Airline employees all have to go through a security check, and airlines were the recipient of the directive (that is, Aircraft Operator). They determine who needs to know this info. I have been through a security check, have fingerprints on file, yada, yada. As part of that clearance, I acknowledge that I understand that I am not to disseminate security info. I can't speak to every airport employee, but I can for airline employees.
Interestingly enough, I have yet to find an airline employee who believes that this directive was public information. While most of us would agree that is should be, we all know that it was confidential and treated it as such. That is why there were no on the record statements. People passed along info confidentially -- because they knew that they were not supposed to reveal it. Find me someone in the industry who asserts that this was not confidential, and I'll concede the point. Till then, as someone on the inside, I stand by my position that it was confidential.
Please understand that while I think pursuing Chris and Steve is overkill and not worth the time and money, and is only the latest in a long line of misplaced priorities, that doesn't negate the fact that this it is a legitimate legal inquiry into a security violation. And there has always been lots of spirited debate, with good arguments all around, on topics that have been the focus of legitimate legal inquiry.
Susan McKee said:
Security clearance? Methinks most of the people who received this have no security clearance whatsoever. Especially since it was sent to airports worldwide!
I repeat: Rather than catching terrorists, the TSA spends its time terrorizing travel writers! What a waste of time and money!
Security clearance? Methinks most of the people who received this have no security clearance whatsoever. Especially since it was sent to airports worldwide!
I repeat: Rather than catching terrorists, the TSA spends its time terrorizing travel writers! What a waste of time and money!
Only idiots who don't have the security clearances to get these memos first hand would think they aren't secret. OK, maybe that was a bit harsh, but these memos are NOT for the general public despite everyone wishing it were so.
Read the whole thing. It is VERY clear in the industry that these memos are not public knowledge. VERY CLEAR! You'll not hear people in the industry arguing that the memo was for public dissemination, because we know full well that it is not. In fact, read the specifics about who the airlines were to disseminate the information to (here's a hint, it wasn't the public or the media):
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required: The aircraft operator must immediately pass the information and directives set forth in this SD to all stations affected, and provide written confirmation to its PSI, indicating that all stations affected have acknowledged receipt of the information and directives set forth in this SD. The aircraft operator must disseminate this information to its senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel at all affected locations. All aircraft operator personnel implementing this SD must be briefed by the aircraft operator on its content and the restrictions governing dissemination. No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).
The people who were entitled to the information were those that required to implement and enforce the new procedures. So yes, that was thousands of people who have been through a variety of security clearances and have committed to not disseminate the information to anyone else.
Argue that the info should have been disseminated to the general public, and you'll get no argument from me. But it wasn't. Someone leaked the information knowing full well what the potential ramifications would be. (Let me tell you, I gave it consideration myself but was not willing to put myself at such a risk.)
Wishing that security directives weren't secret won't make it so.
Susan McKee said:
As Flying with Fish wrote: The TSA memo in question "was sent to thousands of people - all airports and airlines that fly into the USA. It went to the airport in Islamabad and Hong Kong, for instance. Pakistan Airlines flies to JFK. Plus the TSA has about 50,000 people in the agency."
It was tagged "AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required".
It was even read aloud on flights, by the captain.
What idiot would think it was "secret", when so many people knew about it?
As Flying with Fish wrote:
The TSA memo in question "was sent to thousands of people - all airports and airlines that fly into the USA. It went to the airport in Islamabad and Hong Kong, for instance. Pakistan Airlines flies to JFK. Plus the TSA has about 50,000 people in the agency."
It was tagged "AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required".
It was even read aloud on flights, by the captain.
What idiot would think it was "secret", when so many people knew about it?
This discussion hits very close to home for me for a couple of reasons.
First, I am a legitimate recipient of the security directive issued. My airline, who disseminated the info to me, makes it very clear that disseminating the info is a security breach punishable by civil and criminal penalties, in addition to being grounds for termination of employment. If either of these journalists received info from an airline employee, these consequences would have been known, and the person leaking the information ran the risk of being found out. If someone chose to assume those risk, great for them, but they do so at their own risk.
Second, I appreciate a whistleblower as much as the next person, but there is no Shield Law which grants the journalist the right to not reveal their name as a source. Wish it were different, and yes, that results in a chilling effect, but that is the state of the law.
Third, I empathize with these journalists/bloggers. They are good people reporting on a story, and I personally like both of them a lot. That said, it defies credibility to think that they didn't realize there could be consequences of printing the directive. Other news sources mentioned some of the info contained in the directive, but it would have been hard to miss the fact that no one was willing to go on the record with the information. Uh. . . that would be because they knew the consequences of disseminating the information.
Now the TSA wants to know who leaked the information. Because, like it or not, it does violate federal regulations. Because of their online presence, it seems likely to guess that these guys received the info via email, and seizing their computer allows the feds to track down where the leak came from.
It's easy to bash the TSA for what went on. Really, really easy -- because there's lots of responsibility to go around. But this issue really isn't about them. It's about someone who received protected security information and turned it over to others who were not authorized to receive that information.
Wishing the TSA had handled things differently or published it themselves doesn't change the fact that someone leaked confidential information and they want to know who. I wish this hadn't happened, wish these guys well, and hope that it has a happy ending. None of that negates the fact that this is a legitimate legal inquiry.
Replies
Both subpoenas have been withdrawn.
Guess even the government can see the error of its ways...sometimes!
Interestingly enough, I have yet to find an airline employee who believes that this directive was public information. While most of us would agree that is should be, we all know that it was confidential and treated it as such. That is why there were no on the record statements. People passed along info confidentially -- because they knew that they were not supposed to reveal it. Find me someone in the industry who asserts that this was not confidential, and I'll concede the point. Till then, as someone on the inside, I stand by my position that it was confidential.
Please understand that while I think pursuing Chris and Steve is overkill and not worth the time and money, and is only the latest in a long line of misplaced priorities, that doesn't negate the fact that this it is a legitimate legal inquiry into a security violation. And there has always been lots of spirited debate, with good arguments all around, on topics that have been the focus of legitimate legal inquiry.
Susan McKee said:
I repeat: Rather than catching terrorists, the TSA spends its time terrorizing travel writers! What a waste of time and money!
Read the whole thing. It is VERY clear in the industry that these memos are not public knowledge. VERY CLEAR! You'll not hear people in the industry arguing that the memo was for public dissemination, because we know full well that it is not. In fact, read the specifics about who the airlines were to disseminate the information to (here's a hint, it wasn't the public or the media):
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required: The aircraft operator must immediately pass the information and directives set forth in this SD to all stations affected, and provide written confirmation to its PSI, indicating that all stations affected have acknowledged receipt of the information and directives set forth in this SD. The aircraft operator must disseminate this information to its senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel at all affected locations. All aircraft operator personnel implementing this SD must be briefed by the aircraft operator on its content and the restrictions governing dissemination. No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).
The people who were entitled to the information were those that required to implement and enforce the new procedures. So yes, that was thousands of people who have been through a variety of security clearances and have committed to not disseminate the information to anyone else.
Argue that the info should have been disseminated to the general public, and you'll get no argument from me. But it wasn't. Someone leaked the information knowing full well what the potential ramifications would be. (Let me tell you, I gave it consideration myself but was not willing to put myself at such a risk.)
Wishing that security directives weren't secret won't make it so.
Susan McKee said:
The TSA memo in question "was sent to thousands of people - all airports and airlines that fly into the USA. It went to the airport in Islamabad and Hong Kong, for instance. Pakistan Airlines flies to JFK. Plus the TSA has about 50,000 people in the agency."
It was tagged "AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required".
It was even read aloud on flights, by the captain.
What idiot would think it was "secret", when so many people knew about it?
First, I am a legitimate recipient of the security directive issued. My airline, who disseminated the info to me, makes it very clear that disseminating the info is a security breach punishable by civil and criminal penalties, in addition to being grounds for termination of employment. If either of these journalists received info from an airline employee, these consequences would have been known, and the person leaking the information ran the risk of being found out. If someone chose to assume those risk, great for them, but they do so at their own risk.
Second, I appreciate a whistleblower as much as the next person, but there is no Shield Law which grants the journalist the right to not reveal their name as a source. Wish it were different, and yes, that results in a chilling effect, but that is the state of the law.
Third, I empathize with these journalists/bloggers. They are good people reporting on a story, and I personally like both of them a lot. That said, it defies credibility to think that they didn't realize there could be consequences of printing the directive. Other news sources mentioned some of the info contained in the directive, but it would have been hard to miss the fact that no one was willing to go on the record with the information. Uh. . . that would be because they knew the consequences of disseminating the information.
Now the TSA wants to know who leaked the information. Because, like it or not, it does violate federal regulations. Because of their online presence, it seems likely to guess that these guys received the info via email, and seizing their computer allows the feds to track down where the leak came from.
It's easy to bash the TSA for what went on. Really, really easy -- because there's lots of responsibility to go around. But this issue really isn't about them. It's about someone who received protected security information and turned it over to others who were not authorized to receive that information.
Wishing the TSA had handled things differently or published it themselves doesn't change the fact that someone leaked confidential information and they want to know who. I wish this hadn't happened, wish these guys well, and hope that it has a happy ending. None of that negates the fact that this is a legitimate legal inquiry.