Practical Travel Safety Issues - Federal Agents seize travel bloggers computer

This was just posted on RunwayGirl's blog (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/runway-girl/):

Moments ago, photographer and travel specialist Steven Frischling received a second visit from federal agents in less than 24 hours. But this time, he says, they removed his computer from his home.

Frischling is one of two noted writers, including Christopher Elliot, who over the weekend published a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security directive outlining the agency's new stricter security guidelines in the wake of a failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on Delta Air Lines flight 253.

Both men posted the directive as a means of public service to better inform a traveling public that was completely befuddled by the vague formal guidance being issued by the TSA. They were some of the few calm voices amidst the storm.

With tempers flaring over what appeared to many to be the TSA's misguided and knee-jerk reaction to the failed terrorist plot - and with confusion reigning in airports across the country - the agency early this week did an about-face and eased its guidelines before today's deadline.

Nonetheless, Frischling and Elliot are now paying a steep price for posting the TSA security directive on their respective web sites. Both have been served subpoenas by TSA special agents. In short, the agency is trying to discover who leaked the directive to Frischling and Elliot. And they are not messing around.

According to Frishling, federal agents this morning removed his computer for forensics analysis. He says he didn't see any other recourse than to hand over the equipment. "It was 'give it to us voluntarily or we will take every computer, blackberry and iPhone out of your house'," Frischling tells RWG.

But the TSA's effort to uncover Frischling's source may well prove a waste of time not to mention taxpayer's money.

Says Frischling: "The email came to me via webmail [which was checked yesterday by the agents]. There is literally nothing on my computer they can look at. I didn't seek out the source. I don't know who my source is. It is not someone I know or have a relationship with or cultivated. It comes from a free email account. For me, once I received the document, read it, and saw that Chris Elliot had it, there was no doubt in my mind that it was a real document."

Elliot is a noted travel journalist, who also happens to be National Geographic Traveler's Reader Advocate, writes a regular column for The Washington Post, and produces a weekly segment for MSNBC.

Furthermore, says Frischling, it begs reason why the TSA would assume such a document wouldn't be published or distributed. "The document says nowhere in there that it's not to be published publicly. It was sent to thousands of people - all airports and airlines that fly into the USA. It went to the airport in Islamabad and Hong Kong, for instance. Pakistan Airlines flies to JFK. Plus the TSA has about 50,000 people in the agency."

Lest you wonder whether Frischling did his homework before posting the directive, he says he did. "I contacted [TSA] public affairs multiple times via phone and text and they gave me absolutely nothing. I spoke to the TSA. They didn't call me back. Then I put something out on Twitter. I verified if off of [Chris Elliot's site]. I read the document. I'm not stupid. If the security directive was fake, they [federal agents] wouldn't be standing in my living room [last night and this morning]."

He also points out that several carriers, including Air Canada, provided more explicit details to passengers than even available on the TSA's own web site. (Personally, I found some carriers, like JetBlue and WestJet, to be extremely helpful and forthcoming, providing Twitter updates about the impact of the short-lived TSA guidelines on in-flight entertainment and connectivity.)

To read more about the drama unfolding around Frischling and Elliot, check out their blogs at http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/ and http://www.elliott.org/, respectively.

A TSA spokesperson could not be immediately reached for comment.

Disgusting actions by the government.

Seizing computers from persons who are not likely to be prosecuted and convicted for any violation of federal law on their part to-date is the kind of intimidation tactics used by tinpot dictatorships and autocratic regimes around the world.

Zimbabwe is notorious for this kind of behavior and we criticize it, but here is our government now doing the same thing?

I assume the federal goons will be dusting off their waterboards, weird sounding cds and bright lights.

MisterNice

Disgusting actions by the government.

Seizing computers from persons who are not likely to be prosecuted and convicted for any violation of federal law on their part to-date is the kind of intimidation tactics used by tinpot dictatorships and autocratic regimes around the world.

Zimbabwe is notorious for this kind of behavior and we criticize it, but here is our government now doing the same thing?
I find myself agreeing with you a lot. Well said!

Unreal!

WOW, does the TSA have any truth in them. Looking at the subpoena language it makes it seem that if you refuse to comply with the subpoena the TSA will fine or imprison you. If you look at the statutes they use to claim authority it clearly states if you refuse to comply then they will get a court to compel you and then if you refuse the court's order the court will fine or imprison you.

Note to any TSA Special Agents aiming for my door. Save us both some time and go ahead and get the court order or warrant.

WOW, does the TSA have any truth in them. Looking at the subpoena language it makes it seem that if you refuse to comply with the subpoena the TSA will fine or imprison you. If you look at the statutes they use to claim authority it clearly states if you refuse to comply then they will get a court to compel you and then if you refuse the court's order the court will fine or imprison you.

Note to any TSA Special Agents aiming for my door. Save us both some time and go ahead and get the court order or warrant.

Didn't realize that TSA had subpoena rights. Oh, they don't? That right is reserved for the courts? Oh, my. Does that mean that these Inspector Gadget types might be putting themselves at risk of arrest? Hehehehe. Overstepping their authority again and again won't win them admiration in the hearts of US citizens.:td::td::td::(:(

Plain and simple this act by TSA is disgusting, trying to force reporters to give up legit sources, more than likely they don't even no the names of those sources themselves. We already know they spin their own propaganda machine x1000...just makes me mad, mad, mad.

I wonder when, if ever, the main stream media will pick up on this. I'm sure they are use to these tactics on a daily bases but I'd think it would be strange that the TSA is over steeping their bounds again in such a public manner.

Didn't realize that TSA had subpoena rights. Oh, they don't? That right is reserved for the courts? Oh, my. Does that mean that these Inspector Gadget types might be putting themselves at risk of arrest? Hehehehe. Overstepping their authority again and again won't win them admiration in the hearts of US citizens.:td::td::td::(:(

They do have subpoena rights, what they don't have is a mechanisms to compel you to honor that subpoena without going through the court.

According to the Things With Wings blog at Aviation Week (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/commercial_aviation/ThingsWithWings/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3af5e075b7-a018-48d6-8038-592d7299607f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest) this is the part that got them in trouble:

No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).

WOW, does the TSA have any truth in them. Looking at the subpoena language it makes it seem that if you refuse to comply with the subpoena the TSA will fine or imprison you. If you look at the statutes they use to claim authority it clearly states if you refuse to comply then they will get a court to compel you and then if you refuse the court's order the court will fine or imprison you.

Hmm...which statutes are you reading? From what I saw, they don't seem to be making anything up. 49 USC 46313 seems pretty clear:

A person not obeying a subpena or requirement of the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) to appear and testify or produce records shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Hmm...which statutes are you reading? From what I saw, they don't seem to be making anything up. 49 USC 46313 seems pretty clear:

A person not obeying a subpena or requirement of the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) to appear and testify or produce records shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Problem is, TSA isn't part of DoT. It's part of DHS.

Didn't realize that TSA had subpoena rights. Oh, they don't? That right is reserved for the courts? Oh, my. Does that mean that these Inspector Gadget types might be putting themselves at risk of arrest? Hehehehe. Overstepping their authority again and again won't win them admiration in the hearts of US citizens.:td::td::td::(:(

What they try to do is convince or intimidate a target into granting them "consent" for a search and/or seizure. If consent is not granted by the target , they have to try to get a court to enable the search and/or seizure.

As a matter of principle, I would not consent to a search and/or seizure in the absence of a court order.

What about the TSA screening procedure MOP? They didn't bother going after everyone who redistributed that document even with security information attached.

According to the Things With Wings blog at Aviation Week (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/commercial_aviation/ThingsWithWings/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3af5e075b7-a018-48d6-8038-592d7299607f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest) this is the part that got them in trouble:

No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).

Rules that apply to some, most or all employees of the government don't necessarily apply to all other persons.

Thankfully we don't have a UK-style "Official Secrets Act" piece of legislation applicable to the general public too; and thankfully we have Pentagon Papers-type rulings.

What about the TSA screening procedure MOP? They didn't bother going after everyone who redistributed that document even with security information attached.That was a publicly available document that had been cleared for public use. It just didn't have things hidden thw way TSA had hoped as they didn't follow proper protocal.

What about the TSA screening procedure MOP? They didn't bother going after everyone who redistributed that document even with security information attached.It appears that they are looking for the source of the leak of the document. The manual that was distributed was quite obviously sourced from a US Government web site.

The TSA conveniently overlooked another section of the same CFR called "covered persons." "Covered persons" are people and entities subject to SSI handling and disclosure restrictions and penalties. Here's the official definition:

Covered person means any organization, entity, individual, or other person described in §1520.7. In the case of an individual, covered person includes any individual applying for employment in a position that would be a covered person, or in training for such a position, regardless of whether that individual is receiving a wage, salary, or other form of payment. Covered person includes a person applying for certification or other form of approval that, if granted, would make the person a covered person described in §1520.7.


§ 1520.7 Covered persons.

Persons subject to the requirements of part 1520 are:

(a) Each airport operator, aircraft operator, and fixed base operator subject to the requirements of subchapter C of this chapter, and each armed security officer under subpart B of part 1562.

(b) Each indirect air carrier (IAC), as described in 49 CFR part 1548; each validation firm and its personnel, as described in 49 CFR 1522; and each certified cargo screening facility and its personnel, as described in 49 CFR 1549.

(c) Each owner, charterer, or operator of a vessel, including foreign vessel owners, charterers, and operators, required to have a security plan under Federal or International law.

(d) Each owner or operator of a maritime facility required to have a security plan under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, (Pub.L. 107–295), 46 U.S.C. 70101 et seq., 33 CFR part 6, or 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.

(e) Each person performing the function of a computer reservation system or global distribution system for airline passenger information.

(f) Each person participating in a national or area security committee established under 46 U.S.C. 70112, or a port security committee.

(g) Each industry trade association that represents covered persons and has entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the DHS or DOT.

(h) DHS and DOT.

(i) Each person conducting research and development activities that relate to aviation or maritime transportation security and are approved, accepted, funded, recommended, or directed by DHS or DOT.

(j) Each person who has access to SSI, as specified in §1520.11.

(k) Each person employed by, contracted to, or acting for a covered person, including a grantee of DHS or DOT, and including a person formerly in such position.

(l) Each person for which a vulnerability assessment has been directed, created, held, funded, or approved by the DOT, DHS, or that has prepared a vulnerability assessment that will be provided to DOT or DHS in support of a Federal security program.

(m) Each person receiving SSI under §1520.15(d) or (e).

(n) Each railroad carrier, rail hazardous materials shipper, rail hazardous materials receiver, and rail transit system subject to the requirements of part 1580 of this chapter.



For reference, Part 1520 is: PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION

They've got the penalties section right:

§ 1520.17 Consequences of unauthorized disclosure of SSI.

Violation of this part is grounds for a civil penalty and other enforcement or corrective action by DHS, and appropriate personnel actions for Federal employees. Corrective action may include issuance of an order requiring retrieval of SSI to remedy unauthorized disclosure or an order to cease future unauthorized disclosure.


...but, the penalties can only be applied to a "covered person."


Bloggers and journalists, and any of us who don't fall into any of the categories in 1520.7 can't be prosecuted, etc, under 1520.17. But, I give the TSA credit for trying. The TSA used a fair amount of intimidation to get what they wanted.

I'll betcha' Francine signed off on the subpoena.

Rules that apply to some, most or all employees of the government don't necessarily apply to all other persons.

Thankfully we don't have a UK-style "Official Secrets Act" piece of legislation applicable to the general public too; and thankfully we have Pentagon Papers-type rulings.

Thanks for the validation:

The TSA conveniently overlooked another section of the same CFR called "covered persons." "Covered persons" are people and entities subject to SSI handling and disclosure restrictions and penalties. Here's the official definition:






For reference, Part 1520 is: PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION

They've got the penalties section right:



...but, the penalties can only be applied to a "covered person."


Bloggers and journalists, and any of us who don't fall into any of the categories in 1520.7 can't be prosecuted, etc, under 1520.17. But, I give the TSA credit for trying. The TSA used a fair amount of intimidation to get what they wanted.

I'll betcha' Francine signed off on the subpoena.

Bloggers and journalists, and any of us who don't fall into any of the categories in 1520.7 can't be prosecuted, etc, under 1520.17. But, I give the TSA credit for trying. The TSA used a fair amount of intimidation to get what they wanted.

I'll betcha' Francine signed off on the subpoena.

LOL, you think? I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find something on Google that supports this travesty. :D

I hope the people who had their computers seized have contacted their lawyers to arrange for an appropriate response to this clearly unwarranted and abusive exercise of government power.

looks like this journalist made a mistake in handing over his computer so fast. he should have resisted and then he would've had to go to court to assert journalistic immunity....either that or destroy/hide the computer in the meantime. next time he should make sure his computer is encrypted.

Bloggers and journalists, and any of us who don't fall into any of the categories in 1520.7 can't be prosecuted, etc, under 1520.17.

Well, maybe.

This provision:

(j) Each person who has access to SSI, as specified in §1520.11.


seems awfully broad and quite possibly exceptionally circular. What does Section 1520.11 state?

LOL, you think? I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could something on Google that supports this travesty. :D

I hope the people who had their computers seized have contacted their lawyers to arrange for an appropriate response to this clearly unwarranted and abusive exercise of government power.

If the bloggers granted consent for a search and/or seizure, they may still end up being out of luck in terms of legally nailing the organization and/or persons involved in this search/seizure. No harm in consulting a lawyer anyway.

Either way, I hope the subjects of this government intimidation push to have the issue picked up by the media -- especially the television media -- so as to publicly embarrass those involved in this search/seizure.

aren't police legally allowed to lie to you when questioning you? so what's to stop them from serving you a forged court order saying you must comply and hand over the computer, with no preventive judicial recourse.

they threaten you with massive removal of all electronics in the hope you give them your PC.

TELL ME WE DON'T LIVE IN A POLICE STATE :rolleyes:

Hmm...which statutes are you reading? From what I saw, they don't seem to be making anything up. 49 USC 46313 seems pretty clear:

A person not obeying a subpena or requirement of the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) to appear and testify or produce records shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

49 U.S.C. § 46104 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/IV/461/46104)

(a) General. - In conducting a hearing or investigation under
this part, the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary
of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and
powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect
to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out
by the Administrator) may -
(1) subpena witnesses and records related to a matter involved
in the hearing or investigation from any place in the United
States to the designated place of the hearing or investigation;
(2) administer oaths;
(3) examine witnesses; and
(4) receive evidence at a place in the United States the
Secretary, Under Secretary, or Administrator designates.
(b) Compliance With Subpenas. - If a person disobeys a subpena,
the Secretary, the Under Secretary, the Administrator, or a party
to a proceeding before the Secretary, Under Secretary, or
Administrator may petition a court of the United States to enforce
the subpena. A judicial proceeding to enforce a subpena under this
section may be brought in the jurisdiction in which the proceeding
or investigation is conducted. The court may punish a failure to
obey an order of the court to comply with the subpena as a contempt
of court.

From the subpoena

AUTHORITY

This subpoena is issued under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 46104; and 49 C.F.R § 1503.3.

Any person who neglects or refuses to produce records in obedience to this subpoena is subject to fines under Title 18, United States Code, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 49 U.S.C § 46313.

Wow, is this the HOPE and CHANGE that we were supposed to be treated to by Mr. Obama's "most transparent government ever"?

The government is now embarrassed that it can't keep its deep dark secrets secret so we're going to hassle a journalist? Wow, that's HOPE and CHANGE for you!!

--PP

If the bloggers granted consent for a search and/or seizure, they may still end up being out of luck in terms of legally nailing the organization and/or persons involved in this search/seizure. No harm in consulting a lawyer anyway.

Either way, I hope the subjects of this government intimidation push to have the issue picked up by the media -- especially the television media -- so as to publicly embarrass those involved in this search/seizure.

Would they though? The media seems to be in such a frenzy with sheeple mentality that it would probably justified under the "anything for security" umbrella. :td:

Would they though? The media seems to be in such a frenzy with sheeple mentality that it would probably justified under the "anything for security" umbrella. :td:
I think some in the media are turning. I'm under the impression that ABC News World will paint the US intelligence community in a non-favorable way over this based on the clip they have on-line talking about what they are working on for tonight's show. I think the phrase used along the lines of “I’ve never seen them so tense before"

This bullsh*t warrant should have had buckshot-sized holes blown in it.

We got "change" all right: thuggery against journalists.

I think some in the media are turning. I'm under the impression that ABC News World will paint the US intelligence community in a non-favorable way over this based on the clip they have on-line talking about what they are working on for tonight's show. I think the phrase used along the lines of “I’ve never seen them so tense before"

ABC News was fairly harsh on the TSA when we (the collective brain of FT :D ) discovered the redacted SOP manual a few weeks ago. Might be worth watching tonight.

I think some in the media are turning. I'm under the impression that ABC News World will paint the US intelligence community in a non-favorable way over this based on the clip they have on-line talking about what they are working on for tonight's show. I think the phrase used along the lines of “I’ve never seen them so tense before"

I was quite surprised to even see Anne Coulter blasting this stupidity. :eek:

I think some in the media are turning. I'm under the impression that ABC News World will paint the US intelligence community in a non-favorable way over this based on the clip they have on-line talking about what they are working on for tonight's show. I think the phrase used along the lines of “I’ve never seen them so tense before"

MSNBC may have one or two headline names sympathetic to the bloggers or who can be made sympathetic to the bloggers.

Fox would love any opportunity to bash the current Administration and this would let them show the extent to what a government may try to intimidate people who don't seem to haven't broken a law that justifies this kind of treatment that happens in Iran or Zimbabwe.

This playbook from the government is straight out of Iran or Zimbabwe.

What about the TSA screening procedure MOP? They didn't bother going after everyone who redistributed that document even with security information attached.bingo!

afaic, the tsa is a dire need of a "physician heal thyself" time-out before they do anything stoopit like going after a reporter and/or blogger who posted the information as it will only give them bad press. hey, wait a minute, maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.......;)

I can only hope they mount a legal challenge to this action to establish some legal precedent. If they take up a collection I'll certainly be throwing a few $$ in.

This has made it to Wired.com:

<SNIP> Frischling, a freelance travel writer and photographer in Connecticut who writes a blog for the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, said the two agents who visited him arrived around 7 p.m. Tuesday, were armed and threatened him with a criminal search warrant if he didn’t provide the name of his source. They also threatened to get him fired from his KLM job and indicated they could get him designated a security risk, which would make it difficult for him to travel and do his job.

“They were indicating there would be significant ramifications if I didn’t cooperate,” said Frischling, who was home alone with his three children when the agents arrived. “It’s not hard to intimidate someone when they’re holding a 3-year-old [child] in their hands. My wife works at night. I go to jail, and my kids are here with nobody.” (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger/)

The TSA special agents come across as pretty stupid in the wired article if they over reacted to a phone having ICE. (In Case of Emergency). My basic cell phone has that buillt into it and spells the letters out automaticly if you attach the tag ICE to a phone number.

This has made it to Wired.com:

<SNIP> Frischling, a freelance travel writer and photographer in Connecticut who writes a blog for the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, said the two agents who visited him arrived around 7 p.m. Tuesday, were armed and threatened him with a criminal search warrant if he didn’t provide the name of his source. They also threatened to get him fired from his KLM job and indicated they could get him designated a security risk, which would make it difficult for him to travel and do his job.

“They were indicating there would be significant ramifications if I didn’t cooperate,” said Frischling, who was home alone with his three children when the agents arrived. “It’s not hard to intimidate someone when they’re holding a 3-year-old [child] in their hands. My wife works at night. I go to jail, and my kids are here with nobody.” (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger/)

If these government employees would have taken him, they would have had to take such a young minor too and put them into custody or risk an even bigger PR nightmare in the absence of an appropriate legal guardian being present.

"TSA threatens to endanger 3-year old!" What a new low even for the TSA.

It now makes sense why they are trying so hard to close this impossible to close hole. According to ABC news, new directives for much tougher domestic screening comes out next week. They don't want the public to know what they are expected to do. Airlines are pushing back.

This has made it to Wired.com:

<SNIP> Frischling, a freelance travel writer and photographer in Connecticut who writes a blog for the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, said the two agents who visited him arrived around 7 p.m. Tuesday, were armed and threatened him with a criminal search warrant if he didn’t provide the name of his source. They also threatened to get him fired from his KLM job and indicated they could get him designated a security risk, which would make it difficult for him to travel and do his job.

“They were indicating there would be significant ramifications if I didn’t cooperate,” said Frischling, who was home alone with his three children when the agents arrived. “It’s not hard to intimidate someone when they’re holding a 3-year-old [child] in their hands. My wife works at night. I go to jail, and my kids are here with nobody.” (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger/)

Simple answer here is tell the agents to get a warrant and show them out. If they refuse to leave call the cops. In fact call the cops anyhow as you can not be sure the "agents" are law enforcement officers.

Remember we are not privy to the IDs of Government employees by design.

It now makes sense why they are trying so hard to close this impossible to close hole. According to ABC news, new directives for much tougher domestic screening comes out next week. They don't want the public to know what they are expected to do. Airlines are pushing back.

The agents searched through Frischling’s BlackBerry and iPhone and questioned him about a number of phone numbers and messages in the devices. One number listed in his phone under “ICEMOM” was a quick dial to his mother, in case of emergency. The agents misunderstood the acronym and became suspicious that it was code for his anonymous source and asked if his source worked for ICE — the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The agents then said they wanted to take an image of his hard drive. Frischling said they had to go to WalMart to buy a hard drive, but when they returned were unable to get it to work. Frischling said the keyboard on his laptop was no longer working after they tried to copy his files. The agents left around 11 p.m. but came back Wednesday morning and, with Frischling’s consent, seized his laptop, which they promised to return after copying the hard drive.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. TSA goobers don't have the slightest clue as to how to perform computer forensics. Getting a hard drive from Wal-Mart and doing this in the guy's living room show just how incompetent they are. A bunch of URL 404s.

Unreal!

Actually, Very REAL !!!

they threaten you with massive removal of all electronics in the hope you give them your PC.

TELL ME WE DON'T LIVE IN A POLICE STATE :rolleyes:

We don't live in a police state.

"Police State" is way too mild a term for what kind of environment exists today.

This is downright scary. Here's a story about Fish from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger

We got "change" all right: thuggery against journalists.

From a pseudo fly on the wall at DHS HQ:

'We need some good press, like a high profile tewwowist related arrest. How about that Bin Laden guy?"

"Been looking for 8 years, can't find his cave in Hideoutistan."

"Who can we get?"

"How about some American Bloggers? We know where they live, he!! they're in the phone book. We can send agents there during daylight hours with no travel or perdiem expenses."

"Book 'em Danno!" :rolleyes:

they threaten you with massive removal of all electronics in the hope you give them your PC.

TELL ME WE DON'T LIVE IN A POLICE STATE :rolleyes:

Let the b***ards have them. And then go out and get new stuff (phones, etc.)....a prudent person would have backed up their data so they could keep right on truckin."

I would also highly suggest calling the police on the TSA agents.... a subpoena is not a warrant and they would not be legally able to use force to collect on a subpoena. The regular police can be the best friend you ever had when dealing with bureaucrats gone mad.

Doesn't the government have something better to do with its time? Like actually checking out those names on the watch list? Or at least making sure that those on the list get flagged for secondary screening?

Simple answer here is tell the agents to get a warrant and show them out. If they refuse to leave call the cops. In fact call the cops anyhow as you can not be sure the "agents" are law enforcement officers.

The Second Amendment offers a better solution than calling the cops if they refuse to leave. @:-)

No warrant? No probable cause? You better get off my property now or I will deem you a threat to my health.

If they want to seize my computers, it won't do them much good, unless they can figure out where my data is stored.

Associated Press story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_airliner_attack_tsa_subpoenas;_ylt=Ai30kMv1PNaK UFhhrlGBqoes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ0a2llYTV0BGFzc2V0A2Fw LzIwMDkxMjMxL3VzX2FpcmxpbmVyX2F0dGFja190c2Ffc3VicG 9lbmFzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDMgRw dANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA3 RzYXN1YnBvZW5hcw--) is making national headlines.

Funny, TSA doesn't want to comment. :td::td::td:

I skimmed the thread but I might have missed it. Steven Frischling (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/members/sefrischling.html) is a member here on FT. Sorry if it's already been mentioned.

"It was 'give it to us voluntarily or we will take every computer, blackberry and iPhone out of your house',"

----

NEVER hand anything over voluntarily. If they have to ask for your permission then they have no authority to take it.

"It was 'give it to us voluntarily or we will take every computer, blackberry and iPhone out of your house',"

----

NEVER had anything over voluntarily. If they have to ask for your permission then they have no authority to take it.

I looked at the subpoena and have a couple questions for those with legal expertise. Aren't subpoenas supposed to have somewhere on them the court that wants compliance information? The one I saw had no such information on it. Doesn't that invalidate the subpoena?

they persecute bloggers who post about non-classified regulations. In the meantime, they forget they allowed Abdulmurtallab to board a US-bound flight in spite of the fact 1) he was banned from flying to the UK; 2) his father turned him in to the US Embassy, 3) he arrived from Yemen in Lagos, and purchased a one-way ticket to DTW with cash, 4) he had been going to Yemen to terr school. A number of failures, and TSA was involved with some of it - UK MI-x was responsible for some of it, USDoS for some more, Lagos and Amsterdam security for some more, but hey, let's go after the bloggers and see who leaked the actual content of SD 1544-09-06.

Those bodies (I dunno about brains) could have been better utilized for thinking how they can actually respond to the threat and catch terrs - more a la Ben Gurion Airport or El Al, but no, let's go after some 'goats, they spend valuable (?) resources on going after American citizen bloggers with very known histories and zip chances of trying to bring down a plane. Give me a break!

These people are ore like the Queen of Hearts, who had to say "Off with their heads!" at every person they came across, than members of a so-called "intelligence" community. As a taxpayer, I want my money back; I'll take my chances on my own.

they persecute bloggers who post about non-classified regulations. In the meantime, they forget they allowed Abdulmurtallab to board a US-bound flight in spite of the fact 1) he was banned from flying to the UK; 2) his father turned him in to the US Embassy, 3) he arrived from Yemen in Lagos, and purchased a one-way ticket to DTW with cash, 4) he had been going to Yemen to terr school. A number of failures, and TSA was involved with some of it - UK MI-x was responsible for some of it, USDoS for some more, Lagos and Amsterdam security for some more, but hey, let's go after the bloggers and see who leaked the actual content of SD 1544-09-06.


Oldest diversion in the book. "Look! Over there! (Not over here.)"

Disgusting.

This is downright scary. Here's a story about Fish from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger

I love how he is looking at the TSA guy like he is a total idiot! :)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/12/tsa_blogger.jpg

Aren't subpoenas supposed to have somewhere on them the court that wants compliance information? The one I saw had no such information on it. Doesn't that invalidate the subpoena?

Nah, it's an administrative subpoena. No court required. Although, as mentioned previously, no real teeth behind it either.

Nah, it's an administrative subpoena. No court required. Although, as mentioned previously, no real teeth behind it either.

Ah, got it - government toilet paper.

Ah, got it - government toilet paper.

In some ways, yes. In others, it's a very useful tool. For example, cell phone companies and Internet Service Providers are required by law (18 USC 2703) to turn over records when presented with an administrative subpoena. And many other service-type businesses (i.e. utility companies) generally will comply with them as well. As for using them to obtain records/information from a target of the investigation...well, obviously sometimes it works.

MSNBC may have one or two headline names sympathetic to the bloggers or who can be made sympathetic to the bloggers.

Top headline story on msn.com/MSNBC News, from AP. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34636278/ns/us_news-airliner_attack) "TSA subpoenas bloggers, demands sources" ^ More publicity for the Galestapo.

This is starting to sound like a perfect storm for TSA.

Now if they'd only implode because of this and we could start over ...

this is the part that got them in trouble:

No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).
So the document gets sent to every international airline flying to the US. Let's take Thai airlines as an example. How are employees of that airline bound by a US CFR? If they were to send it to Elliot and removed the notice, how did anybody break any law or violate any regulation?

Looking at the statute references in the subpoena and the directive I am beginning to notice a trend with the TSA. The legal team at the TSA pretty much sucks wind and is not above lying on official documents.

Take the subpoena If you notice where the TSA references thier authority they give the exact statute. Where they reference the punishment they give the Title number without the exact statute. Look at Title 18, it is huge and somewhere buried in it is a statute(s) that might be able to be used by the TSA. I looked and the only one that I could find was the ones on criminal contempt of COURT (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_21.html).

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 401

§ 401. Power of court

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 402

§ 402. Contempts constituting crimes

Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months.

This section shall not be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law.
For purposes of this section, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

Then if you look at the statutes cited on the directive you will see one points to an interim rule from 2004 and the other one involves SSI. Unless the directive was properly marked as SSI per Title 49 Sec. 15.13 the TSA has nothing.

Title 49 Sec. 15.13 Marking SSI.

(a) Marking of paper records. In the case of paper records containing SSI, a covered person must mark the record by placing the protective marking conspicuously on the top, and the distribution limitation statement on the bottom, of--

(1) The outside of any front and back cover, including a binder cover or folder, if the document has a front and back cover;

(2) Any title page; and

(3) Each page of the document.

(b) Protective marking. The protective marking is: SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION.

(c) Distribution limitation statement. The distribution limitation statement is:

WARNING: This record contains Sensitive Security Information that is controlled under 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520. No part of this record may be disclosed to persons without a "need to know", as defined in 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520, except with the written permission of the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration or the Secretary of Transportation. Unauthorized release may result in civil penalty or other action. For U.S. government agencies, public disclosure is governed by 5 U.S.C. 552 and 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520.

(d) Other types of records. In the case of non-paper records that contain SSI, including motion picture films, videotape recordings, audio recording, and electronic and magnetic records, a covered person must clearly and conspicuously mark the records with the protective marking and the distribution limitation statement such that the viewer or listener is reasonably likely to see or hear them when obtaining access to the contents of the record.

This is starting to sound like a perfect storm for TSA.

Now if they'd only implode because of this and we could start over ...I might have to watch C-SPAN when the congress critters return. This could be good entertainment watching DHS/TSA try to explain their way out of this. I predict a minimum of 25 ahs,ums, etc. per minute from the respondants.

I might have to watch C-SPAN when the congress critters return. This could be good entertainment watching DHS/TSA try to explain their way out of this. I predict a minimum of 25 ahs,ums, etc. per minute from the respondants.

The problem is though it would be like a reality TV show. Looks real and Congress may vote, but at the end of the day, nothing of importance happens.

TSA's been screwing up repeatedly and been hauled before Congress before. Nothing's ever come of it and TSA's pretty much given Congress the finger. I'd love for something to happen, but the cynic in me is saying that this too will blow over.

I might have to watch C-SPAN when the congress critters return. This could be good entertainment watching DHS/TSA try to explain their way out of this. I predict a minimum of 25 ahs,ums, etc. per minute from the respondants.

My money's on the "I don't recall"s.

My money's on the "I don't recall"s.

Or plead the 5th.

Hmmm, according to This Post in Newstand (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13083421-post2.html) the "special agent" in the wired photo may be special because he's not a current government employee but a security consultant. Would this mean he was pretending to be a government law enforcement officier? Isn't that a felony?

Unreal!

You're telling me! They were in my house for a few hours last night...and again this morning walking off with a laptop.

That tends to be a definition of 'unreal!'

Hmmm, according to This Post in Newstand (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13083421-post2.html) the "special agent" in the wired photo may be special because he's not a current government employee but a security consultant. Would this mean he was pretending to be a government law enforcement officier? Isn't that a felony?

Not necessarily. DoD and OPM send out contractors that are credentialed agents to conduct background checks. This might be different though considering this is more of an LE function.

Hmmm, according to This Post in Newstand (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13083421-post2.html) the "special agent" in the wired photo may be special because he's not a current government employee but a security consultant. Would this mean he was pretending to be a government law enforcement officier? Isn't that a felony?

The agent in the image is a TSA Special Agent, which is a Federal Agent, gun and all. Trust me, I saw their credentials, hard to miss their side arms, especially when they are in your house for a few hours.

Poor guy. If that is the case then his life is going to get turned upside down too. Amazing how TSA can mess it up so well and often!

Is TSA doing this so they can deflect the read problem or do they just not understand how this is going to come back and bite them? A lot of smoke and mirrors nevertheless.

If I was visited by TSA Special Agent I would not have let my kids and cat get to know them. He's got a lot more patience and a thicker hide than I have.

The agent in the image is a TSA Special Agent, which is a Federal Agent, gun and all. Trust me, I saw their credentials, hard to miss their side arms, especially when they are in your house for a few hours.

The only reason this got to MSM status was the hard graft of a number of travel writers/professionals raising the stakes and getting this story out to as many contacts as possible.

These links give some good insight into just how much hard work has gone into getting awareness of the story:
https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23tsafail
http://wthashtag.com/Tsafail

The agent in the image is a TSA Special Agent, which is a Federal Agent, gun and all. Trust me, I saw their credentials, hard to miss their side arms, especially when they are in your house for a few hours.I know you've had a horrible couple of days that would never want to have but something doesn't sound correct about this TSA guy. It sounds like he's a Govenment employee yet has a private business that can benefit financially from his action as a Government employee.

The only reason this got to MSM status was the hard graft of a number of travel writers/professionals raising the stakes and getting this story out to as many contacts as possible.

These links give some good insight into just how much hard work has gone into getting awareness of the story:
https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23tsafail
http://wthashtag.com/Tsafail

That is awesome! And I have not even used the #tsaFAIL hashtag in any of my Tweets in case anyone thinks I am driving this. :D

EDIT: And yes, it has been our FT bloggers that have been doing the heavy lifting here. Kudos to them!

This is yet another new low for a government agency -- and the government itself -- that seemingly could get no lower. As others have said, these tactics resemble those of totalitarian states, not the U.S. in which I grew up. And it's certainly not the "change" that I voted for in November 2008. It's change, all right, but in the wrong direction. I'm appalled.

Bruce

I know you've had a horrible couple of days that would never want to have but something doesn't sound correct about this TSA guy. It sounds like he's a Govenment employee yet has a private business that can benefit financially from his action as a Government employee.

Olton,

I am not sure what info you are reading, but there two agents. I verified who they were both while in my home and again after they left my home. They are very must US Federal Special Agents

Here is some basic info on TSA Special Agents
http://www.tsa.gov/join/benefits/soar/usss/sa_investigator.shtm

I can see from now on I should use other means to get sensitive infos, such that they can never be smart enough to trace ;)

This is a bad move on their part, it will backfire. Maybe bad for us as citizens as well however.

Ruby Ridge, Waco, Flyertalk - shades of J Edna Hoover once again.

This is so reminiscent of the Steve Jackson RPG raids in the 1990s that it's just not funny.

Not even remotely.

US citizens take note - your tax dollars at work. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

You're telling me! They were in my house for a few hours last night...and again this morning walking off with a laptop.

That tends to be a definition of 'unreal!'

I have to ask why you didn't tell these thugs to go pound sand? Or call real police on them and have them arrested?

I can see from now on I should use other means to get sensitive infos, such that they can never be smart enough to trace ;)

This is a bad move on their part, it will backfire. Maybe bad for us as citizens as well however.

You could do as I do, use an Amiga 4000 to access the internet from home.

I'd love to see some GovCo agency try to trawl through my computer.

"Hey, ... does Kickstart 3.1 mean?????"

I might have to watch C-SPAN when the congress critters return. This could be good entertainment watching DHS/TSA try to explain their way out of this. I predict a minimum of 25 ahs,ums, etc. per minute from the respondants.

Any bets on whether Senator Feingold and/or Leahy would be willing to make an issue of this? Senator Schumer loves the camera more.

Any bets on whether Senator Feingold and/or Leahy would be willing to make an issue of this? Senator Schumer loves the camera more.

The most dangerous place in the world is standing between Schumer and a camera. :cool:

I can see from now on I should use other means to get sensitive infos, such that they can never be smart enough to trace ;)

This is a bad move on their part, it will backfire. Maybe bad for us as citizens as well however.

The tactics adopted in Communist China by political dissidents there using the internet and other means to peacefully challenge the government's actions and statements are long overdue for use by ordinary persons in the US too.

he should have resisted and then he would've had to go to court to assert journalistic immunity.

Unless this is something very new, there is no federal press shield law. Some states have them, but they do not apply to federal courts. In other words, a journalist who asserts journalistic immunity in a federal court will be told by the judge to answer the questions or to be in jail on contempt of court charges until he purges himself of the contempt.

Unless this is something very new, there is no federal press shield law. Some states have them, but they do not apply to federal courts. In other words, a journalist who asserts journalistic immunity in a federal court will be told by the judge to answer the questions or to be in jail on contempt of court charges until he purges himself of the contempt.

..... that's assuming a federal prosecutor and/or court would even try to pursue charges against these two travel writers. I have my doubts that there are that many federal prosecutors who want to make themselves into a laughing stock by taking up a matter only to chalk up a predictable own-goal.

..... that's assuming a federal prosecutor and/or court would even try to pursue charges against these two travel writers. I have my doubts that there are that many federal prosecutors who want to make themselves into a laughing stock by taking up a matter only to chalk up a predictable own-goal.

^^ remember this - The government didn't appeal Fofana, and settled the ACLU matter. That is a clear indication of how poorly the Department of Justice regards the legal acumen of the TSA Office of General Counsel.

I have to ask why you didn't tell these thugs to go pound sand? Or call real police on them and have them arrested?

1) Both gentleman at my house are currently US Federal Agents, side-arm and all. Both were former Secret Service. One served at the Director of Counter Terrorism the other is former Director of Global Security. Both recently left other positions to join the TSA in the role of Special Agent. Collectively these two agents have 50+ years as a Secret Service Agents

The TSA was not sending out rent-a-cops, nor was I dealing with agents who were wet behind the ears.

2) I was speaking with and am continuing to speak with an attorney. Do not assume otherwise.

i am not going to be discussing specific details of what has happened on certain levels for a variety of reason.



...and I know about the agents because I did some digging around to find out who they were. I didn't ask them their background, but it wasn't that hard to find either.

I realize that this is far too easy for me to say from my safe distance, but I would have told these "special" agents the following: "I would really love to answer all of your questions, but I just can't without my attorney present. Until then, I'm going to execise my constitutional right to remain silent. Is that OK with you?" What can they say to that? Arrest you? Fine. Some things are worth it. I was once arrested for failing to obey an unlawful order. When my court date arrived, the judge expunged the arrest record.

Bruce

^^ remember this - The government didn't appeal Fofana, and settled the ACLU matter. That is a clear indication of how poorly the Department of Justice regards the legal acumen of the TSA Office of General Counsel.

Thanks, halls120, for making me smile and laugh out loud this morning! :)

they persecute bloggers who post about non-classified regulations. In the meantime, they forget they allowed Abdulmurtallab to board a US-bound flight in spite of the fact 1) he was banned from flying to the UK; 2) his father turned him in to the US Embassy, 3) he arrived from Yemen in Lagos, and purchased a one-way ticket to DTW with cash, 4) he had been going to Yemen to terr school. A number of failures, and TSA was involved with some of it - UK MI-x was responsible for some of it, USDoS for some more, Lagos and Amsterdam security for some more, but hey, let's go after the bloggers and see who leaked the actual content of SD 1544-09-06.

Those bodies (I dunno about brains) could have been better utilized for thinking how they can actually respond to the threat and catch terrs - more a la Ben Gurion Airport or El Al, but no, let's go after some 'goats, they spend valuable (?) resources on going after American citizen bloggers with very known histories and zip chances of trying to bring down a plane. Give me a break!

These people are ore like the Queen of Hearts, who had to say "Off with their heads!" at every person they came across, than members of a so-called "intelligence" community. As a taxpayer, I want my money back; I'll take my chances on my own.

I see this as another knee-jerk on the part of the TSA. Someone inside the agency is out to make them look bad - not that they need any help with that. :D

I do feel sorry for this person if and when his/her identity is discovered, but I thank him or her from the bottom of my heart.

I do feel sorry for this person if and when his/her identity is discovered, but I thank him or her from the bottom of my heart.

As do I. The TSA foolishly believes that security is reliably delivered by their efforts at obscurity and inconsistency. We've had nearly 8 years of these TSA ways and the TSA is still failing in obvious, predictable ways.

What can they say to that? Arrest you? Fine. Some things are worth it.

That was the indication.

I have years of journalism and have been brazen in the past, especially having documented homeland security for more than 3 years as a news photog both in the US and abroad for major international news outlets.

What changed the other night? Maybe it was my living room with one kid in the living room, another at a desk behind me as a spoke with the agents initially or the almost 3 year old in my arms.

The agents were in my house for over an hour with me, 3 kids and no one else. I get arrested, then what? My kids end up with social services because Dad was hauled off by Federal Agents?

I have been in very tight situations before, especially covering homeland security as a news photographer, but your perspective changes when you're home alone with your kids and you need to think about their needs first.

JetWhine.com interview with RunwayGirl:

This is sure to become a precedent setting confrontation between journalists/communicators and the administration.

We spoke to Runway Girl, Mary Kirby, a blogger and journalist who was right in the middle of the debacle. Listen to our interview here (http://www.jetwhine.com/2009/12/tsa-and-bloggers-tied-1-1/)

That was the indication.

I have years of journalism and have been brazen in the past, especially having documented homeland security for more than 3 years as a news photog both in the US and abroad for major international news outlets.

What changed the other night? Maybe it was my living room with one kid in the living room, another at a desk behind me as a spoke with the agents initially or the almost 3 year old in my arms.

The agents were in my house for over an hour with me, 3 kids and no one else. I get arrested, then what? My kids end up with social services because Dad was hauled off by Federal Agents?

I have been in very tight situations before, especially covering homeland security as a news photographer, but your perspective changes when you're home alone with your kids and you need to think about their needs first.

Do you believe they chose a time to "hit" you because you were so vulnerable with your kids home alone with you?

I realize that this is far too easy for me to say from my safe distance, but I would have told these "special" agents the following: "I would really love to answer all of your questions, but I just can't without my attorney present. Until then, I'm going to execise my constitutional right to remain silent. Is that OK with you?" What can they say to that? Arrest you? Fine. Some things are worth it. I was once arrested for failing to obey an unlawful order. When my court date arrived, the judge expunged the arrest record.


I, too, am sitting here at a very safe distance from this, and have absolutely no knowledge of the particulars, or of the law. On the other hand, I've watched a lot of "CSI" on TV, and I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so that makes me an Internet expert. :)

I recall a posting (maybe from him, maybe from the other poster) in which it was alleged that the TSA agents threatened the blogger with confiscation of every technological device in the house. I've watched enough TV dramas to see how this could come down ...

"See, all we's asking fer ya ta do is let us copy ya laptop drive, 'k? No, we don't got no warrant. But if I has ta go dahntahn and get me a warrant, I'm a gonna come back and take every computah in da house, 'cuz I won't know which one has the stuff I needs. Oh, and I'll take yah cell phone, yah pager, yah Blackberry, whatever else I wants to take. Sure, you'll get it all back in several months, or years. But wouldn't you save us all a bunch ah trouble by just letting us do what we want right now?"

And, as the blogger pointed out, sometimes you have to choose which battles to fight.

I'd tell 'em to pound sand. This is not North Korea.

That was the indication.

I have years of journalism and have been brazen in the past, especially having documented homeland security for more than 3 years as a news photog both in the US and abroad for major international news outlets.

What changed the other night? Maybe it was my living room with one kid in the living room, another at a desk behind me as a spoke with the agents initially or the almost 3 year old in my arms.

The agents were in my house for over an hour with me, 3 kids and no one else. I get arrested, then what? My kids end up with social services because Dad was hauled off by Federal Agents?

I have been in very tight situations before, especially covering homeland security as a news photographer, but your perspective changes when you're home alone with your kids and you need to think about their needs first.

Life for a peaceful political dissident in Burma, China, Iran, Venezuela and Zimbabwe often also requires helping vulnerable family members escape the country or otherwise go into hiding within the country.

It unfortunately seems like my fellow Americans too have much to gain by behaving like the politically-persecuted residing in tinpot dictatorships and other autocratic countries of the world.

This is not North Korea.

Last week I would've agreed with you. This week, well?? :confused: :( :confused: :(

The story made it onto Fark.com.

You can wade through some of the more amusing comments here (http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4895947).

News update with comments from FlyingWithFish’s attorney:

<SNIP> Francis DiScala Jr., Fischling's attorney, criticized the DHS for using "heavy-handed tactics" and "intimidating" his client. "Federal agents came and confiscated the tools of his trade at night in front of his three children," DiScala said. "When federal agents show up at your door with badges, their very presence is intimidating. The weight of the government is on you and just you. Steve was not motivated by generosity in giving up his personal computer, which he uses to earn a living." (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/31/dhs-subpoenas-journalists-published-leaked-airline-security-changes/)

News update with comments from FlyingWithFish’s attorney:

<SNIP> Francis DiScala Jr., Fischling's attorney, criticized the DHS for using "heavy-handed tactics" and "intimidating" his client. "Federal agents came and confiscated the tools of his trade at night in front of his three children," DiScala said. "When federal agents show up at your door with badges, their very presence is intimidating. The weight of the government is on you and just you. Steve was not motivated by generosity in giving up his personal computer, which he uses to earn a living." (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/31/dhs-subpoenas-journalists-published-leaked-airline-security-changes/)

I note from that article that Steve has received his laptop back, complete with corrupt sectors on the HDD. Personally, I would recommend the following:

Buy a new hard drive
Remove and store the current hard drive
Install the new hard drive, restore the O/S and then restore the data from backup


In any case, I would never use that laptop connected to any network again with the hard drive that was taken by federal agents.

I realize that this is far too easy for me to say from my safe distance, but I would have told these "special" agents the following: "I would really love to answer all of your questions, but I just can't without my attorney present. Until then, I'm going to execise my constitutional right to remain silent. Is that OK with you?" What can they say to that? Arrest you? Fine. Some things are worth it. I was once arrested for failing to obey an unlawful order. When my court date arrived, the judge expunged the arrest record.

Bruce

Agreed 100%.

I mean this in no way as any disrespect to sefrischling, but these guys would have never been invited into my home absent a warrant nor would they have left with anything I gave them "voluntarily."

sefrischling, I don't know if you're following this thead but I wanted to put this here on the public record before I send you a PM:

Steve, in the Fox news story someone else quoted (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/31/dhs-subpoenas-journalists-published-leaked-airline-security-changes/), you say that the federal agents told you you're "not a journalist".

Well, in case you have any doubt about it (and, from what I know of your professional history you shouldn't) I want to say that, speaking as someone who wrote his first piece of newspaper copy for payment in 1967, darn tootin' you're a fellow journalist and your blog is most definitely journalism.

sefrischling, I don't know if you're following this thead but I wanted to put this here on the public record before I send you a PM:

Steve, in the Fox news story someone else quoted (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/31/dhs-subpoenas-journalists-published-leaked-airline-security-changes/), you say that the federal agents told you you're "not a journalist".

Well, in case you have any doubt about it (and, from what I know of your professional history you shouldn't) I want to say that, speaking as someone who wrote his first piece of newspaper copy for payment in 1967, darn tootin' you're a fellow journalist and your blog is most definitely journalism.

What about my blog? Am I a journalist or just a raving madman? I am good with either label.

What about my blog? Am I a journalist or just a raving madman? I am good with either label.

Doesn't matter. You still don't have to answer questions from jack-booted thugs or surrender anything unless they've got the paperwork. Unless they changed something (in the name of "security") while I wasn't looking.

What about my blog? Am I a journalist or just a raving madman? I am good with either label.

TK, you might want to get a drum of some good lube!

Am I a journalist or just a raving madman? I am good with either label.

And the difference between those labels is ... what, exactly? ;)

All kidding aside, we know that what constitutes a "journalist" these days is terribly in flux.

TK, you might want to get a drum of some good lube!

Does anyone else small Astro Glide? :D

Doesn't matter. You still don't have to answer questions from jack-booted thugs or surrender anything unless they've got the paperwork. Unless they changed something (in the name of "security") while I wasn't looking.

The TSA legal department just makes it up as they go along. It is like trying to play Monopoly with a three year old.

The TSA legal department just makes it up as they go along. It is like trying to play Monopoly with a three year old.

That's why real lawyers need to challenge them.

What about my blog? Am I a journalist or just a raving madman? I am good with either label.

As others have noted, there's not much difference between those two options.

But, yes, let me know when the Feds show up at your door (as opposed to the men in white coats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4) with a butterfly net) and I'll call you a journalist, too.

Folks, we've had to delete some overtly political commentary.

This is not OMNI/PR. Please keep the political comments toned down.

Thanks for your cooperation.

_________________________

Cholula
TS/S Co-Moderator

This has now made it to the very top page of The Drudge Repor (http://www.drudgereport.com/)t.

As others have noted, there's not much difference between those two options.

But, yes, let me know when the Feds show up at your door (as opposed to the men in white coats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4) with a butterfly net) and I'll call you a journalist, too.

I guess I better clean the house up if I am going to have visitors.

I guess I better clean the house up if I am going to have visitors.
I would only clean after they came the first time. That subpoena form is not something that requires that I allow them into my abode. Until they come with a search warrant, signed by a judge, like hell are they stepping one inch into my home; I will gladly talk to them out in the street by my mailbox so that they are completely off of my property.

I will gladly talk to them out in the street by my mailbox so that they are completely off of my property.

Why even talk to them at all?

I will gladly talk to them out in the street by my mailbox so that they are completely off of my property.

Why even talk to them at all? Except to say, "Leave."

Why even talk to them at all?

My talking to them would be limited to simply stating that they need a search warrant to enter my premises and my lawyer present before I answer any direct questions other than providing my name. In order to charge them with trespass, I must first inform them that they must depart my property.

This has now made it to the very top page of The Drudge Repor (http://www.drudgereport.com/)t.

Those of us in the federal government who don't work for TSA or DHS are sitting and watching this train wreck in progress with utter amazement.

Land of the free ...

My talking to them would be limited to simply stating that they need a search warrant to enter my premises and my lawyer present before I answer any direct questions other than providing my name. In order to charge them with trespass, I must first inform them that they must depart my property.

Well, if you put it that way. Right answer, IMO.

Those of us in the federal government who don't work for TSA or DHS are sitting and watching this train wreck in progress with utter amazement.

Thanks for that perspective. It does give me hope some federal employees (outside of DHS) recognize this for what it is.

The Wired article does say that they "threatened his job with KLM". It looks like the language of the administrative subpoena statute does say that it covers employees of airlines - so that might be a legitimate nexus for the subpoena.

Those of us in the federal government who don't work for TSA or DHS are sitting and watching this train wreck in progress with utter amazement.

Is there any hope that it will completely implode?

^^ remember this - The government didn't appeal Fofana, and settled the ACLU matter. That is a clear indication of how poorly the Department of Justice regards the legal acumen of the TSA Office of General Counsel.

1) They also seem to have decided to let Scherfen fly in September of last year. It looked to me like that was to moot the expedited motion for preliminary injunction-- which was withdrawn-- and the case beats on.

2) But they did appeal McCarty (the Hawaii kiddie porn case). In its order to suppress he district court said in so many words that it didn't buy the "dropsy" testimony and made some serious adverse credibility findings vis-a-vis the two TSO's that will be hard to get around, but I still think the 9th Circuit might be able to hash through it.

3) Do you know off the top of your head if the TSA has the authority to issue the type of subponea it issued? I haven't looked yet, but if you know off the top of your head, that would save me the time.

REMOVED

Thanks for the clarification! That makes it pretty clear in my opinion that you were not a "covered person" and thus their use of the subpoena was patently illegal.

Thanks for the clarification! That makes it pretty clear in my opinion that you were not a "covered person" and thus their use of the subpoena was patently illegal.

One has nothing to do with the other, in my opinion.

Is there any hope that it will completely implode?

Sadly, no. The history of government departments is that once created, they never seem to go away. They are sometimes downgraded - the Postal Service being an example - but they never die. The reason is, of course, two-fold - having government departments gives Congress something to supervise, and power - once it is amassed, rarely is it ceded.

The best we can probably hope for is 1) Janet to be replaced, 2) someone sensible put in charge of TSA with a mandate to clean the place up, and 3) real intelligence reform.

1) They also seem to have decided to let Scherfen fly in September of last year. It looked to me like that was to moot the expedited motion for preliminary injunction-- which was withdrawn-- and the case beats on.

I forgot that one, thanks.

2) But they did appeal McCarty (the Hawaii kiddie porn case). In its order to suppress he district court said in so many words that it didn't buy the "dropsy" testimony and made some serious adverse credibility findings vis-a-vis the two TSO's that will be hard to get around, but I still think the 9th Circuit might be able to hash through it.

I was surprised the SG's office allowed that to be appealed. It looks like a sure loser to me, but with child porn, you never know - normal people can't stomach it, so they might win on appeal. But I wouldn't cite this appeal for the proposition that DOJ considers TSA GC to have their sh*t together.

3) Do you know off the top of your head if the TSA has the authority to issue the type of subponea it issued? I haven't looked yet, but if you know off the top of your head, that would save me the time.

I haven't read the subpeona yet. I'm going to try and do so this weekend.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.5.0.138 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

The Wired article does say that they "threatened his job with KLM". It looks like the language of the administrative subpoena statute does say that it covers employees of airlines - so that might be a legitimate nexus for the subpoena.

It depends. If he's an employee of KLM, loosely defined as an individual receiving salary & benefits from a company with which he has signed an employment agreement: he could be considered to be a covered person.

If he is an individual under contract to KLM to write stuff: No, he's not a covered employee.

The best we can probably hope for is 1) Janet to be replaced, 2) someone sensible put in charge of TSA with a mandate to clean the place up, and 3) real intelligence reform.

What about Erroll Southers?-- I thought they were going to try to vote arond Sen. DeMint in some way (I don't have a great understanding of how those processes work). I'm with you on Janet and the reform-- and I don't want Erroll Southers in there either.

I forgot that one, thanks.

My pleasure. The TSA has already had to present some documents in camera, ex parte, something they did not want to have to do. :) That was over the summer. The Government's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and Scherfen's motion in opposition to motion to dismiss or for summary judgment have been pending since the fall.

I was surprised the SG's office allowed that to be appealed. It looks like a sure loser to me, but with child porn, you never know - normal people can't stomach it, so they might win on appeal. But I wouldn't cite this appeal for the proposition that DOJ considers TSA GC to have their sh*t together.

I would never cite it as such. But it is going to be really hard for an appellate court to toss out the district court's credibility findings. People hate kiddie porn, and with good reason; I think if it had just been drugs, there would have been no appeal.

I haven't read the subpeona yet. I'm going to try and do so this weekend.

Darn! Now I have to do it. I'll get to it later today and let you know if I find anything interesting . . .

I was surprised the SG's office allowed that to be appealed. It looks like a sure loser to me, but with child porn, you never know - normal people can't stomach it, so they might win on appeal.
We can sort of have it both ways now. They can still hold the search unconstitutional, but let the evidence in under Herring.

The Wired article does say that they "threatened his job with KLM". It looks like the language of the administrative subpoena statute does say that it covers employees of airlines - so that might be a legitimate nexus for the subpoena.

I have my doubts that he's an employee of the airline or in such a position as to be a "covered person" who normally got access to such information as part of even a contractor-relationship with any airline.

The administrative subpoena -- a demand for information issued without a judge's approval -- will be challenged next week in federal court in Orlando, Fla., said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Dalglish said she is acting as Elliott's spokesman on the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/31/business/AP-US-Airliner-Attack-TSA-Subpoenas.html

So now we know it's an "administrative" subpoena.

My talking to them would be limited to simply stating that they need a search warrant to enter my premises and my lawyer present before I answer any direct questions other than providing my name. In order to charge them with trespass, I must first inform them that they must depart my property.

Some states, like Colorado, offer homeowners much better protection via the Second Amendment.

"One way or another, you're leaving my property in less than 1 minute."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/31/business/AP-US-Airliner-Attack-TSA-Subpoenas.html

So now we know it's an "administrative" subpoena.

Can one of the legal types give us a short primer on the weight and such an administrative subpoena has?

Why, why why do people talk to cops? Cooperating with the police in this fashion is idiocy. Inviting these people into his home without a warrant for a 2 hour chat and then later allowing them to take his computer without them having any legal right to do so is dumb. Dumb. dumb! Giving away your computer instead of making them seize it via court order is equally retarded.

Repeat after me: "I'm sorry, I don't speak to policemen."

And yes, I do know precisely what I'm taking about. As some may remember, I was poking sticks at these same retards back in 2003, when no one else was doing it.

Repeat after me: "Come back with a warrant."

Repeat after me: "I'm sorry, I don't speak to policemen."


This has made it to Wired.com:

<SNIP> Frischling, a freelance travel writer and photographer in Connecticut who writes a blog for the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, said the two agents who visited him arrived around 7 p.m. Tuesday, were armed and threatened him with a criminal search warrant if he didn’t provide the name of his source. They also threatened to get him fired from his KLM job and indicated they could get him designated a security risk, which would make it difficult for him to travel and do his job.

“They were indicating there would be significant ramifications if I didn’t cooperate,” said Frischling, who was home alone with his three children when the agents arrived. “It’s not hard to intimidate someone when they’re holding a 3-year-old [child] in their hands. My wife works at night. I go to jail, and my kids are here with nobody.” (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger/)

In light of this particular topic and the post above I think it appropriate to post this Youtube video:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

Why, why why do people talk to cops? Steven Frischling was, I'm sorry to say, an idiot. He invited these people into his home without a warrant for a 2 hour chat and then later allows them to take his computer without them having any legal right to do so. He gave them his computer: they didn't seize it. Dumb. Dumb. dumb!

Repeat after me: "I'm sorry, I don't speak to policemen."

And yes, I do know precisely what I'm taking about. As some may remember, I was poking sticks at these same retards back in 2003, when no one else was doing it.

Repeat after me: "Come back with a warrant."

Repeat after me: "I'm sorry, I don't speak to policemen."

Calling him an idiot is a bit harsh. Hind sight is always 20/20 and when you involve the danger of your children being taken by the CPS even for a little while the pressures can be immense.

You give good advice about talking to the law but the one you forgot "I require a lawyer to be present at any questioning".

Calling him an idiot is a bit harsh. Hind sight is always 20/20 and when you involve the danger of your children being taken by the CPS even for a little while the pressures can be immense.

You give good advice about talking to the law but the one you forgot "I require a lawyer to be present at any questioning".

Trust me, I have been subjected to far worse pressure. They cannot question you if you're not answering questions. He cooperated fully.

Let the cops into ones house is dumb. Stepping outside ones house so they can potentially arrest you is stupid. Talking to cops for at least two hours and then giving away ones computer is dumb, dumb, dumb.

You don't see Chris Elliott making a fool out of himself and endangering his personal liberty. He must be getting good counsel from somewhere.

In light of this particular topic and the post above I think it appropriate to post this Youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

That should be required watching for all. In fact my kids will be watching that this weekend.

Trust me, I have been subjected to far worse pressure. They cannot question you if you're not answering questions. He cooperated fully.

He let them in his house. He stepped outside his house. He talked to them for at least two hours. He gave them his computer. Really, the guy was dumb, dumb, dumb.

I will agree that the encounter was not handled the best, I still think it is harsh to attack the person and not the action.

BillScann, with all due respect -- and I indeed do respect that you were one of the first to consistently demonstrate a non-tolerance for the TSA's foolish ways and make that opposition real -- the blame is misplaced. We cannot expect everyone to be men and women of steel at every moment in life. The blame for this situations rests with the general public that has allowed the government to dare to intimidate innocent people -- and largely get away with it with impunity -- and with the government employees who think this is acceptable behavior or were otherwise involved in this effort at intimidation.

"We the People" are responsible for not putting a stop to this before it even started.

I will agree that the encounter was not handled the best, I still think it is harsh to attack the person and not the action.

Agreed. I've edited my posts so as to characterize the actions themselves as stupid, rather than the individual.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/31/business/AP-US-Airliner-Attack-TSA-Subpoenas.html

So now we know it's an "administrative" subpoena.

Glad to see it's being challenged and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is involved.

What? No comment from the TSA? Shocking, I tell ya.

The more calls the TSA gets from the New York Times, AP and others asking for comment--the better this will be.

"We the People" are responsible for not putting a stop to this before it even started.

Use it or lose it. We are The People who put a stop to this nonsense by saying, "I'm sorry, I don't speak to policemen" or, "Please come back with a warrant".

2) I was speaking with and am continuing to speak with an attorney. Do not assume otherwise.

I was very happy to read that you have an attorney now.

My knee-jerk reaction when I first read about the subpoenas was "You need to speak to my attorney." I know it's easy in hindsight to question your reaction. However, most of us haven't been in the situation you are in. I'd like to think I'd have the presence of mind to refuse to speak with government thugs, but who knows? I know my husband would fold in a heartbeat. I question authority at every turn. He doesn't.

Best wishes for a quick resolution to this.

Use it or lose it. We are The People who put a stop to this nonsense by saying, "I'm sorry, I don't speak to policemen" or, "Please come back with a warrant".

^^

Can one of the legal types give us a short primer on the weight and such an administrative subpoena has?

IANAL, but a Google search found this link, among others:
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/422/1371/167701/

Agreed. I've edited my posts so as to characterize the actions themselves as stupid, rather than the individual.

^ thanks

Update from Associated Press: TSA extends response deadline for blogger (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_go_ot/us_airliner_attack_tsa_subpoenas)

Update from Associated Press: TSA extends response deadline for blogger (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_go_ot/us_airliner_attack_tsa_subpoenas)

Someone blinked.

Disgusting actions by the government.

Seizing computers from persons who are not likely to be prosecuted and convicted for any violation of federal law on their part to-date is the kind of intimidation tactics used by tinpot dictatorships and autocratic regimes around the world.

Zimbabwe is notorious for this kind of behavior and we criticize it, but here is our government now doing the same thing?

Should the name be changed to Department of Fatherland Security?

Someone blinked.

Someone didn't invite cops into their home for a two hour chat before loaning them their laptop. Someone defended the Constitution. Someone acted like my kind of reporter.

Should the name be changed to Department of Fatherland Security?

I think the Department of Homerland (http://simpsonspedia.net/index.php?title=Homerland)Security has a better ring.

I think the Department of Homerland (http://simpsonspedia.net/index.php?title=Homerland)Security has a better ring.

^^ Anything for a beer.

I think the Department of Homerland (http://simpsonspedia.net/index.php?title=Homerland)Security has a better ring.

Yup, plus it should be abbreviated as DOHS...

Someone didn't invite cops into their home for a two hour chat before loaning them their laptop. Someone defended the Constitution. Someone acted like my kind of reporter.

Kudos to Elliot but I'm not going to pass judgement on Fish. He had two armed Federal "Special" Agents at his doorstep with "legal paperz" while he held his young baby and his other kids were at home.

I won't hold his loaning his laptops to the Feds against him.

It sure is easy for everybody else to be so brave hiding behind their keyboards and screens.

Kudos to Elliot but I'm not going to pass judgement on Fish. He had two armed Federal "Special" Agents at his doorstep with "legal paperz" while he held his young baby and his other kids were at home.

I won't hold his loaning his laptops to the Feds against him.

It sure is easy for everybody else to be so brave hiding behind their keyboards and screens.

He also said there was nothing on the laptop pertaining to the document.

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

Steve,

Glad to hear that at least some semblance of sanity returned to somebody's mind at TSA.

Personally, I would still completely re-image that laptop.

Happy New Year!

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

Congratulations! This Dalid/Goliath story had a happy ending (sort of). Looks like TSA was shamed into submission. God bless mass communication! And may God Bless the United States of America (because we sure need it!).

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

Congratulations, and hopefully this type of threat will not happen to others in the blogging community. ^

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

That is great news!

Have a happy New Year :)^

Steve,

Glad to hear that at least some semblance of sanity returned to somebody's mind at TSA.

Personally, I would still completely re-image that laptop.

Happy New Year!

I would have doubts that sanity had returned over there. I have no doubt that the motivating factor in how DHS/TSA behaves is their fear of further public embarrassment and concern about inviting yet another public relations challenge.

I would have doubts that sanity had returned over there. I have no doubt that fear of public embarrassment and knowledge that this was going to invite a real public challenge are a motivating factor in how DHS/TSA behaves.

Exactly why I said "some semblance of sanity." (emphasis mine)

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

Demand it in writing.

I think the Department of Homerland (http://simpsonspedia.net/index.php?title=Homerland)Security has a better ring.

As long as you say it in the original German.

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

Nice way to finish 2009. ^^

I am happy that it seems to have worked out well enough so far for the two of you.

There is still a need to push to make sure this kind of intimidation tactic doesn't go unpunished and getting everything you can papered would be useful.

This is downright scary. Here's a story about Fish from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger

A quote from the story.


"It strikes me that someone at TSA is apoplectic that somehow there’s a sense that they’re not doing their job right.":

mad:


duh

Exactly why I said "some semblance of sanity." (emphasis mine)

My bad. If I keep missing things like that, I'll end up with a job at the TSA. :D

A quote from the story.


"It strikes me that someone at TSA is apoplectic that somehow there’s a sense that they’re not doing their job right.":

mad:


duh

Why, oh why, would anyone criticize the TSA for ID checking, shoe checking, "behavior detection"/SPOT/profiling, blacklisting, electronic strip-searching, and other TSA theater acts while the TSA is failing at detecting explosives and other bomb components.

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

Congratulations, thank you and Happy New Year to both you and Chris.

That was the indication.

I have years of journalism and have been brazen in the past, especially having documented homeland security for more than 3 years as a news photog both in the US and abroad for major international news outlets.

What changed the other night? Maybe it was my living room with one kid in the living room, another at a desk behind me as a spoke with the agents initially or the almost 3 year old in my arms.

The agents were in my house for over an hour with me, 3 kids and no one else. I get arrested, then what? My kids end up with social services because Dad was hauled off by Federal Agents?

I have been in very tight situations before, especially covering homeland security as a news photographer, but your perspective changes when you're home alone with your kids and you need to think about their needs first.

maybe you could have called 911 and said armed men are in my house....HELP!!!!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1209/Journo_plans_challenge_to_TSA_subpoena.html

From the TSA: "TSA takes any breach in security very seriously. In light of the posting of sensitive security information on the web, TSA sought to identify where the information came from. The investigation is nearing a successful conclusion and the subpoenas are no longer in effect."

Translation: We have decided on our scapegoat and we know we would lose in court against the bloggers.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1209/Journo_plans_challenge_to_TSA_subpoena.html

Translation: We have decided on our scapegoat and we know we would lose in court against the bloggers.

I hope the bloggers and their legal counsel pursue this issue in the coming year. This smacks of intimidation and "street justice" for daring to call the emperor on his nakedness.

Yes, this is great news that someone at some level of DHS finally saw this was a train wreck about to happen.

It did unequivocably prove, however, that some of the investigators at TSA are ham-handed idiots. :(


It sure is easy for everybody else to be so brave hiding behind their keyboards and screens.

I won't bore you with the details, but some of us here have actually been involved in similar situations and are not just hiding behind keyboards. Admittedly, it's no fun as it is happening. But those who overstep their bounds need to be called on it.

Yes, this is great news that someone at some level of DHS finally saw this was a train wreck about to happen.

It did unequivocably prove, however, that some of the investigators at TSA are ham-handed idiots. :(



Investigators don't go out brandishing subpoenas on their own. The real ham handed idiots are the TSA leadership and the TSA General Counsel's office.

Investigators don't go out brandishing subpoenas on their own. The real ham handed idiots are the TSA leadership and the TSA General Counsel's office.

OK, that applies to all who had anything to do with it. :D

Investigators don't go out brandishing subpoenas on their own. The real ham handed idiots are the TSA leadership and the TSA General Counsel's office.

Exactly, presuming the investigators weren't so foolish as to try to mock up one of their own using an existing subpoena.

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

Glad to hear the news

Olton,

I am not sure what info you are reading, but there two agents. I verified who they were both while in my home and again after they left my home. They are very must US Federal Special Agents

Here is some basic info on TSA Special Agents
http://www.tsa.gov/join/benefits/soar/usss/sa_investigator.shtmIt appears he unloaded his security company to Firestorm Solutions LLC in the past few months. Don't have a clue if he's involved with the merged company but he's still listed as part of their security council and there are references to him being active staff at Firestorm as rescently has mid September. Here's some of the info Enright Associates (http://www.refindirectory.com/listing/enright-associates-inc) which he was the President. This link (http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=59897171) posted elsewhere in FT has a photo of him connecting him to the company. His security consultant company was very much active when he worked for the AG's office according to a quick google search. I see he likes being in front of the TV cameras as having been an analysis at NBC affliliate in Providence.

Investigators don't go out brandishing subpoenas on their own. The real ham handed idiots are the TSA leadership and the TSA General Counsel's office.Were the investigators "just following orders" then? That defense failed at Nuremburg. It won't work here, either. When I worked for the Federal Government (1979-88), I swore "to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I did not swear to obey my boss, no matter what he told me to do. :(

Bruce

Kudos to Elliot but I'm not going to pass judgement on Fish. He had two armed Federal "Special" Agents at his doorstep with "legal paperz" while he held his young baby and his other kids were at home.

I won't hold his loaning his laptops to the Feds against him.

It sure is easy for everybody else to be so brave hiding behind their keyboards and screens.

Yeah, there are too many stories of government raids where you get your equipment back much later, badly damaged or not at all. If you can defuse it without that happening, good.

I won't bore you with the details, but some of us here have actually been involved in similar situations and are not just hiding behind keyboards. Admittedly, it's no fun as it is happening. But those who overstep their bounds need to be called on it.Bravo! Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. My congratulations to those who, like you, are willing to take on the government when it exceeds its Constitutionally-imposed limitations on its powers.

I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next.

Without telling us what in specific was said about the ongoing investigation, do you mean that they told you how they intended to proceed with their investigation? :confused:

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

Congrats and have a happy new year.

Yeah, there are too many stories of government raids where you get your equipment back much later, badly damaged or not at all. If you can defuse it without that happening, good.

I hope you are not implying that the equipment taken in this situation necessarily came back undamaged. ;)

Should the name be changed to Department of Fatherland Security?

When you translate it to German, DHS and DFS both have the same ring to it.
Actually, homeland/Heimat was more commonly used than fatherland during the period you are referring to.

Being German, apart from their actions, their choice of name for this department is still scaring the heck out of me.


Glad to hear the bloggers seem to be in the clear; but still : administratively issued subpoenae ?
Oh my ...

8:45 AM CT. Fox news will being doing a segment on this story shortly.

I was just called buy TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement telling me that the TSA is dropping any and all investigation of how I received the Security Directive.

The TSA had my laptop, there was no data of interest to them on the laptop, I knew that. I am not discussing where they indicated they'd be looking for that data next. If they went that next step a challenge would have ensued.

The TSA has also dropped its subpoena with Chris Elliot.

We are both free and clear as of right now.

Interesting -- This person is Francine's deputy. She didn't even have the professionalism to call you herself. If she had any professionalism and integrity, this wouldn't have happened to you in the first place.

Interesting -- This person is Francine's deputy. She didn't even have the professionalism to call you herself. If she had any professionalism and integrity, this wouldn't have happened to you in the first place.

I'm amazed that you would expect professionalism or integrity out of anyone connected with TSA.

Interesting -- This person is Francine's deputy. She didn't even have the professionalism to call you herself. If she had any professionalism and integrity, this wouldn't have happened to you in the first place.

+googleplex

Interesting -- This person is Francine's deputy. She didn't even have the professionalism to call you herself. If she had any professionalism and integrity, this wouldn't have happened to you in the first place.

Isn't the primary role of that position of Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement that of trying to intimidate those who don't do as the TSA wishes?

In my limited experience, petty bullies aren't big fans of giving personal apologies for their actions or those of their henchmen and hirelings even after checked.

I hope you are not implying that the equipment taken in this situation necessarily came back undamaged. ;)

On the contrary, it probably came back with free Christmas presents added, the latest "but you'll never find it" keystrokelogger and backdoor. I'd never connect that HD to the internet again. [/tinfoil hat]

Isn't the primary role of that position of Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement that of trying to intimidate those who don't do as the TSA wishes?

In my limited experience, petty bullies aren't big fans of giving personal apologies for their actions or those of their henchmen and hirelings even after checked.

Which is why alternative methods of chastisement become increasingly desirable.

Unfortunately, building a full-size functional guillotine on the sidewalk in front of 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, Virginia will only get you talked about.

Isn't the primary role of that position of Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement that of trying to intimidate those who don't do as the TSA wishes?

In my limited experience, petty bullies aren't big fans of giving personal apologies for their actions or those of their henchmen and hirelings even after checked.

you are presuming it was a voluntary apology. :D

On the contrary, it probably came back with free Christmas presents added, the latest "but you'll never find it" keystrokelogger and backdoor. I'd never connect that HD to the internet again. [/tinfoil hat]

Tinfoil not needed. I wouldn't put it past them to try such a thing.

My advice would be to do a low-level format of the HD and reinstall from the manufacturer's DVD. Don't trust any PC or laptop that has been in the custody of any government agency.

I would also have Avast! (http://www.avast.com) installed. The people who wrote that program live in virus central, and are not beholden to TSA or the US government. That program will likely find any government-installed keyloggers or other government malware.

you are presuming it was a voluntary apology. :D

Take it from someone who's been there: apologies like this are NEVER voluntary.

Tinfoil not needed. I wouldn't put it past them to try such a thing.

My advice would be to do a low-level format of the HD and reinstall from the manufacturer's DVD. Don't trust any PC or laptop that has been in the custody of any government agency.

I would also have Avast! (http://www.avast.com) installed. The people who wrote that program live in virus central, and are not beholden to TSA or the US government. That program will likely find any government-installed keyloggers or other government malware.



Take it from someone who's been there: apologies like this are NEVER voluntary.

Destroying the HD data is a bad idea. Instead he should have someone that is independent check the drive for any Government installed spyware. Once that is found write a blog entry on it, and then sue the agency for a violation of the 4th.

Destroying the HD data is a bad idea. Instead he should have someone that is independent check the drive for any Government installed spyware. Once that is found write a blog entry on it, and then sue the agency for a violation of the 4th.

Assuming you can find an independent expert willing to buck the feds. I'm not sanguine about the chances of that. This isn't an "innocent" government employee who was handed a badly updated laptop then busted for child porn. (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9098598/State_worker_s_child_porn_charges_dropped_faulty_l aptop_security_blamed)

I think he said it was a Mac. I'm sure though that you can buy a separate HD for a Mac for $150 or so. Put the gov's HD on the shelf and start fresh... Apparently you have bad sectors anyway. Surely the ad revenue from increased traffic on your blog would cover this :).

I read on Elliott's blog (http://www.elliott.org/blog/department-of-homeland-security-withdraws-subpoena/) that the TSA offered to buy sefrischling a new computer because they damaged his Mac Book.

I read on Elliott's blog (http://www.elliott.org/blog/department-of-homeland-security-withdraws-subpoena/) that the TSA offered to buy sefrischling a new computer because they damaged his Mac Book.

Ham fisted hacks... I guess the incompetence starts with the HR department.

Congratulations.

At least someone came to their senses. We're becoming more and more like the old Soviet machine with this kind of stuff.

Great way to cover up incompetence: blame the messenger.

I read on Elliott's blog (http://www.elliott.org/blog/department-of-homeland-security-withdraws-subpoena/) that the TSA offered to buy sefrischling a new computer because they damaged his Mac Book.

What complete morons. I hope he takes them up on the offer, but agree the HD should be reformatted.

(Better yet, let him order the new computer and send them the bill.)

I read on Elliott's blog (http://www.elliott.org/blog/department-of-homeland-security-withdraws-subpoena/) that the TSA offered to buy sefrischling a new computer because they damaged his Mac Book.

Maybe I am just paranoid, but I am willing to bet that there is a poorly installed spyware program on the damaged computer.

The fact the agency is willing to replace the computer instead of paying for repair of the computer indicates to me they are trying to hide something the repair would reveal.

Think about it, they trashed the HD not the rest of the computer, so why not just replace the HD?

Assuming you can find an independent expert willing to buck the feds. I'm not sanguine about the chances of that. This isn't an "innocent" government employee who was handed a badly updated laptop then busted for child porn. (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9098598/State_worker_s_child_porn_charges_dropped_faulty_l aptop_security_blamed)

Send it to me and I can find an independent expert.

Think about it, they trashed the HD not the rest of the computer, so why not just replace the HD?

To save face close the matter quietly. Clearly the order to drop the matter and make nice came from above-- that is above Francine. Like halls said, it was not a voluntary "apology". Any about face like that is suspect.

To save face close the matter quietly. Clearly the order to drop the matter and make nice came from above-- that is above Francine. Like halls said, it was not a voluntary "apology". :D

And that is what throws up the red flag. I say if you have them by the shorts, force the issue.

And that is what throws up the red flag. I say if you have them by the shorts, force the issue.

The 'investigators' should never have even powered up the pc if they were interested in the chain of evidence. If even half of what I read on Wired is correct then the 'investigators' came totally unprepared to gather evidence.

Suggest doing a google search on DECAF, then once you find a copy run it as that should pretty much scramble anything the government put on it and might even generate a report as to what was put on it to begin with.

If they want to seize my computers, it won't do them much good, unless they can figure out where my data is stored.

Where is your data stored? Isn't it on the hard drive??

Where is your data stored? Isn't it on the hard drive??

You could, quite literally have all of your files stored on a server, half way around the world. The only thing that might be left over would be some traces of temporary files on the hard drive and possibly some information in memory (which quickly goes away after a power cycle).

Boot off of a DVD, run with the files on a server and the only traces of those files would be in RAM. Easy to do with a Linux distribution disk.

The 'investigators' should never have even powered up the pc if they were interested in the chain of evidence. If even half of what I read on Wired is correct then the 'investigators' came totally unprepared to gather evidence.

Suggest doing a google search on DECAF, then once you find a copy run it as that should pretty much scramble anything the government put on it and might even generate a report as to what was put on it to begin with.

That might take care of a lot of software plants, but it's squat against hardware plants, not that I would presume the TSA would have been able to pull it off cleanly if at all.

Given the frequent displays of incompetence at the TSA, they probably rather innocently damaged the laptop by having someone incompetent handle it. It sounds like they couldn't even figure out what size jack was needed to listen to the audio on the computer so as not to disturb a colleague.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20100101/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_airliner_attack_tsa_subpoenas_1;_y lc=X3oDMTB0cGhkdHJ1BF9TAzIxNTExMDUEZW1haWxJZAMxMjY yMzgyMTkw

The Transportation Security Administration on Thursday dropped its subpoenas it had issued to two Internet writers in its effort to find the leaker of an airline security directive that ordered extra measures after a Christmas Day attack on an airliner bound from Amsterdam to Detroit.

TSA withdraws subpoenas of travel bloggers

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/01/tsa.travel.bloggers/index.html

TSA withdraws subpoenas of travel bloggers

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/01/tsa.travel.bloggers/index.html




Disgusting actions by the government.

is the kind of intimidation tactics used by tinpot dictatorships and autocratic regimes around the world.

What complete morons. I hope he takes them up on the offer, but agree the HD should be reformatted.

(Better yet, let him order the new computer and send them the bill.)

Yeah, that's what should be done.

Maybe I am just paranoid, but I am willing to bet that there is a poorly installed spyware program on the damaged computer.

The fact the agency is willing to replace the computer instead of paying for repair of the computer indicates to me they are trying to hide something the repair would reveal.

Think about it, they trashed the HD not the rest of the computer, so why not just replace the HD?

Maybe it was pulled by somebody clumsy who broke the connector. I've had my laptop partially apart before, there's a lot of delicate connectors in there. If you break a connector on the motherboard that's a major repair bill. They're not like desktop units that are reasonably rugged inside and even if you broke something you could easily swap out the broken part.

Maybe it was pulled by somebody clumsy who broke the connector. I've had my laptop partially apart before, there's a lot of delicate connectors in there. If you break a connector on the motherboard that's a major repair bill. They're not like desktop units that are reasonably rugged inside and even if you broke something you could easily swap out the broken part.

I would still have a competent tech look at it before I tossed it.

BillScann

You are making assumptions based on what is available in the media. Your assumptions on the events that transpired and the legal advice I was receiving from a qualified attorney is incomplete.

You are also unaware obviously of the shield law (if there was one) technicalities, the fact that there was no data on my laptop and legal challenges that would have been in place should the data which was not in my possession (as stated by the subpoena) was legally sought after.

I am not going to go into explicit detail...but you're throwing out opinions based on incomplete information. So as for your "Dumb Dumb Dumb" comment

...you may want to see how that applies to making such black & white statements without all the facts or a complete understanding of the events as they unfolded.

Happy Flying!

-Fish / Flying With Fish

BillScann

You are making assumptions based on what is available in the media. Your assumptions on the events that transpired and the legal advice I was receiving from a qualified attorney is incomplete.

You are also unaware obviously of the shield law (if there was one) technicalities, the fact that there was no data on my laptop and legal challenges that would have been in place should the data which was not in my possession (as stated by the subpoena) was legally sought after.

I am not going to go into explicit detail...but you're throwing out opinions based on incomplete information. So as for your "Dumb Dumb Dumb" comment

...you may want to see how that applies to making such black & white statements without all the facts or a complete understanding of the events as they unfolded.

Happy Flying!

-Fish / Flying With Fish

And as to my question? :)

Without telling us what in specific was said about the ongoing investigation, do you mean that they told you how they intended to proceed with their investigation? :confused:

The Special Agents made implications. Quite a lot was implied

While there is a lot of info out there at the moment, there are a lot of pieces missing as well.

The Special Agents made implications. Quite a lot was implied

While there is a lot of info out there at the moment, there are a lot of pieces missing as well.

Got it. Thanks.

Apparently you have bad sectors anyway. Surely the ad revenue from increased traffic on your blog would cover this :).

Traffic on a blog does not equal revenue. ;)

BillScann

You are making assumptions based on what is available in the media. Your assumptions on the events that transpired and the legal advice I was receiving from a qualified attorney is incomplete.

You are also unaware obviously of the shield law (if there was one) technicalities, the fact that there was no data on my laptop and legal challenges that would have been in place should the data which was not in my possession (as stated by the subpoena) was legally sought after.

I am not going to go into explicit detail...but you're throwing out opinions based on incomplete information. So as for your "Dumb Dumb Dumb" comment

...you may want to see how that applies to making such black & white statements without all the facts or a complete understanding of the events as they unfolded.

Happy Flying!

-Fish / Flying With Fish

If writing the above helps you sleep at night, then rock on, but -if- there is a next time, please do take off the Sox cap and put on a Yankees one instead, m-kay? ;)

The TSA legal department just makes it up as they go along. It is like trying to play Monopoly with a three year old.

A three year old with a gun. hyped up on red cordial, and past his bedtime.

Anything could have happened

Calling him an idiot is a bit harsh. Hind sight is always 20/20 and when you involve the danger of your children being taken by the CPS even for a little while the pressures can be immense.

You give good advice about talking to the law but the one you forgot "I require a lawyer to be present at any questioning".

and don't forget "I do not consent to any searches, sir"

The Special Agents made implications. Quite a lot was implied

While there is a lot of info out there at the moment, there are a lot of pieces missing as well.

As a journalist, are you going to report on what you have found out?

Are you somewhat upset that you did consent to the search, especially considering some ham fisted tech broke your laptop?

If it's me, don't even bother to ask to search unless in possession of a valid warrant....house, car, person, whatever.

I don't claim to have learned everything in this life, but a few I have:

1. Never eat at a restaurant named "Mom's."

2. Never play cards with a man named Doc.

3. A Smith & Wesson always beats four aces.

4. Never cosign on a note with anyone you don't sleep with.

5. Never, ever voluntarily surrender your constitutional rights.

As a journalist, are you going to report on what you have found out?

Are you somewhat upset that you did consent to the search, especially considering some ham fisted tech broke your laptop?

Jonsey,

I am in the process of continuing to research other TSA issues, as I had been doing prior to this. I am not after the TSA, they simply are in the scope of what I write about.

As mentioned before the reason any access to my hard drive was granted is that no information of any consequence lives in my hard drive. I am careful about storing my data and I have long since chosen to use webmail only, rather than a mail program to auto-download my email, for security reasons. It can be easy for hackers to access computers without the owner/user being aware of it, thus not having my email physically on my computer is a security issue.

Any and all email that is of a sensitive nature is also removed from my Blackberry/iPhone almost as soon as it is received.

Prior to this incident friends & colleagues had teased me about being paranoid...well it seems that I was not paranoid.

If I knew the identity of my source, which I do not, my actions would have been very different. Had a subpoena been issued for access to the email servers, which are not in my possession (subpoena was for materials in my possession) that would have been met with a legal challenge.

I am careful about storing my data and I have long since chosen to use webmail only, rather than a mail program to auto-download my email, for security reasons. It can be easy for hackers to access computers without the owner/user being aware of it, thus not having my email physically on my computer is a security issue.

In hindsight that turns out to be a smart move.

Most technically competent investigators could have found your email address on your Blog (assuming it's there someplace) and looked at the DNS mx record and issued an admin subpoena on your ISP. At that point they would have seen the email address of your anonymous source and could have pursued their investigation without even bothering you (or tipping you off to blog about it).

The gum shoes that came to your door should stick to looking for aviation security threats and not investigating online communications. Sort of bothers me that they are the front lines against terrorist attach with such bumbling investigative tactics.


If I knew the identity of my source, which I do not, my actions would have been very different. Had a subpoena been issued for access to the email servers, which are not in my possession (subpoena was for materials in my possession) that would have been met with a legal challenge.

A subpoena could have gotten them conection information from your ISP -- who you send email to and receive email from. Your ISP should not have turned over any stored communication unless served with a valid search warrant (which needs to be signed by a judge).

IANAL, I just watch a lot of Law and Order :).

Jonsey,

I am in the process of continuing to research other TSA issues, as I had been doing prior to this. I am not after the TSA, they simply are in the scope of what I write about.

As mentioned before the reason any access to my hard drive was granted is that no information of any consequence lives in my hard drive. I am careful about storing my data and I have long since chosen to use webmail only, rather than a mail program to auto-download my email, for security reasons. It can be easy for hackers to access computers without the owner/user being aware of it, thus not having my email physically on my computer is a security issue.

Any and all email that is of a sensitive nature is also removed from my Blackberry/iPhone almost as soon as it is received.

Prior to this incident friends & colleagues had teased me about being paranoid...well it seems that I was not paranoid.

If I knew the identity of my source, which I do not, my actions would have been very different. Had a subpoena been issued for access to the email servers, which are not in my possession (subpoena was for materials in my possession) that would have been met with a legal challenge.

Please tell me that you will have someone check your broken computer for keylogger or other spyware that may have been installed while the computer was out of your possession.

A subpoena could have gotten them conection information from your ISP -- who you send email to and receive email from. Your ISP should not have turned over any stored communication unless served with a valid search warrant (which needs to be signed by a judge).


Correct as far as who they could subpoena--an ISP or operator of a webmail server. But who knows what they would turn over with any piece of paper? They may not require a judge's signature to roll over.


Any and all email that is of a sensitive nature is also removed from my Blackberry/iPhone almost as soon as it is received.




And just because an e-mail is deleted immediately after it's received--doesn't mean there is no trail.

Correct as far as who they could subpoena--an ISP or operator of a webmail server. But who knows what they would turn over with any piece of paper? They may not require a judge's signature to roll over.

And just because an e-mail is deleted immediately after it's received--doesn't mean there is no trail.

I would not trust an ISP to uphold the right to privacy when shown a scary official document.

This is why I set up the anonymous tip box. It emails from my account to my account.

Were the investigators "just following orders" then? That defense failed at Nuremburg. It won't work here, either. When I worked for the Federal Government (1979-88), I swore "to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I did not swear to obey my boss, no matter what he told me to do. :(

Bruce

At the same time, most people in the field aren't lawyers. Policy is set forth by agency lawyers, supposedly in accordance with the Constitution, laws as established by the Legislature and by court precedent. Obviously an agent can kill someone because their boss told them to, but less black and white issues that policy states are approved? Like I said, they're not lawyers and can only follow policy as written. If the policy is bad that's an issues to take up with those that wrote the policy, not field personnel that execute it.

At the same time, most people in the field aren't lawyers. Policy is set forth by agency lawyers, supposedly in accordance with the Constitution, laws as established by the Legislature and by court precedent. Obviously an agent can kill someone because their boss told them to, but less black and white issues that policy states are approved? Like I said, they're not lawyers and can only follow policy as written. If the policy is bad that's an issues to take up with those that wrote the policy, not field personnel that execute it.

I hope you left the 't off of can.

As to following orders as a legal defense, it doesn't work and the field agents names would be on the lawsuit as well as the superiors who created the faulty policy to begin with.

Please tell me that you will have someone check your broken computer for keylogger or other spyware that may have been installed while the computer was out of your possession.

The MacBook will have the hard drive yanked checked & verified before the data is moved to the new computer when I get it.

C

And just because an e-mail is deleted immediately after it's received--doesn't mean there is no trail.

When I delete I ensure I delete from server. I also would have not allowed my Blackberry or iPhone to leave my line of sight.

..if the TSA wanted to see that my stored numbers include my Mom, mother of my kids, the kids daycare & school, pediatrician, etc...well then let them call my Mom and the Pediatrician.

But these devices were not leaving my possession, nor would I allow them tamper with those devices.

The MacBook will have the hard drive yanked checked & verified before the data is moved to the new computer when I get it.

Good deal. I will be interested to find out if they tried to sneak spyware on there.

When I delete I ensure I delete from server. I also would have not allowed my Blackberry or iPhone to leave my line of sight.


That's still no guarantee it can't be recovered or traced on the server side.

That's still no guarantee it can't be recovered or traced on the server side.

It is not practical to wipe a HD every time you do something. He did not do anything illegal or worthy of that kind of security. The point is to make them work for the info not to be able to keep them from it. If you really think about it there are a billion ways to track electronic information.

Good deal. I will be interested to find out if they tried to sneak spyware on there.

Unless they handed it over to a specialized agency, I doubt they did this. If it was TSA investigators working out of Boston chances are they sent it to their own "part-time" computer guy who imaged the drive and put the original back.

I doubt TSA is that skilled at something like this, and sounds like they wouldn't have had much time to do so (between removing/breaking his drive/computer and returning it).

Unless TSA went to a reginal FBI or state computer crimes lab, on New Years Eve eve (seriously, do you think they're fully staffed during this time? these are feds after all), during the few hours they had posession, I doubt they had the time or skill to pull off something this sophisticated. (Besides, the availability of this type of spyware or rootkit is something they probably keep secret -- why waste a valuable tool on a silly harrassment case like this. SFrischling could provide his HD to an anti-virus company for analysis and then they'd include the signature of the gov's spyware program in their updates, rendering it inaffective into the future).

That being said, I'd be very cautious with using what they've returned to me.

I'd take their money and buy a nice new computer just on principle.

Talk to an attorney about doing a FOIA or other request to find out the disposition of any images/electronic copies they made of your HD while in their posession. Since the case is closed on their end, I'd demand their certification that any and all copies have been destroyed prior to any settlement on your end.

Never attribute to government conspiracy that which can be attributed to bureaucratic incompetence.

<snipped>
(Besides, the availability of this type of spyware or rootkit is something they probably keep secret -- why waste a valuable tool on a silly harrassment case like this. SFrischling could provide his HD to an anti-virus company for analysis and then they'd include the signature of the gov's spyware program in their updates, rendering it inaffective into the future).

That being said, I'd be very cautious with using what they've returned to me.

I'd take their money and buy a nice new computer just on principle.

For the same reason they'd waste an administrative subpoena on a silly harrassment case like this to begin with?

~~ Irish

It is not practical to wipe a HD every time you do something. He did not do anything illegal or worthy of that kind of security. The point is to make them work for the info not to be able to keep them from it. If you really think about it there are a billion ways to track electronic information.

True, but I didn't want anyone to think that deleting an e-mail from a web-based server means it cannot be recovered and traced.

For the same reason they'd waste an administrative subpoena on a silly harrassment case like this to begin with?

~~ Irish

Admin subpoena's are easy. Probably signed off by their regional SAC. It was an intimidation tactic and SFrishling "willingly" gave them his laptop for analysis while they investigated where the leak came from. SFrischling was not the suspect. He was a "cooperating witness' (i.e. he did cooperate).

To plant spyware to intercept voice or textual electronic communication would require a wiretap order under Title 3 of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Act. The cops couldn't even get a search warrant; what judge on earth would give them a wiretap order for somebody who wasn't even a suspect? (they were searching for the source of a leaked document -- sent to tens of thousdands of civilian airport workers all over the world -- because this document embarrased them).

This wasn't a FISA investiation. So no FISA court would be giving them a wiretap order. Do you know how many non-FISA wiretaps are granted in the US (State/Local/Federal) on a yearly basis? Hint: it's probably WAY smaller than people think, and mostly drug related.

To sum it up: I seriously doubt his machine was "bugged." But I'd still move my data (And scan it) to a new machine paid for by the feds. I'd probably put the old hard drive on the shelf for a souvenier (or in case I wanted to look into this in the future).

True, but I didn't want anyone to think that deleting an e-mail from a web-based server means it cannot be recovered and traced.

Anything is possible. More possible in Hollywood. A large, legitimate webmail company would require a search warrant before doing this -- if not they'd be breaking their privacy policies, word would get out and their reputation would be forever damaged.

Then the question is: would deleted email, purged from the recycle bin, still be considered "stored communication" and would the ISP go out of their way to recover it?

Perhaps if investigating an act of terrorism. But for a silly leaked document that embarrassed TSA? I doubt a judge would even sign the search warrant in the first place.

Talk to an attorney about doing a FOIA or other request to find out the disposition of any images/electronic copies they made of your HD while in their posession. Since the case is closed on their end, I'd demand their certification that any and all copies have been destroyed prior to any settlement on your end.

Never attribute to government conspiracy that which can be attributed to bureaucratic incompetence.

I agree that this is more likely incompetence rather than a conspiracy. That said, a certification that any and all copies have been destroyed is worthless.

Admin subpoena's are easy. Probably signed off by their regional SAC. It was an intimidation tactic and SFrishling "willingly" gave them his laptop for analysis while they investigated where the leak came from. SFrischling was not the suspect. He was a "cooperating witness' (i.e. he did cooperate).

To plant spyware to intercept voice or textual electronic communication would require a wiretap order under Title 3 of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Act. The cops couldn't even get a search warrant; what judge on earth would give them a wiretap order for somebody who wasn't even a suspect? (they were searching for the source of a leaked document -- sent to tens of thousdands of civilian airport workers all over the world -- because this document embarrased them).

This wasn't a FISA investiation. So no FISA court would be giving them a wiretap order. Do you know how many non-FISA wiretaps are granted in the US (State/Local/Federal) on a yearly basis? Hint: it's probably WAY smaller than people think, and mostly drug related.

To sum it up: I seriously doubt his machine was "bugged." But I'd still move my data (And scan it) to a new machine paid for by the feds. I'd probably put the old hard drive on the shelf for a souvenier (or in case I wanted to look into this in the future).

You act like these guys are playing by the rules. They falsely threatened arrest and a CRIMINAL warrant. They forced this guy to "volunteer" his computer under duress making anything found not admissible. They questioned him without reading him his rights. (and no a reasonable person would not feel they had the right to leave of have the agents leave)

After the Wal~Mart trip for a hard drive I would not put it past them to buy an off the shelf spykit for the computer.

The fact they are offering a brand new computer instead of the more logical repair makes me think something is hinky.

To plant spyware to intercept voice or textual electronic communication would require a wiretap order under Title 3 of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Act. The cops couldn't even get a search warrant; what judge on earth would give them a wiretap order for somebody who wasn't even a suspect? (they were searching for the source of a leaked document -- sent to tens of thousdands of civilian airport workers all over the world -- because this document embarrased them).

But consider how the government has rampantly violated the wiretap laws. Just because it wouldn't be easy to do legally doesn't mean they didn't do something. After all, if they aren't going to use the evidence in court (remember, they're after the leaker, not the poster) there's really no penalty for getting caught.