Federal Agents seize travel bloggers computer
Dec 30, 2009, 11:14 am
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Federal Agents seize travel bloggers computer
This was just posted on RunwayGirl's blog:
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.
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.
Dec 30, 2009, 11:22 am
#2
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
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?
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?
Dec 30, 2009, 11:26 am
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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?
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?
Dec 30, 2009, 12:58 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
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.
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.
Dec 30, 2009, 1:09 pm
#7
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
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.
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.
Dec 30, 2009, 1:12 pm
#8
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: TPA,DTW
Posts: 254
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.
Dec 30, 2009, 1:12 pm
#9
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
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.
Dec 30, 2009, 1:22 pm
#10
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
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.
Dec 30, 2009, 1:29 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
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).
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).
Dec 30, 2009, 1:31 pm
#12
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 628
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.
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.
Dec 30, 2009, 1:33 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
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.
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.
Dec 30, 2009, 1:33 pm
#14
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
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.
As a matter of principle, I would not consent to a search and/or seizure in the absence of a court order.