|
Regarding the Privacy Act, here is the current CFR relating to TSA self-exemption. Any references to 5 U.S.C. 552a and its subparts are references to different portions of the Privacy Act. The "TSERS", a/k/a "DHS/TSA 001" would be the set of records relating to information collected at the checkpoint.
49 CFR § 1507.3 § 1507.3 Exemptions. The following TSA systems of records are exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j), (k), or both, as set forth in this section. During the course of normal agency functions, exempt materials from one system of records may become part of one or more other systems of records. To the extent that any portion of system of records becomes part of another Privacy Act system of records, TSA hereby claims the same exemptions as were claimed in the original primary system of which they are a part and claims any additional exemptions in accordance with this part. (a) Transportation Security Enforcement Record System (DHS/TSA 001). The Transportation Security Enforcement Record System (TSERS) (DHS/TSA 001) enables TSA to maintain a system of records related to the screening of passengers and property and they may be used to identify, review, analyze, investigate, and prosecute violations or potential violations of transportations security laws. Pursuant to exemptions (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 001 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons: (1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures), because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of the investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of TSA as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to transportations security law enforcement efforts and efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation and avoid detection or apprehension, which undermines the entire system. (2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records), because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of the investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of TSA as well as the recipient agency. Access to the records would permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation and avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated. The information contained in the system may also include properly classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information also could disclose security sensitive information that could be detrimental to transportation security. (3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information), because in the course of investigation into potential violations of transportation security laws, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced, occasionally maybe unclear or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective enforcement of transportation security laws, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity. (4) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). * * * TSA has also proposed adding the following paragraph to the above exemption...(see 69 Fed. Reg. 71,767, 71,769 (Dec. 10, 2004)) As of now, this proposed rule does not appear to actually be in force. (5) From subsection (e)(3) (Privacy Act Statement) because disclosing the authority, purpose, routine uses, and potential consequences of not providing information could reveal the investigative interests of TSA, as well as the nature and scope of an investigation, the disclosure of which could enable individuals to circumvent agency regulations or statutes. |
Originally Posted by AArlington
I thought Hibbel stated that you NEVER have to present picture ID to a LEO (unless driving a car -- then you need to show a DL). I thought the law said IF you were under investigation, then you had to truthfully state your name.
Of course, in an airport you'd have to show your BP but even then, I thought ID was only an airline requirement and they'd overlook that if the person was SSSScreened. It'd be an interesting test case on "interference with the screening process" since presenting ID is not part of a valid screening process anyway. But for this to happen, somebody would have to be willing to be the test case, which would involve missing thier flight and numerous other hassels :). One question that would arise is just how suspicious your local LEO finds you and your failure to provide ID, in light of all the circumstances. Hit that suspicion threshhold and, depending on applicable state law, you may have to identify yourself to some extent. |
well
IF you alarm an ETD machine, the information is written down and stored for a month and then destroyed. As far as the other post about running through a wallet to get information is concerned, that was presumptive of the screener. However if information as to who you are and other biographics are not provided, you might not be allowed to board the plane.
|
Originally Posted by eyecue
As far as the other post about running through a wallet to get information is concerned, that was presumptive of the screener.
|
I'm going to send a quick letter to my congressional reps complaining about the TSA's exemption from the privacy act, and demanding stricter privacy legislation generally right now.
edited to add, this is what I sent: Dear xxx, It has come to my attention that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has exempted itself from much of the requirements set out by the Privacy Act. For example, if one were going through security screening at the airport and the explosives trace detection equipment issued an alarm indicating that you had explosive materials on you but it was determined that the alarm was a "false positive" and that you were clear of having explosives, the TSA would still demand your name, address and other biographical data, in addition to photo identification. What would be done with this information, where it would be stored, for how long, and why the information is being collected after it has already been determined that you have done nothing wrong are questions the TSA refuses to answer. Passengers do not know if they're going to end up on some sort of "watch list" or be hassled in the future as a result of this mistake, nor do they know if their private information will be kept private in this era of ballooning identity theft crimes. I am asking you to introduce legislation that would remove the TSA's exemption from the Privacy Act. Further, I am urging you to ensure that such legislation goes beyond just the TSA but strengthens and enhances our American right to privacy across all government agencies. Thank you. |
Originally Posted by eyecue
IF you alarm an ETD machine, the information is written down and stored for a month and then destroyed.
There was a story here a while back where some FTer did not have a photo-ID with an address on it (or declined to show one, don't remember which) after alarming the ETD, and the screener made a big huff about how the person might not be giving their real address and how a DL was specifically required for US citizens to fly. :rolleyes: In the end a LEO was called over who basically took the side of the passenger and told the screener to let him be. IMO any passenger who ever gives their address to TSA is taking a big risk that they will get a civil fine in the mail. You have to decide if it's worth fighting it, not flying that day, etc. And if a TSA screener so much as opened my wallet without my permission for any reason, I would immediately demand to see a LEO and to file a complaint of theft. You just don't know what somoene can take or memorize with a little slight of hand. |
What a bunch of bull****. I am going to exempt myself from the Shoe Carnival from now on then.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:41 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.