Slashdot Mirror


TSA Withdraws Subpoenas Against Bloggers

wwphx writes "In the wake of public outcry against the Transportation Security Administration for serving civil subpoenas on two bloggers, the government agency has canceled the legal action and apologized for the strong-arm tactics agents used."

47 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. "Whoops, sorry" by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We didn't realize our dick move would receive so much public attention."

    1. Re:"Whoops, sorry" by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      "We'll try again later and hope the public doesn't pay attention the next time."

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:"Whoops, sorry" by sunilhari · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cue (entirely appropriate) lawsuit in 3...2...1...

    3. Re:"Whoops, sorry" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of these days government agencies will realize that they can't pull shit like they did back in the 50's era of commie hunting. Information and public dissent spreads like wildfire thanks to the internet and social media. The quicker the assholes that run our government learn this, the happier everybody will be.

    4. Re:"Whoops, sorry" by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The price for freedom is eternal vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson

    5. Re:"Whoops, sorry" by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Next time we'll remember to get a gag order too"

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  2. Pity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since their new guideline was published everyone is going to know about these changes in security. If only these bloggers would have kept quiet, the only ones who would know would be the millions who go through the airports. Someone has to pay for a lapse in secrecy of this magnitude!

  3. Look over here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Look here at my left hand, which is withdrawing the subpoenas everyone is upset about.

    Over here, is my right hand, doing nothing at all (except issuing new ones to other bloggers).

    1. Re:Look over here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAL but you can't send someone a document to force them to shut up.

      See Gag order. For example, see Librarians Describe Life Under An FBI Gag Order

    2. Re:Look over here! by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Such a subpoena would be illegal prior restraint on free speech.

      Thankfully, we still have the constitution and the 1st ammendment. No item in the patriot act or other laws has the legal authority to override that.

      Besides, if they can tell their lawyer about it, their lawyer can disclose the information.

  4. And the lesson is by Yurka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cooperate - and get two hours of grilling and a borked laptop. And the half-assed apology.
    Tell the feds to go get a clue about procedure and return with a warrant - get the half-assed apology and keep your electronics in working order.

    --
    I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
    1. Re:And the lesson is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't cooperate and get designated a security threat. Try not to pretend that the system works. It doesn't. This was a rare instance where a person who stood up for his rights won in the end. It doesn't usually end up like that. The TSA could have easily filed the obstruction of justice charge, even though they knew it would be BS. They would then drop it a month later and face no consequences. Then the blogger would have to try to get the money in legal fees back from the government. Fat chance! A broken laptop is far cheaper than that.

    2. Re:And the lesson is by mysidia · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the article it was a civil subpoena.

      And TSA agents are not police officers.

      Obstruction of justice is apparently not applicable to civil matters..

      The penalty for failure to comply with a subpoena depends on the jurisdiction/court that issued it, and usually some warning of that effect would be on the document.

  5. Won't next time, or only if victim makes noise? by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will they also refrain from doing this kind of thing next time, or do so only if the victim doesn't keep quiet?

    In any case, this blogger's refusal to keep quiet is inspiring.

  6. The apology's nice and all . . . by alecto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    . . . but someone should have to fall on his or her sword over this. If those field agents acted on their own, it would be they; if not, then whoever they worked for that authorized the tactics should be holding a sign saying "WILL WAND YOUR CROTCH FOR FOOD."

  7. His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack?!? by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

    Drennan also promised to make sure the administration resolved issues that Frischling has been having with his laptop ever since the agents seized it to image the hard drive.

    Frischling says the laptop was returned to him with "tons and tons of bad sectors" and a corrupt operating system. The audio on his computer has also stopped working, and a red light glows from the audio jack.

    Damn, I bet his machine is full of spying devices, including one where the audio card used to be.

  8. Re:His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack by joe_frisch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hard to imagine installing a spying device with a glowing red LED, but then the TSA isn't known for its stunning efficiency. More likely the just screwed up his computer and some standard warning light was activated.

    They should owe him a new computer and say 100 hours of consulting time to ensure that his data and software are properly transfered to the new computer. Say $30K total.

  9. Apology schmapology already by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has there been an offer of compensation? Has anyone been fired?

    If not, then it's not an apology, it's just regret at being caught.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Re:His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What, trust them to give him a replacement computer? Under the circumstances I'd request the CASH and buy my own laptop.

  11. Re:His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack by chefmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's a MacBook, then there's a little flap at the end of the audio jack. Behind that flap is an LED that is used to transmit SPDIF audio over fiber. (The Apple SPDIF adapter is longer than a standard audio jack, and pushes past the jack to the LED).

    If you are exceptionally violent with the machine, I suppose it's possible to damage or dislodge the flap, which would cause red light to shine out the audio jack whenever the sound card is on. Between this, a broken keyboard, and a "ton of bad sectors," it sounds like they took the Israeli approach to handling people it thinks don't agree with its tactics. Except the TSA managed to actually destroy data.

  12. The only question by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    in my mind is: Did they stop legal action against him because they FOUND the source of the leak?

  13. Re:His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As much as the conspiracy theorist in me would like to believe they added spying devices to the computer, chances are they just screwed up the hard drive in shipping. Of course either way it's unacceptable and they owe him the value of his time, fixing the thing, and lost data.

  14. 21st Century Socia media buptkiss whoopin' by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    yeah, buddy.

    Welcome to the age of social media on the internet, where not only does stuff *not* stay secret for long, it spreads faster and farther than ever before, and to people who otherwise wouldn't give a fit because a friend or family member they care about *does*.

    This is the magic of still living in a (semi) free society.

    --
    uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
    1. Re:21st Century Socia media buptkiss whoopin' by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

      , it spreads faster and farther than ever before

      Except on /. where it still takes 4 weeks to a year...

    2. Re:21st Century Socia media buptkiss whoopin' by davester666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're sorry we did this in a way that got national publicity. Next time, we'll do it in a way that is less likely to do so, such as sending these enemy combatants [as the information they disseminated was clearly only to aid terrorists] to Iraq/Afghanistan/etc and apply some information retrieval techniques on them.

      Their family may notice they've gone, but they won't know where they've gone to...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  15. Hopefully... by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hopefully the first in a long line of realizations that when you do something stupid publicly, you can't harass or sue someone for pointing that out.

  16. Re:Type of laptop in picture by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they didn't know how to image it because it wasn't Windows?

    Which unequivocally proves that he's a terrorist. If he didn't have anything to hide he wouldn't have gone to such lengths to prevent investigators from performing their sworn duty.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  17. And of course... by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Notice the guy who caved in to their threats ends up out a laptop.

    The guy who didn't cave and refused to bend over still has his working computer hardware.

    As always "never talk to the police" wins again. Even when you have done *nothing* wrong (and not just in the domain they are telling you they care about, across all domains) there are only two things you should say to the police:

    1. No you may not search that/open that/have that/come inside.
    2. I'm not saying anything without my lawyer present.

    1. Re:And of course... by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's really sad how true this is. I used to think 'I'll just comply and everything will be perfectly fine and I can be on my way.' Then somewhere along the way I realized that cops who want to do improper searches are assholes to start with, and they've already decided you are guilty and will treat you as such. If you make them do the paperwork first, then there -is- paperwork to show that it happened and you can't get into a situation where it's their word against yours that it even happened.

      As for the laptop... I know when they search a car or house, they have to put things back as they are. Does that not apply to electronics as well?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:And of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Darn right. No, I do not consent to any search. Am I free to go? Lawyer. Those are pretty much the only things you should ever say. For why you should never talk to the police ( a class from law school), go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc And support the http://aclu.org/

    3. Re:And of course... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That’s because, as I always say: It’s not about what you have to hide. It’s about what they want to find.

      Cardinal Richelieu also had a nice saying about seven lines of the honest man being enough, to find something, to let him hang.

      The “funniest” thing is, that the exact description of what the TSA does to people, is “terror”. They’re the real terrorists. But as all terrorists, they have more powerful backroom figures who control the big picture. The “terrorists” are just straw-men.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:And of course... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. The talking heads call it a "war on terror" and all the while it's our own government who tries to keep us afraid with colored charts and media scaremongering. Then some fucking moron tries to blow up a plane and ends up lighting his nuts on fire and the government agents have an excuse to further terrorize the citizens. They will continue to let the occasional bomber through every now and then, and the cycle will continue.

      There is an old saying that applies here: Never ascribe to malice that which can readily be explained by incompetance.

      The TSA believes in what they are doing, as does the DHS. They are not creating increasingly inconvenient security measures to instill terror, they are honestly trying to prevent the next attack.

      However, their misguided attempts at this do not prevent new attacks, it simply terrorizes the citizens, making their lives worse.

      There is nothing TSA has in place right now that would stop hijackers from sneaking box cutters on to airplanes once again and hijacking the plane. I know this because in the past year a friend of mine accidentally snuck a box cutter through at least 6 TSA screenings, maybe even more since he wasn't sure exactly when he put the thing in his bag. The only measure that has been implimented that would have any effect at all is the pilots locking the cockpit door. That's it.

      The hijackings wouldn't get very far today, however, in spite of the TSA's ineptitude, because the conventional wisdom for what to do in a hijacking has changed. It used to be thought that it was best to wait it out, and in the end everyone goes home. Today we know we need to act immediately, and while a few may get hurt, there is no scenario where an entire plane full of passengers is defeated by a hijacker.

      So what do we gain from TSA? Nothing, that's what. Just keep the cockpit locked and act when someone tries to hijack the plane. Done. Flying is safe once again.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    5. Re:And of course... by wwphx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I worked as a civilian for the police department, part of computer services was officers involved in computer crimes. While I was there, to the best of my knowledge, they always took great care in disassembling systems and mirroring drives so that the computers were functional when returned (original disks were NEVER booted). They were all computer geeks and didn't want to disrupt things for the user when they got their stuff back. Not to mention they would have to defend their practices in court regarding chain of evidence, so they had to be careful.

      Of course, the ones that I worked with weren't feds, and this was some years ago. Now with the apparent presumption of guilt overriding presumption of innocence, who knows. So many of the cases were kiddie porn I'd just as soon see the computers torched, but that's just my opinion.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    6. Re:And of course... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the cops have showed up at your doorstep and you didn't call them; they've already decided you're guilty and are there to try to pin something on you; even if it's not your hypothetical kidnapping. And the legal system is simply too complicated now for a layman to safely navigate. So yes... a lawyer is an imperative. (And yeah, as you say, in your scenario you're already and automatically a suspect.)

      Even if you have information you do want the cops to have, it's safest and smartest to insist on being provided a lawyer and having him vet and sanitize it for you before releasing it. It doesn't make you any more or less guilty.. you're already guilty in the cops' eyes. It doesn't make them hate or like you any more... to them, you're either cop or you're not.

      And once you go over their heads to the realm of lawyers and judges, it still doesn't make you look any more or less guilty. It's never a bad mark and always a good idea and in your best interest to seek legal council when dealing with the legal system.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    7. Re:And of course... by dissy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is an old saying that applies here: Never ascribe to malice that which can readily be explained by incompetance.

      Those two things are not mutually exclusive you know...

  18. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TSA = Thugs Standing Around

    1. Re:TSA by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The whole DHS are a bunch of thugs. An ICE agent recently blew through a stop sign and killed 3 women. They're trying to blame it on his driving with tinted windows at night. Why would a run-of-the-mill GOV need tinted windows?!

  19. TSA agents need to get back to work by colfer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of throwing people's laptops around, these guys need to get to work. There is plenty of work to go around, from airports to every other kind of transportation facility you can think of.

    Federal agencies are full of people who want to carry and gun and work security, since it's easier to stomp around with a badge than to do the drudge work of investigation. Every agency wants to have a police force of its own.

    TSA is a special case, since it actually is a sort of police force. So put these smart guy agents on the front line, at airport screening lines, where their elite abilities can be better appreciated. And shorten waiting times.

  20. diversion by bugi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did they get the information they were looking for?

    Does "giving up" keep them from answering for their behavior in front of a judge?

  21. Re:His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

        It sounds like they knew they wouldn't find anything, so a few "accidental" drops to the laptop was their preferred interrogation method. While I do find this works sometimes on PC's, it rarely works on a laptop.

        It sounds like they were looking to punish him for posting it, rather than actually looking for information.

        At one company I worked for, we received a few computers from Europe. They had been shipped separately, just because that's how they arrived for shipment. One showed up at our office in pieces. The pieces appeared ok, but not a single part worked. I'm pretty sure they thought we were smuggling something inside the computer. Come on, was it necessary to remove and manhandle the motherboard, just to see that it didn't contain any drugs? We didn't get an apology, nor reimbursement for it. the US Customs stance was, "That's the way we got it, when we inspected it.". Ya, right.

        Consistency is not in their methodology though. We shipped a lot of equipment around to various locations. Most got there fine. The occasional piece was mishandled by the shipping companies. Some were held for weeks by customs. It makes it hard to work, when you ship say 20 pieces, and only 15 show up on time.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  22. Re:"Whoops, sorry" - this is AFTER.. by michaelhood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We didn't realize our dick move would receive so much public attention."

    This is AFTER they took the guy's laptop, imaged it and returned it to him with a corrupted disk, reportedly.. of course they don't need the subpoenas anymore.

  23. Re:Type of laptop in picture by RobertLTux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    then they should be fired for being idiots since
    1 removing the hard drive is documented online
    2 only a true idiot would try to get a FORENSICS QUALITY image from a system without some sort of write blocking inplace
    3 a binary dump of the drive does not care about the disc format

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  24. Subpoena probably wasn't valid. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    As I mentioned yesterday. the subpoena probably wasn't valid. Once one of the recipients announced he would challenge it in court, the TSA probably withdrew it because they were going to look even dumber when a Federal judge threw it out.

    There are some real questions about a law enforcement organization having administrative subpoena power. In criminal investigations, subpoenas should come from a judge. Congress has repeatedly refused FBI requests for that power. I don't think that Homeland Security has it, either. But regulatory agencies with narrow remits often have it, so they can demand records relevant to whatever they regulate. The Department of Transportation had it for use in safety investigations and such. Typically they'd be asking for maintenance records.

    When Homeland Security picked up the Transportation Safety Agency from the Department of Transportation, they got DoT's administrative subpoena authority in the transfer. That's what Homeland Security was trying to use here. That clearly went beyond Congressional intent. And in any case, the subpoena hadn't been approved by one of the short list of people authorized to approve it.

    1. Re:Subpoena probably wasn't valid. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wants to be able to serve other types of administrative subpoenas.

      From FBI Director Muller's testimony before Congress. It didn't work; Congress said no.

  25. Re: TSA Withdraws Subpoenas Against Bloggers by REALMAN · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The blurb you make insinuates that they "caved in" when in fact one of the bloggers gave up their laptop so in all likelihood they got the info they wanted off that laptop and that's why they dropped the subpoena.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  26. Re:"Whoops, sorry" - this is AFTER.. by Vexar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is it me, or does the "Federal Agent" badge look really tarnished now, from the technology vantage? I mean, who out there *can't* image a hard drive? I'll bet they broke it because they weren't grounded. Besides, opening a laptop these days, that's a difficult task. Need more than a few certifications, I say. Last time mine was professionally serviced, it needed a motherboard replacement after it was fixed. So, I wonder if the federal agents just took the laptop to the Geek Squad and asked them to do it for them?

  27. Returned? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The hardware is back but whats loaded onto it?
    Its an old trick to search something and give it back with a logger or spyware.
    Then raid again/sneak and peek, or have an upload of the log at a later date.
    ebay the hardware asap or take to a security expert and then ebay.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"