Papers, Please!

The Identity Project

Monthly Archives: December 2014

Dec 11 2014

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

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.

Read More →

Dec 10 2014

Dept. of Justice guidance against profiling exempts borders and “screening”

The US Department of Justice has issued new Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation, or Gender Identity.

“This Guidance … reaffirms the Federal government’s deep commitment to ensuring that its law enforcement agencies conduct their activities in an unbiased manner” — except at and near borders and coastlines and during any activity labelled “screening”.

According to a footnote, “This Guidance… does not, create any right … enforceable … against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any person, nor does it create any right of review in an administrative, judicial, or any other proceeding.”

And in a huge exception hidden in the same footnote:

[T]his Guidance does not apply to interdiction activities in the vicinity of the border, or to protective, inspection, or screening activities.

Most of the US population lives “near” (within 100 miles of) a border or seacoast, and the ACLU’s “Blog of Rights” has a good analysis of the what’s wrong allowing racial and other profiling at and near US borders.

On a daily basis, however, more people are stopped and subjected to “administrative” searches as part of TSA and other Federal “screening activities” than are stopped at border and near-border checkpoints. These are the searches that are labelled as “screening”, rather than searches, by the TSA and other agencies that don’t want to admit that these searches are subject to the 4th Amendment.

The DOJ guidance is applicable to all Federal law enforcement officers, not just DOJ personnel.  It includes TSA and other DHS officers everywhere except when they are in the vicinity of the border or carrying out “screening activities.” (Most TSA checkpoint staff aren’t law enforcement officers, despite their badges and their job title of “officer”, but some other TSA employees are.)  So this exception isn’t about the DOJ not having jurisdiction over employees or contractors of the DHS or other agencies. The job of the DOJ includes interpreting Federal law for all executive agencies.

The only reason these activities were exempted from the DOJ guidelines is because the DHS argued successfully, to the DOJ and in whatever White House or other inter-agency process led to the issuance of the guidelines, that racial and other profiling was a proper element of its border, near-border, and “screening” activities — not an accident, oversight, or something DHS is trying to reduce or eliminate.

That should be no surprise, since the DHS has made explicit that it now profiles all air travelers as a part of so-called “screening”, and has added questions about profiling critieria such as national origin to its forms for would-be border crossers.  But it’s yet another indication of the belief by the DHS that it is above the law and exempt from the norms of justice that apply to the rest of the government.

Dec 05 2014

US Supreme Court asked to clarify limits of TSA searches

Are the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) administrative checkpoint searches limited to those “no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives” as required by the Ninth Circuit, or may the TSA conduct more extensive searches as allowed in this case by the Eleventh Circuit?

This is the first and perhaps most significant of the questions presented to the US Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari in the case of Jonathan Corbett v. TSA, et al. The petition as filed last month was rejected on trivial procedural grounds, but is being resubmitted and should appear shortly on the Supreme Court’s voluminous docket of pending petitions.

This is an important case because almost the only limit on TSA searches which the courts have recognized has been the requirement that they be limited to searches for weapons and explosives, and that TSA checkpoints not be used as pretexts for general law enforcement dragnets.

In press releases and blog posts, the TSA has claimed that it has broader authority to detain, search, and interrogate travelers about matters unrelated to weapons, explosives, or transportation security. In practice, TSA checkpoint staff and contractors routinely rifle through wallets, read and copy books and papers, and search for any evidence that might create a suspicion of any criminality. But even while upholding the legality of these searches in specific cases, courts have continued to uphold, at least in theory and rhetoric, the principle that searches at TSA checkpoints are “limited”.

So far as we can tell, the decision by the 11th Circuit in Corbett v. TSA is the first appellate opinion explicitly to approve the use of TSA checkpoints for a broader general (warrentless and suspicionless) search of all travelers for evidence of any sort of potential crime.

Read More →

Dec 04 2014

Dude, where’s my FOIA?

We’ve heard from numerous people over the years who have requested the files about their travel being kept by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or made other Freedom of Information Act requests to DHS component agencies, but who have never gotten any response. Letters to and from the DHS often get lost in “security screening” or wind up in the dead letter office.

In response to a lawsuit we brought, DHS and CBP claimed that they had no record at all of one of our FOIA and Privacy Act appeals, and no record of the existence of the person who had signed the receipt for our certified letter.

And we’ve seen letters sent in response to FOIA requests made years previously, asking requesters to confirm that they still wanted the information they had requested — as though government agencies could presume that theIr own delays had caused requesters to lose interest or abandon their requests.

Unfortunately, we aren’t alone: These turn out to be standard FOIA operating procedures for the DHS and other agencies.

A recent joint letter from more than a dozen organizations that work to promote government transparency points out that it is illegal to “close” a FOIA request because of the passage of time (i.e. the agency’s own delay in responding) or because a requester doesn’t “reconfirm” that they want they records they requested. The signers of the letter report that:

FOIA requesters have reported frequently encountering improper administrative closures across a variety of federal agencies. We are including evidence of several examples…. One particularly troubling instance of administrative closure arose from a request that the Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) made to the TSA….

Other FOIA requesters, including some of the undersigned requesters, have received similar letters. We have attached letters by the DHS, DOJ, EPA, and State…. In meetings with transparency advocates, the Department of Justice’s Office of Information has publicly stated that it supports this practice.

The signers of the joint letter request an investigation of this illegal practice by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), which has been assigned with oversight responsibility as FOIA ombudsman.

A recent report by auditors from  the Government Accountability Office reveals more malfeasance:

According to CBP officials… First, approximately 11,000 FOIA cases that were improperly closed in 2012 had to be reopened and reprocessed. Second, after its reorganization, a new manager found a stack of boxes containing 12,000 paper requests from 2012 that had never been entered into their processing system.

According to the GAO report, “The officials stated that CBP subsequently cleared all of these requests.” But even if that’s true, who knows how many tens of thousands of additional FOIA requests may have been lost or “improperly closed”.

If you made a FOIA request to DHS, CBP, or any other DHS component, but haven’t received a response, you should ask the agency to which you submitted your request to inform you of the status of your request. By law, each agency must have in place a telephone or online system to provide status information on all pending FOIA requests, including an estimated date for completion of agency action on each request. If they don’t, you can complain to OGIS (for free and without a lawyer), or take the agency to court.

Dec 02 2014

European court to rule on legality of air travel surveillance

The European Parliament has voted to refer a proposed agreement between the European Union and Canada concerning transfers from the EU to Canada of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data about air travelers to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for the court’s opinion on whether the agreement is consistent with EU treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This action might easily — and correctly — be dismissed as narrow, technical, evasive of legislators’ responsibility to consider the propriety and legality of their own actions (and to reject proposals outright if they think they would violate treaties or fundamental rights), and of no direct relevance to the US.

But this could, nevertheless, prove to be a significant setback to the efforts of the US “homeland-security” and surveillance establishment, and its allies in Europe and Canada, to globalize the PNR-based system of surveillance and control of travelers that has been put in place in the USA since 9/11.

Canada requires all international airlines to hand over passenger data to the Canadian government, and passengers on flights to, from, within, or overflying Canada are “vetted” against both Canada’s own no-fly list and the US government’s no-fly list.  Canadian data privacy law has been amended twice since 9/11 to allow cross-border transfers of data about airline passengers.  But while those requirements have some domestic support in Canada, they have been enacted somewhat reluctantly by the Canadian Parliament, mainly in order to avoid interference by the US with the large fraction of flights to, from, and within Canada that routinely pass through US airspace.  There has been opposition by some Members of the Canadian Parliament, by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and by Canadian NGOs such as the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group / Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles.

There’s been extensive discussion of the issue of government access to airline PNR data in Europe as well, including by the European Parliament and by NGOs such as EDRi and NoPNR.

In April of 2012, the European Parliament approved — over objections from a  substantial minority of MEPs — an “agreement” to permit transfers of PNR data to the US.  But European opinion on this issue has shifted significantly since between then and this month’s debate on the EU-Canada PNR agreement, as a result of (1) Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, (2) growing recognition of the parallels between surveillance of communications metadata and surveillance of travel metadata, and (3) the ruling in April of 2014 by the ECJ that an EU directive mandating retention and government access to  communications, internet, and transaction metadata violates European law and fundamental rights.

The ruling by the ECJ has voided the EU data retention directive. The hope is that the EU-Canada PNR agreement will be the second domino to fall, with the EU-USA PNR agreement next in line.

Dec 01 2014

Judge insists on right to review “no-fly” order

Four years after the US government put Gulet Mohamed on its “no-fly” list, Mr. Mohamed is still waiting for his day in court. But he hasn’t given up, and he’s getting slowly closer to the first judicial review of the merits of a no-fly order.

Here’s some quick background and then an update on his recent legal travails:

Mr. Mohamed, a US citizen of Somali ancestry, was 18 years old and visiting family members in Kuwait when the US put him on the no-fly list.  When his visa expired, he ended up in a Kuwaiti immigration prison, where between sessions of torture he was interrogated by FBI agents who told him (as they have told other US citizens on the US no-fly list) that he would be allowed to go home to the US only if he became an FBI informer.

Eventually Mr. Mohamed was able to contact his family in Virginia, and they found him a lawyer from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Faced with an order from U.S. District Court Judge  Anthony Trenga to show cause why the court shouldn’t issue an injunction prohibiting the government from interfering with Mr. Mohamed’s right to return to the US, the government let him fly back to the US, and then tried to get the court to dismiss his complaint as “moot”. But that initial attempt to get Mr. Mohamed’s case thrown out of court was unsuccessful, as were a series of motions and appeals by the government during the last four years on the grounds of standing, jurisdiction, and “state secrets”.

(The portion of the court docket freely available through PACER is here, and our previous reports on the case are here.  The most thorough coverage of recent legal developments has been by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy.)

The last time we reported on Mohamed v. Holder, in September of this year, the government was still trying to persuade Judge Trenga to reverse his prior rulings and dismiss Mr. Mohamed’s case on the ground’s that, “There is no fundamental right to international travel.” The government was also asking Judge Trenga to reconsider his order that the government must allow him to review the allegedly secret evidence in camera before he decides whether it is, in fact, properly designated as “state secrets” and if so, whether he can decide the case without relying on any legitimately “secret” evidence.

In October, the government handed over the allegedly “secret” evidence to Judge Trenga (but not to Mr. Mohamed or his lawyers), while continuing to argue that it shouldn’t be required to do so.  After in camera review of the allegedly secret documents, Judge Trenga ruled that the case could go forward without the need to decide whether they were actually state secrets: “None of the documents are so related to plaintiff’s procedural due process claims as to prevent either the plaintiff or the defendant from presenting or defending against those claims without the use of any of these documents…. The state secrets privilege is a judicially created rule of evidence, not a doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-justiciability.”

Faced with the imminent prospect of a decision on the merits of Mr. Mohamed’s claim that he was denied due process of law when the government secretly ordered airlines not to transport him, the government asked for a “do-over”: a three-month postponement of the court case and a “remand” to the FBI to give the government time to develop a revised set of extrajudicial administrative “no-fly” decision-making procedures, and to subject Mr. Mohamed to this “kangaroo court version 2.0.”  This is essentially the same request that the government has made in another no-fly case, Latif v. Holder, in which U.S. District Judge Anna Brown has already found that the plaintiffs’ rights were violated.

According to Mr. Mohamed’s response, the government’s request for a do-over is, in effect, yet another attack on the authority of the court to order redress for violations of the Constitution by Federal agencies:

Defendants’ assertion that “the only appropriate result” of a ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor on their substantive claims would be a remand order to “apply new procedures in reaching a new substantive decision,” … misconstrues the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims and implies that the only remedy for a substantive due process violation is further agency proceedings. That is not the case. If, as Plaintiffs’ request, the Court finds that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights by placing them on the No Fly List, the Court plainly has the authority to order Plaintiffs to be removed from the List.

On November 20th, Judge Trenga denied the government’s motion for postponement and “remand”. That leaves Mr. Mohamed’s claims that his rights were violated on schedule for briefing, argument, and decision on their merits by Judge Trenga.

We look forward to seeing Mr. Mohamed finally, after four years of government obstruction and foot-dragging, receive his day in court, perhaps some time in early 2015.