Papers, Please!

The Identity Project

Category Archives: Surveillance State

Dec 02 2011

DHS “Automated Targeting System” records

The “Automated Targeting System” (ATS) has been a topic of discussion this week at the Securing Our Rights in the Information-Sharing Era conference on national security, surveillance, and immigration enforcement.

ATS is operated by the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) component of DHS, although ATS apparently contains links to records held by other agencies and other commercial databases. ATS records include passenger name records (travel reservations), border crossing logs, secondary inspection notes, “risk assessments” of all travelers (even if you aren’t on any watch list), risk assessment algorithms, and pointers to other databases.

Public notice of the existence of ATS was first provided in 2006, but ATS records provided in response to individual requests show that it had already been in operation, illegally, for years before that. If you’ve been on an international airline flight to or from the U.S. in the last ten years, or crossed the U.S. land border in the last few years, CBP has an ATS file of information about you and your travels. There might be ATS records of earlier trips, although older ATS records are spottier. Some ATS files include border crossings and international flights from as far back as the early 1990s.

We’ve posted forms you can use to request your own ATS file from CBP, as well as examples of some of the types of data included in responses to requests for ATS records. (There’s more about what we’ve found in ATS records in this front-page story from 2007 in the Washington Post.) Contact us if you want help with requests or administrative appeals, or in interpreting responses.

If you think there’s any chance you might be on a watch list, you should also send a separate request to the DHS Chief Privacy and FOIA Officer for records from the DHS /ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB)  System of Records.  Be sure to state that your request is made under both the Privacy Act and FOIA, and include a request for an accounting of all disclosures of records about you.

The first panelist at the conference was Julia Shearson, a native-born U.S. citizen who was arrested when she tried to drive back into the U.S. after an innocent weekend trip to Canada, on the basis of an entry in ATS falsely flagging her as an “armed and dangerous terrorist”. She’s suing DHS under the Privacy Act to find out why they labeled her a terrorist. Her lawsuit is still pending on remand after a favorable Circuit Court ruling reinstating her complaint. We last reported on her case here; there’s more about her story in this video which was shown yesterday at the conference, and this article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Whether the Privacy act provides for recovery of emotional damages was the subject of oral argument before the Supreme Court earlier this week in FAA v. Cooper.

Also still pending is our Privacy Act and FOIA lawsuit against CBP on behalf of Identity Project consultant Edward Hasbrouck, who is seeking ATS records about himself (including his “risk assessments” and the rules used for determining those risk assessments), an accounting of disclosures of those records to other agencies or third parties, information about how ATS records are indexed and retrieved, and records of the processing of his initial requests for ATS records. (He received only incomplete and redacted responses, and not until three years after his initial request and three weeks after he filed suit against CBP for its failure to respond or provide the requested records). A hearing on motions for summary judgment was held in September, and a decision is pending.

Other previous lawsuits related to ATS are discussed here. We’ve also filed comments on CBP rulemakings, objecting to ATS as in violation of the Privacy Act and international human rights treaties.

[On a separate note, the ongoing prosecution of Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which was also mentioned at the conference, is discussed here.]

Nov 28 2011

Revised EU-US agreement on PNR data still protects only travel companies, not travelers

On November 17, 2011, US and European Union officials initialed a renegotiated proposed agreement (original English version; official German translation; official French translation) to authorize airlines to forward PNR data (travel reservations) to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As an executive agreement, not a treaty, it doesn’t require any further US approval, but it does require ratification by both by Council of the EU (national governments of EU members) and the European Parliament.

The US is mounting an exceptionally intense high-level lobbying and public propaganda campaign on this issue in Brussels. But despite the importance of the issue, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have only been allowed to read the proposed agreement in a sealed room, and have been forbidden to take written notes or speak publicly about what the revised proposal says.

To facilitate informed public debate, we are publishing the full text of the proposed agreement in English, German, and French. This is the final version as initialed, on which the Council and Parliament will be voting, possibly as soon as the end of this year.

The latest version of the EU-US agreement on PNR transfers to the DHS fixes none of the fundamental problems we and the European Parliament have identified in previous drafts, as discussed in our previous articles, our FAQ about the previous version of the proposal, and our recent presentations to MEPs:

Read More →

Oct 12 2011

Events in Europe on US travel surveillance and control

We’ll be participating in a series of public events and private meetings next week with European activists and with European Union and European national officials on PNR data (airline reservations), privacy, data protection, and human rights. Our presentations at all of these events will be in English, although much of the publicity is (naturally, given the venues) in German. see the links below for slides, handouts, video, and news reports on our presentations:

Read More →

Oct 05 2011

DHS pitches PNR-based travel surveillance and control at House hearing

A troika of officials from the DHS appeared today before the Subcommittee on  Counterterrorism and Intelligence of the House Committee on Homeland security to make a joint sales pitch for the proposed agreement between the US and the European Union on DHS access to PNR data (airline reservations).

Today’s hearing appears to have been staged purely as a propaganda exercise intended to mislead European Union officials and citizens about the PNR agreement and DHS use of PNR data. The proposed “agreement” would not be a treaty (and thus would be unenforcible in U.S. courts). Even if it were reformulated as a treaty — as the European Parliament has demanded as a condition for its ratification of the agreement — it would only require ratification by the U.S. Senate, not the House of Representatives.

The House subcommittee hearing certainly looked as though it was held to create a stage for the DHS.  The three DHS officials were the only witnesses. They  included Chief “Privacy” Officer Mary Ellen Callahan, who Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project debated in June at CFP,  and David Heyman (successor to Stewart Baker, who wrote the original US-EU PNR agreement as DHS Asst. Secretary for Policy), who had been scheduled to participate in the CFP panel but canceled at the last minute.

In the absence of any independent or non-governmental witnesses who might have raised questions or presented alternative views, the DHS witnesses at today’s hearing presented a “united front” including an unusual joint written statement.

For the most part, the DHS repeated the same lies today as have appeared in previous DHS reports and lobbying to the EU. For example, they described PNR data incorrectly as “the data an airline receives from a traveler,” ignoring the data entered in PNRs (unbeknownst to travelers) by travel companies and other third parties. They said that “Of the literally billions of passengers traveling to and from the United States during the past 10 years, there has not been a single … use of PNR in violation of established privacy protections,” despite the DHS track record of using PNR data as the basis for denying innocent people — including both US and EU citizens — their right to travel.

In their most egregious lie, perjuring themselves before Congress, the DHS witnesses claimed again (falsely) today, as they have claimed (falsely) before, that:

DHS applies fair information practice principles to its collection and use of PNR, including … auditing and accountability, individual access, and redress. Moreover, the Department is firmly committed to transparency when it comes to informing our partners and the public about its mission, including how we use … identifiable information such as PNR data.

This statement is false. The DHS witnesses who made this statement knew it was false. And they made it for the sole purpose of misleading Europeans about the facts.

Read More →

Sep 27 2011

More US lies to the European Parliament

In an appearance on September 20th before the LIBE (civil liberties) Committee of the European Parliament to lobby for legalization of US government access to European airline reservations (PNR data), US Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that there has been “not one single example of privacy being breached” by the US in its processing of PNR data. We “need to deal with what is real, not what is hypothetical”.

Is Holder’s claim true? What’s “real”, and what’s “hypothetical”?

In reality, DHS policies prevent us from knowing how many breaches of privacy or other fundamental rights have resulted from US processing, use, and/or disclosure to others of PNR data. Read More →

Sep 25 2011

What do we want? “Abolish the TSA!”

The first time the White House conducted a public online poll allowing We, the People to petition the President for redress for our grievances, the petition that got the most signatures called on the Obama Administration to lergalize and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. After an elaborate built-up to the petition poll, President Obama dismissed the result as a joke.

Now the White House is at it again, and the leading grievance of the people against the government is even more overwhelmingly clear. Let’s see if the President once again laughs off our petition.

Here’s the most popular petition to the President, with more than 20,000 signatures in the first 3 days since it was posted:

We petition the Obama administration to:

Abolish the TSA, and use its monstrous budget to fund more sophisticated, less intrusive counter-terrorism intelligence.

The Transportation Security Administration has been one of the largest, most expensive and most visible blunders of the post-9-11 homeland security reformation. It has violated countless constitutional rights of average Americans, caused miserable and expensive delays in an already-overburdened air travel system, and allowed multiple known instances of harassment, theft, extortion and sexual abuse by its employees. It has failed approximately 70% of undercover efficacy tests, and for all its excesses, has been unable to catch even a single terrorist since its creation. In our current economic situation, we can no longer afford to continue wasting taxpayer dollars on this kafkaesque embarrassment. Let us instead invest in saner, more effective solutions.

You can add your signature through October 11, 2011.

Sep 16 2011

Court hearing in our lawsuit for DHS travel records

A little more than a year after we filed suit on behalf of Edward Hasbrouck against the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) division of DHS to find out what records they are keeping about our international travels, and what they have done with those records, we had our first real day in court yesterday in front of Federal Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco.

Judge Seeborg was appointed as a judge of the U.S. District Court by President Obama, after a decade as a Federal magistrate and seven years before that as a Federal prosecutor. On first impression, he seems fair-minded and thoughtful, although — like most judges — inclined to give more “deference” than is warranted to even implausible claims by police and prosecutors, such as some of those made in the declarations submitted by the CBP in opposition to Mr. Hasbrouck’s complaint.

Mr. Hasbrouck was represented by David Greene of Holme Roberts & Owen (formerly executive director and staff counsel of the First Amendment Project), who conducted yesterday’s argument, along with FAP staff attorney Lowell Chow. Former FAP staff attorney Geoffrey King also worked on earlier stages of the case, as did several FAP law school student interns, who we were pleased were able to attend the argument. We are grateful to them all for their contributions.

CBP was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Neill Tseng, who conducted the argument, accompanied by an attorney from the CBP.

As we expected, and as is usual, no decision by the court was announced at yesterday’s hearing. In each of the other cases on Judge Seeborg’s motion calendar yesterday, he began by describing how he was “inclined” to rule on the matters before him. In our case, however, Judge Seeborg began — after some comments about how ill-suited the typical summary judgment motion practice is to FOIA or Privacy Act cases like this, where the issues only gradually become clear in the course of the briefing — by saying that after reading the lengthy pleadings he had only the most tentative “impression” as to how he might rule on any of the issues.

In other words, he still had an open mind, and oral argument might actually matter.

With that preface, Judge Seeborg invited Mr. Hasbrouck’s attorney, David Greene, to address whatever issues he thought were most important, and then gave AUSA Neill Tseng an opportunity to respond for the CBP.

If you’re just tuning in, the best places to start are the Identity Project FAQ (for the political issues and significance of the case) and our last reply brief before yesterday’s argument (for the legal issues).

Broadly speaking, the argument focused on what we would group into four main questions:

Read More →

Sep 12 2011

Illegal Israeli-style traveler interrogations come to Boston

If you’re going to be flying through Logan Airport in Boston, you might want to have a copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act handy when you go through the TSA checkpoint.

The TSA has celebrated the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, hijackings — two of them of flights that originated at Logan — by rolling out a new program of Israeli-style interrogations of air travelers passing through TSA checkpoints at Logan.

Rafi Ron, a former director of security at Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, relocated to the U.S. and hung out his shingle (“New Age Security Systems”) as an airport security consultant just before September 11, 2001. His first post-9/11 U.S. client was MASSPORT, which operates Logan. Ever since, as Ron’s client list has expanded to the Massachusetts State Police (the notorious racists who patrol Logan) and then the TSA, Logan has remained the cutting edge of U.S. testbed for Ron’s Israeli-style gospel of  human profiling, from the TSA’s SPOT “behavior detection” program to the new TSA “chat-downs“.

We’re pleased that Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has publicly questioned the TSA about the Logan pilot program.

But whether or not it’s a good idea (it’s not), the immediate problem for the TSA is that it’s illegal.

Previous case law on airport checkpoints has authorized administrative searches, but never compelled responses to administrative interrogations.  Responses to police questioning in such circumstances have been presumed by courts to be voluntary.

If the TSA’s Constitutional case for such interrogation is untested, their lack of statutory authority is clear. The Paperwork Reduction Act, — a Reagan-era Republican anti-bureaucracy law — requires that any Federal “information collection” be justified in advance to, and approved in advance by, the Office of Management and Budget. An “information collection” is defined as any solicitation — even verbally — of answers to identical questions from ten or more people by a Federal agency, which clearly covers what the TSA “Assessors” (interrogators) are doing in Boston.

OMB approval is evidence by an OMB control number provided on the form or to those being questioned. in the absence of an OMB control number, (a) the collection of information is illegal, (b)  nobody can be required to answer the questions or provide the requested information, and (c) no sanctions can be imposed for failure to respond or provide information.

The TSA has never gone through the process of seeking OMB approval, or obtained an OMB control number, for its ID verification form or any of its other information collections from travelers.

So if the TSA’s goons at logan (or anywhere else) ask you, “Who are you?”, “Where are you going?”, “What’s the purpose of your trip?”, or any of their other standard questions, ask them what the OMB control number is for their collection of that information.

If they can’t or won’t provide you with a valid OMB control number (you can look up and verify any valid OMB control number here), politely but firmly decline to answer. If necessary, remind them — it might help to show them a copy of the law — of the provisions of  44 U.S.C. § 3512:

§ 3512. Public protection

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if–

(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or

(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

Document what happens, so that you can, if necessary, prove that any sanctions such as a more intrusive search, denial of passage through the checkpoint, or denial of access to common-carrier transportation were based on your refusal to provide illegally-request information without having been provided with a valid OMB control number and notice that without it you don’t have to answer.

Sep 07 2011

“Why should I care about PNR?”

Our guest post for European travelers at NoPNR.org:

Why should I care about PNR?

More for our European readers about PNR data and how it is used by governments:

What can Europeans do?

Aug 16 2011

Hearing in our lawsuit against DHS postponed until September 15th

The hearing in our Privacy Act and FOIA lawsuit against the Customs and Border Protection division of DHS, previously scheduled for August 25, has been postponed by the court until Thursday,  September 15, 2011, 1:30 p.m. in Federal court in San Francisco.

The hearing will still be held before Judge Richard Seeborg (Courtroom 3, 17th Floor), U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Ave. (between Polk and Larkin, near Civic Center), San Francisco, CA.

The public is welcome to attend the oral argument, although the guards at the entrance to the courthouse require visitors to show government-issued ID and submit to search to be admitted to the courthouse. (See also the court’s information for journalists and the local court rules for electronic devices in the courthouse.)