The Nude Scanners May Be Leaving, But TSA Scanning Still a Scandal
This is from last week, but only came to my attention today, via the Competitive Enterprise Institute (where I held a fellowship in 1999): Some interesting lack of enthusiasm for the kinda-good news that the Rapiscan body imaging machines are being removed by June from airport checkpoints by TSA, noted here at Reason 24/7.
CEI's Marc Scribner thinks TSA scanning is still a scandal:
….What happened [last week] is that the TSA is ending its contract with OSI (parent of Rapiscan Systems), manufacturer of the original whole-body scanner, because OSI was unable to meet its deadline to come up with software capable of generating the newly required "gingerbread man" passenger depictions through its backscatter X-ray machines….
The core issues that TSA has repeatedly failed to address began with TSA's flouting of the law that required them to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Public and expert comments were never solicited and never taken into account before the TSA began purchasing and deploying these machines. It remains to be seen if they are at all effective in reducing risks to air traveler safety….
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed suit against the TSA's illegal deployment of whole-body scanners. A court later ordered that the agency was in fact in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and that it must open the required notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding. A year after the court's order, the TSA still had not complied. EPIC petitioned for a writ of mandamus in an attempt to force the agency to promptly begin the proceeding they are legally required to conduct. The Competitive Enterprise Institute led a diverse coalition supporting EPIC's petition, filing an amicus brief on the coalition's behalf. The court rejected EPIC's mandamus petition, but in doing so effectively set a timetable for the TSA to begin its legally required rulemaking proceeding. The TSA is obliged to announce the proceeding no later than the end of March.
In August, former American Airlines Chairman and CEO Robert L. Crandall and I coauthored an op-ed explaining why the TSA's use of scanners is both illegal and likely just another cog in the federal government's growing apparatus of counterproductive aviation security policies…
….While it is true that the millimeter wave scanners coupled with the "gingerbread man" software are less intrusive than the backscatter X-ray machines they are replacing, the underlying problems with whole-body imaging such as the lack of sound, risk- and cost-based security policy and the TSA's continued lawless behavior remain unaffected.
In October, the Supreme Court alas passed up a chance to decide whether airport scanners might violate the 4th Amendment.
TSA: Still a Menace, I wrote back in 2011.
Remember when it seemed possible to argue that merely asking for I.D. at airports might violate our rights? Ah, 2003!
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's got two belly buttons! Kill it! Kill it!
Mariette Hartley disagrees.-)
This from the guy whose daughter has/will have ZERO belly buttons?
Don't worry. Banjos, being the smarter of the two, has taken care of that.-)
I have no retort.
How many well-connected pols got rich off the Rapescanner machines?
How many others will get rich off the replacement (TBD) items?
Well, Michael Jackoff...err Chertoff for one.
To answer your second question, one is too many.
I just found out these are made by an actual company called Rapiscan. I thought Rapiscan was just a combination of Rape and Scan that people used to refer to being raped by TSA while they are being scanned. Every day shit looks more absurd.
No, dude. You literally cannot make this shit up. People came up with that name. Incredibly clueless people. Welcome to our world.
So you're saying that some incredibly clueless people can make it up?
I'm making it up right now.
I think it's a confluence of "Rapid" and "Scan".
Either way, it's the best (worst, really) IRL RC'z Law EVAR.
I learned a while back that you Canadians call canola oil rape seed oil. I find that deeply disturbing.
That's what everyone calls it except for Americans, who found it too disturbing.
For once, I think we're clearly right. See, unlike most other countries, rape is not an established American tradition.
A unbridled love of the noble superfluous "u" does not a Canadian make, Pro'L Dib. I find it more disturbing your horrid bigotry of our sturdy, perennially genial, dependable, and all around awesome neighbours to the north.
Also, Urkobold(tm) has been introduced to UKR, by the by.-)))
That's good. We're fucking huge in Fucking, Austria.
An American who uses the Queen's English is Canadian by international law. I know, I'm a professional.
My wife always assumed I was being cheeky when I said that as well, until we were at LAX recovering in the discombobulation area and I was able to point out the brand name prominently displayed on the machine. She was shocked.
Remember when it seemed possible to argue that merely asking for I.D. at airports might violate our rights? Ah, 2003!
I've been wondering why Dems are okay with this, considering it infringes on the right to travel of their constituents, according to the arguments they make about voting and ID.
But then the right to travel freely is nowhere near as important as the right to participate in the oppression of one's neighbors.
While they recognize a right to vote (for them), they clearly don't recognize a right to travel.
nicole, expectations of consistency are racist.
Consistency? I thought it was logic. Or is that sexist?
I'm pretty sure it's misogynist, you woman hater.
But then the right to travel freely is nowhere near as important as the right to participate in the oppression of one's neighbors.
Bingo, bango, bongo. There are different levels of rights for liberals. Ones that infringe on nobody else (actual rights) are of lower priority than the ones that can force other people to do something (e.g. right to "be safe", right to "not be offended")
Dems don't have a problem with it because Dems have their man in the White House. If this was BOOOOOSH!!! they would still be shitting their pants over intrusive gubment.
sound, risk- and cost-based security policy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The good news about all this is that
Ever notice how libertarians just disappear around here in mid-sentence? I don't mean to sound para
hat is this, a Bret Easton Ellis bo
TSA: "VE ARE ABOVE ZE LAW!"
A court later ordered that the agency was in fact in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and that it must open the required notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding.
A violation of what? Not a violation of the Constitution and all that's decent? No, just some odd Administrative Procedure. So have some unelected bureaucrat amend the procedure. Done and done.