It is not. The old copy was obtained via a FOIA request and doesn't say it was SSI.

Somebody postulated here that the form may only become SSI after being signed and I've heard a rumor to that effect as well.

Two possibilities: One is that the data on the form (the passenger's information) is what's SSI. That would make sense. The second is that it's the same stupid situation where the pat-down procedure is SSI but disclosed to every person being patted down.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Richard. I was more trying to point out the farce of it all. The process itself is flawed. The SSI designation makes no sense even when it comes to the document being completed with the passenger's information. If it's privacy they are "protecting", then protecting it from the passenger himself/herself makes no sense.

I still believe the entire process is flawed and that the SSI designation, is their way of puffing up their chests without actually following a proper and recognized set of classifications.

I believe that at some point, early on, some of these "rules" might have been put in place in good faith ie don't disclose passenger's personal information to anyone other than the passenger, don't allow people to take pictures of the monitors because it's noone business what is in someone's bag aside from the owner and the screener, etc. But these common sense rules have now been perverted and are being used against the very people they were put in place to protect.

Sorry for the ramble. It's all more than just a bit frustrating.

That's my opinion, too. People without skills need something to feel important.Your focus on privacy considerations is interesting but not a concern I've ever heard from TSA personnel. Not ever. What they've said to me umpteen times is that SSI designations prevent "the terrorists" from defeating their spiffy safeguards. If the process is "secret" -- notwithstanding that it's shared with 67,000 cretins! -- then those pesky terrorists won't know what to do to get on planes. And we know that they keep trying, day after day. We know that, don't we? :rolleyes:

Bruce

Which won't matter if the video is streamed to a server not under police control in real time. You might even catch the bad cop trying to delete the file.

Don't know about Albuquerque, but in the big cities prosecutors have lists of officers that can't be called to the stand because they've been impeached so many times by defense attorneys.

It's entirely possible that I'm wrong on the origin of some of these "rules". I work in an area that relates to data classification, risk management, privacy, etc. Looking at the "rules" from that perspective, one could assume that they were put in place for an entirely different purpose than their current use. I wonder if some of these processes and procedures (or some similar process or procedure) existed but were rarely used prior to TSA's inception and have since mutated into their current forms.

A blank document is never going to bring down a plane....I know, shocking, isn't it?

Sorry, apparently I missed something here -- did the police try to erase the camera memory? I didn't catch that info earlier in the thread.

Yes, or actually double yes. According to pmocek's earlier statements, when he retrieved the camera from the "unofficial locker" his things were placed in for the duration of his arrest, the pictures and videos had been erased.

He has subsequently been able to recover them, and if I understood correctly, the video was used at the trial.

And that's another bit I simply don't get.

Is the "unofficial locker" another threat the cops in ABQ use to try to avoid a "John Doe" booking, as in "If you fail to identify yourself, we'll just throw your stuff away instead of cataloging it?"

Probably abusing the "found property" rules to get around having to tag the stuff with "John Doe #501" or some such.

Well that explains the prosecution's behaviour in December: destroy evidence, conspire to commit perjury on a massive scale (put 9 liars on the stand), then when it is discovered (last minute) that the defence has proof of the wrong-doing, ask for a continuance so you have time to back-pedal on the allegations.

Why aren't these guys being charged with destruction of evidence?

Phil discovered that the camera memory card had been erased after leaving the the office his camera had been stored in.

Chain of evidence was broken and while we certainly believe we know what happened proving that beyond a reasonable doubt might be difficult and expensive.

Perhaps someone should ask that question on the Prosecutor's facebook page.;)

Did Phil ever get a receipt for the items they were holding? Was there really any chain-of-custody in place while they were holding the stuff?? Or did they just take his stuff and put it somewhere...and he was lucky to get it, albeit tampered with, when he came back for it?

The chain of custody was broken when Phil picked up his stuff and walked out of the room. The police could claim -- falsely, of course! -- that Phil himself hit the "delete" button. Without some sort of time-stamp, proving who did what is going to be impossible. Too bad.

Bruce

I'm asking if the stuff was ever properly logged in in the first place -- did he get the receipt he requested? If not, then isn't it sort of pointless to even worry about whether Phil broke the chain of custody when he walked out.