It's sad to see the executive branch forcing the judiciary into an awkward position.<p>What exactly is the judge going to do? Fine DHS/TSA? Where will that money go? Right back into the treasury where it came from.<p>Ugh. TSA makes me sick.
I thought the TSA's argument as described at the end of the article was patently absurd ("ever-evolving threats"). Did they actually get away with saying that? If there is any decency in the world, that wouldn't stand with SCOTUS.
One of the interesting (to me) items in the article is that it framed the use of body scanners as clearly an agency (administrative) decision, rather than a legal (that is, codified) one.<p>For rule-making authority to have the force of law, the 90-day comment period is mandated ... does that mean the decision to apply these scanners isn't enforceable (and thus, litigable)? TSA has seemingly worked around this, as there is no aggrieved party (and thus, no standing), due to their opt-out provisions. That seems doubly wrong, and disrespectful of the legal process.
I always opt-out of the scanners when I fly, but my estimate is that less than 0.5% of other people opt-out. 1 in 200! Most people are too impatient or uninformed to care about privacy or potential health risks.
US should have a different agency that takes comments and complaints about the TSA and then sends a periodical report to Congress about it. From my understanding, right now the complaints are sent to TSA themselves? That's pretty much pointless then.
If you have to raise your hands over your head like you're some kind of perp, at least throw two bird fingers while they're taking the xray. You want them to see that you don't have any explosive devices on your middle fingers.