Privacy Act and FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuit for records of DHS surveillance of travelers
filed August 25, 2010, San Francisco, CA
Judge Richard Seeborg, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Case number C 10-03793 RS, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
First rulings in our lawsuit over DHS travel records (Jan. 23, 2012)
Dismissal of remaining claims: What have we learned? (July 16, 2012)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What was this case about?
“This complaint concerns the failure to disclose records regarding the warrantless, suspicionless dragnet collection and maintenance of Federal government records of the travel, activities, and other personal information concerning U.S. citizens not accused of any crime.”
Why did you you sue the Department of Homeland Security?
The facts leading up to the filing of this lawsuit are summarized in the initial complaint:
In November, 2006, Defendant CBP, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, revealed that it was already operating a system of records — for which, despite the requirements of the Privacy Act, no prior System of Records Notice (“SORN”) had been promulgated — which it labeled the “Automated Targeting System” (“ATS”). According to the SORN, ATS contained records related to international travel by U.S. citizens and others, including complete airline reservations or “Passenger Name Records” (PNRs), used among other purposes for making “risk assessments” of travelers. In 2007, in his capacity as a member of the news media and a consultant to the Identity Project (“IDP) on travel-related technical, civil liberties, and human rights issues, Plaintiff Edward Hasbrouck requested copies of his own records pursuant to his right of access under the Privacy Act. When he received a response which appeared manifestly incomplete and which invoked FOIA exemptions clearly inapplicable to records required to be released pursuant to the Privacy Act, Hasbrouck appealed. Almost three years later, he has received no acknowledgment or response to that appeal. In October 2009, Hasbrouck tried again, filing a new, broader Privacy Act request to CBP for his own travel-related records from ATS and other CBP systems of records and an accounting of when and to whom they had been disclosed by CBP, a FOIA and Privacy Act request for records concerning what had happened to his 2007 request and appeal, and a FOIA request for general information concerning the indexing, search, and retrieval capabilities of the ATS records system. When Hasbrouck received no response, he appealed the constructive denial of each of these requests. Nine months after making these requests and seven months after making these appeals, he had received no information in response.
Who is Edward Hasbrouck?
The plaintiff, Edward Hasbrouck, is an award-winning travel journalist, author, blogger, and consumer advocate. As an expert in airline reservation systems, he has testified before the TSA, the DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, the European Parliament, the Canadian House of Commons, and other government agencies. Hasbrouck works as a consultant to the Identity Project (PapersPlease.org) on travel-related technical, civil liberties, and human rights issues.
What is “U.S. Customs and Border Protection”?
The defendant, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. CBP operates the “Automated Targeting System” (ATS), a comprehensive travel surveillance and control system integrated with international airline and other travel reservation systems.
What is the “Automated Targeting System” (ATS)?
The “Automated Targeting System” (ATS) is an illegal and initially secret system of records about everyone — including U.S. citizens, regardless of whether they are suspected of any crime — who travels internationally to, from, or via the U.S. CBP and its predecessor, the U.S. Customs Service, have been operating this system under various names since at least the mid to late 1990s. From the start, this system of records was entirely illegal. Until 2006, its operation was a criminal violation of the Privacy Act on the part of the responsible agency employees because no proper notice of its existence had been published in the Federal Register. The inclusion of records of activities protected by the First Amendment — such as acts of assembly — also violated and continues to violate the Privacy Act. The use of this system to restrict freedom of movement, without due process or judicial review, violates U.S. international human rights treaty obligations under Article 12 (Freedom of Movement) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (Our formal complaints of these violations, filed with the DHS, have been ignored, and the DHS has falsely claimed in official reports to European Union officials that it has received no such complaints.) And the assignment of ATS risk scores to travelers who weren’t on specific watch lists violated an express Congressional prohibition. CBP disclosed the existence of ATS in a “System of Records Notice” (SORN) in the Federal Register in November 2006. Since then, we’ve been trying to find out what’s in our ATS files and how they are used, get the illegally-created records expunged, get the entire illegal system shut down, and get those government officials responsible for creating and maintaining it prosecuted for their crimes.
What’s in the ATS records that CBP keeps about our travels?
We don’t know exactly what’s in the CBP’s files about us, and CBP has refused to tell us, even when we asked (as is our right under the Privacy Act). That’s why we brought this lawsuit. CBP says that ATS records include complete airline reservations or Passenger Name Records (PNRs) for all international flights to, from, or via the U.S.; other information from third parties, such as remarks about us that airlines and other travel companies enter in our reservations; and government “risk assessments” of our likelihood to commit future crimes, even if we aren’t yet suspected or accused. All this information is used to determine whether or not to give airlines permission to let us board flights, and whether to subject us to more intrusive “secondary” searches or interrogation. In our initial report on CBP’s incomplete and censored responses to the first requests for ATS files, we found that they included everything from IP addresses and friends’ phone numbers, to whether two people traveling together had asked for one bed or two in their hotel room, to the title of a book a traveler had with him when he passed through a CBP checkpoint. Answers to questions that seemed to be part of casual conversations with border guards about where people have been, why, and with whom turn out to have been recorded in permanent files about travelers — even if nothing illegal or suspicious was found — just in case they might later come under suspicion. Since then, we have continued to assist travelers (including several journalists) to request their travel records and to interpret the responses. But many people who requested their travel records have received no response at all. All the responses we have seen, including CBP’s response to Mr. Hasbrouck’s 2007 request, have been obviously incomplete, have omitted categories of ATS records described in the official notice of the system of records, and have invoked FOIA exemptions that clearly don’t apply to responses to Privacy Act requests. (The CBP’s entire response to Mr. Hasbrouck’s 2007 request is included in the complaint in Hasbrouck v. CBP, and the categories of information included in these dossiers are illustrated with examples from Mr. Hasbrouck’s ATS file here, including Passenger Name Records (PNRs), TECS border crossing and entry/exit logs, and sometimes-surreal secondary inspection notes.) Administrative appeals of these responses and non-responses have either been ignored entirely, as in Mr. Hasbrouck’s case, or processed only under the more limited provisions of FOIA, even when the requests and appeals were made by U.S. citizens under the Privacy Act. So far as we can tell, despite the requirements of the Privacy Act, nobody has received CBP’s complete file of travel records about them, any of their “risk assessments”, or any accounting of disclosures of those records to other government agencies or third parties in the U.S. or abroad.
Is this just for international travel? What if I only travel within the U.S.?
Another division of the DHS, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), operates a different travel-permission system for domestic U.S. flights called “Secure Flight”. See our FAQ About Secure Flight for more about this scheme. The DHS says that by the end of 2011 the TSA’s Secure Flight system will be used for all travel permission decisions, even for international flights. But we don’t know how ATS data is being used, or will be used, by the TSA in Secure Flight decision-making. One of the things to which we are entitled under the Privacy Act, which we have asked for, and which the CBP has failed to provide, is an “accounting of disclosures” which would indicate — among other things — whether our ATS data has been passed on by the CBP to the TSA. So far as we can tell from the responses to other people’s requests that we have reviewed, the CBP has consistently and completely ignored all requests for an accounting of disclosures of ATS records.
How are these travel records used to decide whether to allow us to travel?
We don’t know. The algorithms are secret, and both the ATS and Secure Flight travel surveillance and permission systems remain secret black boxes.
Why is this case important?
Since September 11, 2001, government surveillance has focused on travel, particularly air travel. The Department of Homeland Security has taken a leading role in surveillance, and acquired massive archives of personal data about innocent people. After the IRS and Social Security databases, the ATS is probably the third-largest U.S. government database of personal information about civilians who have not been accused of any crime. DHS has a secret file about you, compiled primarily from airlines and other unverified commercial sources but also containing a secret “risk assessement” they have assigned to you. DHS “shares” this information with other agencies and foreign governments, and uses this information to decide what to “allow” you to do, and where to “allow” you to go in the exercise of your right to travel. Today, efforts to challenge the secrecy of this travel surveillance and control system have the same significance that the first cases brought against the FBI after the enactment of the Privacy Act and FOIA, challenging the secrecy of FBI files and Cointelpro programs directed at innocent Americans and foreigners alike, had in the 1970s. So far as we know, this is the first lawsuit brought under the Privacy Act challenging CBP’s failure to disclose ATS records about air travelers, to disclose how CBP handles requests for ATS records and appeals of those requests, or to disclose how ATS records are indexed and retrieved to find “links” between travelers (i.e guilt by association). This case is also important because it puts the lie to DHS’s claims to have complied with all requests for PNR data, and to have received no complaints concerning its use. These repeated, deliberate, public falsehoods have been made by U.S. officials with the intent to deceive the traveling public and foreign governments, including the European Union, who are actively debating whether to collaborate with, or even to emulate within their own countries, U.S. schemes for dragnet surveillance and permission-based control of travelers:
- In December 2008, the DHS’s Chief Privacy Officer said in a report directed to the EU (page 4 of the PDF) that, “The Privacy Office received no reports of misuse of PNR since … 2005”. This was a lie: During this time, the identity Project has filed specific formal complaints with the DHS Privacy Office, in their regulatory docket on the ATS, of misuse of PNR data in the ATS, in violation of U.S. laws including the Privacy Act.
- In April, 2010, a review team from the E.U. reported (page 29 of the PDF), following meetings and the exchange of diplomatic notes with DHS, that, “During 2009 CBP received approximately 25,000 requests for access to data. 50% of such requests were related to traveler data…. DHS confirmed that all requests for access have been successful and passengers were always given access to their data.” That was a lie: Even as a U.S. citizen, Mr. Hasbrouck received no response whatsoever to his 2009 Privacy Act request for his PNR and other travel data from CBP. That’s why he filed this lawsuit.
This case presented a rare opportunity to obtain a public accounting of disclosures of travel surveillance records by CBP to other agencies, governments in the U.S. and abroad, and third parties. In February, 2010, CBP promulgated new rules that purport to exempt ATS travel records from the requirement of the Privacy Act to provide, on request, an accounting of what information has been disclosed, when, and to whom. These regulations are contrary to U.S. law and to U.S. commitments to the E.U. But unless these rules are overturned, only by diligently pursuing — and if necessary, as in this case, litigating — requests such as Mr. Hasbrouck’s that were made before the rules were changed will we be able to find out with whom CBP has “shared” its dossiers about our travels. The requested records of what happened to Mr. Hasbrouck’s first Privacy Act request and appeal, which disappeared into a black hole as soon as CBP signed the receipt for the appeal letter in 2007, and hasn’t been acted on or heard from since despite numerous follow-up inquiries, may also help reveal whether such requests for PNR and ATS data were among those that were improperly delayed or blocked by high-level political officials within the executive branch of the U.S. government. Finally, this case is important because foreigners have no rights under the U.S. Privacy Act, despite being subjected to U.S. government surveillance of their travels. Only a U.S. citizen or resident, such as Mr. Hasbrouck, has standing to challenge these violations of the rights of every traveler to, from, or via, the U.S., regardless of their citizenship or place of residence.
By bringing this lawsuit, we are seeking to expose the workings of DHS systems for travel surveillance and control, and to vindicate the human rights and freedom to travel of visitors to the U.S. from around the world, to whom the doors to U.S. courts have been unfairly barred.
Have there been any other lawsuits about CBP or DHS travel records?
Yes, but this is the first case brought by a U.S. citizen entitled to rights under the Privacy Act, and requesting information from and about records of international air travel.
So far as we know, there have been three previous lawsuits against the U.S. government concerning the Automated Targeting System:
- EFF v. Department of Homeland Security: On December 19, 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against the DHS under FOIA for information about the ATS system. EFF eventually received some (redacted) records, but the case was brought only under FOIA (which provides for access to public records), not the Privacy Act (which provides for individual access to private records pertaining to oneself held by the government), so the records released did not include any actual examples of ATS records about individual travelers.
- Shearson v. Department of Homeland Security: In June 2006, Julia Shearson, Executive Director of the Cleveland Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed suit pro se against the DHS under the Privacy Act, seeking disclosure of records about herself from ATS and the correction of erroneous records falsely characterizing her as a terrorist. DHS claimed that it had exempted itself form any liability for violations of the Privacy Act — such as maintaining inaccurate recrods and using them to make damaging decisions about individuals. On April 11, 2011, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that the DHS had no authority to exempt itself from liability for this sort of Privacy Act violation. Ms. Shearson’s lawsuit for damages is now pending trial in the U.S. District Court on remand. Ms. Shearson’s case differs form Mr. Hasbrouck’s in that the records and events in Ms. Shearson’s case concerned a land border crossing, not PNR data or other air travel records, and that the essential content of the records about Ms. Shearson isn’t in dispute, since DHS has admitted that they mis-identified Ms. Shearson in ATS as a suspected terrorist, and that this was inaccurate.
- In ‘t Veld v. Department of Homeland Security: On July 1, 2008, EFF filed suit against the DHS, again FOIA, on behalf of Sophie In ‘t Veld, a Member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands who had traveled to the U.S. on official Parliamentary business, seeking disclosure of records about herself from ATS and other systems of records. Mr. Hasbrouck participated in that case as an expert witness. In In ‘t Veld’s case, as in Mr. Hasbrouck’s case, the plaintiff received no information from CBP until she sued. But because Ms. In ‘t Veld was not a U.S. citizen or resident, she was able to bring her case only under the much more limited rights of FOIA, and not under the Privacy Act. Much more information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA than under the Privacy Act, and FOIA does not provide for any accounting of disclosures. Although Ms. In ‘t Veld’s lawsuit was, within the limits of FOIA, “successful”, she received only partial, redacted copies of her PNR data after she sued, and no accounting of disclosures of her data by CBP.
What did you ask the court to do?
The complaint in Hasbrouck v. CBP asked the court to issue a formal “Declaratory Judgment” that CBP has violated the Privacy Act and FOIA, and a court order for CBP to comply with the law, search for, and disclose all of the records about Mr. Hasbrouck’s travel and the ATS records system that he has requested and to which he is entitled by law, including risk assessments of Mr. Hasbrouck, rules used for determining those risk assessments, and an accounting of CBP disclosures of records about Mr. Hasbrouck to other government agencies or third parties.
Are you afraid that the government will retaliate against you for filing this lawsuit by putting you on the no-fly list or harassing you whenever you travel?
Yes, we are. Mr. Hasbrouck is especially concerned because, as an international travel writer, his livelihood depends on his ability to travel. But somebody had to do this. If nobody stands up to scary government bullies, their bullying will continue indefinitely. Any retaliatory harassment of us, or interference with our travels, would itself be a serious violation of our civil, Constitutional, and human rights, including our right to travel.
What is the Identity Project?
The Identity Project (PapersPlease.org) provides advice, assistance, publicity, and legal support to those who find their rights infringed, or their legitimate activities curtailed, by demands for ID, and builds public awareness about the effects of ID requirements on fundamental rights. We are part of the First Amendment Project (FAP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Oakland, CA.
Who were Mr. Hasbrouck’s lawyers in this case?
Mr. Hasbrouck was represented by David Greene of Bryan Cave (formerly executive director and legal director of the First Amendment Project) and by Lowell Chow and James Wheaton, staff attorneys for the First Amendment Project. Former FAP staff attorney Geoffrey King also worked on earlier stages of the case, as did several FAP law school student interns. FAP is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom of information, expression, and petition. FAP has extensive experience and expertise in journalism and freedom of information law.
What happened in the case?
The initial complaint was filed August 25, 2010. The case was assigned to Federal District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco. The government filed its initial answer to the complaint on October 12, 2010. Both sides (Hasbrouck and CBP) filed motions for summary judgment in their favor, supported by declarations and exhibits. Oral arguments on the cross-motions for summary judgment were heard on September 15, 201, before Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.
Judge Seeborg issued an order on January 23, 2012 partially granting each party’s motions for summary judgment. See our analysis of this order and its significance.
Following additional searches Judge Seeborg ordered CBP to conduct, and the disclosure by CBP of some additional ATS records and additional information, the parties agreed to the dismissal of the remaining claims on July 13, 2012. See our analysis of the dismissal, the additional disclosures, and the lessons of the case.
What can I do to help?
Request your own travel records from CBP. Spread the word. Tell your friends. Post a link to this page in your blog. Stand up for your own rights, and “just say no” to demands for ID, permission to travel, or warrantless, suspicionless surveillance of travelers. See our website or contact us for more on how to get involved.
Where can I find the official court records of this case?
- Electronic court docket: (available only for paying PACER subscribers for a per-page fee; PACER users are encouraged to use RECAP to make the documents they retrieve available to others; PACER users log in, then click on “Query” and enter the case number as “3:10-cv-03793”)
- Partial mirror archive of court filings from RECAP (free)
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco (general information; note that the U.S. Marshals Service requires all visitors including parties to cases, attorneys, and journalists to show ID and submit to search to be admitted to the courthouse)
- Information for Journalists – U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (includes rules for laptops, cell phones, pagers, and PDAs, and for photography, broadcasting, and recording — most electronic devices are allowed in the building, subject to inspection, and may be used in the hallways, but may not be used in the courtrooms without special permission as described in the rules)
- Plaintiff Edward Hasbrouck’s Complaint (August 25, 2010)
- Defendant CBP’s Answer to the complaint (October 12, 2010) (local copy)
- Defendant CBP’s response to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions (May 9, 2011)
- Defendant CBP’s motion for summary judgment and supporting filings:
- Defendant CBP’s motion for summary judgment (June 3, 2011)
- Defendant CBP’s errata in motion for summary judgment (June 6, 2011)
- Declaration of Laurence Castelli, with exhibits (June 3, 2011)
- Declaration of Shari Suzuki, with exhibits (June 3, 2011)
- Plaintiff Hasbrouck’s motion for summary judgment:
- Plaintiff Edward Hasbrouck’s motion for summary judgment (June 24, 2011)
- Plaintiff Edward Hasbrouck’s proposed summary judgment order (June 24, 2011)
- Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit A to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit B to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit C to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit D to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit E to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit F to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit G to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit H to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit I to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit J to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit K to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit L to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit M to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit N to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit O to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit P to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit Q to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit R to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit S to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit T to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit U to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit V to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit W to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Exhibit X to Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (June 24, 2011)
- Declaration of Elizabeth Edwards (June 24, 2011)
- Declaration of James P. Harrison (June 24, 2011)
- Defendant CBP’s reply re: motions for summary judgment (July 15, 2011):
- Defendant CBP’s reply brief (July 15, 2011)
- 2nd Declaration of Laurence Castelli July 15, 2011)
- 2nd Declaration of Shari Suzuki (July 15, 2011)
- Plaintiff Hasbrouck’s reply re: motions for summary judgment:
- Plaintiff Edward Hasbrouck’s reply brief (July 29, 2011)
- 2nd Declaration of Edward Hasbrouck (July 29, 2011)
- Oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment (September 15, 2011)
- Order Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (January 23, 2012)
- Our analysis: First rulings in our lawsuit over DHS travel records
- Additional filings and disclosures by CBP following the January 23, 2012, order:
- Stipulation and order of dismissal of remaining claims (July 13, 2012)
- Our analysis: Hasbrouck v. CBP dismissed. What have we learned?
How has this case been reported in the news?
- Dennis Schaal, Tnooz.com (travel industry trade news site): Travel blogger sues US Customs, warns industry of liability (August 25, 2010)
- Matt Smith, S.F. Weekly: Department of Homeland Security Sued Over Secret Traveller Files (August 30, 2010)
- Matt Smith, S.F. Weekly: Travel writer Edward Hasbrouck sues Homeland Security over travel data (September 8, 2010)
- Stefan Krempl, Heise.de: Datenschutz: US-Bürgerrechtler klagt auf Herausgabe von Flugpassagierdaten (August 28, 2010)
- Erich Moechel, FutureZone @ ORF.at: Passenger Name Records / Flugdaten: “US-Heimatschutz belügt EU” (August 30, 2010; also reprinted in records of questions asked in the Austrian Parliament)
- Questions based on the Futurezone @ ORF.at article asked in the Austrian Parliament (October 14, 2010)
- Interview with Daniel Erk, Zeit Online / Reisen: Datenschutz: “In dieser Datenbank steht, wer mit wem schläft” (September 13, 2010; PDF)
- Eike Kühl, Zeit Online / Datenschutz: Passagierdaten: EU fordert mehr Datenschutz für Flugreisende (September 22, 2010)
- Bild.de: USA-Reisen: Was passiert eigentlich mit meinen Passagierdaten? (September 14, 2010)
- SG.hu: A légiutasok személyes adatait követeli a légitársaságoktól az amerikai kormány (September 13, 2010)
- Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing: Travel author sues DHS to make it obey the law with its vast traveller databases (October 13, 2010)
- Parliamentary question asked of the European Commission: Flight data storage by the US Department of Homeland Security (November 11, 2010)
- Erich Moechel, ORF.at: Flugdatenturbulenzen im EU-Ministerrat (June 1, 2011)
- Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti, Heise.de: Bundesregierung kritisiert Entwurf für Flugpassagierdaten-Abkommen (July 26, 2011)
- Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti, Stuttgarter Zeitung: Fluggastdaten in den USA : Keiner weiß, was mit den Daten geschieht (July 29, 2011) (also published in a slightly different version in VDI Nachrichten: Die Daten von Flugpassagieren geraten außer Kontrolle)
- Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti, evangelisch.de: Der gläserne Reisende verliert seine Grundrechte (31 July 2011)
- Matthias Monroy, Heise.de: US-Reiseverbote Made in Germany (October 17, 2011)
- Barbara Wimmer, Futurezone.at: Fluggastdaten – EU: Ausschuss stimmt für PNR-Abkommen (October 18, 2011)
- Andy Carling, New Europe: Air-travel data puts Europeans at risk of identity theft (October 19, 2011)
- Interview with Patrick Beuth, Zeit Online / Datenschutz: Flugpassagierdaten: “Das PNR-Abkommen mit den USA soll Unrecht legalisieren” (October 21, 2011)
- Vibe!at: “Passenger Name Records sind das Guantanamo für Reisen” (October 22, 2011)
- Barbara Wimmer, Futurezone.at: Fluggastdaten: “Sie dürfen nicht mitfliegen“ (October 23, 2011)
- Austrian Independent: US activist issues final PNR warning (October 25, 2011)
- Erich Moechel, FM4.ORF.at: Flugdaten-Abkommen als “Schuss ins Knie” (October 27, 2011)
- Barbara Wimmer, Futurezone.at: PNR: EU-Parlament stimmt für Fluggastdatenabkommen (October 27, 2011)
- Kai Bermann, Zeit Online / Datenschutz: Flugdaten: EU gibt die Daten von Flugpassagieren kampflos preis (November 29, 2011)
- Barbara Wimmer, Futurezone.at: PNR: “Keine Dateneinsicht für Fluggastdaten” (January 27, 2012)
- Frank Guthausen, datenschutzraum e.v.: Datenschutzdepesche (January 29, 2011)
- Laurent Checola, LeMonde.fr: Les boîtes noires de l’accord sur les données passagers (April 19, 2012)
- Dan Tynan, IT World: Is your airline spying on you? Yes, but not in the way you might think. (July 8, 2012)
- Stefan Krempl, Heise.de: Teilerfolg bei US-Klage gegen Herausgabe von Fluggastdaten (July 17, 2012)
- Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti, Futurezone.at: USA: Beweis für Datamining bei Fluggastdaten (July 24, 2012)
- Matthias Monroy, Heise.de: Fluggastdaten bald auch an Kanada (August 14, 2012)
- Matthias Monroy, jung Welt: Datendeal mit Ottawa (September 25, 2012)
- Netzpolitik Podcast 127: Edward Hasbrouck über Reisefreiheit, Passagierdaten, Verdachts-Generierung und Gegenwehr (27 January 2015)
- Brian Beary, Contexte/Europolitics: American model: Emulate or avoid? / PNR américain: à suivre ou à éviter? (March 17, 2015, part of a special issue on government use of PNR data)
Is there more about this case in your blog or Mr. Hasbrouck’s blog?
- Lawsuit filed against DHS travel surveillance (August 25, 2010)
- From our mailbag (September 3, 2010)
- CBP’s answer to our lawsuit: Deny everything, and claim that nobody has any rights (December 21, 2010)
- DHS says they should get our PNR data, but we shouldn’t (January 6, 2011)
- DHS moves to dismiss our Privacy Act lawsuit (June 7, 2011)
- Our arguments for disclosure of DHS travel surveillance records (June 30, 2011)
- DHS reply to our arguments for release of travel records (July 18, 2011)
- Our reply to DHS claims that travel dossiers are exempt from the Privacy Act (July 30, 2011)
- Hearing in our lawsuit against DHS postponed until September 15th (August 16, 2011)
- After more than a year, my first day in court (September 15, 2011)
- First rulings in our lawsuit over DHS travel records (January 24, 2012)
- Hasbrouck v. CBP dismissed. What have we learned? (July 16, 2012)
- Why the Judicial Redress Act is worthless (February 25, 2016)
How can I get more information or support this lawsuit?
- Complaint in Hasbrouck v. CBP
- Why I’m suing the Department of Homeland Security (from Edward Hasbrouck’s blog, “The Practical Nomad”)
- Forms and instructions for how to request your own travel records from CBP. (If you travelled on a European airline or bought your tickets in Europe, you also have the right under E.U. data protection law to ask the airline, travel agency, and/or tour operator for an accounting of what records it has about you, and what information it gave to the U.S. government or to companies in the U.S. that might have passed it on to the U.S. government.)
- What’s in a Passenger Name Record (PNR)? (includes links to sample PNRs)
- Government Surveillance of Travelers (slides and video from a presentation by Edward Hasbrouck at the Cato Institute and on C-SPAN, April 2, 2013; includes annotated examples of records from the DHS Automated Targeting System obtained through this lawsuit)
- Edward Hasbrouck’s testimony to the European Parliament about PNR and ATS data and how they are used (includes links to slideshow and video archive)
- Slides from Edward Hasbrouck’s presentations at workshops in Europe in October 2011 (includes examples of PNR and ATS data from DHS files about travelers)
- Contribute to the Identity Project. Donations are tax-deductible, and can be made online by credit card via Groundspring or by cash, check, or money order payable to “Identity Project” and sent to: The Identity Project, 1736 Franklin St., 9th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.
- Additional analysis by the Identity Project of related policy issues