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."

20 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 PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. 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. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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."

  5. 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."
  6. 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.

  7. 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?

  8. 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...

  9. 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 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.