Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court (reuters.com)

Mr.Intel writes: Fliers may have a tough time recovering damages for invasive screenings at U.S. airport security checkpoints, after a federal appeals court on Wednesday said screeners are immune from claims under a federal law governing assaults, false arrests and other abuses. In a 2-1 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners are shielded by government sovereign immunity from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act because they do not function as “investigative or law enforcement officers.”

The decision, the first on the issue by a federal appeals court, was a defeat for Nadine Pellegrino, a business consultant from Boca Raton, Florida. She and her husband had sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July 2006 altercation at Philadelphia International Airport. According to court papers, Pellegrino had been randomly selected for additional screening at the Philadelphia airport before boarding a US Airways flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pellegrino, then 57, objected to the invasiveness of the search, but conditions deteriorated and she was later jailed for about 18 hours, the papers show. Criminal charges were filed, and Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial.

Comment Re:Why spray them? (Score 1) 176

One of the engineers I worked with told about working on an experimental electrical weeder for cotton. A charged bar was mounted on the front of a tractor and driven through the field. The bar was adjusted to be just a little above the cotton. When weeds grow, they typically stick up above the cotton, hit the bar and are electrocuted. He said it worked great, except for the safety problem. At the farm where they were testing, the farmer's dog came running up and hit the bar. So much for testing at that farm. Seems like an electric prod would work well for this robot. 'Course, I'm don't know how you'd prevent the obvious dangers beyond trusting your software.

Comment Excessively Complex (Score 3, Interesting) 122

The key feature is the encrypted source code. The procedure is:
  1. Decrypt source code
  2. Compile source code to an in-memory assembly [behind the scenes the .NET framework calls Assembly.Load()]
  3. Run a method on a class in the assembly

Seems like it would be easier and just as effective to use an encrypted binary instead. Then the procedure would be:

  1. Decrypt binary image
  2. Call Assembly.Load()
  3. Run a method on a class in the assembly

I would certainly not trust a piece of downloaded code that included code to do either, so I'm not sure the first one has any additional advantages as malware.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...