Motion Filed In 1st Circuit To Enjoin TSA’s New Mandatory “AIT” Screening

New submitter saizai writes: TSA has made electronic strip search mandatory whenever they feel like it. “TSA is updating the AIT PIA to reflect a change to the operating protocol regarding the ability of individuals to opt out of AIT screening in favor of physical screening. While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security.” I’ve filed for an injunction against new TSA policy on mandatory AIT, in my general lawsuit challenging TSA’s “orders”. The court says TSA will respond to my motion by Tuesday. I’ll reply immediately. Hopefully will have it put on hold before January. (Note that “AIT” stands for “Advanced Imaging Technology,” the term TSA applies to walk-through body scanners.)

Read more of this story at Slashdot.


Slashdot

Federal Circuit Overturns Prohibition On “Disparaging” Trademarks

New submitter flopsquad writes: On December 22, the Federal Circuit released a decision overturning, on First Amendment grounds, the part of US trademark law that prohibits registration of “disparraging” marks. This case concerned the USTPO’s refusal to register a mark for the Asian-American band “The Slants”. However, the decision will no doubt have wider implications for brands such as the embattled Washington Redskins, whose mark was ordered canceled earlier this year.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.


Slashdot

4th Circuit Holds That Obtaining Extended Cell-Site Records Requires a Warrant

schwit1 writes: In the new opinion, the Fourth Circuit (Judge Davis joined by Judge Thacker, with Judge Motz dissenting) holds that ordering a cell provider to hand over “extended” records is a Fourth Amendment search because “society recognizes an individual’s privacy interest in her movements over an extended time period.” The Fourth Circuit relies primarily on the “mosaic theory” arguments of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Maynard and the concurring opinions when that case reached the Supreme Court under the name of United States v. Jones.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.


Slashdot