Edward Hasbrouck – Page 79

Oct 23 2008

Radio hour today on “Secure Flight”

Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project will be on the Katherine Albrecht Show today from 5-6 p.m. Eastern Time (2-3 p.m. Pacific time), talking about Secure Flight. The Katherine Albrecht Show is syndicated nationally on the Genesis Communications Network. You can also listen to the show live online, and we’ll be taking listener questions on the air. If you missed the live broadcast, the archive of this hour of the show is available here as a downloadable mp3 podcast.

Oct 22 2008

Large Aircraft Security Program and “Watch-List Service Providers”

Even before the Secure Flight proposal goes into effect (and before there is any experience of whether it can be implemented or how it will work), the TSA is proposing to extend its air travel control and surveillance principles from passenger airlines to general aviation and all-cargo flights.

On October 9, 2008, the TSA issued a press release and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for a so-called “Large Aircraft Security Program” (LASP) for unscheduled and noncommerical flights. LASP is explicitly modeled on Secure Flight, but with an additional twist: Instead of being required to submit personal information about each passenger to, and receive permisison from, the TSA, operators of “large” general aviation and cargo aircraft will be required to submit this data to, and get permisison from, a new class of private commercial data aggregation companies: “Watch-List Service Providers”.

TSA won’t give up on “Secure Flight” travel permission and surveillance scheme

The DHS and TSA announced their final rule for the Secure Flight program for the control and surveillance of airline passengers during a photo op today at Reagan National Airport.

We aren’t among the journalists to whom the TSA’s anonymous spin doctors chose to leak their plans. We’ll have more comments after we have reviewed the complete 195-page regulatory notice in more detail.

But our first reading of the “final rule” released today, as well as recent TSA and DHS comments about Secure Flight, including their press release today and testimony at a Congressional hearing we attended last month, suggest that their plans remain essentially unchanged from the Secure Flight proposal announced last year, and which we urged the TSA to withdraw as illegal in our testimony at the TSA’s public hearing and our more detailed written comments.

The DHS’s current spin on why we should love Big Brother and welcome Secure Flight is that it would reduce the number of people who are improperly prevented from flying or improperly subjected to more intrusive “secondary” search and/or interrogation, by “transferring watchlist matching from the airlines to the government”.

But the solution to the problems with “watchlists” is not to tighten their enforcement, but to replace secret administrative “no-fly” and “selectee” determinations with judicial determinations of dangerousness, made by judges in response to government motions for injunctions or restraining orders, and presentation of evidence sufficient to show that they pose a danger to aviation so great as to warrant restriction of their Constitutional and human rights to freedom of travel, assembly, and movement. We don’t need to establish a new system of (secret) administrative pseudo-justice. That’s what the courts are for, and they already have an established system of due process and review, including procedures for dealing safely with classified evidence related to national security. Read More →

Aug 25 2008

DHS plays a “shell game” with border crossing records

Today we filed comments with the Department of Homeland Security objecting to a newly-defined DHS “system of records” containing logs of everyone who crosses U.S. borders, including those who cross by car or on foot. “Border Crossing Information” (BCI) about innocent U.S. citizens not suspected of any crime would be kept for 15 years, while records on foreign vistors would be kept for 75 years.

DHS has, apparently, told the press that they didn’t start keeping records of land border crossings by innocent U.S. citizens until 2008. According to a story last week in the Washington Post,

Customs and Border Protection agents only this year began to log the arrivals of all U.S. citizens across land borders.

But we know that’s not true, because we’ve seen copies — provided by CBP itself in response to individual requests for records from its Automated Targeting System (ATS) — of records of routine land border crossings by innocent U.S. citizens at least as far back as 2006.

The DHS previously considered the logs now being labeled “BCI” to be part of the ATS system of records. We’ve objected to ATS as illegal, and demanded that these dossiers be destroyed. According to our comments on BCI:

The data now being relabeled as BCI is part of the same data that was previously labeled as ATS. The collection and retention of this data was and is illegal…. Changes to the name of the system of records containing this data neither make it legal nor address our prior comments regarding its illegality. As when such data was considered a part of ATS, collection and retention of travel history data in BCI is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(7). This section of the Privacy Act restricts the collection or retention of records of the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment…. Rather than trying again, as they did with the ATS SORN, to provide retroactive notice and yet more new excuses for this illegal travel surveillance dragnet and system of “historical” travel records about the activities of innocent Americans, DHS should entirely expunge these illegal records of lawful activities protected by the First Amendment and international human rights treaties.

Why has the DHS created this new BCI label for portions of its files of travel histories? The DHS claims they are “providing additional transparency”. But as we point out in our comments, it’s really a “shell game” that willl do more to hide these records than to faciliate transparency:

Under the Privacy Act, “transparency” is provided by the right to obtain records about oneself. This SORN will make it more difficult to exercise that right, since to obtain the records of their travels held by DHS an individual will now need to request records from even more systems of records: at a minimum, TECS, ATS, APIS, and now also BCI. Given the absence of a clear separation or well-defined distinctions between these “systems” within DHS – as is made clear by the succession of redefined SORNs which DHS claims cover the “same” records — greater transparency would be provided by recognizing that these are all parts of a single system of “Travel Records”, and allowing individuals to obtain all such records held by all DHS components with a single request.

We’ll be revising our templates for requests for travel records, and posting new versions you can use to request your records from as many DHS “systems of records” about travelers as we know about (ATS, APIS, BCI, and TECS).

We’ll keep trying — through helping individuals request their records — to find out exactly what information ATS and these other systems of travel records contain. The only way anyone can really know what’s in the government’s files about them is to exercise their right to review those files. But as we say in our comments on BCI:

That right, and the transparency it should provide, are meaningless unless DHS actually responds to requests for access. Rather than issuing new SORNs that complicate the task of obtaining DHS records, the DHS Privacy Office should concentrate on processing the backlog of requests that has accumulated since the public learned of the existence of these travel records through news reports about ATS. The Identity Project has received numerous reports from individuals who have been waiting months without any response to their Privacy Act requests and appeals for ATS records (portions of which would, under this SORN, be recategorized as BCI records). One of our own appeals of the failure to provide requested ATS records has gone almost a year without any acknowledgment, assignment of a docket number, or reply.

The names of the systems of records have changed, but the crimes of the DHS in maintaining these travel histories remain the same. We haven’t given up on our requests, and we’ll keep you posted on what we find out.

Aug 08 2008

New U.S. “exit permit” scheme for visitors goes into effect

The Identity Project filed comments today with the DHS Bureau of Customs and Border Protection CBP) in opposition to the new Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) which went into effect this week. According to our comments:

The essence of the ESTA rule is to require certain foreign citizens to obtain an exit permit from the United States government before they may leave their own country, or leave other countries.

In this rulemaking, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is promulgating an interim final rule imposing a new requirement that “each nonimmigrant alien intending to travel by air or sea to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) must … prior to embarking on a carrier for travel to the United States”, (a) provide specified data elements, in specified form and manner, to the CBP, and (b) “receive a travel authorization, which is a positive determination of eligibility to travel to the United States under the VWP, via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), from CBP.”

Under the interim final rule, “[a]n authorization under ESTA is not a determination that the alien is admissible to the United States” and is “not a determination of visa eligibility.” It would be granted, or not granted, by the CBP, in its sole, standardless, secret, and non-reviewable “discretion.” It would be required as a pre-condition for foreign citizens to “embark” from foreign countries if the CBP believes that they intend to apply (at some later time ) for admission to the U.S. under the VWP.

The Identity Project submits these comments because this CBP regulatory requirement that foreign citizens obtain permission from the U.S. in order to leave their own country, or a third country, (1) exceeds the statutory authority of the CBP; (2) exceeds the jurisdiction of the CBP; (3) is contrary to the obligations of the U.S. under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights, maritime, and aviation treaties; (4) has been promulgated without complying with the procedural requirements of Executive Order 13107 regarding Implementation of Human Rights Treaties, the Airline Deregulation Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act; (5) fails to consider or grossly underestimates many of the major costs of the rule, including its impact on small entities, business travelers, and other travelers; (6) is impermissibly vague, and (7) would be so impractical and unenforceable as to deprive it of any of the benefits claimed by the CBP.

The Identity Project urges the CBP to withdraw the interim final rule, in its entirety. If it does not withdraw the ESTA rule entirely, the CBP must complete the actions directed by Executive Order 13107, prepare the statutorily required analyses, publish them in a full Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) , and provide a new opportunity for public comment, before finalizing any ESTA rule.

In their comments, airlines and travel agencies have objected that the CBP is “wrong” to implement the ESTA on an emergency basis, without the public notice and opportunity for public comment normally required for new Federal regulations. But the CBP began accepting “voluntary” applications for travel authorizations, through a (still buggy) Web interface. The CBP says they plan to issue an order later this year to make the ESTA system mandatory starting sometime in January 2009.

Countries that participate in the VWP, mainly in Western Europe, are still considering whether it amounts to a de facto visa requirement for their citixzens to visit the U.S. This could prompt them to reciprocate by ending visa-free entry to their countries for U.S. visitors, and requiring U.S. visitors to apply for permission before embarking for Europe.

Jul 08 2008

TSA “identity verification” procedures

In a series of posts in their blog, the TSA has expanded on its claimed authority for the changes to “ID verification procedures” announced in a press release last month.

Lawmaking by press release exemplifies the evils of “secret law” which the Supreme Court declined to consider in Gilmore v. Gonzalez. The TSA now says that, “Our position is that Gilmore v. Gonzalez affirmed our ability to require ID for transportation via air and the law that formed TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) empowers the TSA to make these decisions.”

In fact:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Gilmore v. Gonzalez reached its decision without addressing whether it would have been permissible for the airline or the TSA (or anyone else) to require Mr. Gilmore to show evidence of his identity, or to prevent him from travelling if he failed to do so. The court found that, as of that time and in that particular case, Mr. Gilmore could have flown without showing ID. Read More →

Jul 08 2008

Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on June 9, 2008 (73 Federal Register 32440-32453), the Department of Homeland Security has proposed a new system for foreign citizens intending to visit the U.S without visas, and to enter the U.S. by air or sea, to apply for and receive an additional form of advance permission to travel to the U.S.

Effective August 8, 2008, a person “intending to travel to the United States by air or sea under the VWP [Visa Waiver Program]” will be permitted to apply in advance for an electronic “travel authorization”(ETA) from the DHS Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The ETA application will contain “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).”

Effective as of a date the CBP intends to specify in another Federal Register notice in early November 2008, at least 60 days after the publication of that follow-up notice but no later than January 12, 2009, each person with such intent will be required to (1) provide certain specified personal information, in specified form, to the CBP in an ETA application and (2) “receive a travel authorization [from the CBP] prior to embarking on a carrier for travel to the United States.”

While the proposed regulations would require travellers to apply for and obtain ETA’s, nothing in the NPRM would require the CBP to respond to or act on such applications at all, much less to do so with any specified timeliness. No standards or criteria for approval, denial, or inaction on an ETA application are specified; no particular decision-making entity within CBP is specified; no administrative appeal is provided for; and no court would have jurisdiction to review an ETA decision (although courts could, of course, review the legality of the program as a whole). Read More →

Feb 03 2008

Will you really need a “REAL-ID” to fly? No.

There’ve been a lot of scary reports lately about how, if your state governor doesn’t “volunteer” to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security’s “REAL-ID” scheme for a distributed national identity card and linked databases of personal information about every American resident, the DHS won’t “allow” you to board any airline flight in the U.S. of A.

What’s the skinny?

It’s an empty threat, designed to intimidate citizens, state legislators, and governors. You’ll still have a legal right to travel, even by air, even if your state opts out of compliance with the REAL-ID Act.

The DHS does have plans to require everyone who wants to fly to carry government-issued papers and get permission for each flight from the DHS. The DHS is already trying to put some of those into effect this month for international travel, and has proposed to extend them to domestic flights as part of Secure Flight.

But those other rules are independent of the REAL-ID Act, and don’t yet affect domestic air travel. Nothing in the REAL-ID law or regulations would require you to show ID to fly.

Don’t be scared. Ignore the empty threats. Stand up for your rights, and fly freely — with or without papers or permission.

Jan 26 2008

Closing the noose on the USA

A pop quiz for US citizens:

The next time you want to leave the USA. will your government let you go? When you want to come back, will they allow you to come home?

Unless people assert their rights, maybe not. And you’ll need the government to give you papers or permission to do so.

The Department of Homeland Security has already issued regulations effective February 18th that will forbid international airlines from letting anyone on a plane to or from the US without individualized express prior permission from the DHS. Those rules were issued in spite of our objections that they violate the US Constitution international human rights treaties.

And already the Department of Homeland Security is trying to enforce an illegal regulation that purports to require passports (issued at the “discretion” and for the “convenience” of the government, not as a matter of right, and which take weeks to obtain if you want to travel on short notice) for citizens to fly between the USA and Canada or Mexico. (Again, having ignored our objections.)

The DHS has proposed to extend that rule to those crossing the land borders with Canada and Mexico, closing the last possible means of leaving the USA, or returning home from abroad, without DHS papers or permission.

Now, without even considering our objections or any others, the DHS has announced a change in “internal” procedures that would achieve essentially the same result as the “pending” rulemaking: Effective January 31st, the goons from the DHS Customs and Border Protection division will be instructed not to permit anyone to cross the US border — even US citizens — unless they present government-issued documents proving their citizenship to their satisfaction.

The burden will be on you to “prove” your right to travel, rather than on the government to prove you are doing something wrong if they want to prevent you. And only government-issued documents will suffice. If the government won’t give you papers, you can neither leave nor return to your own country.

Sep 16 2007

Tell the Feds what you think of their plans

The Transportation Security Administration will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC, this Thursday morning, September 20, 2007 on the TSA’s so-called Secure Flight scheme to require government-issued travel credentials and individualized, explicit, prior permission for all domestic airline travelers within the U.S., and to subject us to government-compelled search and interrogation by private commercial third parties whenever we fly.

The hearing is open to the public, and you can sign up to speak on site with the TSA staff beginning at 8:00 a.m. Thursday at the Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H Street, N.W. (2 blocks from Metro Center station).

The Identity Project will be there to give our comments in person. We are also submitting detailed written comments on what’s wrong with this scheme. If you can make it, we encourage you to come out too, and tell the TSA what you think of their plans.

If you can’t make it to the hearing, you can submit comments to the TSA online. You can submit comments anonymously, and you don’t have to be a U.S. citizen or resident

Papers, Please!

The Identity Project