That's a problem -- a wider problem, one indicative of what is being done by law enforcement and intelligence in the name of whatever the "global war on terror" goes by these days in order to try to chalk up "victories" -- but it makes no difference if such action is done by many or just one when this is focused upon a particular incident and action taken by the TSA and/or the blog writer.

You seem to have a direct line of communication with Steve. Have you asked him this question?

I also notice that as of now he has not responded to the question.

Makes one wonder!

no, they have no NEED of webmail, they just go to the ISP and ask for the headers, very simple, and done regularly, of course a real ISP would need this from a judge and not administrative....and in most cases then it is just a notice to preserve until they have ducks in a row to request official evidence. I have a feeling they'd have to shop judges to get that done.

Give me a break, it's been less than 24 hours on a holiday weekend!

More than a little.

MANY people are serial killers? :eek:

Easy for you to talk a big game on the internet. But when you have "federal agents" at your house, it's a completely different story.

Until it happens to you, don't be so quick to judge others.

I have no doubt these guys were intimidating and probably threatening.

But let's remember--of the two bloggers who received the administrative subpoenas, only one rolled over. Chris Elliott did not and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press came to his aid and asked for a federal court hearing. At that point TSA, suddenly forced to play by the rules rather than rely on intimidation, decided to back off.

Kudos to RCFP for taking a righteous stand.

I think we need to step back and wait for more information.

Government agents do not hesitate to threaten families with scenarios involving children. Remember that Fish was dealing with vague threats of arrest. Oftentimes, it's simple for government agents to threaten their targets with putting the children in foster care.

Threats like that can make a coward out of the bravest person on earth. I've been faced with that threat (although I didn't give in - and all I can say is that God intervened and gave me some temporary brass balls - the fear in such a situation is more than I could describe) and nobody who hasn't been in that position should be too quick to cast the first stone.

Been there, done that.

Dorothy

I agree with Dorothy. Let's give the guy a break here and not hang him before the trial. Actually, he is not even close to being the villain here and has suddenly been turned into one. IF what we are reading is true, the strong arm tactics (threats of loss of work, detention, and kids in foster care, which is a natural extension of the parent taken into custody) amount to way more than coercion.
I have been flying internationally since the early 70's and still find his blogs to be a constant source of useful tips and up to date information. Let's let him be, realize that Chris Elliot, as a contributor to the Wash.Post, may have a better legal network already in place through casual networking, etc., and ask another question which is why was he visited by such high level agents? In most cases, when there are similar issues (though it is still shocking that Federal Agents are visiting bloggers who are, by modern extension, journalists) the visits are usually from agents stationed at the closest field office (FBI, Secret Service, ATF, etc.) Doesn't anyone find it odd they send out two high profile people so quickly? The whole thing is troubling. The taking of computers, subsequent damage to them, looking over iphones and Blackberrys. I hope the President finds out about this on his own, without staff spin. I can't imagine he would be pleased, regardless of the security concerns.

We have to remember Chris had a head's up that Fish did not. It is easier to think if you know something is coming your way instead of being caught flat footed.

Agree. We should give him a break.

And if the scenario is remotely true he probably won't/shouldn't comment on it -- otherwise they'd have him on a bogus "interfering with an investigation" or obstruction charge.

A good reason why it's a bad idea to talk to cops.

There but the grace of God go I.

Not sure if you read something into my comment not intended.

I understand cooperation to some degree and said as much. Steve new what was or was not on his computer and decided to allow access by the government. Given the situation I can't blame the guy.

As far as the tweet story, I am as interested as the next person if the story is true. I have not suggested that he did or did not help send a message. Only the TSA investigators and Steve know the truth of this. He has no obligation to answer this question but I'm betting he knows the question is being asked.

I used to think Twitter was a waste of time before I understood it. This alleged incident could have happened with any electronic communications medium.

Frischling stated that he received the document anonymously from someone using a Gmail account

In which case, I would have no trouble sending a twitt to 'the source' - if our only communication had been through a gmail account I would be pretty confident that the source would not reply via twitter.

If the source responded via email the TSA goons can decipher the headers to find the ip the source is using. Then it is a simple matter of contacting the ISP for the source's name and address.