Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Federal Agents seize travel bloggers computer

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 30, 2009, 1:41 pm
  #16  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by N965VJ
According to the Things With Wings blog at Aviation Week 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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 1:47 pm
  #17  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Half the distance to EWR than PHL.
Programs: UA, AA, B6, BA, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, IHG, SPG
Posts: 11,695
Originally Posted by smibay
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.
Olton Hall is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 1:50 pm
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,382
Originally Posted by smibay
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.
Xyzzy is online now  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 1:52 pm
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,162
Not So Fast...

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.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:00 pm
  #20  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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:

Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:01 pm
  #21  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,524
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
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.

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.

Last edited by halls120; Dec 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm
halls120 is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:02 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 208
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.
mileena is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:06 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,740
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
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?
uncertaintraveler is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:07 pm
  #24  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by halls120
LOL, you think? I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could something on Google that supports this travesty.

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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:10 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 208
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.
mileena is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:12 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 247
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
DIFIN is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:35 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by Deeg
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

(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.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:43 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: CO PLT, HH DIA
Posts: 1,461
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
VideoPaul is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 2:50 pm
  #29  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
Superguy is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:04 pm
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Half the distance to EWR than PHL.
Programs: UA, AA, B6, BA, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, IHG, SPG
Posts: 11,695
Originally Posted by Superguy
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.
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"
Olton Hall is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.