12 ms·

Court: Federal Law Allows Lying in TSA-Related FOIA Requests

• fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  "She then took... and needlessly delayed rulings, rather than to dispense with justice." She did dispense with justice. It would make more sense to me if you removed "with". And thanks for continuing to fight this crap.
  • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    Works for me... changed.
  • Amadou 13y ago
    > And thanks for continuing to fight this crap. Agreed. They only get away with it because most of us feel we can't afford to put enough of the rest of our lives on hold in order to fight it. So people like Corbett who are willing to make that sacrifice and fight the good fight are really important.
    • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
      You guys are welcome. I do hope it inspires someone else to take up a cause that they feel strongly about. I'm not a lawyer, but anyone who keeps up with HN is smart enough to learn how to draft and file a document. Even if you never win in court, you're moving the fight in the right direction.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• msandford 13y ago
  The asymmetry of the fight between an individual vs the TSA is mind-boggling. Especially today when accusations of guilt are enough to try someone in the court of public opinion and "convict" them. The lack of public outcry that ensues after bashing in the media makes it very difficult to get anything done as the TSA, other government officials and judges are all to happy to trample on rights so long as they're mostly out of the public eye. I wish you the best with your efforts. It's encouraging to see someone making the case for sanity in a system that's largely gone off the rails.
• eli 13y ago
  I don't think this headline is fair. TSA should probably not have lied about the existence of records, but since they weren't doing it in response to a federal FOIA request, I'm not sure they technically did anything wrong. And the Florida agency is supposed to defer to the TSA on this request so they also didn't really do anything wrong. Bit of a catch 22, I guess. Anyway, the judge threw out your case because you were seeking access to a video that you already (eventually) were provided -- so there was no case. IANAL.
  • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    The judge dismissed the public records charge for two reasons: 1) because they were allowed to lie, and 2) even if they weren't, they ended up getting the video, so now it's moot. The points stand separately. Incidentally, the mootness justification is incorrect as well. When a government action is capable of repetition while permanently evading review (as is clearly the case here: they're not allowed to lie, but if you catch them, it's moot), an exception to the mootness doctrine is created.
    • eli 13y ago
      I don't agree with your characterization that the judge endorsed lying. But good luck on your case. RCFP.org might be able to point you in the direction of a lawyer knowledgable in FOI law. I think you will need a good lawyer if you expect to prevail.
    • bradleyjg 13y ago
      The court never ruled one way or the other on the substantive question of whether FPRA was violated by Broward's lie. It suggests—in dicta—that it probably wasn't[1] but ultimately declines to definitively rule on the the issue[2]. [1] "The Court therefore has difficulty in concluding that Broward’s actions could be unlawful under the FPRA." [2] "At any rate, assuming without finding that Broward did not comply with the FPRA when denying the existence of the requested footage, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s FPRA claim ... is now moot". (Emphasis added)
    • andrewfong 13y ago
• triplesec 13y ago
  To the Supreme Court! I hope you have talked to the EFF and similar bodies who live for this kind of battle. I can introduce you if necessary, though I'm sure it's not. We need people like you doing this stuff, and more of us likewise. I'm working on my own technology approach to it quietly right now. In fact I need an electronics hacker to help me with the difficult bits if anyone is interested.
  • scott_karana 13y ago
    The ACLU is probably more appropriate, since it's not really in the EFF's purview, is it? If I'm wrong, I'd be happy: I love the EFF. Maybe they've expanded.
  • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    I've been in touch with good people from the ACLU, EFF, EPIC, etc., but they're busy fighting their own battles. Others may be more knowledgeable, but no one can fight for my interests more passionately than I can. Incidentally, in a separate case already in the Court of Appeals, I have the last court battle left regarding the constitutionality of the TSA's body scanners. EPIC, a bunch of attorneys, and some Harvard Law recent grads are all out of the game. My brief for that petition will be filed in about 4 weeks. Details: http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/new-petition-tsa-removes-91-body-scanners/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/new-petitio...
• sethbannon 13y ago
  This is no small matter. Without accountability, there will be no justice.
  • seiji 13y ago
    Nobody is accountable though. Who do we yell at? We can't blame the line employees. They are just state machines with no free will [N]. Their managers aren't empowered do anything either except harass you even more. Are there TSA "executives?" Politicians won't dare entertain the idea of defunding them. There is literally no solution. There exists no recourse any person alive can do to stand up against the TSA. [N]: Stop limiting liquid carry ons. Stop throwing them away in bulk containers that make no sense if you think they are potentially dangerous. I will give you $10,000 if you make my sunscreen or toothpaste explode more violently than the as-much-as-you-like-sir laptop batteries, phones, and iPads everybody carries.
    • stanleydrew 13y ago
      I suppose you could move to a different country and never return to the USA. I don't know if that qualifies as a "solution" though.
      • seiji 13y ago
        Last year at Heathrow, I got selected for a "random screening" where they take everything out of your luggage and scan every piece individually through the x-ray machine again. It takes me half an hour to pack my luggage, so the process took a while. I was not pleased that morning. (Amusing side anecdote: There was a group of mexican school kids passing through security at the same time. Some were also selected for random screening. The random screening lady was from Spain, but she told them the policy (law?) dictated she only speak to them in English even though everybody involved in the transaction spoke Spanish better than English.)
      • dataminer 13y ago
        Every other country has these problems, the bureaucratic machinery is all powerful, even more powerful than politicians whom you can vote out.
• rayiner 13y ago
  I suggest you read the actual opinion: http://tsaoutofourpants.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/corbett-v-tsa-full-dismissal.pdf http://tsaoutofourpants.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/corbett-.... Basically, the opinion decided three things: 1) The TSA acted reasonably to pixilate the names and faces of low-level TSA employees in the released videos; 2) The TSA's search for relevant documents was reasonable and the plaintiff did not provide any information that refuted the reasonableness of the search; and 3) The District Court was not empowered to review the substance of the redactions because Congress gave that power to the Courts of Appeal. I didn't see anything about the court sanctioning "lying." Basically this dude sounds like a crank who filed a pro se complaint with a laundry list of alleged Constitutional and statutory violations that didn't actually hold water and is now mad that the District Court told him to pound sand.
  • mpyne 13y ago
    I wonder if the submitter would also post unpixelated faces, names, etc. for employees who gave him bad service at a restaurant. I was actually quite taken aback that he's so eager to dox people, government workers or not.
    • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
      The TSA did not give me "bad service" -- they violated my rights. Government employees absolutely should be on notice that the public can and will inspect their behavior while on taxpayer time, and that they will be held responsible for abuse of the power lent to them by the people.
      • mpyne 13y ago
        > will inspect their behavior while on taxpayer time Government employees are taxpayers too, man.
        • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
          ...and so they also get a vote.
• ihsw 13y ago
  To sum it up, they can now deny instead of "neither confirm nor deny."
• trysomething 13y ago
  One thing we're learning is that Snowden/Greenwald merely revealed symptoms of a metastatic disease spreading through our government and society. The American State no longer exists to protect its founding ideals but rather to enlarge itself at any cost to its host, the American People. The USA was unique in that it held itself up to a standard that could never quite be reached. Our founders asked a very difficult question: given that societies exist and are prone to factionalism, how do we minimize oppression by the state against even the most obnoxious individuals ( http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm ). Their answer to Tyranny wasn't Anarchy .. Anarchy is simply a nation of many Tyrants. It was a state that controlled itself through separation of powers. Not just (as kids are taught) between the Legislature, Executive and Judicial branches, but also between the Federal and State governments, the State and Local governments etc. It was division of power by definition. Today, much like cancer cells I don't think the perpetrators are consciously doing anything wrong, it's simply in their DNA. This is a peculiar problem: past statist diseases like Fascism, Theocracy or Communism were easy to diagnose: they said what they meant and meant what they said. At this point, surgery or chemotherapy won't do. If the USA is to survive in any recognizable form, we are going to need to invent the analog of gene therapy. We are going to need to spread ideas and change the human DNA of our populace. I think it's happening, but could be quickly reversed if those who care for Liberty don't seriously involve themselves at some level.
• grandalf 13y ago
  There is simply no reason why any state secrets should be secret for more than 5 years. It's utterly absurd that something like the Kennedy assassination files are still kept secret. Much of what was in the Iraqi War Logs was simply to help the pro-war propaganda campaign. If Wikileaks has taught us anything, it's that we cannot trust our leaders to appropriately classify information.
  • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    I agree. Guaranteed, mandatory declassification after a period of time is a must if the people are truly to control their government. One cannot be said to have the right to vote if they do not have the right to have the facts upon which to cast their ballots. Five years seems great, but even if the period were 20 years, the fact that someday one's actions will be public will be enough to make them think twice.
    • nitrogen 13y ago
      For most things, I think 20 years would be too long, as most evil deeds would be irreversible faits accomplis at that point.
      • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        There's still the legacy left behind, though. I'm sure something could be worked out. Mandatory declassification review at 5 years, declassification absent an order from the President at 10 years, and mandatory declassification at 15 years (including the declassification of the declassification review and extension order at 10 years).
  • mpyne 13y ago
    There are military systems that don't even get fielded within 5 years of design start. I think 5 years is therefore way too short, at least as a generic number.
    • grandalf 13y ago
• joelrunyon 13y ago
  I'm always interested in how someone like this would feel about the Global Entry program(1). On one hand, you're getting out of the pat-downs and frisking every time you fly. On the other hand - you're arguably subjecting yourself to more permanent invasion of privacy by enrolling in their program. (1) http://www.globalentry.gov/ http://www.globalentry.gov/
  • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    I'm not a GE/PreCheck/Clear/Nexus member. It's not even the background check -- I simply will not pay a membership (extortion) fee to avoid being groped at the airport. The right not to be abused does not have a tax on it.
    • joelrunyon 13y ago
      That's sort of what I thought. I've only thought about doing it because the Amex Platinum card has a statement credit for it. I'm still hesitant about it just based on principle.
      • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        I'd ditch the AmEx platinum card too. ;) Do you really get $450 worth of value from your annual fee?
        • joelrunyon 13y ago
          With the lounges, credit + a few of the other perks - it pays for itself nicely for the regular traveler.
• crb002 13y ago
  Vaughn v Rosen http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2117854604861806727 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2117854604861806... The TSA has to provide you with an index of the materials and a legal reason for denying production of each.
• andrewfong 13y ago
  This post isn't entirely accurate. It's tempting to bash the courts for a decision you don't like, but after reading the opinion, I don't think the judge is obviously wrong (I say "obviously" because I haven't checked all of the citations for accuracy). Some key points from the opinion: * There is precedent stating that district courts do not have jurisdiction to review sensitive security issues and that this has to be considered by an appellate court. The main way to get to an appellate court is to dismiss the case at a district level. Therefore, I would consider this less the court saying "what the TSA did was proper" and more "I can't rule on that, but let's send you to the right court." * The plaintiff accuses Broward County of lying at the TSA's direction about the existence of the surveillance footage. Two issues here: (1) If the TSA is telling Broward to lie, then it's obviously the TSA's fault, not Broward's. But it's not clear from the opinion whether the plaintiff properly directed this accusation at the TSA as opposed to Broward, and courts can't automatically amend your complaint to go after the right person when you accused the wrong one. (2) The only relief requested by the plaintiff was that the court release the video. Since the video was released, there's nothing else the court can do to punish Broward county for lying. I realize a lot of this boils down to technicalities that don't really get to the substance of the actual legal claim, but that's how our legal system works (and for good reason -- the technicalities that slow down justice are the same ones that slow down injustice). One last point -- the author is angry at the court for needless delays and so forth. I don't know the particulars here, but I will note that it's probably less that he's being singled out and more because of budget cuts. Courts all around the country have been taking ridiculously long times to resolve issues ranging from child custody disputes to patent litigation.
• mpyne 13y ago
  This is the most hyperbolically exaggerated description of a court ruling I've seen on HN for weeks, and that's saying something. Everyone, please read the actual ruling before you comment here one way or the other.
  • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    If by "hyperbolically exaggerated" you're conceding that it's still true, ok then.
    • mpyne 13y ago
      Wow, this is meta. The idea that "hyperbolically exaggerated" is a euphemism for "true" is itself a pretty hyperbolic exaggeration.
      • tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        I think you're exaggerating (hyperbolically, of course).
• frank_boyd 13y ago
  > I'm a 28 year old entrepreneur and frequent flyer who opposes visual and manual inspection of the private parts of our bodies! I hope you'll join me in my fight to have our rights restored! Very noble goal, but my feeling is: Too late, not going to happen. Not by using any of the conventional "solutions", anyway.