6 ms·

I don't mean to undermine the effort of put into the lawsuit and this careful analysis. But... Shocking. Government has access to passenger's itinerary. I mean,

by snitko 13y ago

I don't mean to undermine the effort of put into the lawsuit and this careful analysis. But... Shocking. Government has access to passenger's itinerary. I mean, with all the recent revelations, we might have just assumed that.

lisper 13y ago
You have missed the point. It is not that the government has access to your itinerary, it is that low-level government officials (apparently) have access to your itinerary with no administrative oversight whatsoever. The NSA at least puts on a show of getting FISA court approval. But DHS isn't even going through the motions. The key passage from the article: "The implication is that rather than search its own ATS database of copies of PNR data, the ICE investigator searched the airline’s own internal PNR database, using the DHS root access to the Sabre computerized reservation system (CRS) used by American Airlines. That was probably easier than searching ATS because the way DHS “ingests” PNR data from CRSs into ATS leaves the data less well indexed in TECS and ATS than it was (and still is — the airline sends DHS a copy, but of course retains the PNR data itself) in the CRS. Notably, there’s nothing to indicate that the ICE investigator needed approval from a supervisor to go into Sabre, or tried some other source of PNR information (e.g. the internal ATS database of DHS copies of PNR data) first. Root access to Sabre was apparently at his fingertips, and his use of it warranted no special comment and no recording of compliance with any authorization protocols. It was a routine tool for him."
- snitko 13y ago
  I, personally, have no trust in any government, so I sort of assumed that too. But that's me. I think you're right and it raises an important question for others, whether the government is really what they think it is.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    That sort of cynicism is probably the chief enabler of such corruption. As with any other human endeavor, government will never be perfect, but that isn't a reason to give up on holding government to high standards. It is reasonable to take precautionary steps in your personal life while at the very same time demanding that the government behave such that those steps are completely unnecessary.
    - icelancer 13y ago
      Some of us believe the government can't be "fixed." Who watches the watchers, and all that.
- shawn-furyan 13y ago
  I think this even misses the broader point a little. For political opponents of particular government actions, constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures do not exist if you travel internationally. Of course, DHS has been given extraordinary power when it comes to searches and seizure under the presumption that those powers would be used only to protect our boarders. But here they've been used to circumvent the legal framework for searches pertaining to domestic investigations, which exist largely so this sort of thing won't happen. The DHS has broken that presumed mandate, and abused its extraordinary powers not for heroic ends like the action movie cop that just wants to get the ultimate bad guy, but to harass people associated with inconvenient political groups. It's evidence that, as we might have suspected if we were more rational as a country after 9/11, that no government agency, no matter how noble its mandate, can handle the responsibility of being handed its own reigns. It's a clear indication that the full power of the constitution needs to encompass all government agencies and all of their associated actions.
001sky 13y ago
I mean, with all the recent revelations, we might have just assumed that. Assuming things versus verifying things are two different ways to live your life.
rayiner 13y ago
Uh, what exactly is shocking about this? The government has the right to know the precise identity of each and every person that's crossing its borders. It's also reasonably entitled to know the identify of each person flying into its sovereign airspace. How do you think they enforce visas and customs?
- snitko 13y ago
  I would start with the question of why is it that people need visas. We live on the same earth. We should be allowed to travel wherever we want. It's ridiculous.
  - functional_test 13y ago
    Since you're being downvoted, but no one has commented to explain why (it's not just that your opinion is unpopular), I feel like I should put in my thoughts. I once felt the way you do, but upon reflection I don't any longer, so I thought I should share why. While you may believe that current surveillance has gone too far, advocating for no security is much too far the other direction. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Without any visas or border control, you have no way to prevent ingress and egress of known criminals, people carrying infectious diseases, or any of myriad other actually real threats. Just because people exaggerate threats like terrorism does not mean there is nothing to defend against. It is also important to prevent people who have no means of sustenance from moving into your country and becoming a burden. In no way am I implying that exceptions should not be granted for asylum or other exceptional circumstances. However, being in a country is a bit like being in a club -- everyone pays dues (taxes) and there are perks too. Why should club members want to give everyone the perks while they have all the responsibilities? Your thought that people should try to be closer to one another is admirable, but I think if you reflect on it further, you'll agree that some forms of restriction are necessary.
    - snitko 13y ago
      The problem is not that there are restrictions, but who imposes them and for what reason. Governments, for example, mostly don't want people to come and work illegally. Well, why do you think that is? It's because they would compete with the local labour force who would suffer in this case. Often forgotten is the fact that currently it's consumers who suffer from higher prices - this fact doesn't get nearly as much attention. Diseases and criminal activity is just a small fraction of all immigration issues. Government doesn't care about it as much. I'd be absolutely fine with them if those were the only restrictions.

by snitko 13y ago

lisper 13y ago

You have missed the point. It is not that the government has access to your itinerary, it is that low-level government officials (apparently) have access to your itinerary with no administrative oversight whatsoever. The NSA at least puts on a show of getting FISA court approval. But DHS isn't even going through the motions. The key passage from the article: "The implication is that rather than search its own ATS database of copies of PNR data, the ICE investigator searched the airline’s own internal PNR database, using the DHS root access to the Sabre computerized reservation system (CRS) used by American Airlines. That was probably easier than searching ATS because the way DHS “ingests” PNR data from CRSs into ATS leaves the data less well indexed in TECS and ATS than it was (and still is — the airline sends DHS a copy, but of course retains the PNR data itself) in the CRS. Notably, there’s nothing to indicate that the ICE investigator needed approval from a supervisor to go into Sabre, or tried some other source of PNR information (e.g. the internal ATS database of DHS copies of PNR data) first. Root access to Sabre was apparently at his fingertips, and his use of it warranted no special comment and no recording of compliance with any authorization protocols. It was a routine tool for him."

snitko 13y ago
I, personally, have no trust in any government, so I sort of assumed that too. But that's me. I think you're right and it raises an important question for others, whether the government is really what they think it is.
- Amadou 13y ago
  That sort of cynicism is probably the chief enabler of such corruption. As with any other human endeavor, government will never be perfect, but that isn't a reason to give up on holding government to high standards. It is reasonable to take precautionary steps in your personal life while at the very same time demanding that the government behave such that those steps are completely unnecessary.
  - icelancer 13y ago
    Some of us believe the government can't be "fixed." Who watches the watchers, and all that.
shawn-furyan 13y ago
I think this even misses the broader point a little. For political opponents of particular government actions, constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures do not exist if you travel internationally. Of course, DHS has been given extraordinary power when it comes to searches and seizure under the presumption that those powers would be used only to protect our boarders. But here they've been used to circumvent the legal framework for searches pertaining to domestic investigations, which exist largely so this sort of thing won't happen. The DHS has broken that presumed mandate, and abused its extraordinary powers not for heroic ends like the action movie cop that just wants to get the ultimate bad guy, but to harass people associated with inconvenient political groups. It's evidence that, as we might have suspected if we were more rational as a country after 9/11, that no government agency, no matter how noble its mandate, can handle the responsibility of being handed its own reigns. It's a clear indication that the full power of the constitution needs to encompass all government agencies and all of their associated actions.

001sky 13y ago

I mean, with all the recent revelations, we might have just assumed that. Assuming things versus verifying things are two different ways to live your life.

rayiner 13y ago

Uh, what exactly is shocking about this? The government has the right to know the precise identity of each and every person that's crossing its borders. It's also reasonably entitled to know the identify of each person flying into its sovereign airspace. How do you think they enforce visas and customs?

snitko 13y ago
I would start with the question of why is it that people need visas. We live on the same earth. We should be allowed to travel wherever we want. It's ridiculous.
- functional_test 13y ago
  Since you're being downvoted, but no one has commented to explain why (it's not just that your opinion is unpopular), I feel like I should put in my thoughts. I once felt the way you do, but upon reflection I don't any longer, so I thought I should share why. While you may believe that current surveillance has gone too far, advocating for no security is much too far the other direction. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Without any visas or border control, you have no way to prevent ingress and egress of known criminals, people carrying infectious diseases, or any of myriad other actually real threats. Just because people exaggerate threats like terrorism does not mean there is nothing to defend against. It is also important to prevent people who have no means of sustenance from moving into your country and becoming a burden. In no way am I implying that exceptions should not be granted for asylum or other exceptional circumstances. However, being in a country is a bit like being in a club -- everyone pays dues (taxes) and there are perks too. Why should club members want to give everyone the perks while they have all the responsibilities? Your thought that people should try to be closer to one another is admirable, but I think if you reflect on it further, you'll agree that some forms of restriction are necessary.
  - snitko 13y ago
    The problem is not that there are restrictions, but who imposes them and for what reason. Governments, for example, mostly don't want people to come and work illegally. Well, why do you think that is? It's because they would compete with the local labour force who would suffer in this case. Often forgotten is the fact that currently it's consumers who suffer from higher prices - this fact doesn't get nearly as much attention. Diseases and criminal activity is just a small fraction of all immigration issues. Government doesn't care about it as much. I'd be absolutely fine with them if those were the only restrictions.