Judge says government need not disclose air traveler security images

[Travelsonic]

A federal judge in Washington has ruled the Department of Homeland Security can keep from public view 2,000 "whole-body" images taken to test the machines used to screen travelers at airport checkpoints.

The decision is a setback for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which had sued the government for release of material to determine how the technology would impact privacy and civil liberty concerns.

But Judge Ricardo Urbina, in a 15-page opinion issued Wednesday, said the Homeland Security Department has no obligation under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose the images or related training materials.

[ARTICLE]


Un-be-****ing-lieveable.
:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh

 

[Councilman]

This is openness and transparency.

What they want you to know is how clear the images really are I have read that you can see individual drops of sweat as well as the lines of a Bikini wax job. If you get my drift.

I would not be surprised that at some point a TSA worker doesn't try to find a way to make a buck from images of someone like say Sarah Palin. The money that would be paid for such a score has got to be really up there.

Note the lack of detail in the TSA released image. It was done to cover the truth I believe. According to this picture everyone has the genitals of Barbi or Ken.

 

[Kal'Stang]

[ARTICLE]


Un-be-****ing-lieveable.
:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh

Now isn't this what is called "irony"? Here people are bi***inng and complaining about privacy violations and then when the TSA doesn't release photoes of peple naked you bi*** and complain about it. Talk about a double standard.

 

[Travelsonic]

There is the problem, without them being released - even if JUST to an independent group, with specific instructions, how do we know the TSA is telling the truth about the images - I mean aside from the blatant lies they already told about the device's ability to store/transmit images?

 

[Kal'Stang]

There is the problem, without them being released - even if JUST to an independent group, with specific instructions, how do we know the TSA is telling the truth about the images - I mean aside from the blatant lies they already told about the device's ability to store/transmit images?

Proof?


*10 char limit*

 

[EnigmaO01]

Good God who cares if they have images of you under your clothes? If something as stupid as that excites someone they can have at it. I am of the believe that there are two types of genital equipment and once you've see one you've seen them all. Big deal!

 

[Travelsonic]

Proof?


*10 char limit*

How about that they claim that the devices can't transmit, store images in any way, despite the fact that anybody who has had an iota of education on computer system architecture / design / theory knows that impossible if operators want to:

1. get the images off the device in the first place
2. be able to process the incoming data and any relevant instructions needed to make it so the people in the booths can see the image in the first place
3. have something to use in case something DOES happen.

Good God who cares if they have images of you under your clothes?!

Anybody who gives a damn about the constitution, IMO - last I checked, cops aren't allowed to do what the TSA is doing in regards to both the body scanners and the pat downs, why in god's name should non-cop federal agents be given those "forbidden privileges?" [Also, you might want to look into the 4th Amendment]

I am of the believe that there are two types of genital equipment and once you've see one you've seen them all. Big deal!

And you, like many others blindly supporting this technology, miss the point completely. [what a surprise /s*]


*a snarky comment ender of which I only say after debating this stuff on the CNN discussion boards

 

[MaggieD]

How about that they claim that the devices can't transmit, store images in any way, despite the fact that anybody who has had an iota of education on computer system architecture / design / theory knows that impossible if operators want to:

1. get the images off the device in the first place
2. be able to process the incoming data and any relevant instructions needed to make it so the people in the booths can see the image in the first place
3. have something to use in case something DOES happen.



Anybody who gives a damn about the constitution, IMO - last I checked, cops aren't allowed to do what the TSA is doing in regards to both the body scanners and the pat downs, why in god's name should non-cop federal agents be given those "forbidden privileges?" [Also, you might want to look into the 4th Amendment]



And you, like many others blindly supporting this technology, miss the point completely. [what a surprise /s*]


*a snarky comment ender of which I only say after debating this stuff on the CNN discussion boards

Please cite chapter/verse in the Constitution that says body scans can't be used to ensure safety...with the full consent of the participants. Oh, and before you use THIS argument, cite where in the Constitution it says that everyone has an unfettered right to fly. I'll wait.

 

[Travelsonic]

Oh, and before you use THIS argument, cite where in the Constitution it says that everyone has an unfettered right to fly. I'll wait.

First you tell me when the issue became about a right to fly as opposed to the extent of government intervention in regards to travel.

[Hey, I'm not the one who introduced the strawman]



Also, Last I checked, safety, or the perception of it for that matter, doesn't completely trump the constitution - though I guess that will be more accurately gauged in the coming months when the courts sift through the lawsuits popping up. Remember, though they have ruled on airport security before, I don't think they've ever had to deal with anything /QUITE/ like the pat downs or body scanners. To apply the rulings there to here may be very disingenuous.

Consider for example that the TSA is not law enforcement, and to do anything even close to resembling their behavior requires very specific circumstances or protocol BECAUSE of the fine lines between reasonable and unreasonable searches,e and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

[IANAL of course]

 

[Kal'Stang]

First you tell me when the issue became about a right to fly as opposed to the extent of government intervention in regards to travel.

[Hey, I'm not the one who introduced the strawman]

The moment that people started to complain about the TSA using body scanners being unconstitutional.

 

[MaggieD]

First you tell me when the issue became about a right to fly as opposed to the extent of government intervention in regards to travel.

[Hey, I'm not the one who introduced the strawman]

Also, Last I checked, safety, or the perception of it for that matter, doesn't completely trump the constitution - though I guess that will be more accurately gauged in the coming months when the courts sift through the lawsuits popping up. Remember, though they have ruled on airport security before, I don't think they've ever had to deal with anything /QUITE/ like the pat downs or body scanners. To apply the rulings there to here may be very disingenuous.

Consider for example that the TSA is not law enforcement, and to do anything even close to resembling their behavior requires very specific circumstances or protocol BECAUSE of the fine lines between reasonable and unreasonable searches,e and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

[IANAL of course]

What strawman???? You say these scans are unConstitutional. You call up the 4th Amendment. So...here it is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now! I repeat myself (because you are ignoring the truth of my post): Tell me WHERE in the 4th Amendment it says body scans can't be used...with the full consent of the participants. Oh, and before you use THIS argument, cite where in the Constitution it says that everyone has an unfettered right to fly. I'll wait.

I guess an MRI is unConstitutional. Huh?

 

[Mr. Invisible]

[ARTICLE]


Un-be-****ing-lieveable.
:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh

The government shouldn't even be archiving those images in the first place. Protecting us from terrorists my ass.

 

[Tucker Case]

with the full consent of the participants.

This is the part that is the issue. If people aren't fully informed about what exactly they are consenting to, or the information they are being given is not honest and accurate, full consent is not possible.

In order to have full consent, there needs ot be full disclosure. It seems that there is some disagreement regarding whether the information being given is accurate and honest.

 

[MaggieD]

This is the part that is the issue. If people aren't fully informed about what exactly they are consenting to, or the information they are being given is not honest and accurate, full consent is not possible.

In order to have full consent, there needs ot be full disclosure. It seems that there is some disagreement regarding whether the information being given is accurate and honest.

Just what full disclosure do you need? It's a body scan. We've seen sample images. If one is predisposed to think there are guys getting their rocks off looking at them, what kind of full disclosure would resolve THAT problem? Ever wonder what goes on in a morgue at the hospital?

 

[Zyroh]

This is the part that is the issue. If people aren't fully informed about what exactly they are consenting to, or the information they are being given is not honest and accurate, full consent is not possible.

In order to have full consent, there needs ot be full disclosure. It seems that there is some disagreement regarding whether the information being given is accurate and honest.

you should extend this argument to democracy and ask if the government should keep any secrets at all.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Just what full disclosure do you need? It's a body scan. We've seen sample images.

I agree. It is entirely wrong to argue, as some on this thread have, that full consent cannot be given unless every participant is fully cognizant of the resolution of the body-scan images. That level of understanding is not necessary for informed consent. If you give your consent to have your picture taken, is your consent somehow rendered invalid because you don't know if it is a digital camera or not?

What matters is that the person giving consent has a reasonable understanding of what they will be undergoing, as the airline passengers do here. There is simply no constitutional violation here, it completely boggles me how frivolous this argument is.

 

[Cameron]

Couldn't they just get consent from a segment of people and release those images, if it would answer/settle/clarify things?

 

[Tucker Case]

you should extend this argument to democracy and ask if the government should keep any secrets at all.

Why? Doing that would be stupid.

This isn't about secrets, it's about the nature of consenting to a search and what full discolsure means.

 

[Tucker Case]

Just what full disclosure do you need? It's a body scan.

An X-ray is a body scan. An MRI is also body scan. They render completely different images. Just saying it's a body scan doesn't really inform anyone of what it is.

We've seen sample images.

And there is question about whether those images are doctored, and ther eis a question about whether those images are stored or transmittable.

The issue of whether or not the search is actualy reasonable to begin with.

If one is predisposed to think there are guys getting their rocks off looking at them, what kind of full disclosure would resolve THAT problem?

They'd know exactly what they are consenting to.

Ever wonder what goes on in a morgue at the hospital?

Never.

Have you ever wondered what goes on in Wilford Brimley's bedroom?

 

[Tucker Case]

What matters is that the person giving consent has a reasonable understanding of what they will be undergoing, as the airline passengers do here. There is simply no constitutional violation here, it completely boggles me how frivolous this argument is.

If they are being misinformed about what they will be undergoing, then they can't have a reasonable understanding of what they will be undergoing.

 

[Travelsonic]

There is simply no constitutional violation here, it completely boggles me how frivolous this argument is.

And what reason is that? I keep seeing the "it's nt a violation" line repeated over and over, but never see substrance behind the why.

IMO, if a cop claims that he or she needs to kick you in the nads to complete an investigation, and you consent, the cop still broke the law - same with scams that involve your credit card information, you consented, but that doesn't make it legal per-se.

[I am only attempting to demonstrate that legality or lack therefore can not be derived solely on consent]

OTOH, one can argue about the constitutionality of what can be deemed a [digital] strip search by people whom are not law enforcement outside of what is reasonably [even going so far as to demonstrate that the reasonableness requirements in the document giving the TSA its power is not being met]

 

[Guy Incognito]

And what reason is that? I keep seeing the "it's nt a violation" line repeated over and over, but never see substrance behind the why.

Reverse that question and please explain to me where any violation of the fourth amendment is taking place? The searches are consented to and thus cannot be a violation of the fourth amendment. Fourth amendment violations can only take place when the party being searched refuses to give consent to the search.

 

[Guy Incognito]

IMO, if a cop claims that he or she needs to kick you in the nads to complete an investigation, and you consent, the cop still broke the law

Maybe, maybe not, but there is no constitutional issue there because there is no search. The fourth amendment doesn't apply in this situation but for a different reason. Here, there is a search, but the search is consented to. Whenever there is consent to a search, it removes the possibility of the fourth amendment being applicable. -

same with scams that involve your credit card information, you consented, but that doesn't make it legal per-se.

But it's not the same. Credit card scams involve consent obtained fraudulently.

 

[Tucker Case]

Fourth amendment violations can only take place when the party being searched refuses to give consent to the search.

That's true. The constiuttionality of tehse searches isn't really the issue, IMO. It's the fact that peopel are in a position where they have no choice but to consent or find some alternative means of travel AND the fact that there is some question as to what, exactly, they are consenting to.

 

[Ikari]

Now isn't this what is called "irony"? Here people are bi***inng and complaining about privacy violations and then when the TSA doesn't release photoes of peple naked you bi*** and complain about it. Talk about a double standard.

It's not a double standard. The point is that we want to SEE what they see. It's information control, which is not really something that should be championed. They tell us it's this and that, but they won't show us the unadulterated pictures so that we can see if it really is. We need to know what they are doing, we need to know how far they are going if we are going to have any chance at controlling the government. Those pictures should be released, I'm thinking the reason they are not is because of the outrage it would most likely generate.

Double standard...hardly. Only if you don't think about it.