Archive for the ‘Papers, Please’ Category

Why did the TSA prevent these people from flying?

Thursday, April 9th, 2015

Documents newly released to us by the TSA strongly suggest that the TSA has been lying about whether people are “allowed” by the TSA to fly without showing ID, and that decisions about whether to allow travelers to fly without ID are being made arbitrarily, on the basis of irrelevant and unreliable commercial data and/or at the “discretion” of individual field-level TSA staff.  The TSA documents also show that, at least for the limited sample of data initially released, the “false-positive” rate of watch-list matches is 100%.

The TSA has for many years been contradicting itself, both in word and in deed, as to whether travelers are required show government-issued (or any other) ID credentials in order to fly, or whether it is possible to fly without ID.

TSA signs at airports say that passengers are “required” to show ID. But the TSA has repeatedly told courts at all levels — from in camera (secret) submissions to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Gilmore v. Gonzales in 2006 to public testimony of the TSA’s witness in the (unsuccessful) state court frame-up of Phil Mocek in Albuquerque in 2011 — that these and other official TSA notices to passengers are false, that ID is not required to fly, and that the TSA does have (secret) “procedures” that allow people to fly without having or showing ID.

The TSA’s actions are equally bipolar.  People who say they have lost their ID cards or had them stolen are “allowed” to fly every day.  But people who the TSA deems (for secret or not-so-secret reasons, or completely arbitrarily) to  be”suspicious” or “uncooperative” are routinely subjected to retaliation and summary sanctions including denial of  their right to travel.  Mr. Mocek, for example, was both prevented from boarding the flight for which he had a valid ticket, and falsely arrested by local police at the behest of TSA staff, when he tried to fly without ID and to document the process that the TSA claimed would have allowed him to do so.

What’s the real story? From our close reading of the available evidence, it appears that:

  1. There are no publicly-disclosed “rules” (and probably not even any unambiguous secret rules) defining what is or is not permitted or required of travelers at TSA checkpoints, or what conditions the TSA imposes on the exercise of the right to travel by air.
  2. The TSA claims to have the legal authority, and in practice exercises actual power, to determine who to allow to fly, and who not to allow to fly, in an entirely secret, standardless, and arbitrary manner, at its sole discretion, which discretion is often delegated to front-line TSA staff.

How does this work in practice? We are just beginning to find out.

(more…)

Smile for the camera, citizen!

Monday, March 23rd, 2015

The Department of Homeland Security is extending its photography of travelers at US border crossings, ports, and international airports from foreign nationals to US citizens entering and leaving our own country.

On January 5, 2004, under an “interim final rule” for the “US-VISIT” program effective the same day it was published in the Federal Register, agents of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began fingerprinting and photographing foreign visitors on their arrival and again on their departure from the US.

At first, only those foreign citizens who required visas to enter the US were given this treatment.  A few countries. starting with Brazil, took this as a sign of their “least favored nation” status with the US government, and reciprocated by photographing and fingerprinting US citizens arriving in and departing from their countries. Many other countries didn’t take things quite so far, but partially reciprocated to the extent of increasing their visa or entry fees for US visitors, or imposing new fees where entry for US tourists had been free, to match the US$135 minimum fee for a tourist or transit visa to the US for citizens of most other countries.

On August 31, 2004, under yet another “interim” rule effective the same day it was published, fingerprinting and photography at US airports and borders was extended to citizens of countries in the US “visa waiver program”.

For the third phase of expansion of US-VISIT fingerprinting and photography of border crossers, the DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2006, giving organizations and individuals a chance to object before the rules were finalized. But the numerous objections, including ours, were ignored. In December 2008, the DHS promulgated a final rule extending the fingerprinting and photography of visitors to all non-US citizens, including permanent US residents (green-card holders).

Now, without bothering to propose or finalize any new regulations, DHS has announced through a non-binding “Privacy Impact Assessment” (PIA) posted on its website that CBP is already conducting a “Facial Recognition Air Entry Pilot” program under which some unspecified fraction of US citizens entering the US by air are being required to submit to facial photography by CBP agents:

U.S. citizens with U.S. e-passports arriving at air ports of entry testing the technology may be selected to participate in the pilot at port discretion. Individuals that are selected do not have the option to opt out of this process.

Facial recognition software is being used to compare the photos to the digital photos stored on the RFID chips in US citizens’ passports, and to assign a score indicating the robot’s “confidence” that the photo in the passport and the photo taken at the airport depict the same person. “The facial recognition system is a tool to assist CBPOs [CBP officers] in the inspection process.”

The selection is supposedly random, but there is no specified limit on how large the percentage of US citizens subjected to this requirement might be:

Supervisory CBPOs (SCBPO) will set the standard for the random selection criteria and have discretion to change the criteria as needed. For example, the SCBPO may choose to select every fifth traveler but may change to every third or every seventh traveler at his or her discretion.

DHS has a history of prolonging and expanding “tests” as cover for de facto full implementation of controversial requirements. There’s nothing in this PIA to rule out the extension of the “pilot” program to nine out of ten arriving US citizens, or 99 out of 100.

Disturbingly but characteristically, DHS suggests that US citizens returning to our own country can be required to do whatever is necessary to “satisfy” CBP officers:

A person claiming U.S. citizenship must establish that fact to the examining [CBP] officer’s satisfaction [emphasis added] and must present a U.S. passport or alternative documentation as required by 22 CFR part 53. If such applicant for admission fails to satisfy the examining immigration officer that he or she is a U.S. citizen, he or she shall thereafter be inspected as an alien.

(more…)

Amtrak lies about police use of passenger data

Friday, March 20th, 2015

Passenger Name Record (PNR) view from Amtrak "Police GUI". (Click image for larger version.)

The first “interim” release of documents responsive to our FOIA request for records of police and other government access to Amtrak reservation data show that Amtrak is not only giving police root access and a dedicated user interface to mine passenger data for general state and local law enforcement purposes, but also lying to passengers about this, misleading Amtrak’s own IT and planning staff about the legal basis for these actions, and violating Canadian if not necessarily US law.

Our FOIA request was prompted by Amtrak’s obviously incomplete response to an earlier FOIA request from the ACLU.  That response omitted any mention  of government access to Amtrak reservation data, even though we’ve seen records of Amtrak travel in DHS files about individual  citizens obtained in response to previous Privacy Act and FOIA requests. The documents we have just received were clearly responsive to the ACLU’s request, and should have been, but weren’t, included in Amtrak’s response to that request.

Amtrak is still working on our request, but has begun providing us with responsive records as it completes “processing” of them: search, retrieval, and redaction. (Amtrak is even further behind in responding to some other FOIA requests, such as this one for certain disciplinary records related to misconduct by Amtrak Police.)

The first “interim” release to us by Amtrak includes just a few documents: a 2004 letter from US Customs and Border Potection (CBP) to the Amtrak Police legal department, requesting “voluntary” provision by Amtrak to CBP of Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS) identification data about all passengers on international Amtrak trains, and a 2004-2005 project summary and scoping document for the work that would be required by Amtrak’s IT department to automate the collection, maintenance in Amtrak’s “ARROW” passenger reservation database, and delivery to CBP of this data.

(more…)

Appeals court hears argument on appeal by “Freedom Flyer” Phil Mocek

Wednesday, March 18th, 2015

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit US Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Denver yesterday on the lawsuit brought by “Freedom Flyer” Phil Mocek against the TSA checkpoint staff and Albuquerque police responsible for falsely arresting him and trying to delete his audio and video recordings in retaliation for his trying to exercise his Constitutional rights to travel by air without carrying government-issued ID documents, and to film and record the TSA’s “ID verification” process for flyers without ID.

Mr. Mocek was able to recover his audio and video recording after the police returned his camera when they let him out of jail. On the basis of that recording, Mr. Mocek was acquitted by an Albuquerque jury of all of the trumped-up criminal charges.

After his acquittal, Mr. Mocek filed a Federal civil rights lawsuit against the TSA, the Albuquerque police department, and the individual TSA employees and ABQ airport police responsible for violating his rights.

Mr. Mocek’s lawsuit was dismissed, before it could go to trial, by US District Court Judge James Browning in Albuquerque, who ruled that Mr. Mocek had “failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.”

The issue in rulings like this is not whether the plaintiff (Mr. Mocek) has proven his case, or what the judge believes actually happened. Those are issues for a jury to decide, after hearing the evidence presented in a trial. A motion to dismiss can be granted only if — even assuming that everything the plaintiff says in the complaint can be proven to be true — those facts would not be sufficient to constitute a basis for a finding that the plaintiff’s legal rights have been violated.

That’s what is now being considered by three judges of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Presiding Judge Timothy Tymkovich and Judges  Neil Gorsuch and Jerome Holmes), and that was argued before them on Tuesday morning in Denver by lawyers representing Mr. Mocek, the TSA and its employees, and the city of Albuquerque (on behalf of the Albuquerque police department, its airport division, and its employees).

[Official audio recording by the court in downlaodable podcast and streaming formats.]

Clearly there are problems with the Albuquerque Police Department which might call for oversight or corrective action by the Federal courts. Five cases, all of them appeals from decisions of the US District Court for New Mexico, were argued on Tuesday before the 10th Circuit panel that heard argument in Mocek v. Albuquerque et al. Of those five cases, three were lawsuits against the Albuquerque police, under the same Federal civil rights statute as in Mr. Mocek’s case, for a variety of violations of individuals’ Constitutional rights by the police department and its officers.

In many respects, all of these appeals concerned the limits of legal liability, and the corresponding limits of impunity, for actions by government agencies and agents that violate individuals’ rights.

(more…)

REAL-ID Act implementation, enforcement, and resistance

Monday, February 23rd, 2015

Is gradual implementation of the REAL-ID Act cooking us slowly, like frogs who, if the temperature of the water is increased gradually enough, don’t realize that they need to jump out of the pot until it’s too late?

Last month was another of the deadlines set by the Department of Homeland Security for “implementation” and “enforcement” of the REAL-ID Act.  That also makes it time for stepped-up resistance to REAL-ID.

Understanding the meaning of this deadline, and the remaining deadlines to come, requires some background. Below is an overview of what the REAL-ID Act is, how and by whom it will be implemented and enforced, what it means to “comply” with the REAL-ID Act, what we can expect to happen next, and — perphaps most importantly — what we can do, now, to resist it.

The REAL-ID Act of 2005 is a Federal law intended to mandate the creation of a distributed but integrated national database of personal identity records (including birth certificates or alternative “breeder documents” [sic]) linked to state-issued identity credentials. The REAL-ID Act also includes Federal standards for the physical ID cards, including drivers’ licenses or alternative non-driver ID cards, issued by US states and territories. But the real focus is on the database: what data will be included and how it will be normalized and made accessible through a single user query interface.

The Federal government can, and often does, bribe states with Federal funding to do things the way the Feds want. But the REAL-ID Act didn’t include funding for state-level implementation, and was based (like many other DHS programs, such as its multi-billion dollar mandates for modifications to airline IT systems to support surveillance and control of air travelers) on gross underestimates of its cost. In any event, some states strongly opposed the whole idea of a national ID scheme, and would probably have declined to participate even if the Feds had been willing to foot the bill.

The states already manage the issuance of drivers’ licenses and non-driver ID cards, which are most US citizens’ primary government-issued identity credentials.  Setting up a Federally-administered ID credential system would have been vastly more expensive and politically controversial than leaving it to the states.

So the problem for the architects of “REAL-ID” was how to induce all the states and territories to “comply” with goals and standards that would neither be officially binding on the states, nor financed by the Feds.

The workaround for indirect coercion of state governments was to threaten Federal sanctions against individual residents of states that don’t comply with the REAL-ID Act. The sponsors of REAL-ID hoped that these threats would scare voters into lobbying their state legislators’ to bring their states into line with the Feds’ desires.

The REAL-ID Act doesn’t officially “require” states or individuals to do anything.  Its “enforcement” mechanism is a prohibition on acceptance for “Federal purposes” of drivers’ licenses or other ID credentials issued by states or territories that don’t comply with the requirements in the Federal law and the implementing regulations issued by the DHS.

There was still a problem for the DHS and the other backers of REAL-ID, however: How to make the threat of sanctions against residents of “noncompliant” states sufficiently harsh and sufficiently credible to get them to pressure their state governments to comply, without catalyzing a mass movement of grassroots resistance by outraged victims (or potential victims, or their supporters) of those sanctions.

The strategy adopted by the DHS has been to phase in the sanctions very gradually, over a period of many years, starting with those which would have the least significant consequences.  The problem for the DHS is that those threats which are most intimidating are those which would be most likely to provoke blowback against the Feds, and lead to more pressure on Congress to repeal the REAL-ID Act. The result has been a decade-long game of chicken between the DHS and reluctant or resistant state governments.

The DHS won’t (and politically can’t) admit the possibility that states won’t kowtow to its demands. State legislators can’t believe that the DHS would really be able to get away with denying access to Federally-controlled facilities and programs (more on that below) to all residents of noncompliant states, as well as residents of compliant states who are unable and/or unwilling to satisfy the documentary prerequisites for issuance of a REAL-ID compliant ID card.

When states haven’t complied — because they didn’t want to, or because they couldnt’t afford to, or because it was taking longer than expected to develop the infrastructure for the distributed database  — the DHS postponed the deadlines.

It’s been a decade since the REAL-ID act of 2005 was enacted, and most residents of “noncompliant” states have yet to be subjected to any Federal consequences for not having a REAL-ID card.  The criterion for “compliance” is political obeisance and stated or inferred intent, not action. All states that said they intended eventually to comply were deemed to be “compliant”, and given extensions of time to get with the program in practice. Even some states which enacted state laws prohibiting state agencies from implementing REAL-ID procedures have been “certified” by the DHS to be in “constructive compliance” with the required intent to comply.

Is this DHS certiification wishful thinking? What will these states do as the deadlines approach? That remains to be seen, and depends primarily on what individual residents of those states do.

(more…)

Hearing March 17th in Denver on “Freedom Flyer” Phil Mocek’s appeal

Wednesday, February 4th, 2015

Oral arguments on “Freedom Flyer” Phil Mocek’s appeal of the dismissal of his Federal civil rights lawsuit against the TSA employees and Albuquerque police responsible for falsely arresting him at a TSA checkpoint at the Albuquerque airport in 2009 have been scheduled for Tuesday, March 17th, in Denver, Colorado.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing will be (sort of) open to the public, with caveats as discussed below.

Mr. Mocek was arrested — valid boarding pass in hand — in retaliation for trying to exercise his First Amendment rights to (a) travel by licensed interstate common carrier and (b) film and record what happened when he tried to fly without having government-issued ID credentials in his possession.

Despite the inept efforts of the police to destroy the evidence against themselves (Mr. Mocek’s audio and video recording of his false arrest, which he was able to recover) and their equally inept efforts to lie about what had happened in their written reports and in their testimony at Mr. Mocek’s criminal trial, Mr. Mocek was acquitted by an Albuquerque jury on January 21, 2011, of all of the charges that were trumped up after the fact to try to justify his arrest.

On November 14, 2011, Mr., Mocek sued the TSA, the city of Albuquerque and its police, and the individual TSA employees and police officers responsible for depriving him of his civil rights.

In pre-trial rulings on January 24, 2013 and February 28, 2014, a Federal District Court judge in Albuquerque dismissed all of Mr. Mocek’s complaints against the various Federal government, local government, and individual defendants on the grounds that:

  • The TSA and its employees were not responsible for what happened to Mr. Mocek after they called the police. The TSA swears that its checkpoint staff have no authority to arrest anyone or tell the police to do so. But this issue is now the subject of an explicitly acknowledged dispute between the 4th Circuit (”It is an undoubtedly natural consequence of reporting a person to the police that the person will be arrested; especially in the scenario we have here, where TSA and [airport] police act in close concert”) and the 3rd Circuit (”[I]t seems just as likely that police officers who are summoned by TSA Officials would use their own independent discretion to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to take someone into custody”).
  • The defendants all had “qualified immunity” from liability because the First Amendment right to film and record the actions of the TSA and police at a checkpoint for passengers passing through a publicly-owned and operated airport en route to flights operated by Federally-licensed interstate common carriers was either nonexistent or not “clearly established”.  This makes a mockery, of course, not just of the First Amendment itself but of the entire body of “Freedom Rider” case law concerning the First Amendment rights of interstate common-carrier (bus) passengers passing thrrough publicly and even at privately-owned and operated terminal and transit facilities.
  • The arrest of Mr. Mocek was permissible because the police “had reasonable suspicion to demand that Mocek produce identifying documents, and, upon his failure to comply, probable cause for his arrest.”  This claim fundamentally misconstrues both New Mexico law on ID and key aspects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court.

Mr. Mocek then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Written briefs were filed by Mr. Mocek (Appellent/Petitioner) and the original defendants (Appellees/Respondents):

Oral argument before a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled for Tuesday, March 17, 2015, beginning at 9 a.m., in Courtroom 2 of the Byron White U.S. Courthouse, 1823 Stout St., Denver, CO. Oral argument will probably last no more than an hour, but there are five cases on the same 9 a.m. argument calendar, so people planning to attend should probably allow the whole morning.

“Identification” is required to enter the courthouse, but there don’t appear to be any published rules as to what constitutes sufficient ID. According to Local Rule 57.4 (”Security”):

On request of a United States marshal, court security officer, federal protective service officer, or court official, anyone within or seeking entry to any court building shall produce identification and state the nature of his or her business. Failure to provide identification or information shall be grounds for removal or exclusion from the building.

Photography, audio or video recording, or broadcasting are prohibited anywhere inside the courthouse (not just in courtrooms).  Cameras and recording or broadcasting devices that lack any other functions are barred form the courthouse. Cell phone, laptops, and other electronic devices are allowed in the courthouse, and may be used (silently and without photography or audio or video recording or broadcasting) in the courtroom, subject to these rules of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, which manages the building in which both courts are located.

There’s more information in our FAQ’s about the original events and Mr. Mocek’s false arrest and eventual acquittal on criminal charges and about Mr. Mocek’s ongoing Federal civil rights lawsuit which is the subject of this appellate hearing.

We’ll be in Denver on March 17th to observe and report on this hearing and to show our continued support for Mr. Mocek. We invite you to join us inside and/or outside the courthouse, and/or to help pay off Mr. Mocek’s debts for the costs of defending himself against the original false criminal charges.

Wikileaks publishes CIA reports on travel ID checks

Monday, January 12th, 2015

Wikileaks has published two internal briefing documents produced for the use of CIA undercover agents, describing the methods used by airlines and governments to identify international travelers.

Both of these reports were produced as part of the CIA’S previously-unknown CHECKPOINT program of travel ID-related activities:

This product has been prepared by CIA’s CHECKPOINT Identity and Travel Intelligence Program. Located in the Identity Intelligence Center (i2c) within the Directorate of Science and Technology, CHECKPOINT serves the Intelligence Community by providing tailored identity and travel intelligence products. CHECKPOINT collects, analyzes, and disseminates information to help US intelligence personnel protect their identities and operational activities while abroad.

One of the reports, “Surviving Secondary“, describes ID-related “secondary screening” procedures at international airports, with examples from the US, EU, and other countries around the world.  The other report is an overview of, “The European Union’s Schengen biometric-based border-management systems.”

Most of the airline and government profiling and “screening” activities described in the reports, are already well-known.  These include many of the ways that governments obtain and use Passenger Name Record (PNR) and Advance Passenger Information (API or APIS) data derived form airline reservations.

But these newly-released reports also confirm that the CIA (and the other agencies with which the reports have been shared within the US government) are aware of some airline and government activities and some vulnerabilities for travelers which we and others have complained about, but which the US government has not previously acknowledged.

One problem confirmed by the CIA report on secondary screening is that government agencies can, and routinely do, obtain and use PNR, API, and other airline data, without legal authority or due process:

Security services lacking APIS or PNR information may have other arrangements to receive passenger manifests ahead of time. For example, the Airport Police Intelligence Brigade (BIPA) of the Chilean Investigative Police does not routinely obtain advance passenger manifests but can request the information from airlines on an ad hoc basis to search for targets of interest. Strict privacy laws covering Danish citizens extend to all passengers traveling through Copenhagen airport such that the Danish Police Intelligence Service (PET) cannot legally obtain routine access to flight manifests. However, if one of PET’s four cooperative airline contacts is on duty, the service can unofficially request a search on a specific name, according to August 2007 liaison reporting.

Airline data obtained by government agencies through these extrajudicial channels is used for profiling and targeting of searches, questioning, and other adverse actions against travelers.

This practice is illegal in many of the countries where it is routine, but typically occurs without leaving a trace.  Many airline staff are willing to betray their customers’ privacy to government agencies. And because no records are kept of who accesses PNR data, both government agents and their airline collaborators know that they are unlikely to be held accountable unless they confess or are caught in the act.

The persistence of routine “informal”, often illegal, and almost always unrecorded government access to airline data about travelers highlights a crucial issue we’ve been talking about for years: the complete absence of access logging in the architecture of the computerized reservation systems (CRSs) which host airlines’ PNR databases.  CRSs have PNR change logs, but no PNR access logs.

Governments and travelers must demand that CRSs add comprehensive access logging to their core functionality for PNR hosting. That won’t stop the problem. Airline staff will still be able to show government agents printouts or let them look at displays, with only the airline personnel’s  access being logged. But access logs will help, and are an essential first step toward control of PNR data “leakage”.

The CIA report on secondary screening also confirmed that the CIA is aware of the sensitivity and use by European governments (and presumably other governments) of associational information contained in fare basis codes, ticket designators, and travel agency IDs:

April 2007 reporting resulting from a liaison exchange with the Hungarian Special Service for National Security (SSNS) provides insights into factors considered by officers at Ferihegy airport in Budapest, Hungary when examining tickets. Officers check … whether the ticket fare code represents a government or military discount, or whether a government travel agency booked the ticket. Hotel and car reservations are similarly examined for unusual discounts or government affiliation.

Of course, the same PNR data elements and pricing and ticket designators can reveal other, non-governmental, affiliations between travelers and with other individuals and groups. If an airline gives a discount to members of a political organization, trade union, or other group attending a convention or meeting, for example, each PNR and ticket for a member who receives the discount typically includes some unique code.

Despite complaints, including ours, both US and European officials have denied that ticket designators and similar codes in PNRs can reveal sensitive associational data.  Now we know that this information is already being used by European governments, and that the CIA is aware of these uses.  There’s no more excuse for pretending that these data elements are innocuous or that they can be “shared” without risk to travelers.

DHS proposes ID and search rules for passengers on ocean-going ships

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published yesterday in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard has proposed that all so-called “cruise ship” ports be required to carry out airport-style searches (”screening) and check identity credentials of all embarking and disembarking passengers and any other visitors entering the port.

Entities responsible for the operations of large passenger vessels and ports are already required to submit “security” plans to the Coast Guard. Because those current plans are filed in secret, it’s not entirely clear how the  proposed requirements differ from current practices.

According to the NPRM, the Coast Guard’s guidelines for complying with the current regulations, in addition to various other supporting documents, were included in the rulemaking docket. We’ve confirmed with the docket office, however, that the Coast Guard never provided any of the supporting documents for posting on Regulations.gov or over-the-counter availability at the docket office. Presumably, a corrected notice with a new due date for comments will be published in the Federal Register once these documents are made publicly available.

From the summary in the NPRM, it appears that the main proposed changes are new requirements for port operators to:

(a) Screen all persons, baggage, and personal effects for dangerous substances and devices in accordance with the requirements in subpart E of this part;

(b) Check the identification of all persons seeking to enter the facility in accordance with §§ 101.514, 101.515, and 105.255 of this subchapter….

The difference in “screening” practices contemplated by the proposed rules seems to be that they would be more standardized than at present, more like those at airports, and would be required to enforce a Coast Guard “prohibited items” list.  Although the list of items prohibited from aircraft is designated as “Sensitive Security Information”, the Coast Guard has included a tentative list of items proposed to be prohibited from cruise ship cabin baggage in the proposed rules. At the same time, the proposed rules would provide that:

The Prohibited Items List does not contain all possible items that may be prohibited from being brought on a cruise ship by passengers. The Coast Guard and the cruise ship terminal reserve the right to confiscate (and destroy) any articles that in our discretion are considered dangerous or pose a risk to the safety and security of the ship, or our guests, and no compensation will be provided.

Cruise ship passengers are already required to “present personal identification in order to gian entry to a vessel [or port] facility,”  but it isn’t clear how or by whom this is supposed to be enforced. The propsoed rules would create a new obligation for port operators to check passengers’ ID credentials.

As with the definition of “prohibited items”, the definition of acceptable ID credentials is defined for air travel only in secret (SSI) TSA Security Directives and/or Standard Operating Procedures, but is defined publicly in Federal regulations for cruise ships.

The NPRM would leave the definition of acceptable ID unchanged. In addition to government-issued ID credentials, the regulations specifically provide for the acceptance of ID issued under thre authority of, “The individual’s employer, union, or trade association”, as long as it is laminated, includes a current photo, and baears the name of the issuing authority.

By its plain language, this regulation allows any self-employed person to issue their own self-signed personal ID credentials for access to port facilities.

That’s not inappropriate, since many self-employed contractors need to enter ports for business reasons.

In practice, most cruise lines enforce (with or without legal authority) ID requirements more stringent than those in Federal regulations. But we’d be interested in hearing from anyone who has presented self-signed ID credentials, in accordance with these regulations, for purposes of entry to a port or to board a cruise ship.  Some cruise lines alloow guests onboard while ships are in port, such as friends seeing off passengers. So you might be able to experiment without being a passenger yourself.

(more…)

DHS adds discrimination by national origin to pre-crime profiling of US visitors

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson announced this morning that, with immediate effect and with no advance notice or warning, foreign citizens “seeking to travel to the United States from countries in our Visa Waiver Program (VWP) will be required to provide additional data fields of information in the travel application submitted via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).”

The additional questions which have already been added to the newly “Enhanced” ESTA application include:

  • Other Names/Aliases
  • Other Citizenships
  • Parents name(s)
  • National Identification Number (if applicable)
  • U.S. Contact information (email, phone, points of contact)
  • Employment information (if applicable)
  • City of Birth

As discussed in our comments to DHS when it was first proposed, the ESTA is a a travel permission and exit-permit system of dubious legality. Prior application, payment of the ESTA fee (by credit card only, so that CBP has a credit card number on file to link the travel history of each ESTA applicant to a financial history), and receipt of ESTA approval is required by the US before boarding any flight departing from any other country in the world, with the intention of eventually traveling to the USA.

ESTA approval is not a guarantee of admission to the US, and the US has consistently and explicitly claimed that ESTA is solely a travel-permission scheme, not a visa requirement.  (If it were deemed a visa requirement, US citizens would likely be subjected to reciprocal visa requirements to visit VWP countries.)  So the sole purpose of adding questions to the ESTA application form is to add them to the inputs to the pre-crime profiling process that determines whether to allow an applicant to travel to the US for the purpose of applying, on arrival at a US port of entry, for visa-free admission to the US as a visitor.

In other words, the only reason to ask citizens of VWP countries about their other or prior citizenship(s), if any, is for DHS to discriminate between citizens of the same WVP country, in making ESTA permission-to-travel decisions, on the basis of those VWP-country citizens’ prior national origins.

This is a disgraceful act of overt US government bigotry, and all citizens of both the USA and VWP countries should be outraged.  Why should the US think it can treat citizens of, say, the UK or Germany differently on the basis of their national origin, as evidenced by what other countries’ passports they also hold or previously held? Such blatant discrimination against  US citizens on the basis of their national origin would be illegal on its face, although it has been standard illegal operating procedure for the DHS.

DHS claims in its FAQ about today’s ESTA “enhancements” that it can mandate provision of this additional information through a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notice of information collection, without needing to promulgate any new or revised regulations:

Why is DHS doing this under a Paperwork Reduction Act and not a regulation?

The relevant regulatory provision does not list the specific data elements that VWP travelers must provide in order to obtain an ESTA. Instead, the regulation states that “ESTA will collect such information as the Secretary [of Homeland Security] deems necessary to issue a travel authorization, as reflected by the I-94W Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form (I-94W).” Since there are no data elements listed in the regulation, there is no need to update the regulation. The revisions to the ESTA data elements fall under the Paperwork Reduction Act since DHS is amending an information collection (Form I-94W) and not amending a regulation.

The problem with this is that DHS has already added the new questions to the ESTA form, but doesn’t appear to have gotten the necessary approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for their inclusion.

DHS has a long history of ignoring the PRA and failing to get its forms approved by OMB. The PRA notice in the online ESTA application form refers to OMB approval control number 1651-0111, which was issued September 17, 2014. But the Federal Register notices and other documents submitted to OMB to support that approval don’t appear to have included the new questions added to the form today.

Supreme Court to review Constitutionality of warrantless police access to hotel guest logs

Monday, October 20th, 2014

Today the US Supreme Court agreed to review whether — as was decided en banc by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year — a Los Angeles city ordinance requiring hotel-keepers to identify guests, log their identities and the details of their hotel stays, and open those log books to police inspection at any time, without advance notice, any basis for suspicion, or a warrant or subpoena — is, on its face, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

It’s interesting that hotels are the context in which the Supreme Court has chosen to consider service providers’ Fourth Amendment objections to warrantless, suspicionless compelled police access to business transaction metadata about their customers’ identities, locations, and activities at particular times and dates.  The Supreme Court has yet to accept any cases dealing with such objections by telecommunications, air transportation, or internet service providers, despite the essentially similar issues in those industries.

The key difference is that few providers of other services have challenged the government’s demands in court, as hotel owners did in the case now known at the Supreme Court as City of Los Angeles v. Patel.

The Los Angeles hotel registry ordinance mandates exactly the same three essential elements, for example, as the Federal government’s system for outsourced dragnet surveillance and control of air travelers:

  1. Presentment to private service providers of government-issued ID credentials (to enable log entries to be compiled into, linked with, and mined from personal travel history dossiers).
  2. Recording by service providers of transaction metadata including locations, time, date, and customer ID information.
  3. Warrantless, suspicionless, “open book” police root access to these metadata logs at any time.

So far as we know, however, not one airline, travel agency (online or offline), or computerized reservations service (including Google, which now operates an airline reservations hosting service) has challenged any of the government’s dragnet demands for customer transaction, location, chronology, and ID metadata.

In its (successful) argument to the Supreme Court to take the case, the city of L.A. argues that state and local laws mandating identification, logging, and police access to logs of hotel guest information are “ubiquitous”, and that by the logic of the 9th Circuit decision all these laws could be found to be unconstitutional on their face. That’s true. Hotel guests (”outsiders”) have long been deemed per se suspicious persons, and hotel registry laws are among the oldest and most pervasive of (unconstitutional) laws mandating businesses to compile and maintain metadata about their customers’ and their activities and make it available to police, without warrant or suspicion for data mining or gumshoe fishing expeditions. That’s exactly why it’s so important for the Supreme Court to uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The hotel owners challenged only the requirement for warrantless open-book police access to hotel registries, and not the requirements for hotels to maintain such registries or for hotel guest to show ID. That’s still an important challenge, though, and one that goes further than other businesses (certainly further than any other travel businesses) have done to defend their customers’ rights not to treated as suspects.

We continue to commend the hotel owner plaintiffs/respondents in this case for their stand. Other businesses in the travel, communications, and Internet industries could and should bring similar court challenges when they are presented with similar (and similarly unconstitutional) government demands.  They cannot excuse their actions in spying on their customers by saying, “The government made us do it, and we had no choice,” if they never asked a court to rule on whether that “demand” was legally valid.