+1^ I'd copy this letter to as many media sources as you can!

The way I read it, 44 USC 3506(d)(4) (a) and (b) does not allow the government, once they have information they have disseminated, to restrict the public from disseminating that information, by establishing an exclusive distribution arrangement.

FBO.gov was the place where the government published certain information, not identified in any way as classified, restricted or otherwise unavailable to the public. Once they did this, they are not allowed by this law to interfere with public dissemination by creating an exclusive arrangement (ie only government controlled websites may distribute the data). Nor (4(b)) can they stop the public from redistributing that information.

Anyone who might have reposted information published by the government is allowed to do so and the government can't collect royalties (ie no copyright). In the old days, (pre-web) it would have been published in the Federal Register or the Commerce Business Daily, which can be freely copied and disseminated. The Web just makes it easier and faster.

Thanks for the explanation.

I think there's a much more reasonable explanation.

We know that TSOs are specifically enjoined not to discuss SSI with anyone outside the agency, and can be sanctioned for doing so. Even though the information in this document is now completely public, it is still technically SSI until The Powers That Be declare otherwise. Consequently, there's probably no way for our TSA friends to actively participate in this discussion without violating the rules imposed upon them.

(This is hardly unique to TSA. When Valarie Plame Wilson wrote her book about her experiences as a covert CIA officer, she wasn't allowed to discuss certain topics, even though the information on those topics was in the public domain. As I understand it, her book has numerous places where this "secret" information is blacked out. To know what's there, all you have to do is go to the afterword in the book, written by her mother, where she fills in all of the details ... because Mom wasn't bound by any oaths of secrecy.)

Anyways ... I think our TSA friends are out there reading this, but are silent because they really have no other choice.

I finally heard back from someone after many, many calls over the past couple days. Being able to say "Oh, and I'm the guy who started this whole mess" certainly seems to have an effect with certain staffers in Congress.

Our conversation was completely off the record and quite interesting. There was plenty of actual discussion about this and other topics near and dear to my heart.

The good news is that further inquiries are being made from different angles now. I don't necessarily expect instant results but things are moving forward.

Also, there are hearings scheduled by the Homeland Security Committee in the House next Wednesday at 2pm. I am going to see if I can clear my calendar to attend but I might have work obligations get in the way.

TSA reads this board a lot more than you think.

Have they actually learned anything, though?

I am still here. It is always good to have an opinion, but it is always better to know when to voice that opinion.

Speaking very honestly, I don't think they would learn very much from here.

Some of the ideas put forth onto here would have the end result of the TSA loosening its grip, and the TSA has shown nothing but a desire to grow, both in terms of scope of what it does, and, frankly, arrogance.

I have learned plenty from the people at this site, over at TSA blog, and a couple of other sites.

I have also learned some things here that I would reallllly like to unlearn.

If I were a TSAer, I sure would be extra-cautious around here, especially this topic. I don't blame any of them one bit.

This is a very reasonable answer.

Thanks for posting this information. Seems I have read something about the requirement for federal contracts to be available to the public for a certain length of time. Unfortunately cannot find it.

Reason being I am not sure of the legality of removing the FBO contract solicitation and award information from their site.

If you happen to find such a requirement would appreciate a post.
Thanks

If the contract was awarded (and I seem to remember it had been) why would removal of the RFP be an issue?

However, taking it down when they did accomplished nothing.

Thanks again for keeping us updated on this! ^


Then the Congress Critters that singed this letter are truly just blowing smoke.