FAM Fired for Revealing Info Deemed “Sensitive” After He Revealed It
Jun 19, 2014, 8:41 pm
#241
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
Darrell Issa's Committee JSR: "Problems with the TSA's Use of SSI Designation"
Page 17:
http://1.usa.gov/1k8hvco
"TSA's release of information related to FAMs is particularly ironic given the agency’s treatment of whistleblower and former air marshal Robert MacLean. In 2003, MacLean blew the whistle on TSA's plans to cancel FAM coverage on flights despite the threat of an imminent Al Qaeda hijacking plot. Numerous Members of Congress raised concerns, and DHS retracted the order to cancel FAM coverage, calling it 'a mistake.' Three years later, TSA retroactively labeled the information that MacLean had disclosed as SSI and fired MacLean for his disclosure."
Jun 20, 2014, 5:47 am
#242
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
I would prefer that a real, comprehensive information classification system be established by law, providing clear and strict guidelines for when and how - and for how long - any given data is classified or restricted, and wiping out the patchwork of semi-classified systems like SSI in place throughout various federal agencies.
SSI is a BS way for TSA to try to keep information out of the public consciousness, but it's hardly foolproof. SSI regs only apply to "covered persons", i.e. TSA employees or contractors. Thus, it's not a crime for a non-covered person to possess SSI, nor is it prohibited for a non-covered person to see, read, or disseminate SSI. IOW, it's against the regs for a TSO to show me or give me his SOP manual, but it's not illegal or illicit for me to read it, copy it, or distribute it once I've got it, because he's a covered person and I'm not.
But back to the original topic of this thread, I am still outraged at the idea that a government agency could - or would dare - retroactively label an activity illegal, illicit, or prohibited, and punish someone for having done it when it was not illegal, illicit, or prohibited. I believe this goes against one of the most basic principals of our government, and opens the door to widespread government abuse, as well as personal and professional vendettas like the one that's been pursued against McLean for the last eight years.
Jun 20, 2014, 5:26 pm
#243
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
The guidelines for submitting comments on TSA's Notices of Proposed Rulemaking say that SSI in comments will not be posted at regulations.gov. I have been tempted to submit comments containing guesses as to what SSI includes in hopes that some of the comments will be censored, thus revealing the SSI. 
Jul 12, 2014, 10:48 am
#244
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
Former TSA Federal Air Marshal and Navy SEAL writes a tell-all book:
http://www.unsecureskies.com/about-the-book.html
The author gives us an unfiltered account of his personal experience as a Federal Air Marshal. The reader will see how a bureaucracy chartered to protect the flying public frustrates the best recruits by discouraging efforts to excel in physical training and marksmanship. Rigid bureaucratic dress codes and less than secure behavior by some managers risk identifying Air Marshals to terrorists. And even worse, some local supervisors abuse the benefits of their positions to make personal flights on the public's dime or engage in office romances with subordinates or steal government property. This book shows us the process by which recruits are taught to stifle dissent and learn to just and go along. The author eventually finds it impossible to tolerate these abuses. Someone has to do something about it. But can the Federal Air Marshal Service accept criticism from within? Will a whistleblower be successful?
Jul 12, 2014, 11:52 am
#245
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
Jul 12, 2014, 8:22 pm
#246
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Mexico
Programs: None
Posts: 2
McClean's going to love the book Unsecure Skies. Shows what was really going on with top management when he made his disclosure to the media
Aug 11, 2014, 7:51 am
#248
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
TSA's former secrecy chief blows the whistle to Congress
The TSA's former Director of the Sensitive Security Information (SSI) Office, Andrew Colsky testified to Congress he "[doesn't] know what to honestly call SSI anymore," and his office was under "extreme pressure" to SSI-mark "embarrassing" information "that was not by any stretch of the imagination at all SSI."
He gave the U.S. House of Representative's Oversight & Government Reform Committee this June 20, 2008 email he sent to eight TSA lawyers:
He details how Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests get denied:
http://www.maclean-scotus.info/offic...congress-.html
He gave the U.S. House of Representative's Oversight & Government Reform Committee this June 20, 2008 email he sent to eight TSA lawyers:
I am very uncomfortable in that I have personally given a deposition under oath in a very similar case supporting the fact that this is SSI and [ Robert MacLean ] lost his job over it.
And one of the first things I was told when I got [to the TSA Office of FOIA] from both attorneys and FOIA processors was, oh, yeah, don’t worry about it, because if you come across embarrassing information or whatever, [the Chief Counsel] will just hide it and come up with an exemption; because if you cover it with a FOIA exemption, it’s so hard for the other person to challenge it, and it will be costly and difficult for them to challenge it, and they’re probably never going to see it anyway, so you just get away with it. That’s the way it’s done.
Aug 13, 2014, 8:04 pm
#249
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
Now in the Congressional Record.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-20...pt1-PgD849.pdf
Page D850:
The committee report entitled "Pseudo-Classification of Executive Branch Documents" was ordered reported, without amendment.
The committee report entitled "Pseudo-Classification of Executive Branch Documents" was ordered reported, without amendment.
Aug 19, 2014, 8:48 am
#250
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
The TSA's "Graceson-for-Colsky switcheroo"
In violation of a judge's three final orders, the TSA blocked the testimony of its "person most knowledgeable" of the SSI training programs in effect when MacLean made the July 2003 disclosure that resulted in the single charge which got him fired. Without giving anyone any notice, the TSA forced Andrew Colsky to testify in place of David Graceson. Colsky wasn't even employed by the TSA until 2005, he was an attorney for the Postal Service.
Now Colsky gives Congress a June 20, 2008 email he sent to eight TSA attorneys stating that he was "very uncomfortable" about sworn testimony he gave in order to support MacLean's termination and that he does not "know what to honestly call SSI anymore." He testified to Congress that his office was under "extreme pressure" to SSI-mark "embarrassing information" information "that was not by any stretch of the imagination at all SSI."
http://www.maclean-scotus.info/witne...e-s-order.html
Now Colsky gives Congress a June 20, 2008 email he sent to eight TSA attorneys stating that he was "very uncomfortable" about sworn testimony he gave in order to support MacLean's termination and that he does not "know what to honestly call SSI anymore." He testified to Congress that his office was under "extreme pressure" to SSI-mark "embarrassing information" information "that was not by any stretch of the imagination at all SSI."
http://www.maclean-scotus.info/witne...e-s-order.html
Sep 24, 2014, 11:38 am
#252
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
The Los Angeles Times just posted this story regarding MacLean filing his final Supreme Court brief yesterday:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...922-story.html
Entire brief:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/240619336
In court documents, his attorneys drew on the statements of Andrew Colsky, a former TSA lawyer who determined that MacLean's disclosure was security sensitive.
After learning the TSA had publicly disclosed air marshal deployments without vetting the information, Colsky stated in an internal memo that he was "very uncomfortable" about it because of his decision in MacLean's case. "I don't know what to honestly call sensitive security information anymore," he wrote.
After learning the TSA had publicly disclosed air marshal deployments without vetting the information, Colsky stated in an internal memo that he was "very uncomfortable" about it because of his decision in MacLean's case. "I don't know what to honestly call sensitive security information anymore," he wrote.
Entire brief:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/240619336
Sep 30, 2014, 7:36 pm
#253
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
Six bipartisan leaders of Congress filed with the Supreme Court in MacLean's support — The Wall Street Journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/09/30/...awmakers-warn/
The brief was signed by two senators, Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and four House lawmakers, including Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), respectively the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has jurisdiction over whistleblower issues. It was prepared by Robert K. Kry, an appellate lawyer at MoloLamken LLP.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/09/30/...awmakers-warn/
Sep 30, 2014, 7:40 pm
#254
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel also filed in support of MacLean in the Office's first ever Supreme Court amicus curiae brief:
http://www.govexec.com/management/20...62/?oref=river
“If the court reverses, potential whistleblowers will have to weigh whether their agency might one day retroactively determine that the information they disclosed is [sensitive security information], thereby exposing them to discipline,” OSC’s brief stated. “Moreover, in fear that such retroactive designations are possible, whistleblowers may refrain from alerting the public to dangers that could have been averted or mitigated.”
Oct 6, 2014, 12:16 pm
#255
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
FlyersRights.org's U.S. Supreme Court amicus:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/241383550
All others:
http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/04...l-argument-114
https://www.scribd.com/doc/241383550
All others:
http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/04...l-argument-114