Edward Hasbrouck – Page 52

Mar 02 2013

Travel blogger kicked off plane by pilot for taking photo of… seatback?

Frequent flyer and travel blogger Matthew Klint was recently kicked off a United Airlines flight from Newark to Istanbul after a flight attendant saw him take a picture of the back of the seat in front of him, and reported him to the pilot. The pilot told Mr. Klint, “You are not flying on this flight…. We’ll call the police if we have to.”

Perhaps unfortunately, Mr. Klint didn’t insist that the police be called, or call them himself, leaving him dealing with United Airlines’ public relations department rather than with legal authorities.

As a frequent flyer and blogger, Mr. Klint at least able to get the airline to talk to him, after the fact. But what can an ordinary traveler do in such a situation?

We talked about this last year in articles on Does an airline pilot have the right to refuse to let you fly? and What can you do if an airline pilot won’t let you fly? But it bears repeating:

Under Federal law, as common carriers, airlines must transport all would-be passengers willing to pay the applicable fare in their published tariff and comply with their published conditions of carriage. Not to do so is a serious violation of their duties.

If an airline refuses to allow you to fly, for any reason other than a violation of published laws, regulations, or conditions of carriage, you can and should make a formal complaint against the airline to the Department of Transportation.

A pilot can order you off the plane only if the pilot genuinely believes that you pose a hazard to the safe operation of the flight, in which case the pilot is required to log and report this safety incident.

If a pilot orders you off the flight for some other reason, or without logging and reporting his or her action as a safety incident, you can and should report the pilot to the FAA.

We’ve offered our support to Mr. Klint, should he wish to pursue a legal challenge to the actions of the airline and pilot against him.

Mar 01 2013

Will “E-Verify” become the new national ID?

The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security held a hearing this week on How E-Verify Works and How it Benefits American Employers and Workers.

Despite the boosterish title, the Subcommittee still heard testimony and received written statements that “E-Verify” doesn’t work, doesn’t benefit American employers or workers, and costs billions of dollars a year. But what’s even worse about “E-Verify” is the likelihood that what is now an identity “verification” system will be expanded to include a mandatory national biometric identity card and permission-for-employment system, with a default of “No”.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Key senators are exploring an immigration bill that would force every U.S. worker—citizen or not—to carry a high-tech identity card that could use fingerprints or other personal markers to prove a person’s legal eligibility to work.

The idea, signaled only in vaguely worded language from senators crafting a bipartisan immigration bill, has privacy advocates and others concerned that the law would create a national identity card that, in time, could track Americans at airports, hospitals and through other facets of their lives….

The Senate group, in a statement guiding their work on a new law, called for workers to prove their legal status and identities through “non-forgeable electronic means.” Senate aides said the language was intentionally broad because of the sensitivity of the issue. Mr. Graham [Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC], in an interview, said that in his mind the language refers to a requirement for biometric ID cards.

How did the U.S. come to this?

The slippery slope began in 1986, with a law effectively repealing the right to work and shifting the burden of proof of legal eligibility for employment onto would-be workers. Since then, all employees have been required to provide their employers with evidence either of citizenship or immigration status entitling them to paid employment in the U.S. In effect, this law created a (rebuttable) legal presumption of non-entitlement to employment, giving new literal meaning to the slogan, “We are all illegal”.

The next step was E-Verify, “an Internet-based system that compares information from an employee’s Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility.”

E-Verify continued the presumption of illegality, and raised the burden of proof even higher: No evidence of identity, citizenship, immigration status, or eligibility for employment is deemed acceptable or sufficient unless it corresponds to records in the same error-riddled government databases that routinely categorize live people as dead.

Extending E-Verify to all employees would make employment a privilege contingent on Since not being listed correctly in those databases typically leads to denial of other government entitlements, “safety-net” benefits, and even access to bank accounts, failing an “E-Verify” check can be a sentence to starvation, not just unemployment, or to existence on the sufferance of family, friends, or private charity.

Adding a biometric “worker ID card” would add much to the cost, but little to the benefits (if any) of the system, since undocumented workers would simply obtain (valid) ID cards in stolen identities. A study last year by Professors Jonathan Weinberg and Michael Froomkin for the Earl Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy at UC Berkeley School of Law found conservatively estimated the costs of such a scheme at more than $40 billion.

This isn’t the first time, and won’t be the last, that proponents of a national ID card have tried to sneak it through Congress in the guise of a measure related to immigration, terrorism, or something else. But as with the Social Security account number, which has become an all-purpose personal ID number, it’s unlikely that government credentials and identifiers will be limited to the purposes for which they are originally created.

Tell Congress you oppose any national ID card — no matter what the excuse.

/p

Feb 15 2013

“Sentenced to life without air travel”

Last year, we reported on the case of Saadiq Long, an Oklahoma native and U.S. Air Force veteran who was stranded in Qatar for six monthes, unable to return home because for unknown reasons he had been placed on a “no-fly” list, and all airlines serving the U.S. had been forbidden to transport him, on the basis of some secret allegedly-derogatory information provided by some unknown government agency that had “nominated” him for this latest version of the U.S. government’s “enemies list”.

Eventually, in the face of public hue and cry, the FBI relented (temporarily, it turns out) and allowed Mr. Long to return to Oklahoma to spend Thanksgiving with his critically ill mother.

Happy ending to a sad story? No.

Mr. Long’s attorney, Gadeir Abbas of CAIR, who has led the legal fight against U.S. government “no-fly” orders, has an update this week in an op-ed article in the Oklahoman, the state’s newspaper of record:

Mr. Long has been living and working (for U.S. military contractors among other clients) in Qatar, where his wife and daughter remained while he went back to the U.S. for the holidays. But after letting him come home, the U.S. government has now put him back on the “no-fly” list, and won’t let him leave the country:

What’s most alarming about Saadiq’s ordeal is that the FBI will never have to explain its actions. When it comes to separating Saadiq — and many others — from family via its ever-growing and always secret watch lists, the FBI is judge, jury and executioner. Saadiq hasn’t been indicted, charged or convicted of any crime. And yet the FBI has claimed for itself the power to impose permanent punishment upon Saadiq: life without air travel. If FBI agents can impose this sentence on Saadiq, they can do the same to any of us.

Feb 05 2013

“TSA out of the MBTA!”

An ad hoc TSA out of the MBTA! group help a march and rally Saturday on Boston Common to protest the ongoing warrantless, suspicionless searches of passengers’ property on the Boston-area MBTA subway and streetcar system. The protest was endorsed by groups including Occupy Boston and the Mass Pirate Party.

We’re encouraged to see growing resistance to the TSA’s mission creep in expanding its warrantless, suspicionless searches, interrogations, and seizures from air to surface transportation. These searches on the “T” and other transit systems were illegitimate and unconstitutional when they started in 2004, and they remain so today.

If there’s a particular lesson here, it’s in the importance of resistance from the start of new encroachments on our rights. No matter how “special” the circumstances in which new police programs are instituted, or how “temporary” they are claimed to be, the natural tendency is for them to become permanent. “Enough is enough. We’ve been sleeping on this,” one participant in Saturday’s march and rally told the Boston Herald.

Checkpoints and dragnet searches on the MBTA were initiated in 2004, ostensibly as part of “special” and “temporary” security measures for the 2004 Democratic Party national convention in Boston. They drew immediate protests which continued through the convention.

A Federal judge denied a request by the National Lawyers Guild for a preliminary injunction against the searches. Because the lawsuit had been framed in terms of the issues specific to the area around the convention, the lawsuit foundered after the convention delegates went home. But the searches continue.

Feb 04 2013

Update on Mocek v. Albuerque

On January 14, 2013, U.S. District Judge James O. Browning issued his first major ruling in Mocek v. Albuquerque, the Federal civil rights lawsuit brought for false arrest at a TSA checkpoint brought by Philip Mocek following his acquittal by a jury on trumped-up criminal charges.

Judge Browning dismissed Mr. Mocek’s complaints against the Federal (TSA) defendants. The reasoning of that ruling is in marked conflict with several findings on the same issues by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Tobey v. Jones, although that decision isn’t binding on the District Court hearing Mr. Mocek’s case since it’s in a different Federal judicial circuit.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, “Mary Lou Boelcke, Mocek’s attorney, said she expects to appeal the ruling, either before trial or after Browning decides other issues regarding the city.”

On February 1, 2013, the remaining Albuquerque defendants (the city, airport, and individual police officers) filed their own motion to dismiss the complaints against them. That motion is now pending.

Feb 01 2013

4th Circuit say 1st Amendment still applies inside TSA checkpoint

Ruling last week in a case brought by a man who was falsely arrested for displaying the text of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution written on his chest during a “secondary inspection” by the TSA at the Richmond, VA, airport (RIC), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal seeking the dismissal of a Federal civil complaint against TSA, DHS, and airport officials, police, and checkpoint staff.

The ruling means that the claims for damages by U. of Cincinnati architecture student Aaron Tobey (Tobey v. Jones et al., originally filed as Tobey v. Napolitano et al.) will go back to the District Court to proceed toward a trial. (Mr. Tobey is represented by attorneys from the Rutherford Institute.)

Even the dissent from the 2-1 decision (containing such gems as, “[I]t is sometimes necessary to make small sacrifices to achieve greater gains or, as in this case, to avoid catastrophic loss”, a bizarre statement given the lack of any allegation that Mr. Tobey, any of his actions, or the words written on his chest posed any but a political “threat”) admitted that, “TSA screening agents are not natural objects of affection…. TSA agents… can and do make mistakes, and there is always the chance that imbuing subordinate officials with a bit of authority can make them tyrants in their spheres.”

In rejecting the TSA and police appeal, and allowing Mr. Tobey’s case to go forward, the majority of the Circuit Court panel made several key rulings upholding travelers’ 1st Amendment rights and continuing and extending a line of decisions upholding personal liability on the part of individuals responsible for illegal actions at checkpoints: Read More →

Jan 22 2013

TSA replaces “probable cause” with private profiling

The TSA has made explicit its intent to take the next logical but lawless step in the merger of (1) profiling of travelers and (2) privatization of judicial decision-making: outsourcing of decisions as to who should be subjected to what degree of intrusiveness of search to private contractors acting on the basis of commercial data.

The TSA already delegates on-the-spot “discretionary” decisions about searches (“screening”) to private contractors at airports like SFO, and relies for its profiling (“prescreening” and “no-fly”) decisions on commercial data contained in airline Passenger Name Records (PNRs).

Now a request for proposals quietly posted by the TSA early this month among the “Federal Business Opportunities” at FBO.gov, and spotted by the ACLU, gives notice that the TSA is considering “Third Party Prescreening” of travelers: TSA contractors would decide in advance (secretly, of course, on the basis of secret dossiers from private data aggregators) which travelers would be “invited” to proceed through the less-intrusive-search “Pre-Check” security lanes, and which would be subjected to “ordinary”, more intrusive groping of their bodies, opening of carry-on baggage and belongings, interrogation, etc.

In effect, “Third Party Prescreening”, as the concept is defined in the TSA notice to would-be contractors, would replace probable cause with private profiling as the basis for determining who among us would be legally obligated, as a condition of the exercise of Constitutional civil liberties and internationally recognized human rights, to submit to exactly what degree of intrusiveness of search of our persons and property.

The by-invitation-only TSA “Pre-Check” profiling scheme is already entirely arbitrary, as travelers have discovered when they have tried to find out how to obtain an invitation to the less-mistrusted-traveler club or why they haven’t been invited. “Don’t call us, we’ll call you” if we want to invite you, say airlines and the TSA. There are no publicly-disclosed substantive or procedural standards for invitation or inclusion.

“Third Party Prescreening” would extend that arbitrariness to advance decisions that particular travelers must submit to heightened “screening” (or are not to be allowed to proceed through lighter screening, which amounts to the same thing) before they will be “allowed” to exercise their right to travel.

Such a particularized decision, in advance, conditioning travel by a specific traveler on submission to a specific type or degree of intrusiveness of search is not what was contemplated in judicial decisions upholding “administrative” searches at airports. Rather, this is the sort of search that the Constitution demands be justified by probable cause, as articulated to and approved by a judge.

Private contractors are not judges. Fitting the profile, based on a secret commercial dossier, as determined by a secret algorithm, is not probable cause. No “Third Party Prescreening” could create a lawful basis for a search, or for interference with the right to travel of those who decline to submit to such a search.

Jan 18 2013

US cites ICCPR in its lobbying against reform of EU privacy law

The US government has been lobbying hard in Brussels and Strasbourg against proposals to strengthen European Union (EU) rules protecting personal information, including information “shared” with the US and other governments for law enforcement, surveillance, profiling, and other purposes.

The European Digital Rights initiative (EDRi), to which we are an accredited observer, has posted a leaked lobbying document being distributed to EU decision-makers by the US mission to the EU.

As discussed in EDRi’s excellent analysis, the US position paper explicitly references the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as part of the common foundation of US and EU privacy principles. That curious, since (1) the US has previously avoided or ignored all attempts (such as those by the European Parliament in its 2010 resolution on airline Passenger Name Records) to include the ICCPR in the terms of reference for US-EU negotiations, and (2) the US is in flagrant violation of the provisions of the ICCPR related to, among other issues, privacy rights and freedom of movement.

It’s especially odd for the US to bring the ICCPR into the EU debate just now, as the UN Human Rights Committee is beginning its periodic, treaty-mandated review of US compliance with the ICCPR.

We hope the EU will take up the US invitation to bring the ICCPR into the debate, and will conduct its own inquiry into US compliance with its treaty obligations as well as paying close attention to the UNHRC review.

Jan 09 2013

Judge refuses to look at secret “no-fly” evidence, reaffirms that travel is a right

What’s been most noteworthy in DHS legal arguments in “no-fly” and other related cases isn’t that the government has tried to argue in defense of intrusive and repressive surveillance and control of travel.

Instead, the consistent strategy of the DHS has been to argue (1) that it doesn’t have to give any arguments or evidence in support of these practices, because they are exempt from judicial review, and (2) that if it does have to give the courts any evidence or arguments, it can do so in secret, so that opposing parties and their lawyers are unable to know, or respond to, the government’s secret arguments and secret evidence.

Fortunately, some judges seem to be running out of patience with these claims that the executive branch of government is above the law.

We’re particularly encouraged by the latest order issued December 20, 2012 in the case of Ibrahim v. DHS, which continues to appear likely to result in the first review of a no-fly order, on its merits, by any court.

Since 2005, when she was refused boarding and detained by police when she tried to board a flight at San Francisco International Airport, Rahinah Ibrahim has been trying to find out who put her on the “no-fly” list and why, get off the “no-fly” lost, and obtain damages from the government agencies, contractors, and individuals responsible for her false arrest and the interference with her right to travel.

The city and county of San Francisco (responsible for the airport police) eventually paid Dr. Ibrahim $225,000 to settle her claims against them. But the federal government defendants have continued to try to get the case dismissed before any discovery, fact finding, or trial on the merits of Dr. Ibrahim’s claims.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has twice rejected the government’s appeals of preliminary rulings allowing the case to go forward and allowing Dr. Ibrahim’s lawyers to proceed with discovery. But even after the federal defendants’ latest appeal was rejected, the government again moved the District Court to stay any discovery and dismiss the complaint.

In support of their latest motion to dismiss, the government went beyond filing evidence and legal arguments with the court “under seal” for in camera review by the judge (but not Dr. Ibrahim or her lawyers).

Instead, the government called the judge’s chambers to advise that a courier was on his way from Washington to the courthouse in San Francisco with some secret documents, which he proposed to show the judge, alone in chambers, and then take back to Washington so that there would be no record with the court, even in a “sealed” file, that would enable the court of appeals to review the basis for the judge’s decision.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California told the courier not to darken his door, and refused to look at any of the secret evidence, even in camera. Then he delivered a smackdown to the government in his ruling dismissing its motions.

Identity Project tells UN Human Rights Committee that US violates the right to travel

It’s that time, as it is every five years, for the U.N. Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) to review the status in the U.S of the rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — including the right to travel.

The Identity Project is taking part in this process by informing the UNHRC about the ways the US has violated the right to travel, and making recommendations for issues related to the right to travel which the UNHRC should raise with the US during its review.

On December 28, 2012, as part of a joint submission to the UNHRC by the U.S. Human Rights Network, the Identity Project submitted our recommendations for issues related to freedom of movement that we think the UNHRC should take up with the U.S., questions that should be asked by the UNHRC, and recommendations that the UNHRC should make to the US in its concluding observations:

Papers, Please!

The Identity Project