Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:time to face facts (Score 1) 170 170

National Opt Out Day "failed" (if by "failed" you mean "didn't slow things to a halt") because the TSA quietly stopped using the scanners on that day, so there was nothing to opt out of. Don't kid yourself that there are enough others like you that will sacrifice liberty for alleged safety.

Comment Re:well, (Score 5, Insightful) 170 170

"Examining the junk" of an adult, or photographing the same naked, isn't traditionally a lawful governmental objective either. But it becomes more obvious how wrong it is when you think of the children, elderly, handicapped, breast cancer survivors, rape survivors, etc., that have to deal with this nonsense.

Comment Re:One thing is missing: (Score 4, Informative) 170 170

Please read -- not a fuckup, but an intentional decision. I am pro se, although about a dozen members of state bars, including Jesse Ventura's awesome legal team, made the same decision in their similar suits.

Comment Re:well, (Score 5, Informative) 170 170

0) It's ok... I don't accept legal advice from strangers anyway. ;) 1) Yes. 2) Yes, but there are many questions of fact. For example, are the scanners effective (since effectiveness is a part of the balancing test in deciding if a search is reasonable)? See my video on that: 3) 11th Circuit. The wires have mistakenly reported me as a Michigan resident since I used a Michigan mailing address on court documents. I live in Miami Beach, FL. 4) Thank you. :)

Comment Re:well, (Score 5, Informative) 170 170

Hello, filer of the lawsuit here. There's perhaps a little bit more to read than what you've read... the first page of my SCOTUS petition or 11th Circuit appellate brief would have cleared things up. :) The brief summary is that my lawsuit was filed in District Court quite intentionally: District Court is the only federal court that has a trial by jury, as well as discovery and witnesses as-of-right. After filing, the TSA invoked a law that was not designed to send challenges to agency "orders" to the US Court of Appeals. The idea behind the law is that some administrative agencies have proceedings with administrative law judges that legitimately should be challenged in the appeals courts. For example, if you try to bring a knife on a plane, the TSA has administrative law judges to assess a civil penalty against you, and you can appeal that decision to the appeals court. However, the TSA has now successfully argued that ANYTHING THEY WRITE DOWN CONSTITUTES AN "ORDER" THAT CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF A JURY TRIAL. Think about that for a second: the gatekeepers of our constitutional rights are supposed to be *the people*. Instead, it is now a group of men that are appointed by the President, who happens to be the guy who appoints the head of the TSA who started this mess. My fight against the TSA will continue on in the appeals court, which is the only good news here. You may read more at:

Comment Re:Cool video (Score 1) 219 219

I got into this in November 2010 when I was outraged that the TSA introduced the scanners as primary screening in conjunction with the pat-down. I filed suit that month in U.S. District Court, and have been fighting against TSA abuse since then. I work for no government agency.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.