Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

Lawsuit seeks suspension of TSA virtual strip-searches

Lawsuit seeks suspension of TSA virtual strip-searches

Old Jul 6, 10, 12:04 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 79
Lawsuit seeks suspension of TSA virtual strip-searches

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2010/...trip-searches/
ehasbrouck is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 12:48 pm
  #2  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,720
"As EPIC notes in its latest filings, even after September 11th Federal courts have upheld “administrative (warrantless, suspicionless) searches in airports only to the extent that they are limited to what is “necessary” — meaning that they are actually effective and are the least restrictive available means — to detect weapons and explosives. Even beyond the specific issue of virtual strip-searches, this lawsuit is likely to be significant in helping define the bounds of TSA authority to conduct ever more intrusive searches as a condition of common-carrier travel."

^

It would be even better if these disgusting instruments were made 100% voluntary with *no* pat-down retaliation for refusal.
Spiff is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 12:50 pm
  #3  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,207
This lawsuit is wishful thinking, IMO.
Ari is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 12:58 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: *wood Gold
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
This lawsuit is wishful thinking, IMO.
TSA will have a hard time proving that the Porn-O-Matics fit the bill of being limited to what is "necessary" to achieve good airline security.

But then again... if TSA were limited to only what is "necessary" to achieving good airline security 80% of their staff would be gone since the glorified Wal Mart greeters hardly contribute anything to making our aviation system more secure.
clrankin is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 1:01 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,977
...issue an emergency stay of the TSA/DHS decision to deploy and require them as a condition of passage through checkpoints and air travel.
The TSA does not require them as a condition of passage. The opt-out provision is there precisely to torpedo a lawsuit such as this. When someone is forced to submit to a body scan with no alternative, then you have a case. And still probably lose.

It's Gilmore all over again.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 1:07 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,387
Originally Posted by clrankin View Post
TSA will have a hard time proving that the Porn-O-Matics fit the bill of being limited to what is "necessary" to achieve good airline security.

But then again... if TSA were limited to only what is "necessary" to achieving good airline security 80% of their staff would be gone since the glorified Wal Mart greeters hardly contribute anything to making our aviation system more secure.
TSA will claim that it is the authority in such matters and that the court should defer to them. They will also claim that extenuating circumstances (the panty bomber) required that they move more quickly than the normal rulemaking process would allow. They will also claim that since they've already installed the machines, and that there is no irreparable harm done by using them, that a stay is not warranted pending outcome of the case. Once the stay is denied, TSA will ask for delays and continuances to the court case. Sorta like they do with FOIA.

Nice, neat little package and TSA is most likely to prevail.
Global_Hi_Flyer is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 1:13 pm
  #7  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,207
Originally Posted by clrankin View Post
TSA will have a hard time proving that the Porn-O-Matics fit the bill of being limited to what is "necessary" to achieve good airline security.
I just read this and it isn't really a 'lawsuit' in the traditional sense; rahter, it is a petition for review of agency action. The DC Circuit will almost always side with the agency (unless the agency happens to be the EPA).
Ari is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 1:19 pm
  #8  
nrr
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: jfk area
Programs: AA platinum; 2MM AA, Delta Diamond, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 9,312
What is needed to stop the nude-scopes is to establish something harmful that comes from using them.
[Many years ago a project called Westway was to be built along the Hudson River. to replace NYC's westside highway, over $1 Billion was to be funded by the Federal government, it seemed a done deal. But striped bass ecology system would have been harmed. After many lawsuits, Westway was never built.]
nrr is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 1:30 pm
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 18,623
Why would EPIC file if they believe it's a losing proposition?

I would rather see a petition to suspend TSA!
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 1:45 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,977
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
Why would EPIC file if they believe it's a losing proposition?
Publicity. Nothing wrong with that.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 4:14 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Wally Bird View Post
It's Gilmore all over again.
Sadly I think you are correct. Although it would be nice if the courts at least ruled that any illegal contraband (e.g. drugs) which pose no threat to an airplane can't be used as evidence against anyone transiting the checkpoint. Maybe that would help tone down the wanna be cop mentality shown by some TSOs.
bosconet is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 4:51 pm
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
"As EPIC notes in its latest filings, even after September 11th Federal courts have upheld “administrative (warrantless, suspicionless) searches in airports only to the extent that they are limited to what is “necessary” — meaning that they are actually effective and are the least restrictive available means — to detect weapons and explosives. Even beyond the specific issue of virtual strip-searches, this lawsuit is likely to be significant in helping define the bounds of TSA authority to conduct ever more intrusive searches as a condition of common-carrier travel."

^

It would be even better if these disgusting instruments were made 100% voluntary with *no* pat-down retaliation for refusal.

I don't think the part you quoted is significant at all. Others have already posted reasons why. In addition, all DHS would have to say is "Delta 253" when questioned about something being "necessary."

As much as I hope this lawsuit would do something, I highly doubt it will.
LessO2 is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 4:58 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 319
Originally Posted by LessO2 View Post
In addition, all DHS would have to say is "Delta 253" when questioned about something being "necessary."
Then somebody competent could turn it around and say something along the lines of "Yes, do explain that intelligence blunder that hindered the prevention of Delta 253" could they not?
Travelsonic is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 5:03 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by Travelsonic View Post
Then somebody competent could turn it around and say something along the lines of "Yes, do explain that intelligence blunder that hindered the prevention of Delta 253" could they not?
Not in the courthouse, under these circumstances.

Actually, the intelligence failure, I think, makes the case the the strip search machine even greater.
LessO2 is offline  
Old Jul 6, 10, 5:31 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
"As EPIC notes in its latest filings, even after September 11th Federal courts have upheld “administrative (warrantless, suspicionless) searches in airports only to the extent that they are limited to what is “necessary” — meaning that they are actually effective and are the least restrictive available means — to detect weapons and explosives. Even beyond the specific issue of virtual strip-searches, this lawsuit is likely to be significant in helping define the bounds of TSA authority to conduct ever more intrusive searches as a condition of common-carrier travel."

^

It would be even better if these disgusting instruments were made 100% voluntary with *no* pat-down retaliation for refusal.
Whether or not TSA uses the body imagers, I would hope that TSA implements full pat-downs for everyone, as WTMDs are terrible failures concerning security. Or if you/anyone insist on WTMD then use that, if we must, with pat-downs for everyone.
SATTSO is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: