His best course of action has apparently already been taken - get advice from legal counsel and follow it.

I haven't actually bothered to read the document causing all the fuss.

Was it properly labeled as Secret or Top Secret? (or the silly SSI designation)?

Is the TSA concerned they have a mole (in one of the up to 10k airport employees around the world who probably saw the document), or were they just embarrased about the silliness in their document that was leaked?

Yes and yes. With the release of the SOP, this directive and the latest poorly redacted document the TSA is very embarrassed. They think they have a leak and they want it plugged so the American people will be caught off guard.

I think that's a stretch to conclude that would be obstruction or interference.

As far as clamming up at this point, it's something he should have done when they first arrived--but too late for that. IMO, it's the court of public opinion--and the phone calls from AP, NYT and others, and the legal challenge from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press--that caused the TSA to lose interest in the bloggers.

It could well be about more than just the laptop. That the TSA wants to minimize further embarrassment related to this incident could have the TSA in a position of being willing to give up more than that above "done deal".

Yes, there may be the issues about not wanting to get flagged as obstructing an investigation/justice/whatever, but that's not necessarily the all of it.

While the blogger may now feel bad about consenting to whatever the TSA special agents got from him/out of him, it won't change a thing and it still wouldn't make sense at this point to talk about it publicly.

This incident provides a window into what federal law enforcement does in "terrorism" investigations -- and with those investigations the behavior of law enforcement and the impact on "material witnesses" or "suspects" in the investigations is even more excessive than what took place with this blogger. This is really peanuts compared to the full-court press even in those situations where there is no actual terrorist activity involvement.

Welcome to mission creep: that which we unleash to target the "other" eventually comes back at "us" too.

When I was getting my degree in Journalism nearly 40 years ago there was one required class on law and legal issues pertaining to the field. Some of the things discussed in this thread were raised in that class but we were also taught that the most important, first and best thing to do was "get advice from legal counsel and follow it."

A lot of what is being stated here as fact is, in fact, nothing but speculation. Sometimes emotionally-driven speculation. I think all of us should wait for some real reporting.

Does that exist anymore? :confused:

That's what I do, to the best of my ability.

Of course, my beat isn't aviation anymore. Covering the brewing industry is a lot more fun.

Assuming they didn't do the sensible thing and use an open wireless somewhere.

However, last I knew you couldn't open a Gmail account without a text message--that's a much bigger thing to trace.

You're painting everyone here with a very wide brush. Absent a search warrant issued by a Judge, I am under no obligation to even allow them to cross the threshold of my door. Even with a search warrant, I am under no obligation to speak a single word to them.

Now I certainly would be a little nervous if the FBI showed up on my front door, but my actions would remain the same - no entry without a warrant and no comment without a lawyer.

If someone from the TSA showed up at my door and flashed a badge, I'd more likely than not burst out laughing at them as I closed the door and wished them a good evening.

Having tipped their hat with the initial questioning, the laptop and its hard drive would be half way to Peoria by the time they returned with a search warrant.

Even with a search warrant, I'm not even sure I'm under any obligation to allow an employee of the TSA into my home or business or seize anything of mine - I don't believe they have the same law enforcement authority as normal federal agents.

These aren't the mopes feeling up old ladies at the airport or making you take your shoes off. These are likely 1811 criminal investigators for the Federal government who have been through FLETC.

I wouldn't screw with them. But I wouldn't let them in my hose without a warrant.

I wouldn't screw with them, or let them into or use my hose, either. :D But, I would laugh at them as I shut the door on the preposterous nature of sending a TSA "Special Agent" to my house.

Freudian slip?

Probably trying to figure a way to tell them to "get hosed" in a polite and friendly manner.

They work for the TSA - that's funny enough. If they were really good at something, they'd be working for a different agency.