Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Peek At DHS's Files On You

Posted by kdawson on from the fifteen-year-retention dept.

kenblakely writes "We've known for a while that the Department of Homeland Security was collecting travel records on those who cross US borders, but now you can see it for yourself. A Freedom of Information Act request got this blogger a look at DHS's file on his travels. Pretty comprehensive — all the way down to the IP address of the host he used to make a reservation."

24 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Time to recycle a "meme". by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All your data are belong to us!

    1. Re:Time to recycle a "meme". by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Interesting

      DHS are the gestapo. They have been explicitly referred to as the Gestapo by two lawmakers, Luis V. Gutierrez(D-ill) and Sam Farr(D-CA).

      They have been placed in charge of thoughtcrime and IP enforcement among others.

      Are these the guys you want banging at your door at random for the inevitable(give it a few more years) state-sponsored "health and wellness" checks?

    2. Re:Time to recycle a "meme". by Chabo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, too soon.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    3. Re:Time to recycle a "meme". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read the article. That anyone can say, in the United States, with a straight face, that "words matter" when someone calls law enforcement "the Gestapo" is problem enough.

      The basis for a defense against any such accusations should be to point to their actions. But no, the defense here was to say "words matter" and to try to silence the people making the claims. That's the action of a totalitarian mindset, which, coming from an official of ICE, adds credence to the claims of the politicians.

    4. Re:Time to recycle a "meme". by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you fucking remember 9/11, when terrorists flew pirated mp3s and child pornography into the twin towers?

      Never forget.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:Time to recycle a "meme". by genner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you fucking remember 9/11, when terrorists flew pirated mp3s and child pornography into the twin towers?

      Never forget.

      They might have. Since we didn't check their laptops we will never know.

    6. Re:Time to recycle a "meme". by andy_t_roo · · Score: 4, Funny

      all evidence has some *finite* weight, besides 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong ....

    7. Re:Time to recycle a "meme". by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still cannot believe this gets modded insightful. Let's start with the basics:

      First, you compare something with Nazism that doesn't even being to start to even pale in comparison. This either means you are truly incapable of understanding the difference (unlikely) or you are being dishonest but are trying to score rhetorical points (more likely). That goes for you and the Representatives that said the same thing.

      If you want to try to define the various things that Operation Predator as "thoughtcrime", go right ahead but the vast majority of Americans think that individuals that take concrete steps to, say, have intercourse with a young child ought to be punished. IAAL and, in all instances that I'm aware of, no individual was convicted without having taken concrete steps towards committing a very serious crime. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken.

      Finally, I have no idea where you got the idea that compulsory home-visits for anything are "inevitable" but I can tell you this: barring a dramatic shift in the way the fourth amendment is interpreted, that isn't going to happen. As it is now, you need not answer anyone at your door sans a warrant.

    8. Re:Time to recycle a "meme". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Finally, I have no idea where you got the idea that compulsory home-visits for anything are "inevitable" but I can tell you this: barring a dramatic shift in the way the fourth amendment is interpreted, that isn't going to happen. As it is now, you need not answer anyone at your door sans a warrant.

      As I found out when a teacher reported my family for child neglect, (she had mixed up my daughter and the girl she often played with), you do have the right to refuse a child protection officer entry without a warrant. They, in return, have the right to have the police enter and seize your children, without a warrant, until the CPS officer has determined that the situation is safe. Refusing entry is considered an admission that an unsafe situation exists. Oh, and when I denied that there was a problem, I was told that if I didn't cooperate, it could take over six months before it would be deemed safe for my children to be returned. And of course, there are the random "followup" visits, to ensure you're still a good parent. Once you have an open file with CPS, they can check up on you at any time, for no reason beyond someone wants to. Even if you were found innocent of the original accusations.

      So technically, you are correct, I can refuse to answer the door. I just need to give up my children to do it.

      I've been kind of amused over recent years, to see the amount of howling and whining that's happened when other people get subjected to the lack of rights that parents have been living with for decades.

  2. I wish by bugs2squash · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wish they would also track credit card spending in the same file.

    Perhaps I could then just forward the DHS records for my travel expense reports.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:I wish by QuasiEvil · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps I could then just forward the DHS records for my travel expense reports.

      That would rock and save me so much time.

      DHS, are you listening? Oh wait, of course you are. If you could just forward this post to the "suggestions" bucket, I'd appreciate it.

  3. Nice... by gillbates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Officials use the information to prevent terrorism, acts of organized crime, and other illegal activity.

    Does the DHS have even one documented case of this information preventing said activity? Maybe I'm setting myself up in the wrong way here, but AFAIK, the DHS and TSA combined have never thwarted a terrorist attack or busted the mafia. Perhaps they've used to convict people of violating those administrative rules which no one is allowed to see, but I'm not aware of any evidence which suggests this information actually prevented terrorism or organized crime.

    I mean sure, the FBI has busted criminals, but with regular gumshoe detective work.

    With journalists like these, who needs a terrorist?

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Nice... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Does the DHS have even one documented case of this information preventing said activity?

      I doubt it. I drive through one of these about once a month and I always chuckle at the sign which reads "Terrorist threat level -- yellow".

      I've ranted about them before so I'll just quickly say that they're there to catch low-hanging fruit like personal drug use and DUI to scare other citizens and fatten the county's coffers through citation. But I have a recent, true story to add:

      A VERY law-abiding acquaintance(we'll call him "Jack") who is a retired State government worker was stopped at one of the checkpoints. They ran a dog around the car and the dog went apeshit. The CBP officers asked if they could search the car, even going so far as to say, "look, if you have something small like a joint, maybe we can make a deal". Of course, there were no drugs in "Jack"'s car so Jack told them to fuck off and get another dog. They did, and whaddya know, the other dog didn't smell shit and so they sent "Jack" on his merry way.

      [tinfoil hat]They probably train a dog to scratch at every fifth car to instill fear among the others who have to watch and to see if they can generate an excuse to tear the car apart looking for bad stuff.[/tinfoil hat] And why not? It worked for FISA and all the retroactive "probable cause" bullshit associated with its gutting of our privacy.

    2. Re:Nice... by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately we have no way of knowing.

      Of course we do. You said it in your next sentence:

      this information might have actually stopped another major attack or two, saving thousands of lives. Certainly some in the government would like us to believe that.

      DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!

      If any of this was used in any way to detect or prevent a terr'ist attack, Dick Fucking Cheney himself would be all over the news talking about how the evil terr'ists had been thwarted by the Republicans, and how they need to be given more powers to "protect" you.

      The fact that *nobody* has said that this has been useful in stopping what they claim it stops means that it isn't.

    3. Re:Nice... by volkris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, now you're just factually wrong: officials HAVE come out and said that such information has thwarted attacks.

      As I said, oversight is needed to determine whether those claims have merit.

      Anyway, by your reply you seem far too into the "evil Bush" mindset to discuss this in any intellectually honest way, so I'm not going to bother.

      Have a nice day.

  4. Re:I noticed a dhs.org redirect once by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More likely your browser was pre-fetching search results and one of your search results was on a dhs.gov web page.

  5. Sent off for mine this morning.... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was curious to see what was in my file, as I've had a devil of a time trying to come up with my travel via stamps in the passport. The airlines were not helpful past 2005. I sent in for mine, based on the notes in that article, like this...

    U.S. Customs Service
    1300 Pennsylvania Avenue
      NW., Washington, DC 20229
    January 6, 2009

    To: Freedom of Information Act Request
    From: [helix]
    Subject: INFORMATION RELATING TO ME IN THE AUTMATED TARGETING SYSTEM

    I am requesting information relating to me in the Automated Targeting System. My request is made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552). I wish to have a copy of your records made and mailed to me without first inspecting them.

    [helix]

    Born [redacted] in [redacted].

    Passport number: [redacted], issued [redacted], expired [redacted]
    Passport number: [redacted], issued [redacted], expiring [redacted]

    Please mail the information to my home address:

    [redacted]

    Sincerely,

    [redacted]

    and addressed to

    Freedom of Information Act Request
    U.S. Customs Service
    1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
    Washington DC 20229

    --
    +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
  6. Re:"passenger activity" and IP addys by chris_mahan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's say the traveler cancels at the last minute, and the plane blows up. They go check it out, because maybe he/she was tipped off by a friend not to get on the plane.

    I knew a guy who was supposed to be on flight 800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800) but that morning he fell down carrying his metal trash down the stairs and injured himself. He went to the hospital and was OK but he had missed the flight. The next day the FBI came over and wanted to know why he had not been on the plane. He had to convince them that he had gone to the hospital. They went and checked out his story.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

  7. Should have used the Privacy Act, not FOIA by karl.auerbach · · Score: 5, Informative

    The person made his request under FOIA. That was not the best vehicle for this.

    A much better law to use to get information about yourself is the Privacy Act.

    The two laws have confusingly similar numbers: 5 USC 552 for FOIA and 5 USC 552a for the Privacy Act.

    The Privacy Act is a much bigger hammer for getting information about yourself. Agencies have many fewer excuses and the deadlines are far shorter. And agencies generally can't make you pay for you to get their information about you.

    Yes, the Privacy Act has many loopholes, but they are much fewer than those in FOIA.

    So, if people are going to do this they should make sure that they make their request under the Privacy Act. They can still use FOIA, but they should do so under a separate cover because the agencies will intentionally conflate the two laws so that they can avoid fully complying with either.

    See: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/nsf-dns/laws.htm

  8. Stupid, expensive, and ineffective. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The billions of dollars spent on the security theater we put up with at airports would buy a hell of a lot of good old-fashioned counterintelligence work, infiltrating organizations that mean to do us harm. The idea that a perp won't go through with an attack if you just suck down a couple more terabytes of data and feel up every woman in the security line is nothing but fantasy.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  9. Elephants! by kbahey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This one is easy ...

    Ever since the DHS has been setup, there are no terror attacks on the USA. So, obviously what the DHS is doing prevents terrorism.

    Is is the same up here in Canada. We sprinkle black pepper on our lawns to prevent elephants from messing then up.

    But there are no elephants in Canada you say? See, more proof that the black pepper works ...

    --
    2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
  10. Re:Gestapo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, like, "Where's my damn schnitzel!?"

  11. Re:Who can request that? by againjj · · Score: 4, Informative

    Access to records are ruled by the Freedom of Information Act. For non-personal information requests, you need give your name, address, daytime telephone number, information on the records you are looking for, and an agreement on amount of fees you are willing to pay. For personal information, you also need a bunch of info on the person (subject), a notarized signature or Under Penalty of Perjury Statement (see third link), and a statement authorizing you to receive the subject's personal information (assuming you are not the subject).

    Sources:
    http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbp_ats.pdf (section 7.1)
    http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/103067.pdf

  12. Re:Gestapo? by daveime · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's been outsourced to Israel