6 ms·

"NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored." So how was he allowed on the plane? Surely part of the passport/no-fly-

by Jabbles 13y ago

"NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored." So how was he allowed on the plane? Surely part of the passport/no-fly-list check would have caught that. Or did he drive to Mexico and fly from there?

fchollet 13y ago
The drive from Hawaii to Mexico must be an interesting one.
- Jabbles 13y ago
  Well that's embarrassing... Still, why aren't airports checking if people specifically banned from flying are trying to fly?
  - mseebach 13y ago
    They are, but he wasn't (and probably isn't) specifically banned from flying.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      Snowden says that NSA employees (and presumably, NSA subcontractors) are expected to file notices of intent to travel 30 days prior to departure, and notes that they will be tracked while they're away. He also says he took a huge risk by traveling without notice. It sounds like he discovered a (soon to be closed) loophole in that people subject to this rule aren't placed on a no-fly list by default. I wonder if one official response will be to change that rule, so that the 30 days advance notice becomes "hand your passprot to your employer, and don't expect to get it back without making a request at least 30 days in advance."
      - MartinCron 13y ago
        people subject to this rule aren't placed on a no-fly list by default My understanding is that it's nearly impossible to get a name removed from a no-fly list. It seems like a very imprecise tool for this sort of problem.
        alexqgb 13y ago
        That's true of the list in its current form because the security agencies have (or had) zero interest in making it otherwise and because they're largely insulated from public pressure. However, having realized that this inflexibility means it can't be used to effectively govern the travel of people with security clearances, there's a very good chance that the system that was perviously impervious to change will suddenly become very flexible - at least so far as development benefits the security agencies.
      - mseebach 13y ago
        I would think the impetus is on not clearing "bad apples" in the first place and getting physical security improved (he walked off with a USB pen drive). After all, you can still trivially leak from inside the US - also, it's not like you can keep NSA employees from ever taking trips abroad, and if you have measure in place that can find people who are about to leak stuff when they put in their 30 days foreign holiday request, the much simpler solution is to just run that measure all the time.
acomar 13y ago
It's an employer policy, and it has nothing to do with the passport or no-fly-list. In normal circumstances, flying without declaring his travel would put his clearance in jeopardy and he'd have federal marshals waiting for him upon his return. Similarly, he'd have security officers checking up on him at home if he failed to show up at work on time (and failed to answer the check up call).
- Jabbles 13y ago
  If he failed to show up for work, officers would be sent out of concern for his wellbeing. The whole point of banning him from leaving the country is to try to prevent him "defecting". Waiting for him to come back is pointless. He's already not allowed "to defect" - so not allowing him to leave the country is stupid if no one is going to enforce it. Finally, when your employer is the NSA, I figure they'd have different/special rules. Do any non-governmental jobs forbid flying due to "policy"? defect may not be quite the right word - flee?
  - acomar 13y ago
    > If he failed to show up for work, officers would be sent out of concern for his wellbeing. Right, but it's dishonest to pretend that's the only motivation. > The whole point of banning him from leaving the country is to try to prevent him "defecting". Waiting for him to come back is pointless. He's already not allowed "to defect" - so not allowing him to leave the country is stupid if no one is going to enforce it. Preventing defection takes a lot of different tacks (social pressure, education, threat of prosecution, etc.).
  - chiph 13y ago
    There can be corporate policies that forbid two or more key employees from flying on the same plane for fear of losing irreplaceable knowledge & skills if it crashes.
mseebach 13y ago
It's imprecise to link that to the NSA, it's standard procedure for anyone who holds TS clearances. From the NSA's ever so slightly less sinister sister, the USDA: http://www.dm.usda.gov/ocpm/Security%20Guide/S4self/Intro.htm http://www.dm.usda.gov/ocpm/Security%20Guide/S4self/Intro.ht...
- walshemj 13y ago
  I am amused that even Canada requires an anti terrorist briefing before going.
irishcoffee 13y ago
Because he is not an NSA employee. I don't think he ever was. In fact I'm confident he never was. A govie contractor is not even in the same hemisphere as a government employee.

by Jabbles 13y ago

fchollet 13y ago

The drive from Hawaii to Mexico must be an interesting one.

Jabbles 13y ago
Well that's embarrassing... Still, why aren't airports checking if people specifically banned from flying are trying to fly?
- mseebach 13y ago
  They are, but he wasn't (and probably isn't) specifically banned from flying.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Snowden says that NSA employees (and presumably, NSA subcontractors) are expected to file notices of intent to travel 30 days prior to departure, and notes that they will be tracked while they're away. He also says he took a huge risk by traveling without notice. It sounds like he discovered a (soon to be closed) loophole in that people subject to this rule aren't placed on a no-fly list by default. I wonder if one official response will be to change that rule, so that the 30 days advance notice becomes "hand your passprot to your employer, and don't expect to get it back without making a request at least 30 days in advance."
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      people subject to this rule aren't placed on a no-fly list by default My understanding is that it's nearly impossible to get a name removed from a no-fly list. It seems like a very imprecise tool for this sort of problem.
      - alexqgb 13y ago
        That's true of the list in its current form because the security agencies have (or had) zero interest in making it otherwise and because they're largely insulated from public pressure. However, having realized that this inflexibility means it can't be used to effectively govern the travel of people with security clearances, there's a very good chance that the system that was perviously impervious to change will suddenly become very flexible - at least so far as development benefits the security agencies.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      I would think the impetus is on not clearing "bad apples" in the first place and getting physical security improved (he walked off with a USB pen drive). After all, you can still trivially leak from inside the US - also, it's not like you can keep NSA employees from ever taking trips abroad, and if you have measure in place that can find people who are about to leak stuff when they put in their 30 days foreign holiday request, the much simpler solution is to just run that measure all the time.

acomar 13y ago

It's an employer policy, and it has nothing to do with the passport or no-fly-list. In normal circumstances, flying without declaring his travel would put his clearance in jeopardy and he'd have federal marshals waiting for him upon his return. Similarly, he'd have security officers checking up on him at home if he failed to show up at work on time (and failed to answer the check up call).

Jabbles 13y ago
If he failed to show up for work, officers would be sent out of concern for his wellbeing. The whole point of banning him from leaving the country is to try to prevent him "defecting". Waiting for him to come back is pointless. He's already not allowed "to defect" - so not allowing him to leave the country is stupid if no one is going to enforce it. Finally, when your employer is the NSA, I figure they'd have different/special rules. Do any non-governmental jobs forbid flying due to "policy"? defect may not be quite the right word - flee?
- acomar 13y ago
  > If he failed to show up for work, officers would be sent out of concern for his wellbeing. Right, but it's dishonest to pretend that's the only motivation. > The whole point of banning him from leaving the country is to try to prevent him "defecting". Waiting for him to come back is pointless. He's already not allowed "to defect" - so not allowing him to leave the country is stupid if no one is going to enforce it. Preventing defection takes a lot of different tacks (social pressure, education, threat of prosecution, etc.).
- chiph 13y ago
  There can be corporate policies that forbid two or more key employees from flying on the same plane for fear of losing irreplaceable knowledge & skills if it crashes.

mseebach 13y ago

It's imprecise to link that to the NSA, it's standard procedure for anyone who holds TS clearances. From the NSA's ever so slightly less sinister sister, the USDA: http://www.dm.usda.gov/ocpm/Security%20Guide/S4self/Intro.htm http://www.dm.usda.gov/ocpm/Security%20Guide/S4self/Intro.ht...

walshemj 13y ago
I am amused that even Canada requires an anti terrorist briefing before going.

irishcoffee 13y ago

Because he is not an NSA employee. I don't think he ever was. In fact I'm confident he never was. A govie contractor is not even in the same hemisphere as a government employee.