Federal Agents seize travel bloggers computer
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,370
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
This is starting to sound like a perfect storm for TSA.
Now if they'd only implode because of this and we could start over ...
Now if they'd only implode because of this and we could start over ...
#63
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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).
#64
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Looking at the statute references in the subpoena and the directive I am beginning to notice a trend with the TSA. The legal team at the TSA pretty much sucks wind and is not above lying on official documents.
Take the subpoena If you notice where the TSA references thier authority they give the exact statute. Where they reference the punishment they give the Title number without the exact statute. Look at Title 18, it is huge and somewhere buried in it is a statute(s) that might be able to be used by the TSA. I looked and the only one that I could find was the ones on criminal contempt of COURT.
Then if you look at the statutes cited on the directive you will see one points to an interim rule from 2004 and the other one involves SSI. Unless the directive was properly marked as SSI per Title 49 Sec. 15.13 the TSA has nothing.
Take the subpoena If you notice where the TSA references thier authority they give the exact statute. Where they reference the punishment they give the Title number without the exact statute. Look at Title 18, it is huge and somewhere buried in it is a statute(s) that might be able to be used by the TSA. I looked and the only one that I could find was the ones on criminal contempt of COURT.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 401
§ 401. Power of court
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 402
§ 402. Contempts constituting crimes
Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.
Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months.
This section shall not be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law.
For purposes of this section, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
§ 401. Power of court
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 402
§ 402. Contempts constituting crimes
Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.
Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months.
This section shall not be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law.
For purposes of this section, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
Title 49 Sec. 15.13 Marking SSI.
(a) Marking of paper records. In the case of paper records containing SSI, a covered person must mark the record by placing the protective marking conspicuously on the top, and the distribution limitation statement on the bottom, of--
(1) The outside of any front and back cover, including a binder cover or folder, if the document has a front and back cover;
(2) Any title page; and
(3) Each page of the document.
(b) Protective marking. The protective marking is: SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION.
(c) Distribution limitation statement. The distribution limitation statement is:
WARNING: This record contains Sensitive Security Information that is controlled under 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520. No part of this record may be disclosed to persons without a "need to know", as defined in 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520, except with the written permission of the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration or the Secretary of Transportation. Unauthorized release may result in civil penalty or other action. For U.S. government agencies, public disclosure is governed by 5 U.S.C. 552 and 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520.
(d) Other types of records. In the case of non-paper records that contain SSI, including motion picture films, videotape recordings, audio recording, and electronic and magnetic records, a covered person must clearly and conspicuously mark the records with the protective marking and the distribution limitation statement such that the viewer or listener is reasonably likely to see or hear them when obtaining access to the contents of the record.
(a) Marking of paper records. In the case of paper records containing SSI, a covered person must mark the record by placing the protective marking conspicuously on the top, and the distribution limitation statement on the bottom, of--
(1) The outside of any front and back cover, including a binder cover or folder, if the document has a front and back cover;
(2) Any title page; and
(3) Each page of the document.
(b) Protective marking. The protective marking is: SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION.
(c) Distribution limitation statement. The distribution limitation statement is:
WARNING: This record contains Sensitive Security Information that is controlled under 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520. No part of this record may be disclosed to persons without a "need to know", as defined in 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520, except with the written permission of the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration or the Secretary of Transportation. Unauthorized release may result in civil penalty or other action. For U.S. government agencies, public disclosure is governed by 5 U.S.C. 552 and 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520.
(d) Other types of records. In the case of non-paper records that contain SSI, including motion picture films, videotape recordings, audio recording, and electronic and magnetic records, a covered person must clearly and conspicuously mark the records with the protective marking and the distribution limitation statement such that the viewer or listener is reasonably likely to see or hear them when obtaining access to the contents of the record.
#65
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 might have to watch C-SPAN when the congress critters return. This could be good entertainment watching DHS/TSA try to explain their way out of this. I predict a minimum of 25 ahs,ums, etc. per minute from the respondants.
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
TSA's been screwing up repeatedly and been hauled before Congress before. Nothing's ever come of it and TSA's pretty much given Congress the finger. I'd love for something to happen, but the cynic in me is saying that this too will blow over.
#67
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: YVR
Posts: 9,999
#69
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
Hmmm, according to This Post in Newstand the "special agent" in the wired photo may be special because he's not a current government employee but a security consultant. Would this mean he was pretending to be a government law enforcement officier? Isn't that a felony?
#70
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Live: HVN -- Work: The World
Programs: DL - exPlat (now Gold) ; AB - Gold ; TK - Gold; BMI - exGold; US - exChairman ; UA-ex1K; NW-exGold
Posts: 1,248
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Hmmm, according to This Post in Newstand the "special agent" in the wired photo may be special because he's not a current government employee but a security consultant. Would this mean he was pretending to be a government law enforcement officier? Isn't that a felony?
#72
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Live: HVN -- Work: The World
Programs: DL - exPlat (now Gold) ; AB - Gold ; TK - Gold; BMI - exGold; US - exChairman ; UA-ex1K; NW-exGold
Posts: 1,248
Hmmm, according to This Post in Newstand the "special agent" in the wired photo may be special because he's not a current government employee but a security consultant. Would this mean he was pretending to be a government law enforcement officier? Isn't that a felony?
#73
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 147
Poor guy. If that is the case then his life is going to get turned upside down too. Amazing how TSA can mess it up so well and often!
Is TSA doing this so they can deflect the read problem or do they just not understand how this is going to come back and bite them? A lot of smoke and mirrors nevertheless.
If I was visited by TSA Special Agent I would not have let my kids and cat get to know them. He's got a lot more patience and a thicker hide than I have.
Is TSA doing this so they can deflect the read problem or do they just not understand how this is going to come back and bite them? A lot of smoke and mirrors nevertheless.
If I was visited by TSA Special Agent I would not have let my kids and cat get to know them. He's got a lot more patience and a thicker hide than I have.
#74
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Joondalup,WA,Australia
Programs: VS Gold, QPPS, CX, DJ, SG, AA, NH
Posts: 196
The only reason this got to MSM status was the hard graft of a number of travel writers/professionals raising the stakes and getting this story out to as many contacts as possible.
These links give some good insight into just how much hard work has gone into getting awareness of the story:
https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23tsafail
http://wthashtag.com/Tsafail
These links give some good insight into just how much hard work has gone into getting awareness of the story:
https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23tsafail
http://wthashtag.com/Tsafail
#75
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 know you've had a horrible couple of days that would never want to have but something doesn't sound correct about this TSA guy. It sounds like he's a Govenment employee yet has a private business that can benefit financially from his action as a Government employee.
Last edited by Olton Hall; Dec 30, 2009 at 10:23 pm