
A court has ruled, in a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Transporation Security Administration (TSA) violated federal law when it went ahead and installed airport body scanners without seeking comments from the public.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals concluded TSA “has not justified its failure to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT scanners for primary screening.” And, the court ruled that under the Administrative Procedures Act federal agencies are required to provide notice and opportunity for comment when implementing rules that affect the rights of the public.
The ruling was not a complete victory for the privacy rights group. While Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg did agree the machines produce an image of an unclothed passenger and thus the body scanner intrudes upon personal privacy “in a way a magnetometer does not,” the court did not conclude that the scanners violate the Constitution.
Marc Rotenberg, president of EPIC and lead counsel in the case, reacted, “The TSA is now subject to the same rules as other government agencies that help ensure transparency and accountability. Many Americans object to the airport body scanner program. Now, they will have an opportunity to express their views to the TSA and the agency must take their views into account as a matter of law.”
Rotenberg finds that not only does this indicate the government is obligated to begin a process for taking “public comments” on the process, but the result also indicates “travelers have a legal right to opt-out of the body scanner search” and they should be free to exercise that right “without coercion.”
The lawsuit filed in November 2010, just after TSA scanners became operational in a number of airports across the country, shows EPIC sought to demonstrate the scanners violated a Department of Homeland Security statute by “eroding privacy protections by sanctioning the nationwide development of FBS devices in tandem with a systemized collection of airline passengers’ personal information.” The lawsuit also sought to prove the scanners violated the Privacy Act by “creating an indexed system of records containing air traveler’s personally identifiable information without publishing a system of records notice,” and they also violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by “substantially burdening the free exercise of religion of those airline passengers who embrace sincerely held religious beliefs requiring preservation of modesty.”
Finally, the lawsuit argued by “systematically capturing images” of the “private area of the individual” including “the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, [and] female breasts,” the TSA violated the Video Voyeurism Prevention.
It does not appear that the court ruled on these individual issues, although they did rule on the constitutionality of the scanners.
The ruling comes just as CBS News reports TSA’s decision to “streamline the airport security checkpoint process for frequent fliers” is “one of the most dangerous things,” according to aviation consultant Michael Boyd.
The TSA would like to make it so that “frequent fliers” can go through less rigorous screening. They may even be able to keep their shoes on and leave laptops in carry-on bags. However, they would have to be a specially selected “frequent flier” and have to pass a “background check” by Customs and Border Protection.
Boyd concludes:
The program) will give (TSA) time to focus on the untrusted travelers, which means if you don’t go through a government background check, you are going to be untrusted. … You’re going to have to go through the same security either way, but what really scares me is you’re not going to be a trusted person unless you go through a government background check — that’s scary.
The TSA is not a professionally-managed organization,” he said. “The problem with it is we have politics involved. We have go and show — the other day they announced they found a bag with 13 knives in it. I’m not impressed. The reality of this is, this is show and it’s not going to improve anything.
*
Here’s a recap for those of you not following along. In the last thirty days, TSA has:
- Asked a 95-year-old woman to remove her adult diaper (then denied ever asking her to do such a thing)
- Singled out a woman for a hair search probably because she was African-American
- After announcing they would try to avoid patting down children, let TSA pat down a 6-year-old boy twice
- Missed a man who stowed away on a flight from New York to Los Angeles
- Dismissed concerns about increased risk of cancer from the scanners (although these concerns have been coming from scientists since TSA began to use the scanners)
- Arrested a mom for refusing to let TSA search her daughter
- Let a stun gun get on a JetBlue flight to Boston. A cleaning crew found it.
- And, finally, couldn’t stop a scorpion from getting on a plane to sting a man
The outcome of this lawsuit isn’t just an occasion to get the public a chance to register comments on scanners in airports. It’s also a chance to get rid of TSA Chief John Pistole.
Here’s Keith Olbermann explaining why he’s got to go:



20 Comments

Ah, Kevin, “The Dissenter” looks a winner, already, judging by the posts which you and Jeff have put up.
My congratulations and profound appreciation to you both.
DW
My only question: When does “The Dissenter” get its name on the “top”?
DW
Strike that. Mine eyes do see … yes.
;~DW
It’s there now, DWB.
Yay for EPIC and the DC Court of Appeals!
It’s looking pretty snazzy, huh? Kevin and Jeff haver really spiffed up the place.
Were competitive bid laws also broken? Also the tech on these scanners I remember hearing was second rate why rush a second rate product that can’t do the job unless your a crony scratching another cronies back?
The only government regulation the GOP and Obama like are the ones that don’t work and are political payoffs.
Cool I can do smiles!
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/junk-security-naked-scanners-wont-keep-us-safe/
I say hit them from every direction at the same time!
http://www.politicolnews.com/chertoff-lobbyists-and-airport-scanners/
Hit them as useless hit them as political payoffs!
If they have to take comments, then they’re obliged under the Administrative Procedure Act to respond to every comment that they receive. To satisfy a court, the response has to be a reasoned one.
For something as controversial as this, there are likely to be many thousands of comments that they will have to respond to, if they want to go ahead with doing this.
Notice-and-comment requirements are one of the things that make issuance of regulations quite difficult for agencies.
Also, before issuing a regulation, they need to get approval from the Office of Management & Budget. They have to satisfy OMB that the regulation satisfies a costs-and-benefits balancing test.
I don’t think we’re ever going to see such a regulation issued.
Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee, unveiling their proposed fiscal 2012 budget for the Department of Homeland Security, said they rejected President Barack Obama’s requested USD$ 76 million for the scanners and personnel.
By AVIATIONBRIEF
Published: May 13, 2011
http://www.aviationbrief.com/?p=1557
Was this a real vote or just a vote that gives GOPers cover $76 million is bunch to spend on crap scanners.
They violated the law???? Well there is only one logical course of action. “It’s time to look forward.”
Page found that the 15 to 25 reported cases over nine years among 1,100 employees were “not an excess of cancer.” In the U.S., the lifetime risk of developing cancer is 1 in 2 for men and 1 in 3 for women, according to the American Cancer Society.
http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/13/7060349-scientists-question-cancer-risks-of-full-body-scanners
Can we get numbers for people who already had cancer? How many cancer survivors in America?
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/survivorshipMMWR2011
I see, reading the opinion (here), that the court didn’t vacate the rule, but just remanded it to TSA for going through the notice-and-comment procedure. So the rule apparently remains in effect.
I wonder what will happen if TSA finds going through that procedure to be too onerous.
They didn’t take public comments, but I bet someone took some money under the table.
Thanks for the news Kevin. I still don’t intend to fly again (I used to be a frequent flyer, but now I’m in the Amtrak rewards program ; ) while the scanners and grope-fest continues, but it’s nice to see a court at least send a sternly worded letter to Pistole.
What irks me the most is the assertion that these scanners do anyone any good at all. Even in a perfect world (which it isn’t) where the scanners are harmless (which I doubt) and we all are cool with getting naked with strangers (which I’m not), the fact remains that statistically the scanners cannot significantly reduce the risk of having a terrorist on your airplane, because the risk is vanishingly small to begin with. The numbers don’t work, because they can’t. And it is why the TSA, much to the chagrin of the GAO, never produced such an analysis.
Imagine having no security at all. Given the number of terrorists and the number of travelers, you can estimate the probability of having a terrorist on your airplane. From the outset, this will be a small number.
Next, consider each security procedure in turn. First, using an id to purchase a ticket and check in. This is why they have (a largely worthless as I understand it, but for the sake or argument, humor me) a terrorist watch list. In principal, that should reduce the risk of having a terrorist on your airplane. Since the number of terrorists is small and the number of travelers is high, the reduction in risk is likely small. Whether it is statistically significant, I don’t know, but lets assume so for now.
Second, the bag check (repeat the above analysis), third, the metal detector (repeat again), fourth, the shoe removal (and again), fifth, the shampoo routine (and again), sixth, the porn-fest… Well, you get the idea.
At some point adding a new hoop to jump through cannot reduce the risk in any statistically significant way. I would guess that is probably the case within the first or second round of screening. I’ll even let you pick your favorite two or three choices, I doubt it matters much.
I have asked the TSA for such a statistical analysis and received no response. I would dearly love to see someone press them on this point. However, if anyone has, I haven’t yet heard about it.
If the numbers don’t work, then they can’t do a cost-benefit analysis as required most insistently and recently by Obama’s Executive Order 13,563 from January of this year. So, even ignoring how they respond satisfactorily to comments, how do they ever get such a rule past OMB, which polices the cost-benefit analysis requirement?
And, if they can’t do that, what’s the effect of the court not vacating the original rule? Does TSA get to continue doing these scans indefinitely, even in the absence of a valid rule?
As far as I can tell, they simply haven’t done comprehensive risk assessments, certainly not of the nature I sketched out. I read an article awhile back that pointed that out. I couldn’t find it in my archive, but a quick google of GAO + TSA turned up a link dated yesterday.
Here’s a quote from last December:
There’s more. Evidently GAO has been complaining about the lack of risk assessments of various types for years.
I’m not familiar with OMB requirements, but a quick google of “OMB+TSA” didn’t turn up much in the way of news articles. There were various requests and forms and whatnot, but I didn’t review them carefully.
In any event, the key in all of this is simply found here and here. In short, politicians are bad at math, don’t understand technology, and are more than happy to throw money at problems before they put in the effort to understand them. The latter is especially true if there are campaign contributions involved.