More TSA Excesses

In a world where we trade the illusion of security for actual fact, it is little surprise that the Transportation Security Administration is scrambling, in its usual, ham-fisted bureaucratic way to do whatever it can to salvage its image in the wake of the underwear “bomber.”

I’ve held off on writing this for a while to see how the stories developed, but the Wired article “TSA Threatens Blogger Who Posted New Screen Directive” has finally sparked the fuse on my rage. According to the article, armed agents from the TSA served Steven Frischling with a civil subpoena, demanding to know the source of a non-classified security directive published by the TSA. This document was sent to thousands of people, including destinations overseas–Riyahd (Saudi Arabia) and Nigeria. The civil subpoena, as I understand it, is not a search warrant, yet the TSA agents were persistent.

From the Wired article:

When they pulled a subpoena from their briefcase and told him he was legally required to provide the information they requested, he said he needed to contact a lawyer. The agents said they’d sit outside his house until he gave them the information they wanted.

Further:

The agents searched through Frischling’s BlackBerry and iPhone and questioned him about a number of phone numbers and messages in the devices. One number listed in his phone under “ICEMOM” was a quick dial to his mother, in case of emergency. The agents misunderstood the acronym and became suspicious that it was code for his anonymous source and asked if his source worked for ICE — the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

On Steven’s personal blog, he compliments the agents on their professionalism, but the Wired article indicates that the agents threatened him with his job. Would someone under the thumb of our modern-day secret police say anything less if they were currently under investigation?

A civil subpoena (full text of it here) is different from a search warrant. The administrator of the TSA, legally, does not have the authority to compel this type of cooperation. This must come from a sitting judge, based on probable cause, and be subject to the Fourth Amendment under our Bill of Rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Given that the documents were unclassified, their dissemination and distribution should fall under the Freedom of Information Act; this means that the entire strategy from the TSA was flawed on multiple levels: Improper authority, outside the boundaries of the fourth amendment, and a lack of probable cause for search and seizure.

Let me let everyone in on a little secret. If someone wants to interrupt our nation’s air traffic with a terrorist activity, it doesn’t matter what security procedures we put in place–they’ll find a way. We can make some common sense modifications to the way we do things to minimize risk, but where there is a will, there is a way.

The challenge I would make to our bureaucrats and law makers is this: Repeal onerous requirements that impede honest citizens and delay the lifeblood of our country. Remove delegated legislative authority from power-hungry, self-justifying bureaucrats and carefully consider what safeguards and necessary to protect what can be protected. To the U.S. Citizen: If a federal agent shows up at your door, know your rights under the constitution. Consult a lawyer if necessary. Do not be afraid to stand up for what our founding fathers fought and died.