TSA Threatens Blogger Who Posted New Screening Directive

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger/

by phsr • 17 years ago

99 53 17 years ago

ig1• 17 years ago

WikiLeaks which provides anonymous leaking services for things just like this has recently stopped due to lack of funding (and this document would likely have been leaked there if it hadn't been stopped).

Please consider donating to them (they need both money and technical services/expertise) at http://wikileaks.org/ to help them carry on if you'd like to support the freedom to whistleblow.

petewarden• 17 years ago

I hadn't realized they were struggling, they've been responsible for some amazing scoops. I thought it was worth calling out this appeal for volunteers as a new item:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1023663

jhancock3• 17 years ago

Any info as to if donating to wikileaks could put you at risk?

jonknee2• 17 years ago

It's time for the TSA to go.

blahedo• 17 years ago

And be replaced with what? I'm as irritated with all the stupid TSA crap as anyone else and now go out of my way to avoid flying because of it---but the post-9/11 pre-TSA period was even worse as far as fickleness and inconsistency of security.

TSA needs a lot of fixing. But on the whole I think nationalised airline security is probably the right way to go.

philk5• 17 years ago

Two things:

1) Reinforced cockpit doors and armed pilots so terrorists can't get control over the plane.

2) Better intelligence and policing on the ground; remember, in the last attempted attack the guys father had raised concerns about him beforehand.

Airport screening is basically security theater.

bioweek• 17 years ago

Could we have planes be rigged to release ether into the cabin to put everyone except the pilots to sleep in the event of a hijacking? It could be controlled by the ground, or by silent alarms that the pilots or flight attendants could hit.

jrockway7• 17 years ago

It's time for there to be a clear law protecting these journalists from malicious government agencies like the TSA. Apparently, "Congress shall make no law abridging the ... freedom of the press" is not clear enough.

Locke16892• 17 years ago

Flagged. This one seems straight from the submission guidelines:

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

jonknee2• 17 years ago

I find it very relative hacker news and this isn't a story that will be covered on TV news. This is behind the scenes and is about how the internet is completely disrupting the control of information by governments.

Locke16892• 17 years ago

Hmmm, maybe. However, I could definitely see TSA harassment as something be covered on TV news. I mostly saw this from the political/legal angle which is rather trite and has been covered many times before.

This is behind the scenes and is about how the internet is completely disrupting the control of information by governments.

I didn't think of this at first but you may be right. Although, I would have preferred an analysis from that perspective in this case, rather than a reporting of the legal circumstances.

anigbrowl• 17 years ago

I think a question of whether bloggers enjoy journalistic privileges or not is a leading indicator of how things will go for new media where journalists aren't necessarily under the wing of a large publisher with an experienced legal department. To me this is the same sort of issue as an exploit advisory.

ironkeith• 17 years ago

While we're being sticklers for the guidelines...

If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

NathanKP• 17 years ago

The story according to the two bloggers:

http://www.elliott.org/blog/full-text-of-my-subpoena-from-th...

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2009/12/30/the-...

ghshephard2• 17 years ago

I'm wondering if there are any of us who would suggest that right after a terrorist attack, it might be a good idea _not_ to share with the bad guys how we're going to stop them? I mean, maybe hold off for a week or so while we figure out if:

A) There are more attacks coming.

B) How we are going to stop them.

rdtsc2• 17 years ago

You are assuming that what TSA was doing, is doing and is planning to do stopped/is stopping/will stop terrorist attacks.

Their track record is so horrible that they should be fired on the spot, be asked to apologize to everyone they harassed over the years and be forced to return tax payer's money they wasted for expensive x-ray vision and air puffing machines.

To bring back an analogy I made in a previous post, they are like the witch doctor that is trying to cure cancer with a rattle or a voodoo doll. The patients keep dying so as far as they can see, the rattle is not advanced enough. Now they've enhanced the rattle with more bells and added more rules that patients have to follow to get cured.

Of course, those who see through the farce and write about it, get some personal attention and home visits...

robotrout2• 17 years ago

Wow, that's a lot of vitriol and indignation, considering their record is actually perfect. Did they get lucky a few times to keep that perfect record? Sure they did. But you can't know what would have happened if they hadn't been there.

The air puffing machines were a pretty ambitious project, carried out in the haste that comes from knowing that every day you delay may be the day that a preventable tragedy occurs. It's easy to make bad decisions in such a situation. To be able to do chemical analysis, in the field, sampling completely uncontrolled inputs, all completely automated with no chemical analysis expert on-hand to vet the results, and the expectation of no false positives to inconvenience anybody. Seems like you could cut them a little slack.

As for the "x-ray vision", as you call it. That seems to work great. It's hampered by public body modesty taboos because it works too well.

Anyway, I'm surprised at your level of angst over this.

ghshephard2• 17 years ago

Okay, I'm interested in some more detail regarding your concerns. In particular, why do you consider their track record to be horrible, and what actions should they have been taking to prevent liquid detonated PETN bombs?

Off the top of my head, I can fault the TSA for only two things:

1. They don't have Full Body Scanners in place. The technology has been around for 3+ years, and would have caught the PETN sewn into the underwear.

2. They still allow liquids onto planes, which can be used to detonate and/or do significant damage to the inside of an airplane.

You clearly have your own list of steps the TSA could have taken - I'm wondering what they are?

jfager• 17 years ago

It was a document sent to thousands of people at airports and airlines internationally, it wasn't classified, and it describes what millions of passengers are going to experience firsthand going through security lines. In other words: not exactly a secret, and certainly not worth going brownshirt on bloggers for.

philk5• 17 years ago

No.

1) The TSA is a farce. They've done more damage to the US economy than the terrorists themselves.

2) The changes themselves aren't intended to stop terrorism. They're intended to satisfy the public that "something is being done".

3) Terrorism is extremely rare anyway. If people spent more time worrying about not smoking (for example) and less time worrying about terrorists we'd save thousands of lives every year.

The best thing we could do to fight the bad guys is ignore them and get on with our lives.

patio11• 17 years ago

I'm sort of a staunch law & order kind of guy, but this is why you never talk to the police. If they want to talk to you, they can have ample opportunity to do so in your lawyer's offices, in a comfortable plush chair, right into the tape recorder, after giving you blanket immunity for anything resulting from what you are about to tell them.

I will also happily let the authorities image my hard drive if they can convince a judge to issue a search warrant for the entire thing. It isn't that I don't trust you, officer, it is just that I desire to renew our traditional understanding that my papers and effects are mine and not to be trifled with lightly.

stevoski• 17 years ago

But if the TSA turn up at your door, claiming they'll put you on the no-fly list if you don't co-operate? Once on the no-fly list, it's close to impossible to get off the list.

It's a government agency with far too much power and no transparency.

jrockway7• 17 years ago

Once on the no-fly list, it's close to impossible to get off the list.

Sure, if you don't want to change your name. Go to your local courthouse, change the spelling of your name, get a new ID, you're off the list. That's why the no-fly list is such a joke.

Also, you can bet that they would not make this threat in the company of your lawyer. This is just a scare tactic.

jhancock3• 17 years ago

From personal experience, your position, in many U.S. locales, would most likely be poorly received by a police officer. For example, if you are in your car, they can simply arrest you (no charges, but can hold you for 72 hours) and then fully search your person and vehicle and use whatever they find, probable cause be damned.

There are many not well understood and not well court tested Federal rules that can be used against you in much the same way.

I highly recommend when dealing with law enforcement to not use a phrase like "my papers and effects are mine and not to be trifled with lightly". You may get away with this with a senior government official but less likely with a run of the mill police officer.

Nwallins• 17 years ago

if you are in your car, they can simply arrest you (no charges, but can hold you for 72 hours)

Are you sure that you can be arrested and held without charges, generally speaking, in the U.S.?

ggchappell• 17 years ago

> It isn't that I don't trust you, officer, it is just that I desire to renew our traditional understanding that my papers and effects are mine and not to be trifled with lightly.

That's a very nice (and very quotable) way of putting it.

ciscoriordan• 17 years ago

My favorite quote: "Frischling said [the TSA agents] had to go to WalMart to buy a hard drive, but when they returned were unable to get it to work."

jrockway7• 17 years ago

An unexpected fringe benefit of owning 2TB drives: the cops can't buy them at WalMart.

jrockway7• 17 years ago

This is why all of my disks are encrypted. Power turns off, data is gone. If someone shows up at your door threatening you to provide them with a disk image, you can happily comply. When they realize the data is useless without the Constitutionally-protected secret key that only exists in your mind, they will have to file charges, and get a judge to order you to testify against yourself. And right about then, the investigation stops, because you committed no crime, and the order to testify against yourself is illegal. (If anything, it means you have plenty of time to talk to your attorney. They are not getting the data any other way, so you have the power to say, "wait, let me get my lawyer first", even if they physically seize your hardware.)

I also have a few drives in my house that look like LUKS encrypted disks, but are actually a LUKS header with random data following it. There is no way I could ever decrypt these disks, as there is no data on them; just random bits.

Anyway, you can tell that this was never a real criminal investigation, because a real investigator would get Gmail records from Google, not from some random guy with a laptop. This was purely to scare the blogger into not publishing information about the TSA anymore. "Chilling effect."

FahnRobier• 17 years ago

This post reminds me of a certain xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/538/

The difference being that wrenches purchased by the TSA probably cost $600. ;)

Well, maybe not but it's fun to say: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1298/120798t1.htm

defied• 17 years ago

What would you suggest for disk encryption? I was looking into PGP and Truecrypt for Mac OS X, but not sure if there are better alternatives?

khafra• 17 years ago

Your fake encrypted disks are so that you can't be forced to decrypt every disk, even under thermorectal cryptanalysis? Did you do that after reading about pre-commitment in game theory, and do you have a plan to avoid the flaw in pre-commitment strategies under asymmetric information exposed in Dr. Strangelove?

jrockway7• 17 years ago

My main enemy is some random person in the airport stealing my laptop bag. My theoretical enemy is the government.

Neither of these adversaries can afford a technical attack. The guy at the airport will say "oh well", format the disk, and eBay it. The government will try to convince me that I do know the key, will fail, and will have to support its (theoretical, of course) case against me with actual evidence instead.

There is one thing I just thought of, though; the SMART log shows how much activity the disk has experienced. It should be easy to check this log to see which disk I use the most. I will come up with some way to plug this leak :)

But anyway, I am not sure this would "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that I know the key. If any case against me ever depended on me decrypting my disk, I would first refuse. Then, theoretically, a charge of obstruction of justice would be filed against me, and the government would have to prove that before they could even consider their original case. (And that's no cakewalk, as there is case law saying I don't have to give up the password, and I don't think SMART data has ever been used in court.)

So anyway, I think my system is good enough. I don't have any friends in the government feeding me classified information, anyway :( So, it's likely that I will never get to test my system. But I hope the "Real Criminals" read this and perhaps use this information to help themselves stay safe from their oppressive regime.

flatline• 17 years ago

There's the difference between Joe-blogger and someone who's an actual journalist. Granted, I don't know that "writes a column for the Washington Post" is exactly hard-hitting journalism, but I find it interesting that he did not turn over any information on his source whereas the guy who was just a blogger complied.

jrockway7• 17 years ago

Presumably, the Washington Post has lawyers that deal with this sort of thing, and they have a newspaper that can publish all the details to a wide readership. The Post journalist presumably took some journalism courses, where they probably teach you to not talk to the police in these circumstances.

The blogger probably had none of those, and just wanted to take care of his kids that night.

nfnaaron• 17 years ago

Wait, the TSA has their own subpoena-serving law enforcement agents?

I wonder if they instead used the FBI, if those agents might have been able to get an external hard drive to work?

TSA Threatens Blogger Who Posted New Screening Directive

Related Stories