, the TSA denied the petition on the ground that the TSA is not required to initiate rulemaking procedures each time the agency develops and implements improved passenger screening procedures. So why didn't there TSA publish notice of a proposed rule in the Federal Register and solicit and consider public comments upon its proposal at the outset? They figured they didn't have to. The 'notice and comments' requirement of the APA does not apply "to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice." The TSA argued its decision to use the scanners for primary screening comes within all three listed categories. The court notes that procedural rules do not themselves "alter the rights or interests of parties, although it may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency. A rule with "substantial impact" upon the persons subject to it is not necessarily a substantive rule, however. The new rule imposes no new "substantive" obligations upon airline passengers: they're still required to pass through a security checkpoint, and they're still prohibited from carrying weapons and explosives on board. However, the court notes that it is "clear" that producing a picture of an unclothed passenger affects the public in a substantively different manner than the beep from a metal detector, and echoes the policy interests served through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The TSA tried to justify its decision to forego notice-and-comment rulemaking by claiming that it announced only an interpretive rule. The petitioners contended that the rule is legislative, rather than interpretive, because it "effectively amends a prior legislative rule." But, because the TSA's policy substantially changes the experience of airline passengers, it's not merely interpretive. The court notes, however, that the purpose of notice-and-comment rulemaking would be "disserved" if an agency with a broad statutory command (like detecting weapons) could avoid notice-and-comment rulemaking simply by promulgating a comparably broad regulation (like requiring passengers to clear a checkpoint) and then using its power to create a strict and specific set of obligations. The court held that the "TSA has advanced no justification for having failed to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking" and accordingly remanded the matter back to them for further consideration. The reason they decided not to vacate the present rule was because it would "severely disrupt an essential security operation," and the rule is otherwise lawful. Turning to the substantive claims, the first one (concerning a violation of the VPPA) failed, because it actually requires a rulemaking proceeding to have occurred and for any objection to have first been made there. Of course, that's the same proceeding at issue in this case, so that claim failed. The second substantive claim was that the scanners violate the Privacy Act, but because the TSA doesn't keep any "system of records" linked to names or any other personal identifier. The third claim was actually more viable: it focused on religious opposition to being viewed naked, but that claim failed because none of the litigants have standing to assert a religious injury. Finally, the petitioners argued a Fourth Amendment violation, because the scanners are more invasive than is necessary to detect weapons or explosives. Because this is an administrative search serving a very important social function, the court concluded that there was no violation.
- Osiris 15y agoI continue to believe that these screening processes are simply theatre and do little to actually improve security of passengers. For example, recently in the news (see http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0707/TSA-warning-describes-surgically-implanted-bombs http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0707/TSA... ) the FBI and TSA have admitted that current security procedures are incapable of detecting surgically implanted explosives. While this scenario is unlikely, the point is that a determined enemy will find a way to strike. If anything, there are numerous ways in which the current procedures are ineffective against various attacks such as 1. Suicide bomb in the security line 2. RPG attack from outside the airport grounds 3. Plastic weapons in carry-ons. A few months back I accidentally flew home with a box cutter I had been using at a client site I was visiting. Adam Savage talked about accidentally taking 12" foam-cutting razor blades in his laptop bag. And with tight security, wouldn't terrorists simply look to less-protected areas for attacks, such as trains or highways? The fact that attacks have not been made on those insecure areas indicates that the threat level to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is incredibly low.
- smhinsey 15y agoI have long thought that the security lines themselves are far more at risk than the actual planes. If you fly through any relatively large airport during a busy time, or even just an unlucky time, you'll sometimes see lines with hundreds of people in them (thousands if you happen to be somewhere like O'Hare during a holiday weather delay). In IAD or DCA there are massive terminals with glass ceilings and windows with large snaking security lines. The carnage from even a small explosion would be immense when the structure itself potentially serves as shrapnel.
- djm 15y agoIt's interesting you mention that. The US (& most other places) may have something to learn from Israel here. It is my understanding that they make people waiting in airport lines to remain in small groups and arrange them in such a way as to minimise the expected loss of life in the case of suicide bombings etc.