| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
TSA subpoenas Fish
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 4:00 PM on 12.30.09 |
->> Steve Frischling got a knock on the door from the TSA:
http://bit.ly/7otfKq
--Mark |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:45 PM on 12.30.09 |
->> This is a serious thing. A federal agency has demanded confidential sources from a journalist.
--Mark |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 6:07 PM on 12.30.09 |
->> Wow that is hardcore, best o' luck to Fish with this matter. Thanks for sharing it Mark.
Three "funny" tags? I see nothing funny about it. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 7:08 PM on 12.30.09 |
| ->> gee, if the feds had expended this sort of energy when the Dec 25th terrorist's dad contacted them to say he was concerned about his son's involvement with extremists, maybe nothing would have happened. As a member of the flying public I'm not very comforted by the fact they are wasting time going after bloggers. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:23 PM on 12.30.09 |
->> Joe,
To be fair, they are really going after an internal TSA leaker. The bloggers are just collateral damage.
--Mark |
|
Thomas Cain, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
New Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 8:13 PM on 12.30.09 |
| ->> I photographed Steve for Wired.com this afternoon. Steve and I had never met before, but I've admired his work for a long time. I can't think of a stranger way to meet a fellow Sportsshooter member... http://bit.ly/8LWukI |
|
Thomas Cain, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
New Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 8:19 PM on 12.30.09 |
| ->> and special thanks to Jim Merithew for getting in touch with me about the assignment! |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Ogden | UT | USA | Posted: 9:01 PM on 12.30.09 |
->> From what I read, it is a done deal - Fish turned over the info they wanted and that's it. Doesn't sound like it was much help though.
The other blogger - with the help of a large paper - is still holding out.
Do I understand that correctly? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 9:16 PM on 12.30.09 |
->> Mike,
... Not exactly...it is a bit more complex than you are reading and that I feel comfortable discussing at this time
-Fish |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:59 PM on 12.30.09 |
->> Hey TSA! Glad to see you are so aggressive on this threat. Too bad you guys failed to be as aggressive when the alleged bomber's father warned us the kid had gone extreme and was probably a threat.
Nothing like closing the door after the cow has left. Thank goodness the attempt failed. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 12:19 AM on 12.31.09 |
->> #1 -I wonder if it's standard practice to delete the original email? Why would you delete it? Wouldn't you check the validity of the source and the authenticity of the document?
#2 -The lawyer gave you bad advice. I agree with the comment on Steve's blog...NEVER talk to the cops without YOUR attorney present.
+++++++++++++++++++
"Frischling says he received the document anonymously from someone using a Gmail account and determined, after speaking with an attorney, that he might as well cooperate with the agents since he had little information about the source and there was no federal shield law to protect him.
The Gmail address consisted of the name “Mike,” followed by random numbers and letters. Frischling had already deleted the e-mail after publishing the document but said he had learned from previous correspondence with the source that he had been hired as a screener for the TSA in 2009."
+++++++++++++++++++
Personally, I can't remember the last time I deleted a legitimate email and I don't know why you would...but that's just me.
;) |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 12:27 AM on 12.31.09 |
->> Delane,
You do not have the details, I will not disclose the details in this forum.
I had been, and am continuing to, speak with an attorney. Unless you are a lawyer, in particular a former federal attorney, I am going to have to listen to counsel rather than you on this issue.
I'll discuss what I can, however there are still quite a details not in the media and I won't be discussing it either.
...and I did verify the authenticity of the document. Don't assume. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 12:34 AM on 12.31.09 |
->> um hmmmmmm....sure...whatever you say.
Trust me...I wasn't giving YOU any advice. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 12:43 AM on 12.31.09 |
| ->> I will not make any assumptions as to what went on. I cannot imagine how scary it is to have the feds at the door. Sorry this happened to Fish. for any of us to say what we would or should do in his situaition is absurd until you are there you have no idea how you will react. Good Luck Fish |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Matthew Bush, Photographer
|
Hattiesburg | MS | USA | Posted: 1:25 AM on 12.31.09 |
| ->> Delane- I may be wrong but I do not think the guy on firestorm is the door knocker. If the website if correct he is in the private sector now. It is hard to tell from the photograph but the eye color is different and the door knocker has alot more hair. I SERIOUSLY doubt a guy with this kind of credentials is playing field agent for the TSA or DHS..... This guy is more suited for NSA or CIA with that list of merits. |
|
Matthew Bush, Photographer
|
Dave Doonan, Photographer
|
Thom Kendall, Photographer, Assistant
|
Sunderland | MA | USA | Posted: 11:29 AM on 12.31.09 |
->> #1-Is it really important which agent came to visit Fish?
#2-Fish...Although I'm sure that the savvy terrorist will surely rethink the "bomb in the underwear" thing, did it cross your mind (BEFORE you posted the SD) that in addition to informing your loyal "Flying with Fish" readers with exclusive, you-heard-it-here-first info on the Security Directive, that you also were potentially disseminating helpful intel to those that would do harm?
One could rightly argue that the TSA measures were implemented "after the horse had left the barn", but the failed (thank God) attempt on Dec. 25 most certainly yielded intel to the TSA/DHS on a possible approach to a violent attack, and the measures were intended to eliminate (at best) or minimize the success of subsequent similar attempts.
Bottom line: the TSA/DHS have a thankless job that is always in flux because the nature of the threat is always changing. If they didn't change their screening procedures in response to the most recent attempt and something else happened, they would have been crucified for not acting. Again, a thankless job. Posting the SD certainly didn't make it any less so.
Did you read the part of the SD that stated "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)."? When the SD came to you from whatever source, didn't it occur to you that the leaker had already broken the law?
I'm a big fan of getting to the truth, and acting in the public interest, but you're no Woodward and Bernstein...
Ultimately I'm just really interested in why you thought it was a good idea to abet the leaker? In your response, please try to avoid trite cliches like:
"We are a free society, knowledge is power and informing the masses allows for public conversation and collective understanding. You can agree or disagree, but you need information to know if you want to agree or disagree. My goal is to inform and help people better understand what is happening, as well as allow them to form their own opinions."
Patient, careful consideration about the consequences of one's actions on others (ideally PRIOR to the act) should also be an integral part of a free and open society. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Ogden | UT | USA | Posted: 11:42 AM on 12.31.09 |
->> I am still confused - he turned over the laptop while the other guy refused to up until now.
Sounds to me like he cooperated to the best of his ability. If he doesn't know who the person is, he doesn't know. |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
|
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 11:47 AM on 12.31.09 |
| ->> Well looks like Fish made Drudge meaning millions upon millions of people are going to read and know this story. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 12:21 PM on 12.31.09 |
| ->> Thom...it's not really important...I read somewhere on the interweb that the TSA agent was basically just someone to serve papers. That is not the case. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 12:21 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Mike,
I cannot elaborate on what you're confused about for certain reasons I can't disclose at this time.
You are welcome to speculate.
Thom:
Check the NY Times vs DOD in the Pentagon Papers. Also the info in the Security Directive was already in the public domain, although not general circulation, by the TSA's own distribution of the document.
You two always love to poke your fingers, as does Delane, and make your jabs...but lets you stick your neck out...and Mike my neck is pretty far out there right now whether you like to think so or not. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:33 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Thom,
If you've ever read his blog, Steven isn't in the "Wikileaks" business. He doesn't post clever ways to sneak things onto airplanes, or post "classified" documents "leaked" by people. He tells people how to fly safely and conveniently as possible given the rules of the day. Nothing in anything I've ever read by Steven indicates that he's in the business of making flying LESS safe or is out to embarrass the TSA by leaking their secret stuff. It's not fair to hang that label on him in this forum.
The security notice you reference from the notice is buried at the bottom in a paragraph of text specifically flagged for aircraft operators. If you read the referenced 49 CFR 1520, you'll find the document in question DOES NOT have the appropriate SSI security markings. Specifically, any document under 49 CFR 1520 must have the following limited distribution assertion on each page (1520.13 subpart a):
"WARNING: This record contains Sensitive Security Information that is controlled under 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520. No part of this record may be disclosed to persons without a “need to know”, as defined in 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520, except with the written permission of the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration or the Secretary of Transportation. Unauthorized release may result in civil penalty or other action. For U.S. government agencies, public disclosure is governed by 5 U.S.C. 552 and 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520."
Subpart d states:
"In the case of non-paper records that contain SSI, including motion picture films, videotape recordings, audio recording, and electronic and magnetic records, a covered person must clearly and conspicuously mark the records with the protective marking and the distribution limitation statement such that the viewer or listener is reasonably likely to see or hear them when obtaining access to the contents of the record."
Burying an incomplete reference to 49 CFR 1520 in a paragraph tagged for aircraft operators doesn't come anywhere close to covering the requirements of the CFR. If the document posted is an original (i.e. not edited to remove the SSI warning), the TSA document was not released with the proper markings under the SSI guidelines referenced above.
In reading the document Stephen and the other guy posted, I can see how it might not be obvious that it's a secure document. The only security warning is obfuscated at the bottom in a paragraph referencing a bunch of government regs directed specifically at aircraft operators. If the document Stephen received had a big scary warning on it as it should have by 49 CFR 1520.13, I seriously doubt he would have posted it. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 1:11 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> I really don't see why the TSA doesn't want travelers and international travelers to know exactly what they should expect when they travel with the new rules.
I see what Fish does as more of a public service than anything else.
If it really was a secret document, it would have been marked so, as Mr. Harpe has pointed out.
I see this more of an intimidation mission by DHS/TSA which is rapidly spinning into a PR nightmare. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Delane,
I have regularly and selectively deleted E-mails for years. For me it's mostly the clutter factor.
If I did receive sensitive information that I suspected might be sought out through the legal system I would do what I could to protect my ability to maintain the confidentiality of my sources before my hands were legally tied by a subpoena.
--Mark |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 1:46 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Mark
DING! |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | Lower 48 | Posted: 2:42 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Thom:
I gave you one of the "Funny's" because, well, the mental picture of a bunch of dudes holed up in the mountains of Afghanistan or some dingy bunker in Yemen, reading Steven's blog for intel, is probably one of the more amusing things I've heard in a while. I particularly like the thought that maybe they're all wearing that same flannel jacket Steve has in the Wired.com story.
- gerry - |
|
Thom Kendall, Photographer, Assistant
|
Sunderland | MA | USA | Posted: 2:52 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> David,
Clearly you've read something into my post that isn't there. I didn't suggest that Steve regularly or intentionally is "in the business of making flying LESS safe or is out to embarrass the TSA by leaking their secret stuff", but simply that he is guilty of a lack of sound judgement in this particular instance.
If he is the expert that he appears to be, with all his intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the airlines and the TSA, AND he read the entire SD (including the bit about dissemination) AND it came from a source that refused to identify him/herself that either is or was a TSA employee, THEN, excuse the pun, he shoulda known that something was "fishy" and that he might be treading in merky territory by distributing it further. |
|
Howard Curtis Smith, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Easton | PA | USA | Posted: 3:03 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Best of luck Steve. This is one bad way to end the year.
It is sad that Steve and Elliot are being hounded over the source of what should have been a public document in the first place.
The new security measures are obvious to anyone who has flown to the US after December 25th. Every passenger has been patted down, has had their bags checked, has been told to stay in their seats for the last hour of the flight, and not to have anything in their lap. The publication of this document neither reveals any secrets, nor endangers the flying public.
I hope the TSA realizes that their heavy handed approach on this matter is only another black eye for the homeland security infrastructure that has had far too many this week, and they back off.
Here is hoping that the new year is better than the old.
Hang in there,
Howard |
|
Jon Gardiner, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:04 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Gerry, I'm glad someone else brought up the flannel jacket, because one bright side of this could be a possible L.L. Bean advertisement. I know Steve's a big "Bean" fan, so it's only natural that he appear with BOTH a flannel shirt AND jacket (with fleece lining, mind you) when confronting TSA agents. Superb marketing...
In all seriousness, I know Steve works hard and is out to help folks with his blogging venture. I hope this all works out. Like Mark Loundy pointed out, it's really a TSA leaker they are looking for... |
|
Thom Kendall, Photographer, Assistant
|
Sunderland | MA | USA | Posted: 3:23 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Gerry-
They're crafty, them bastards! I'm sure they'll mine any source, include the highly acclaimed "Flying with Fish"!
:0)
The "Underwear Bomber" notwithstanding, I think it might be a mistake for us to assume that Al Qaeda lacks sophistication.
Although the two areas you mention likely harbor the most terrorist operatives, recent history seems to indicate that there are those willing to engage in violent terrorist activity in very "civilized" locations, like London, Detroit, Oklahoma City and others. |
|
Bryan Littel, Photographer
|
Oaklyn | NJ | USA | Posted: 3:34 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Possible follow-up thread title: "Fashion Police detain Fish for multiple plaid pattern violations."
Seriously, though, this is yet another reason the national shield law needs to be passed, now that it's finally cleared the Senate Judicial Committee. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 3:37 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> re: Thom
"I'm a big fan of getting to the truth, and acting in the public interest, but you're no Woodward and Bernstein..."
exactly, and that's why the TSA is picking on him as a blogger instead of some of the larger news outlets that reported EXACTLY the same information that he did, before he did, because CNN and the newspapers have armies of lawyers...
bloggers, they're on their own.
I'm sure Mr. Fish does not make enough money from his modest yet successful blog to take on the US govt. in court- and that is exactly what they are counting on. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 3:51 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Joe,
Last year I earned less than $150 from my Blog...I await my Adorama Affiliate check...
Flying With Fish is not intended to be a money driver. It is intended to be an info source. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 3:54 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Jon,
The shirt, LL Bean. The jacket, Woolrich.
My sense of fashion...no one wants to claim that.
The jacket I am wearing is one I keep by the front door for going to the mail box, starting the car, shoveling snow, etc etc etc. In hindsight, I think I should have put on a nice Brooks Brothers shirt and a JCrew blazer.
Next time I am photographed interacting with Special Agents from the Transportation Security Administration and/or Dept of Homeland Security I'll speak with a fashion consultant.
...the Sox hat stays though. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | Lower 48 | Posted: 4:01 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Jon, a man after my own heart; here I was thinking only I noticed the flannel jacket AND shirt.
I see this as a whole new look for Qaeda -- goes great with the keffiyeh or a Kalashnikov. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Ogden | UT | USA | Posted: 4:07 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Fish,
So how long have you been doing the KLM blog?
Do you do othe blogs as well? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 4:11 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Mike,
I started writing the airline's blog from day 1. The content is 100% generated by me at this time. Its about two weeks old and being very well received by their customers from what I understand. |
|
Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer
|
Chelan Falls | WA | USA | Posted: 4:46 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Steven... Keep a stiff upper lip. I predict you will come out of this mess without too many scars. One thing you might keep in mind if it gets any nastier is to contact your representatives so they also know what is going on.
Happy New Year
Rich |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Mike Ullery, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Piqua | OH | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> All of this tells me that terrorists are succeeding in their intentions.
Terrorism is not just the killing of others but the disruption of our "normal" lives. Terrorists have us chasing after our own people. Our government is imposing restrictions and procedures that delay and anger our citizens. We live, if not in a state of fear, at least in a state of confusion and caution. What a laugh terrorists must be having at our expense.
I feel sorry for Steve and all of the headaches he must be going through over this.
Best of luck as the TSA does their best to save face. Hopefully some good will come of this and the TSA will find out how to combat the "next generation" of terror devices. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 6:13 PM on 12.31.09 |
| ->> Good luck Steve. The forum hacks have outed themselves pretty well on this one. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 6:18 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Somebody help me to understand..... Please.
Mark says......."If I did receive sensitive information that I suspected might be sought out through the legal system I would do what I could to protect my ability to maintain the confidentiality of my sources before my hands were legally tied by a subpoena."
{in the context of deleting emails}
Doesn't this rise to the level of conspiring to destroy evidence. In every case that I have ever head of, journalist may refuse to turn over notes or argue what is evidence, even to the point of sitting in a jail while the merits of their decision are argued. To say that you would delete something to usurp a subpoena (in my mind) just screams forethought, and malice against the judiciary that is charged with deciding the validity of a journalist's protest.
I could be wrong, and am open to be educated. So if I'm missing something and anyone wants to help understand, I'm all for it.
Steve I don't know you or wish you any ill will or harm. It just worries me that you would toss in a "ding ding ding" to Mark as a nod that you deleted something to protect an "anonymous" source. I know that you can't won't and SHOULD NOT answer these questions here but I have to voice them none the less. If the source was truly anonymous how did you know that they were authorized to divulge the information sent to you? If you didn't verify the source why would you put it out there? Again I understand that answering these may not be in your best interest. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 6:27 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Eric,
I can say this...I verified the content of the document before placing it on Flying With Fish |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:54 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> Eric, I don't have the massive legal resources of a major media company.
Conspiring to do anything requires more than one party. I clean-up my E-mail files all on my own. Protecting confidentiality has nothing to do with what somebody else might think is a legal matter. There are many reasons other than legal reasons for a source to prefer anonymity.
My guess is that if somebody comes after me with big legal guns, I may not be able to avoid seizure of my property. I simply prefer that there be nothing worth seizing.
--Mark |
|
John Stubler, Photographer
|
San Jose | Ca | USA | Posted: 7:09 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> The latest from the La Times is that the TSA is backing off their demands from Elliot. He now has until Jan. 20.
http://tinyurl.com/yb4bdms |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 7:13 PM on 12.31.09 |
->> TSA's Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement just contacted me to let me know they are no longer investigating how I received the Security Directive or seeking to gain access to my webmail server to try and recover the e-mail address.
They have also dropped the subpoena against Chris Elliot.
I am very happy...I am sure I am not off their radar, but this lets me not panic when I go to sleep tonight.
I am not sure if I can discuss some further details at this time though. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
