Slashdot Mirror
TSA Nominee's Snooping Raises Privacy Concerns
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Erroll Southers, President Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration, gave Congress misleading information about incidents in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database, possibly in violation of privacy laws. Southers accepted full responsibility for a 'grave error in judgment' when he accessed confidential criminal records twenty years ago about his then-estranged wife's new boyfriend. Southers's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians, who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens' privacy."
"In his letter to key senators on November 20, Southers said he simply forgot the circumstances of the searches, which occurred in 1987 and 1988 after he grew worried about his wife and their son, who had begun living with the boyfriend. 'During a period of great personal turmoil, I made a serious error in judgment by using my official position with the FBI to resolve a personal problem,' Southers wrote. Civil liberties specialists say that the misuse of databases has been common among law enforcement authorities for many years, despite an array of local, state and federal prohibitions intended to protect personal information. Studies have found that police at every level examine records of celebrities, women they have met and political rivals. 'I am distressed by the inconsistencies between my recollection and the contemporaneous documents, but I assure you that the mistake was inadvertent, and that I have at all times taken full responsibility for what I know to have been a grave error in judgment,' Southers added."
TSA's mission is the gross violation of personal privacy. The man is perfect for the job!
Inadvertence is incompatible with "full responsibility."
Inadvertence doesn't make sense when you figure out the number separate, independent, goal-directed decisions that he needed to make in his effort to use a government resource to advance his personal agenda.
When he says that the act was inadvertent, either he doesn't know what the word means or he is lying.
Now they want to give him control over one of the most intrusive databases of all time?
A couple worrying things. He made an error due to great personal turmoil. That's fact.
Is he saying that he won't make the same error again because the safety of Americans would not cause a great personal turmoil? Would my safety be more casual for him? That's not a selling point to have him appointed, personally.
If he worried about my safety as he would for his son, would cause a great personal turmoil? If so, what other errors in judgement will be the result?
How about we let the American public vote on these important offices rather than let a president that over 47% of the population opposed appoint them?
Its time we demanded to be able to elect those who seem so worried about taking away our rights. Those who are nominating, appointing and approving them won't have do deal with the consequences of their actions. We, the people of the US, will.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I suspect folks with that kind of access who misuse it at least on occasion are far more common than those who don't. What surprises me here, actually, is that there were any checks that resulted in him having been caught in the first place.
he's no worse than Turbo Tax Timmy.
And he was under a lot of stress.
Sure. I'll give him a pass on this also.
As soon as he voluntarily removes himself from the running. Actions have consequences. Once you make a decision of that magnitude to violate the ethics of your job, you SHOULD know that you are no longer eligible to manage other people who might be under similar stress with similar responsibilities.
'I am distressed by the inconsistencies between my recollection and the contemporaneous documents, but I assure you that the mistake was inadvertent, and that I have at all times taken full responsibility for what I know to have been a grave error in judgment,'
Read that again, maybe three or four times if you have to. Focus on one clause at a time really think about what he is saying before you move on to the next one.
He is saying the discrepancy between what he told congress and what the documents say was inadvertant, that is the mistake he is talking about. In fact he says he is distressed that his recollection was flawed. I.e. misleading Congress was a mistake, as in not what he was trying to do, he simply remembered things slightly differently than they apparently were. That happens all the time to me, I'm sure it does to you as well. Abusing his position, however, he has always claimed full responsibility for as "a grave error in judgment".
Learn to read, please. It will help.
All that said, I still wouldn't trust this guy as head of the TSA. It may have been just one mis-judgment in a long career of good judgments, but the TSA is so fucked up as it is we don't need someone who may be going on personal vendettas via airline security.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The fact that he used the police database to get revenge on his ex-wife, or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did?
Now he's saying his original statement that he asked someone else to do the search for him was wrong, that he actually did the searching himself, twice. Voters are getting tired of government officials who conveniently forget facts.
No moral scruples... check.
Congratulations. You're just the man we need to institute our plan for Change.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I'm sure others will point out that this guy has a history of abusing his position for personal reasons. He will therefore be watched by various people including news people looking for a juicy story and even the appearance of impropriety will likely result in some sort of story.
I think that abuse of position and power is par for the course. If he does it and is discovered, it would be a huge disgrace to him, his office and the one who appointed him. On the other hand, if he resists the urge or is simply very successful at being sneaky, then maybe it's all for the best somehow.
The only way this guy gets appointed is if the politicians all sympathize with him. Not an unlikely outcome, it should be noted.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
So I say we all make mistakes, and his was 20 years ago. Behavior like this occurs at all levels and for all sorts of reasons. Accessing the information doesn't concern me so much as if it was acted on in an illegitimate way. THAT would be a whole different story. Besides corporate espionage is a long standing issue. Tell me none of the geeks on here have spoken of privileged information during a job interview for example.
...opposing this candidate. Jim DeMint's fear of TSA being allowed to unionize is not a legitimate reason to do so.
Well, 2010 is 15 hours old where I am. I am so far disappointed. OK, so what have we here. Government official abusing power. Huh. Who woulda thunk.
He committed a felony by illegally accessing privileged information. He did this with perfect knowledge and forethought that he WAS committing a felony. He did it for petty reasons and personal gratification. He abused his position for personal gain. He perjured himself to cover it up before Congress.
Had you or I done this, we'd be writing about it from inside a penitientiary.
Now, if you're going to argue that he has learned from mistakes, that he is contrite, that he has since reformed, the time and place to make those arguments are at HIS SENTENCING HEARING, not his next job interview.
After a breach like that, the only public trust this man should be given is a choice between the grill and the fry machine.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
If more people respected or even cared about the spirit - heck, letter - of the law (or morality) instead of their personal wants, desires, and goals, we'd all be better off. Would the recent near-collapse of the banking industry have happened if the guys at AIG or Goldman-Sachs cared about the ramifications of their greed on others - and by "others" I mean "us", not the other bastards on Wall Street.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It may have been just one mis-judgment in a long career of good judgments, but the TSA is so fucked up as it is we don't need someone who may be going on personal vendettas via airline security.
Absolutely. I prefer a standard of putting people in charge who are not prone to grave errors in judgment. That eliminates everybody who has been caught for such.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Wow, slashdot users certainly want to hold this guy to an amazingly high standard - one that I question whether they could meet themselves.
Twenty years ago he checked the criminal record of the man his son was going to be living with. Who here would not have done the same thing if they had the access? Twenty years ago he was censured for this act. So he made a mistake and paid the price. Heck after 20 years if he'd been to court and been fined for this, he'd probably have been able to have it removed from his record. He still made a point of disclosing it and then further clarified when he went back and read his notes on the incident and apologized for the discrepancy in the two accounts.
If you're seeking a saint to take a political appointment, I'd recommend not holding your breathe.
Sheesh.
Why are we seeking a new boss for the TSA when we should disband the TSA (Terrorist Security Agency). Are you terrorized? I'm not! So why are we being asked to be terrorized when IT IS OUR ENEMIES THAT WISH US TO BE TERRORIZED?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It doesn't matter. Almost everyone takes some sort of advantage/liberties at their jobs, especially when younger. Waiters get free food and drink, office workers look at FB and steal pens. Glen Beck shills for gold. Politicians can "fundraise." He just happened to have the ability to run background checks.
Why aren't there more controls in place to prevent this type of random access? Why don't they require a gatekeeper who can oversee and approve these types of requests rather than granting broad access based on 'trust'?
Because then the people in charge couldn't misuse the data for their own personal reasons and benefit.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
I just don't understand why the same rules that apply to wire taps and such wouldn't apply to accessing this database. Why is one protected while the other is not?
within a Terrorist government agency, the Department of Homeland Securing and they are backed-up by a Terrorists government, the Chief Executive of the United States of America.
Janet "Planet" Napolitano was absolutly "as in Vodka" correct in saying "the system worked!" Yes! The air-line and national security system is a terrorist system to terrorize citizens of the United States of America.
The only way the current President, like G.W.B., or any other President, to get re-elected or elected, is through the nationalization of terror, to terrorize the citizens and remind them periodically of terror.
Ergo, if there is no terror, or no terrorists, then the President and his National Security Organs of Government, need not exist.
Therefore, the President of the United States of America is the Supreme sponsor of national and international terrorism, and national and international terrorism organizations!
Osama Bin Laden is payed by the Chief Executive of the United States of America, the President of the U.S.A.
Quit making excuses for him.
I'm not suggesting that this fellow be prevented from living a "normal" life and holding a job - but the proposed job that this fellow is being considered for is one that would put in in the same position he was before when he (for some unexplained reason) failed to uphold the requirements of his position. This fellow is probably just morally challenged - but the people proposing him for this job are fools.
Really, folks - we'd never consider placing a child molester as an elementary school teacher. But this fellow would be in a position to cause serious harm to many, many more people. It's a horrible idea. And those who are offering apologetic platitudes for this fellow's past transgressions - what the heck are you fools thinking? This will cause you just as much harm as anyone else - wake up!
Actually, I believe it simply eliminates everyone.
I think the opposite. I'd rather have someone who knows pulling this kind of thing can bite you in the ass.
[FUCK BETA]
"Wow, slashdot users certainly want to hold this guy to an amazingly high standard"
Of course we are, he is upfor a very important public safety position. It would be colossally moronic to do anything BUT hold him to an amazingly high standard.
"- one that I question whether they could meet themselves. "
We're not up for the job, genius, so that point, and all the vapid follow ons that you thought were so relevant, aren't.
Let the people who have useful opinions talk, while you get us a beer.
A couple of points.
1 - it appears that's ALL he did, so I wouldn't call that "systematic" abuse, this is to me more on the level of an expense fiddle or taking a company car home once.
2 - the guy ADMITS that he was wrong, in other words, he has at least the right view of his actions. To me that runs counter to your argument that he shouldn't be trusted with the guardianship, at least this guy seems to know right from wrong
3 - because of his admission he will be under far greater scrutiny than any "Mr Teflon" who has managed to get away with transgressions without anyone noticing. The latter is much more dangerous IMHO because they tend to grow into a view of considering their transgressions "normal".
4 - I am unwilling to hang someone for being a normal human being - I'm a normal guy too. It would be a bit like taking someone's driving license for life for going over the speed limit once. That approach is exactly what produced the modern politician, the "holier-than-thou" breed where managing press disclosure becomes more important than governing the country, and enabling newspapers to buy your privacy via your "friends". Case in point: Clinton vs Bush. One made the mistake of finding the only girl in town who didn't know how to clean a dress but created the first budget surplus in years, the other one appeared Mr Clean but wrecked the US and global economy by his actions. Bonus point for counting just how many laws Bush excluded himself from with signing statements.
BTW, the most perfectly managed transgression ever was with Sarkozy: when he was asked if he had a mistress (now his wife), he answered: "And?". Perfect answer, as it killed the sensation stone dead. OK, admittedly the French press is more restrained anyway, but from a publicity point of view it was the *perfect* answer..
Insert
DB access does not involve intercept of a communication between two other parties.
Umm, _everyone_ is prone to grave errors in judgment. That knowledge goes back to the doctrine of original sin in the church, and the idea that all humans are fallible.
I'm undecided about this one. If I could prove a negative that this guy has never made a similar misjudgment since his prior offense, I would actually prefer him as a "once bitten, twice shy" person, rather than a noob who is more likely to slide down the slippery slope into Dick Cheney territory because they haven't experienced the consequences. But since I don't have enough information about his activities since the incident, I have to stay neutral.
We are the 198 proof..
Should be at least a 3 or 4 insightful rather than a one. Especially that last paragraph. If this keeps up, only self-destructive morons will accept jobs in the public sector.
We are the 198 proof..
See Being There, the movie.
As much as people enjoy bemoaning a person's past for their mistakes, perhaps it's a good thing that this fellow made a mistake, and maybe has learned from it. This, rather than someone who has not made the mistake.
I really don't know anything about the guy, and let's face it; despite this article, neither do you.
When he accessed his ex-wife's information, he did so without the legitimacy his position provides. He did so without authorization. Had you or I logged into that database without authorization, they'd have charged us with felonies.
I believe people in positions of public trust should be held to a HIGHER standard, not a lower one, and the penalities for abuse under the color of authority should carry higher penalties than mere black hat crackers would receive.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
My biggest regret so far this year is having posted to this topic before seeing the above and having a chance to moderate it up.