Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DEA Paid Amtrak Employee To Pilfer Passenger Lists

Posted by Unknown on from the have-to-break-the-law-to-protect-the-law dept.

Via Ars Technica comes news that an Amtrak employee was paid nearly $900,000 over the last ten years to give the DEA passenger lists outside of normal channels. Strangely enough, the DEA already had access to such information through official channels. From the article: The employee, described as a "secretary to a train and engine crew" in a summary obtained by the AP, was selling the customer data without Amtrak's approval. Amtrak and other transportation companies collect information from their customers including credit card numbers, travel itineraries, emergency contact info, passport numbers, and dates of birth. When booking tickets online in recent years, Amtrak has also collected phone numbers and e-mail addresses. ... Amtrak has long worked closely with the DEA to track drug trafficking activity on its train lines. The Albuquerque Journal reported in 2001 that "a computer with access to Amtrak's ticketing information sits on a desk in the [DEA]'s local office," wrote the ACLU.

1 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Re:You can't travel anonymously... by N1AK · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The Constitution has nothing on the right to travel and, if you ask a government official, you'll quickly realize, they consider traveling to be a privilege instead.

    I appreciate that you aren't taking this position, just highlighting that it exists; however I think it is worth emphasising that the constitition does cover this.

    9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    10th Amentment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Now we both know that isn't how the government chooses to 'interpret' the constitution, however the issue there is their ability to willfully misinterpret not the lack of clarity. You simply cannot make the constitution complete enough and clear enough that your freedoms are protected. Have an amendment saying they can't stop you travelling and they'll just interpret that as being limited to walking ;)