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?
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.
Because he had a good personal reason to abuse his access and did so thinking he would never have been caught makes him the perfect man for the job? I disagree--he demonstrated a willingness to misuse a public trust for personal gain that I doubt the passage of time has magically cured so much as made him better at covering his tracks.
It was the highest turnout in 40 years. And honestly, its better to have a low turnout of well-informed voters than a high turnout of cable-news watching voters who vote only on who the person on TV says to.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
...And a republic can only work when there are many third-parties to choose from and allow your voice to be heard. A democrat isn't going to speak for all democrats and a republican isn't going to speak for all republicans. That is why an electoral system allowing and encouraging third parties is so important. For example, many democrats aren't really "democrats" at all, but would fit under either a libertarian democrat, green party, or centrist. Similarly many republicans may be more libertarians than republicans, or lean more towards interventionism.
The ability for there to be third parties also lets voters more accurately decide who they want without needing to be fully informed. With our current two party system, both Ron Paul (more of a libertarian than anything else) appears on the same party as John McCain (more of an interventionist)
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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."
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.
I'm absolutely certain that this story coming out right now has absolutely nothing to do with digging through Mr Southers' entire life story to come up with some dirt on him that will give Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) political cover for leaving the TSA with no director for nearly a year. I mean, one might almost think that the real problem with this guy was that he was open to the possibility of TSA workers unionizing.
I am officially gone from