I wonder if the comment period is just another part of security theater, given the LATimes is showing a lot of pre-established counter arguments to claims.
Under the APA, administrative acts that establish new regulations (rules) require notice and comment. The TSA tried to implement this without the required notice and comment process, and EPIC got a court order requiring them to. So it's for show on their part in the sense they didn't want to do it in the first place. But now that it's a notice and comment rulemaking, that sets the stage for endless litigation over any procedural failures and court oversight of their determinations.
The pre-established counter arguments are there for efficiency. The way notice and comment works is that you have to respond to significant new issues that come up. You might have to have another round of comments on the new issues. If you anticipate counter arguments up front, that saves time on the back and forth.
Not that it will make a difference, but I feel better now.
"This, and every other measure simliar to it, are a monumental waste of tax payer money. The former TSA chief Kip Hawley has stated publicly that knives and all manner of weapons should be allowed on planes because, after 9/11, it is not possible for an attacker to gain control of the aircraft. (See here for example: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/travel/tsa-carry-on-hawley)
These kinds of measures have a single purpose and that purpose is to enrich the companies who develop these technologies. We do not need this to have safe air travel.
A significant side effect of this corporate enriching/tax payer fleecing is a very real and unforgivable transgression on the freedom of all travelers to the USA, including citizens of the USA. In other words, the terrorists win.
It has already been shown that the current body scanners can be defeated and new systems will have vulnerabilities as well. If the government is truly concerned about saving the lives of citizens, they would take whatever money is to be spent on this useless technology, likely in the billions, and spend it on road safety. Instead of self-driving cars, we have peeping-tom scanners with unknown health effects.
I am friends with a Southwest airlines pilot, and we poke fun at the TSA all the time. It should have never been created. The TSA is just the idea of security, it is nothing more than holding a plastic knife when you are being mugged.
The biggest issues I have with AIT are as follows:
1) How much longer they make security lines due to how much slower they are, and having to funnel two metal detector lines into a single AIT machine.
2) How much more expensive they are than metal detectors.
3) How they don’t actually work any better than the cheaper metal detectors.
4) How those longer waits and compressed lines actually make a much more dangerous “soft target” outside of the screening areas. When you pack so many more people into a security situation and take longer to screen them, you have a lot of innocent people at risk.
The privacy concerns are less of an issue to me, as I choose to opt-out every time I fly (which is rather frequently, and unavoidable.) But given the overall cost, ineffectiveness, increased wait times, and increased risk as a passenger, AIT is a completely unacceptable solution.
So now that we've already went through this mess where they deployed it then realized what a CF it was, we're supposed to comment on it? I presume this is because it was such a fiasco the first time around, the Feds are using a different approach to make it happen?
I do not like being irradiated for purposes of imaging under my clothes in order to travel. I'm not really sure what else there is to say about it. I'm also not sure why I would want to participate in a system to defend myself from an overzealous security state by way of commentary. This is not something as a citizen I should spend any time doing. I don't go downtown and lobby the local police not to beat people senseless when they arrest them, I don't go to my local state capitol and protest in order to prevent drones from spying on me from the air, and I am not going to participate in a public commenting session for invasive imaging. Not going to happen.
It's wrong. Don't do that anymore. My contract with my government is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and I elect representatives and appoint judges to make double-sure it doesn't. This is their jobs.
As rayiner points out elsewhere in this thread, they should have had the comment period before they first deployed the technology - but they didni't. EPIC sued and in 2011 the court ruled that DHS needed to adhere to the law and go through the commenting process. After delaying for a couple years, here we are.
13 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 42.3 ms ] threadBoingBoing: http://boingboing.net/2013/04/21/tsa-finally-seeks-public-co...
Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/5995181/time-to-give-the-tsa-a-piece-of-y...
LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-comment-on-ts...
Ruling: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B31004711...
The pre-established counter arguments are there for efficiency. The way notice and comment works is that you have to respond to significant new issues that come up. You might have to have another round of comments on the new issues. If you anticipate counter arguments up front, that saves time on the back and forth.
"This, and every other measure simliar to it, are a monumental waste of tax payer money. The former TSA chief Kip Hawley has stated publicly that knives and all manner of weapons should be allowed on planes because, after 9/11, it is not possible for an attacker to gain control of the aircraft. (See here for example: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/travel/tsa-carry-on-hawley)
These kinds of measures have a single purpose and that purpose is to enrich the companies who develop these technologies. We do not need this to have safe air travel.
A significant side effect of this corporate enriching/tax payer fleecing is a very real and unforgivable transgression on the freedom of all travelers to the USA, including citizens of the USA. In other words, the terrorists win.
It has already been shown that the current body scanners can be defeated and new systems will have vulnerabilities as well. If the government is truly concerned about saving the lives of citizens, they would take whatever money is to be spent on this useless technology, likely in the billions, and spend it on road safety. Instead of self-driving cars, we have peeping-tom scanners with unknown health effects.
Please stop this insanity."
1) How much longer they make security lines due to how much slower they are, and having to funnel two metal detector lines into a single AIT machine.
2) How much more expensive they are than metal detectors.
3) How they don’t actually work any better than the cheaper metal detectors.
4) How those longer waits and compressed lines actually make a much more dangerous “soft target” outside of the screening areas. When you pack so many more people into a security situation and take longer to screen them, you have a lot of innocent people at risk.
The privacy concerns are less of an issue to me, as I choose to opt-out every time I fly (which is rather frequently, and unavoidable.) But given the overall cost, ineffectiveness, increased wait times, and increased risk as a passenger, AIT is a completely unacceptable solution.
I do encourage people to read the regulation. They are basically asking for carte blanche to irradiate anyone.
I do not like being irradiated for purposes of imaging under my clothes in order to travel. I'm not really sure what else there is to say about it. I'm also not sure why I would want to participate in a system to defend myself from an overzealous security state by way of commentary. This is not something as a citizen I should spend any time doing. I don't go downtown and lobby the local police not to beat people senseless when they arrest them, I don't go to my local state capitol and protest in order to prevent drones from spying on me from the air, and I am not going to participate in a public commenting session for invasive imaging. Not going to happen.
It's wrong. Don't do that anymore. My contract with my government is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and I elect representatives and appoint judges to make double-sure it doesn't. This is their jobs.
Anybody interested in getting involved with an education/activism campaign to get more people to comment? If so, please let me know!