First, I am active duty military and I only get so many days of leave; when extenuating circumstances happen to delay travel - I still get charged for the leave.

So there I was on Monday, 11 Aug in the Detroit Metro Airport which happens to be NWAs worldwide hub. I am there a little more than an hour and a half prior to my flight. I was scheduled to leave around 130p on a Monday.

When I checked in at the E-ticket console a message flashed stating that the flight was overbooked and that I was being offered a voucher. I arrived with the intention of checking my only bag because I needed to check a firearm - something that I have done several times. Current TSA policy on firearms is that they need to be in a hard-sided case and locked (my case was a standard manufacturer's case that is completely hard-sided and has been through airlines checks numerous times).

I usually have a lock, but TSA always ends up taking it off and telling me I don't need it. Of course this time I didn't take a lock. The NWA agent told me, after I informed her of my firearm, that TSA wouldn't check it because it didn't have a lock, I told her I would talk to them and see what they would say.

The TSA agent told me that she wouldn't take it without a lock. Trying to minimize time-damage, I asked her if a zip tie would do - logicizing (that absolutely has to be a word) that since law enforcement and military use zip ties in lieu of steel handcuffs to detain people, a zip tie should work instead of a mini lock that I could bend with my bare hands.

She said, mockingly, that I could not use a zip tie. I asked, "what constitutes a lock?" She replied, "A lock." I politely thanked her for clearing that up for me. The NWA agent, who was trying to be friendly and helpful at a very busy point in the day, actually left the desk to go look for a padlock that they could sell me.

Okay, fair enough, rules is rules—get your OP-blaming out of the way now, because this is where it gets very silly.

While [the NWA agent] was gone, the TSA agent told me that she "can't let this through, even if it has a lock on it it's still accessible".

I was confused and said that I did not understand what she meant. She again stated that the case was accessible even if it had a lock. I explained that I did not know what she meant but that TSA's policy and website state the only two requirements (ammo notwithstanding) are a hard-sided case and a lock. She said, "Even if this has a lock on it, I'm not letting it through."

I pulled out my 3g iPhone, pulled up TSA's website and found the firearm policy and showed it to her. She said, "TSA sometimes gives us different policies than they give you."

I responded, "Are you kidding me? I don't think when it comes to firearms TSA is going to surprise passengers with some magical policy to prevent them from checking firearms they're allowed to check." She responded with, "I'm not letting it through."

I asked, "Who do I talk to about getting this through?; she replied, "A supervisor." I asked if I could please speak with a supervisor and she said, no kidding, "I am a supervisor." Does anyone really believe that a supervisor of any kind is actually going to be on shift at the ticketing counter inspecting baggage and tossing it onto the belt?

I asked to speak to a supervisor, [and was told] iit would be 30 minutes before he arrived. Foreseeing a possible "late arrival" and subsequent loss of seat, I asked the same NWA agent if the vouchers were still being offered, she said yes and I asked if I could sell my seat back for one and she said, "No, you have to be at the gate."

This I know to be untrue for two reasons: I've done it before and it's a ticketing counter and I was asking for help with ticketing. I didn't contest; I waited a few minutes and then went back to her and asked if I could call the gate from the counter and try to do it over the phone; she said "No, you have to be at the gate."

Again, I know this to be untrue because I had just done it with NWA a few weeks prior, not even for me but on behalf of my fiancee. Regardless, I dropped it. The TSA supervisor was great: I gave him a quick explanation, asked him if my case was within policy, he said "Yes, what's the problem?" To which I responded, "Your agent doesn't know your policy and is trying to tell me that you guys have secret policies."

He essentially ignored that, [but] he actually went and got me a TSA lock and gave it to me for free, inspected my bag on the spot and checked it through. After asking, he agreed to escort me to the front of security so I wouldn't miss my flight.

Hooray! Through security! But of course they delay set up a chain reaction.

I asked the NWA agent for my boarding pass (she had taken it earlier when I'd asked for the voucher) - she told me I wouldn't make the flight - it was about 15-20 minutes prior to takeoff, she had told me that at 10 minutes you are checked as late and the seat is given away.

I told her I would still like to try because I still want to try for the voucher, I explained TSA was going to escort me right through security and that I thought I could make it. She said, again, "You won't make it," and she took it upon herself to cancel me off of my scheduled flight and put me on the 730pm flight.

So after I got through security, I went to the NWA customer service center, picked up a "reservation" phone that automatically dials a reservations rep and after a couple minutes of explanation to her she gave me the number of the NWA Detroit Director of Operations (I don't think she realized whose number she'd given me - especially considering the NWA agent at a desk didn't know the guys name when I told her I needed to call him). This guy didn't answer, I left him a message, I never got a call back.

I also called - because the TSA supervisor told me I might be able to get reimbursement - the Detroit TSA customer support manager. He called me back within an hour. I explained to him what'd happened. He stated that he would do an investigation and talk to his people to see what they say happened; gee, I wonder what they're going to say. I asked him what their reimbursement policy was, should he conclude that I was right, he said "we don't have one." He went on to say that his agents err on the side of security. I said, this is absolutely not a case of someone erring on the side of security, she flat out told me hat she didn't know the policy. He then changed his statement to "well, she erred on the side of safety." I laughed and told him it was still the same, that she essentially told me she didn't know the policy - not safety, not security. He said he'd do an investigation and get back to me, that was over a week ago.

I ended up volunteering for a voucher and was put up in a hotel overnight. I asked where my bag would be and was told it would be waiting for me in San Antonio. When I got to San Antonio, the NWA agent first told me it was on the carousel; the same agent, after the carousel was empty, told me she probably had it at the counter. When she finally met me at the counter, she told me she didn't have the keys to the room and I had to do a claim.

After all of that, there's a happy ending, but only because Matt wouldn't let the matter drop. Here's a good example of how persistence can pay off.

Later in the week I spent approx. an hour dialing various numbers and holding and pushing buttons until I finally got through to a person. At first, this woman was surprisingly friendly; she listened to my tale and told me that absolutely I should have been able to do the voucher at the ticketing counter; she told me she'd never heard a case like this, wanted to give me a voucher, but she said she had to go check with her "Sup"[ervisor] first.

When she came back, the warmth was gone and all I got was, "You were made late because of TSA, there's nothing I can do for you."

I told her I was delayed, but not made late and the NWA agent didn't give me a chance to get the offered voucher. She responded, "Yeah, you didn't get to the gate so it wasn't NWAs fault," to which I responded, "It was NWAs fault that I didn't get to the gate." I had to repeat that a couple time. She eventually said she would put down "rude behavior/treatment" by an agent and offered me a $75 voucher.

I said that I wasn't treated rudely, and that I should be getting the flight voucher. She repeated the usual, I said "I don't accept your premise" and she just stated that there was nothing she could do for me. I asked to speak to a supervisor - you know, the "Sup" she just talked to 5 minutes ago - and she said, I thought it was deja vu, "I am a supervisor." I almost laughed; confused by her short memory I asked if I could speak to her supervisor; she said she could do an "escalation," I said that would be fine; she took down my phone number and a good time to call and said that I would receive a call within 24 hours. I never received that call.

I waited a few days and then wrote an email to Kristen Shovlin (from your website) and Beth Reed (from some other website) - both listed as executive types. When I clicked on the "Beth" email link on the other site, Kristen's email address came up; I manually typed in Beth's. Within 3 hours I got a response from Jodee with the usual humminah humminah and I got the voucher.

Thanks for everything you do; hope this is helpful.

Matt

We won't reprint Matt's entire email, because we're running out of space on the web for this story, but basically it was a slightly shorter version of what you just read with the TSA part reduced to "TSA delayed me." At the end of the email, Matt states clearly,

I am sorry for my verbosity, but I feel strongly that I should receive a flight voucher. I tried all of the proper channels first and received essentially no resolution.

(Photo: Getty)

"Now, those who left their license at home or had it stolen have to answer a series of questions relayed to the screener by employees in TSA's operations center in Virginia, where employees have access to databases of public records, including those compiled by data giant Lexis Nexis," according to Wired.

If you have to fly without identification, memorize any old addresses, the date of your wedding anniversary and your children's addresses. The correct answer to questions like these may determine whether TSA lets you on your flight. Of course, you'd better hope that the answers that the TSA has are correct also.

One traveler who had her tax returns with her, says that TSA agents actually looked them over. TSA spokesman Christopher White said, "If a passenger has any type of documents, they can present them to assist in verifying identification. If she presented the officer with her tax return, we don't care how much money she makes—we just care about her identity."

We have already spoken to one reader who says that they were asked about their political party affiliation. Wired says,

The process of comparing answers to public records already caused a flare-up after one traveler was asked whether he was registered as a Democrat or a Republican, which TSA spokesman Christopher White called a "day one mistake," where a TSA employee looked at the available public records and asked a question off of the information in the files compiled by Lexis Nexis and others.

Are we to infer that this question is no longer being asked? Well, at least the answer isn't difficult to memorize. Certainly, some Consumerists have been through this process by now. What questions were you asked that weren't mentioned in this article?

Flying Without ID? Know What's in Your Files [Wired]
(Photo: Getty)

The kill switch guidelines:

The primary focus of the “divert an aircraft” task is to control the airspace and enforce no-fly or restricted flight zones. Effects should be focused on the aircraft, not the pilot or other personnel on board. The capability should enable the enforcement of flight restriction zones (e.g., metropolitan Washington, D.C.), protection of critical infrastructure and other high value assets from a possible aerial threat.

For aircraft on the ground, “stop” requires the aircraft to come to 0 mph at some point between when it starts to taxi and when it reaches abort speed. The requirement to “disable” includes actions to render inoperable, deny use, and/or deny access to an aircraft on the ground. Successful accomplishment of either objective results in keeping the targeted aircraft from becoming airborne.

So far, nobody is quite sure how to design and implement such a device. Additionally, the government would like to see this magical device on boats too. They wish to have a device that could, from 100 meters, "safely stop or significantly impede the movement" of vessels up to 40 feet long, with "minimal collateral damage."

Even if such a device could be properly engineered and implemented, would you be at ease with flying on an airplane that had a government-controlled kill switch which could suddenly take control the aircraft at a moment's notice? Instead of preventing harm, it seems to us, that such a device would only create another avenue for terrorists who could exploit such a device to their advantage. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to believe, like any piece of technology, that this device could malfunction and potentially activate itself. Do you think a kill switch on airplanes is a good idea? How would you go about inventing such a thing?

Pentagon Wants Kill Switch for Planes [Wired]
(Photo: Getty)

The article says,

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government has been concerned about counterfeit documents being used for fraudulent purposes.

"She said the only way I could get it was to send her proof that I am a legal resident here," said Bustos, who works at a McDonald's in Fort Myers. "She wanted me to e-mail her a copy of my green card."

Bustos said she has lived in the United States for 15 years, became a legal resident and received her green card in 2002.

"I told her I thought that was ridiculous," Bustos said. "She represents a private company. She's not an agent for the immigration service, and I have no obligation to show her my immigration status.

"We paid to have those documents sent, and they should deliver them to us. There is nothing illegal in that envelope."

UPS claims that they are only following procedures outlined by the government which is trying to prevent counterfeit documents from entering the country that could potentially be used by illegals to gain citizenship or some other right. The article says,

"Many people are involved in sending fraudulent documents to the U.S. for the purpose of stealing identities," said Zachary Mann, spokesman for Customs and Border Protection in Miami.

Some attorneys have insisted that the procedure violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable search and seizure."

Customs officials disagree. They say there always has been an exception to that law: People at U.S. borders can be searched and belongings can be seized without the usual warrants and legal prohibitions.

Because the courier hubs are where international packages enter the country, they qualify for the border exception, the officials say. Airports also qualify, they contend.

It seems that UPS isn't doing anything illegal in asking her to "identify herself further," but do they have a right to know her citizenship status? Should the government be flagging 2 simple birth certificates over security concerns? Or should Cristina just roll over and get with the system? Let's hear your opinions, Consumerists.

Florida woman's fight with UPS touches nerve over security level [Palm Beach Post] (Thanks to Steven!)
(Photo: Maulleigh)

Until recently, the law said that unwarranted computer searches constituted an "intrusion of the mind", but those days are now over in light of the new rulings. The latest rulings stem from a case where airline passenger, Timothy Arnold, was pulled aside for secondary questioning upon his arrival into LAX from The Philippines in July, 2005. Customs agents searched his laptop and found images depicting child pornography. Initially, it was ruled that agents didn't have reasonable suspicion to search his laptop, however, that ruling was overturned. Arnold was later charged with possessing and transporting child porn and with traveling to a foreign country with the intention of having sex with children.

U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien praised the decision, "The government needs to have the ability to restrict harmful material from entering the country, whether that be weapons used by terrorists, dangerous narcotics or child pornography." However, many disagree.

Travelers now have new concerns about the security of their private and corporate data. Some fear that poorly trained officers could accidentally corrupt or erase data during such searches. Also unknown, is where and how long data will be stored, perhaps making it vulnerable to theft or breaches. As it stands, all retrieved data can be kept indefinitely.

Despite the governments' new far-reaching power into your privacy there are a few things you can do to help secure your data when you travel. CNET offers a handy article that outlines different types of encryption and other techniques that can help keep your data secure.

The added delays and headaches seem almost insignificant when considering how much our personal liberties are being systematically revoked. We can understand the need to search for weapons and contraband but suspicionless searches of data is a bold new level of privacy invasion. Our laptops and personal information, once considered an extension of the mind, are now considered luggage. We wonder how long it will be until our minds are also considered luggage and subject to search without suspicion.

Border Agents Can Search Laptops Without Cause, Court Rules [Information Week]
9th Circuit OKs Border Guards' Search of Traveler's Laptop [Law.com]
Security guide to customs-proofing your laptop [CNET news]
(Photo: Getty)

From Ars Technica:

The web site was hosted on a commercial domain by a contractor and did not use SSL encryption for submission forms that transmit sensitive identification information. The few pages of the site that did use SSL used an expired certificate that had been self-signed by the contractor.

the TSA was completely unaware of the security issues while the site was in operation. During that time, thousands of travelers submitted personal information through the website and a TSA administrator claimed in congressional testimony that the agency had assured "the privacy of users and the security of the system."

As of now, fortunately, there's no indication that any data was stolen during the four-month-long gap in security.

"TSA security flaws exposed users to risk of identity theft" [Ars Technica]

RELATED
"Howto: Get Your Name Off The No-Fly List"
(Photo: Getty)

Read Your Own DHS Travel Dossier [UnSecure Flight] (Thanks to Bill!)

The list (a mishmash of multiple lists, actually) has plenty of bugs. Perhaps most famously, Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy was kept off of airplanes, because someone with the same name was a suspected terrorist.

Getting your name removed from the list has, until now, been a painstaking and thankless task, with no guarantee of success. That's supposed to improve now, via a simplified online "redress procedure," which naturally comes with a government-ese acronym. It's the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Get it? "Trip"? Alright then.

If you're on the list, you can visit the DHS TRIP site and get the ball rolling. It's unclear how long it takes to see real action, but in theory you should hear back within days, rather than the months it used to take. — MARK ASHLEY

DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program [Department of Homeland Security]
(Photo: RussellReno)

Despite a report by Homeland security, the US is going ahead with plans to put RFID tags in everything from passports to drivers licenses.

"The Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee of the DHS concludes that RFID chips are useful in inventory management but aren't suitable for human identification, where privacy issues remain a concern."

"RFID appears to offer little benefit when compared to the consequences it brings for privacy and data integrity. Instead, it increases risks to personal privacy and security, with no commensurate benefit for performance or national security," the report states."

Well, that seems pretty fucking clear. Will the government listen to itself? Who the hell knows. Maybe they should have put the report into an RFID, where more people are likely to read it.

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," Rep. King, R-N.Y, told The Associated Press.

In choosing to publish the materials, executive editor Bill Keller said The Times, "remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Especially within the context of the disclosure of phone records to the government, the allegations of secret AT&T wiretapping rooms, this comes down to protecting the ability free press to be just that, a free press. The vituperative response by whom this article may defame seems to bolster its right to be published. A doth protest too much is in order.

If free speech is treason, then the terrorists truly have won. If they win, the war is over. If there is no more war, then there is no crime of revealing state secrets in wartime. Therefore, there is no treason.

Specious, yes. Only as much so as the counterargument, but with the intent of proving a point, rather than silencing a voice.

Previously:
• Mass Trolling of Banks Records Unavoidable
• US Trolled Bank Records

"...the policy represents a contract with customers, and that AT&T apparently does have the right to share customers' data as it sees fit."

The article goes on to suggest for those concerned, the only true recourse may be to switch to VoIP. In which case, you better check their policies too...

"Personal information isn't that confidential" [SF Gate] (Thanks to Philip!)

After that, you must agree to give them carte blanche ownership of all your phone records, or they shut off your service. Additionally, Ma Bell will track viewers watching its new video program, which cable and satellite operators are forbidden to do.

"While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T," the company said in a statement.

AT&T has been under fire recently as evidence surfaced of its major complicity in giving the government access to its customers call logs.

Spokesman for the company Marc Bien said there was "no linkage" between the revised policy and recent privacy concerns. Rather, AT&T wishes, "to make our policy much easier to read."

Some aren't buying AT&T's argument.

"They're obviously trying to avoid a hornet's nest of consumer-protection lawsuits," Chris Hoofnagle, a privacy consultant, told the SFGate. "They've written this new policy so broadly that they've given themselves maximum flexibility when it comes to disclosing customers' records."

Time to bust out your price-benefit charts and tinfoil hats.

"AT&T rewrites rules: Your data isn't yours" [SF Gate] (Thanks to Philip!)

So this is where all that emergency money got appropriated to:

"[Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann] Minner's office says the Department of Homeland Security has placed the hot line numbers on the federal government's Do Not Call Registry, in an attempt to thwart the telemarketers."

Let us know how that works out.

"Telemarketers Tie Up Emergency Phones" [WTOP]

Unfortunately for Ed, that's exactly the sort of thing that the petty, power-tripping rent-a-cops employed by the TSA hate. So upon a recent flight from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco, Edward found himself detained by the TSA and eventually being questioned by the police, merely for asking who precisely he had to show his identification to in order to clear customs.

Worse yet? Edward was told by the TSA that he did not have to show his passport to contractors because there was no law that required it... but if he didn't, he couldn't pass security.

Edward's tone with the officers may be a bit obsequious: many of you may wonder why he even bothered questioning people presenting themselves as figures of authority. But we dig Edward, because he's asserting the legal rights we all have been too eager to give up in the paranoia that followed September 11th, at the price of his own personal inconvenience (and a whole lot of annoyance).

Unanswered Questions at Dulles Airport [Hasbrouck.org]

comment on this post

A retired police officer used a bogus Mexican ID to enter a Homeland Security building last week. On the card, his date of birth was listed as "Tijuana, B.C." and his address as "123 Fraud Blvd." on "Staton Island, N.Y." [sic].

Furthermore, the forgery was based on a form of the "Matricula Consular" ID which is obsolete and ruled by the Mexican government, as well as the FBI and the General Services Administration, to be insecure.

Mr. DeCell, the ID holder, carries the fake ID in his wallet to see which agencies will accept it.

"DHS is following up on these allegations and will take necessary actions to ensure there is not another occurrence of this type," said Jarrod Agen, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security.

Can't we at least get a Ministry of Information like in 1984? At least those guys were efficient.

comment on this post

"Homeland Security Accepts Fake ID" [Washington Times via Fark]

Most of these requests aren't even legal in the traditional sense of the world: they are sloppy fishing exercises from agencies trying to find some terrorists at all costs to justify their heavy handed tactics. For example, AOL (to be fair, one of the more legally scrupulous companies mentioned in the article) turns down twelve thousand requests for customer information every year. Last year alone, the FBI issued 9,200 National Security Letters (or subpoenas) seeking information on 3,501 citizens without a court's approval.

It's a bad situation for any company to be in: more and more often, companies are having to choose between customer privacy and the unrelenting demands of a paranoid and power-hungry government. You know, I never used to say this... but outside of Ireland's depressing lack of steak-and-cheese subs, I sure am glad I got out of America five years ago. This is what happens when you give up your rights because you are scared.

Requests for Corporate Data Multiply [Wall Street Journal]

Not so Homeland Security or the FCC. They've ordered broadband providers to comply with wiretap access requirements by 2007 and pick-up all the associated bills. For some companies, this could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of course, everyone knows by now that the "Internet wants to be free!" meme was just so much cybertronic granola packed up some naive futurist's butthole.. Still, it's discouraging to see VoIP go the same route as all other forms of communication: another government finger dipping into the pool of our thoughts to double check their tepidity.

In Brief: FCC tells broadband firms to pay tap costs [Physorg] (Achtung: Intellitext bukkake within!)

Interestingly enough, the closer your record is to an inhabitant of Levittown or Leave it to Bever, the better chance you have of making it through security without a hassle.

Although, of course, we've never and we've never heard of anyone being stopped based on a data mining based security check. Then again, we've never gotten a ticket on our Barbie Dreamcar and always obey alternate side parking rules and regulations.

Read more here. [Guardian Unlimited]

It gets weirder. Here's the scoop: on February 21st, Eriksson crashes his $1 million dollar Ferrrari (one of only 400 ever built) into a telephone poll. When the police arrive on the scene, Eriksson begins frenziedly explaining that he was merely the passenger of the vehicle when it spun out of control at 165mph. The driver is a mysterious German man whom Eriksson only knows by the name of Dietrich, who ran off into a nearby canyon and disappeared shortly after the crash.

It gets weirder. Moments after the crash, a group of men arrive on the scene in the guise of the Murky, Omnipresent Man — Homeland Security. The police, without really checking their credentials, lets them onto the crime scene. They poke around, talk to Eriksson, then disappear as suddenly as Dietrich.

It gets weirder. During his interview with the police, Eriksson begins insisting that he is the Deputy Commissioner of the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority's counter-terrorism unit. The S.G.V.T.A. is a nonprofit bus service for the mentally and physically disabled, and it's counter-terrorism presumably combats Al Qaeda's nefarious San Gabriel "gimp" chapter.

But it gets weirder, because Gizmodo has a pidgin English translation of a recent Swedish article, in which Eriksson is identified as a ringleader in the Uppsala Mafia and identified by his underground moniker, "Fat Stefan".

Man, we love this guy.

Link: Ferrari Owner Had Other 'Crash'
Link: Ferrari Case Takes New Twist With Possible Tie to Bus Agency
Link: Gizmondo Heads = Swedish Mafia? Oh My!

Soon, first class may not just refer to where you sit on an airliner, but how you get on board.

The Transportation Security Administration is considering a plan to allow some frequent fliers to pay a fee and skip the time-consuming pre-flight security frisking.

The program, called Registered Traveler, would give passengers the option of paying an $80 a year fee and submitting to a background check. If they pass, they would be issued a card that would allow them to walk past the lines of people taking off their shoes and being patted down with an electric wand.

Swell. What s most enraging about this scheme is that it tries to make money off of the ubiquity of an aggravating social placebo. We all know these pat downs don t work—every week, some newspaper sneaks an intrepid reporter into an airport with a gun or a Swiss Army Knife, and with mild ingenuity manages to get them right past the bored minimum-wagers. Like most copyright protection, the only people these security checks thwart are those least likely to be doing anything wrong—except the guys doing something wrong here aren t trying to rip off the latest insufferable Coldplay CD, but slit the pilot s throat with an exacto knife. But instead of radically rejiggering an impotent system, it s nice to see someone think to himself, Hey, as long as the system s not working, might as well make money off it not working.