Airlines, Travel Sites Hand Over Your Full Booking Credit Card, IP Info To Feds, Who Keep It Stored With No Encryption

from the incredible dept

Ars Technica's Cyrus Farivar filed a FOIA request for the Passenger Name Records (PNRs) that had been stored by the federal government concerning his own travel history. PNRs are created by travel companies (airlines, hotels, cruise lines) whenever you book a reservation, and are then handed over to the government. After an appeal, Customs and Border Patrol turned over the records, showing that airlines (1) record a ton of information about you every time you book a flight and (2) hand over all that information to the government. Bizarrely, this includes the credit card number and IP address you used to book your travel, and it appears that the airlines and the US government are ignoring the most basic of cybersecurity protections in that they store the credit card info in the clear. The fourth line in the record above is Farivar's (long-expired and changed) full credit card. While it may not seem like a huge surprise that the government is basically snooping on everything you tell the airlines (including seat changes, food preferences, any special assistance you might need, etc.), it's stunning that they're passing around and storing credit card info in the clear.

Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University, said that my story raises a lot of questions about what the government is doing.

“Why isn’t the government complying with even the most basic cybersecurity standards?” Cate said. “Storing and transmitting credit card numbers without encryption has been found by the Federal Trade Commission to be so obviously dangerous as to be ‘unfair’ to the public. Why do transportation security officials not comply with even these most basic standards?”

Farivar also notes that the CBP publicly states that the info is kept for five years, but his own records go back to March of 2005 -- suggesting that the CBP is hanging onto all this info for a lot longer. Of course, as we've seen in the past, if there's one government agency that appears to be able to get away with anything with absolutely no oversight at all, it's Customs and Border Patrol. However, this seems like a fairly serious problem. Beyond the 4th Amendment questions it raises about why they're getting all this information on Americans, it seems like they're creating a much bigger security risk in storing (and passing around) all such info in the clear.

Filed Under: credit cards, customs and border patrol, cyrus farivar, dhs, foia, homeland security, passenger name records, pnr, travel, unencrypted

Homeland Security Redacts Drone Info It Already Released Publicly In Report To Congress

from the oops dept

We've noted multiple times in the past that the process by which the federal government redacts documents it's declassifying and/or releasing publicly is quite arbitrary, and when the same document is released multiple times, the redactions can be totally different. However, the latest screw up along those lines is quite incredible. Last summer, Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol sent EFF a bunch of records in response to EFF's FOIA lawsuit concerning CBP's use of drones (CBP later "found" additional records it had neglected to pass along).

Those documents were certainly interesting, but perhaps more interesting (and troubling) is that last fall, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) in Congress had asked DHS for similar information, including "all mission logs related to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol's (CBP) drone program from 2010 to 2013." DHS eventually handed over that information, including many of the same documents it released to the EFF, which were shared publicly. Except... the documents it gave to Congress had many more redactions than the ones they released to EFF.

Senator Tom Coburn's staff noticed this, and thought it was, well, rather odd, that DHS seems to think that the public can handle the information, while the relevant oversight committee in Congress cannot. Coburn has now sent a letter asking about the differences:

DHS insisted these documents were so sensitive they could not be produced without explicit promises they would be handled with utmost care, and reviewed only by Committee staff. The Department further requested the Committee promise not to release any document without receiving permission from DHS, and to return or destroy all documents when they had been reviewed. The Committee declined to oblige this virtually unprecedented request.

The documents DHS produced are extensively redacted. DHS claims it redacted information relating to activities by other agencies. The release of that information to Congress, it stated, is "under review," presumably with the other agencies.

My staff has reviewed the logs DHS produced for calendar year 2010. From this limited review, it appears that DHS has redacted information in the documents it provided to the Committee that is not redacted in the same documents DOJ released publicly.

For 2010 alone, my staff has tallied at least 20 instances in which the publicly-released documents appear to contain legible passages which are redacted entirely or in large part from the documents DHS provided the Committee. In other words, DHS appears to have chosen to withhold information from Congress which the DOJ -- and, we must assume, DHS -- has determined was appropriate to share with the American public. I have attached examples to this letter for your review.

Also of concern is the apparent lack of coordination between DHS and outside agencies, particularly the Department of Justice. DHS stated to the Committee that the passages it redacted were "pending review" with an outside agency. However, a comparison of the redacted passages with the publicly-released documents reveals that several of those passages relate to support for DOJ components, including the FBI. If the DOJ compels public release of documents detailing activities on behalf of its own component, and the documents are subsequently released to the public, it is not clear why DHS would later withhold the same information from Congress in order to consult with DOJ.

Oh, also, Coburn's staff noticed that some of the documents included don't appear to have been given to EFF at all, raising a separate question: that even among the newly found documents that DHS is still withholding pertinent information.

Of secondary concern but still significant, my staff noted several instances in which information that was provided to Congress does not seem to appear, even in redacted form, in the public documents released to the public interest group, suggesting that information may have been withheld in full from the organization without explanation or accounting.

Not surprisingly, Coburn is... not pleased with DHS over this.

The Department's conduct in this matter has impacted the Committee's ability to conduct its Constitutional responsibilities to oversee DHS operations. It has delayed access to relevant documents, and what it has provided falls short of what it is required to share with anyone, let alone in response to a Congressional request.

For over a year, this Committee has pressed the Department for more information regarding its unmanned aerial vehicle operations. These improperly redacted documents raise even more questions. If these vehicles are being operated in accordance with U.S. laws and in support of the Department's statutory mission, the lawfulness and efficacy of their operations should be easily demonstrable. This exercise may be said to demonstrate many things, but it does not demonstrate efficiency or transparency. Congress and the American people have a right to expect more from a Department which asks to be trusted with powerful tools and great authorities.

After all this, Coburn orders DHS to hand over "a full, unredacted set of the documents" as soon as possible.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dhs, drones, homeland security, redactions, tom coburn
Companies: eff

Homeland Security Is An Embarassment With The Way It Treats US Citizens At The Border

from the this-needs-to-stop dept

A few months back, we wrote about the horrific treatment by Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol agents of On the Media producer Sarah Abdurrahman and her friends and family at the border. They were all US citizens and yet were detained for many hours for no reason, had their electronics seized and were generally treated terribly. Homeland Security has refused to explain why it stopped them -- though, the obvious answer is that they were Muslim. There is now a similar story from Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, the Emmy-nominated producer and host of Huffpost Live (full disclosure: he once had me on his show), discussing how he gets detained every time he returns to the country. This time, he was just coming back from the World Economic Forum at Davos, and he was given a document with a big X over his face and sent to a "special" line: As he notes, the room was... full of "brown" people:

At the door, an Egyptian-American woman greeted me, "Al Salaam Aleykum," she said. I reluctantly responded "Wa Aleykum Al Salam," though I was hardly feeling at peace. The room was filled with rows of seats and several DHS officers with colorful folders (red, yellow, green, blue) lined up in front of them with passports and travel documents. The juxtaposition of the colorful folders with the rows of mostly brown people filling the seats was suspect in itself.

"Omar Mubarak... Juan Diaz... Sayed Hussain," the officers called us one by one.

I couldn't help but feel as though JFK itself was a bit racist.

And, just as Sarah and her family and friends discovered, despite being US citizens, DHS treats them all like criminals:

After a 14-hour trip, I wanted to stretch my legs. So I stood up, anxious to find myself back in the room, especially after having written to the DHS. "Take a seat," the officer at the door sternly said to me. I told him I wanted to stretch my legs after the long flight. He told me I wasn't allowed to stand up. You are also not allowed to use your phone or electronic equipment. I was also slightly surprised to find as many children in the room as there were cameras.

"Sir, I'm a U.S. citizen who wants to stand while being detained. Am I not allowed to stand?" I said, pointing to the Asian man and Pakistani woman standing with their toddler strapped to the man's chest. Anyway, there were only two empty seats in the room with a capacity of 60.

"Sit down!" he repeated for the sixth time, and came and confiscated my phone, which I was using to try to text my coworkers who were waiting to share a car home.

Like Sarah, DHS won't provide any information as to why he was detained. And it clearly wasn't random, seeing as this is the third time in a row it has happened. While he has applied to have his name removed from the list, as we noted with the lawsuit involving Rahinah Ibrahim, DHS seems to have no interest in correcting its mistakes until forced to do so.

Frankly, this is disgusting. It's sickening that we are treating American citizens this way as they attempt to return home. Homeland Security and the US government seem to have dropped all pretense of freedom if you happen to be brown, Muslim or have an Arabic name (and just imagine those who hit on all three). This is not what this country is supposed to stand for -- and the fact that we now have two very similar stories from prominent journalists, and DHS continues to respond by saying absolutely nothing, is even more disgusting. With On the Media, they've been trying to pressure Congress to investigate the matter, but to date, no one in Congress seems to want to take on this issue, which is a real shame.

Filed Under: ahmed shihab-eldin, customs and border patrol, detention, homeland security, profiling, sarah abdurrahman, us citizens

CBP 'Discovers' An Additional 200 Drone Flights It Didn't Originally Include In Its FOIA Response

from the it's-amazing-what-a-little-legal-battle-can-do-for-responsiveness dept

The EFF is still uncovering more usage of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) drones by other agencies and far away from what anyone would consider to be the "border." The CBP apparently "forgot" to list several other flights on the tally sheet forced out of its hands by the EFF's FOIA lawsuit.

Customs & Border Protection recently “discovered” additional daily flight logs that show the agency has flown its drones on behalf of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies on 200 more occasions more than previously released records indicated.

Last July we reported, based on daily flight log records CBP made available to us in response to our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, that CBP logged an eight-fold increase in the drone surveillance it conducts for other agencies. These agencies included a diverse group of local, state, and federal law enforcement—ranging from the FBI, ICE, the US Marshals, and the Coast Guard to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the North Dakota Army National Guard, and the Texas Department of Public Safety.

The new data brings the number of flights up from 500 to 700 over a two-year period and adds several new names to the list of patrons of the CBP's drone lending library. Unfortunately, lawsuit or not, the CBP still refuses to release the names of some of the law enforcement agencies which have borrowed its drones, claiming (of course) that doing so would "jeopardize ongoing investigations." In some cases, this may be true, but as the EFF points out, there are others where naming names wouldn't do much to narrow down when and where the drones were used.

[A]s we pointed out in our summary judgment brief, disclosing that CBP was working with, for example, the Pima County, Ariz. Sheriff’s Department would not be specific enough to affect any particular criminal operation. It would hardly be surprising that CBP was working with Pima County because it shares a border with Mexico. It is also—at 9,200 square miles—one of the larger counties in Arizona and has one of the highest crime rates of any county in the country—a rate of 4,983 crimes per 100,000 people. Given the large geographic size of and crime rate in this county and others like it, it is hard to imagine that releasing information about which county sheriff’s department CBP is working with would enable suspected criminals in the area to link CBP’s drone surveillance to their particular criminal activity.

Not only is the usage more widespread than previously indicated by the CBP's first response, but the use of sophisticated technology meant for war zones has been deployed along our borders as well as potentially far inland. The EFF notes that the VADER surveillance system, which was developed for use in the war in Afghanistan and can detect the presence of people from 25,000 feet in the air, has been in use by the CBP since 2011 and has been used by 30 other agencies since that point.

Equally as troubling, considering the growing number of agencies using the CBP's drones, is the fact that data and info gathered is likely being held onto indefinitely.

CBP states in its PIA [Privacy Impact Assessment] that it stores data unassociated with a particular investigation for no more than 30 days, but much, if not most of this data will be associated with an investigation and may therefore be stored indefinitely—even if it includes footage of property, vehicles and people unassociated with the investigation.

As we've covered before, many law enforcement agencies are deploying drones and other surveillance technology well ahead of crafting usage guidelines and privacy considerations. Borrowing a drone indicates the agency likely doesn't already have one -- which also indicates it doesn't have anything in place to govern its use or disposal of unneeded or incidental data. Anything deemed potentially relevant will be kept and agencies -- especially those without rules on the books about drone usage -- are under no self-imposed obligation to rid themselves of incidental data.

The EFF has released an updated compilation of CBP drone flights based on the CBP's "discoveries" with the new information helpfully highlighted, including the addition of a mysterious entity designated only as "Local PD Officer." The CBP's inability to include all "responsive" info in its first release (back in July of last year) means this new data dump probably isn't complete either. Refusing to release names of the law enforcement agencies taking advantage of the CBP's seemingly indiscriminate loaning program does nothing to prevent future abuse by providing cover for agencies without surveillance guidelines or controls in place.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dhs, drones, foia, law enforcement

Rep. Peter King's Office Suggests NPR Producer Lied About Being Detained At Border By DHS

from the gotcha-moment dept

We've written a few times now about how a producer for On the Media, Sarah Abdurrahman and many of her friends and family (all of whom are American citizens), were detained by US customs and border patrol (CBP) officials at the US Canadian border for many hours with no explanation. Their treatment was horrific, and worse, no one at DHS seems to have any interest in explaining what happened or why. On the Media then created a cool crowdsourcing tool asking people to call their Congressional representatives to try to get answers.

The latest report involves some of the people who have called and what sort of response they got back. Not surprisingly, so far, not much has come of the effort, as no one in Congress seems particularly interested. However, I did want to call out one particular interaction, involving Rep. Pete King's "new media guy" who a caller reached. The caller, Philip Elmer-Dewitt, explained Sarah's story, and King's staff apparently got confrontational. According to the caller:

And he said:

"Why should I believe this just because someone reported it?"

And I kinda got my back up and said:

"So, are you calling the NPR producer a liar?"

And he said:

"Oh! So you got your 'gotcha moment' now!"

And he was a little hostile, so I backed off a bit and said:

"No, it's a journalistic experiment. We're trying to elicit information. We're trying to learn what the policy is."

But, basically his answer was that Sarah should call her representative and that's all there was to it.

Of course, it's worth remembering that Rep. Pete King famously was very supportive of IRA terrorists, but now argues that Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald are "traitors" and even that Greenwald should be prosecuted (based on completely false claims that King appears to have made up himself). He's also claimed that calling the NSA's activities "snooping" or "spying" amounts to slander. Now, apparently, his staff are getting confrontational with constituents asking rather basic questions about how DHS is treating American citizens at the border. Makes you wonder whom Rep. Peter King actually thinks he's representing.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, detention, dhs, journalism, oversight, peter king, sarah abdurrahman

DHS Interrogates NY Times Reporters At Border, Then Denies Having Any Records About Them

from the right,-sure dept

Thought it was just officials at UK airports detaining and interrogating journalists? According to a new lawsuit from two NY Times reporters, they were also pulled aside and interrogated by Homeland Security officials multiple times concerning their own reporting efforts. The two reporters, Mac William Bishop and Christopher Chivers were apparently pulled out for special interrogation at JFK.

Among other things, Plaintiffs seek records used or created by DHS employees in respect to the questioning of Plaintiffs at JFK Airport earlier this year. Plaintiffs were subject to segregated questioning by DHS employees at JFK on May 24, 2013, as they prepared to board an international flight for a work assignment as journalists. Subsequently, on June 6, 2013, Mr. Bishop was subjected to further segregated questioning by DHS employees at JFK as he returned to the United States.

Given this, the two journalists filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on records pertaining to themselves... and got back absolutely nothing. After playing hot potato with the FOIA requests between different DHS agencies, the reporters basically got back messages saying that there were no records on either.

On September 27, 2013, ICE denied the Bishop Request. ICE reported in a "final response" that the unite had conducted a search and found no responsive documents.

On October 28, 2013, Mr. Bishop appealed ICE's denial. In his appeal letter, Mr. Bishop said it was "inconceivable that DHS has no records pertaining to [him]" as someone who is "a frequent international traveler." He pointed out that on June 6, 2013 he had answered questions for DHS employees in a private room at JFK, and those answers were recorded on a computer.

On November 18, 2013, ICE denied Mr. Bishop's administrative appeal, finding that the agency had done an adequate search.

As for the TSA, that unit of DHS informed Mr. Bishop by letter on July 31, 2013 that his "request was too broad in scope." TSA required more information before processing the request.

On August 9, 2013, Mr. Bishop, through counsel, responded by letter. He restated the initial request and asserted that no legal authority supports the proposition that TSA could simply refuse to do the search.

More than two months later, on October 23, 2013, TSA told Mr. Bishop's counsel that it could not find the August 9, 2013 letter. Counsel subsequently provided a new copy of the letter and additional information about the June 6, 2013 questioning at JFK. There has been no further response from TSA.

Remember how Eric Holder insisted that the feds weren't going to keep intimidating journalists? Yeah, right.

Filed Under: cbp, christopher chivers, customs and border patrol, detention, dhs, foia, ice, intimidation, journalism, mac william bishop, reporters
Companies: ny times

Case Over No-Fly List Takes Bizarre Turn As Gov't Puts Witness On List, Then Denies Having Done So

from the shameless dept

As you my have heard, there's a trial going on here in San Francisco about the legality of the complete lack of any sort of due process concerning the US's "no fly" list. The NY Times has a good background article on the case, which notes that somewhere around 700,000 people appear to be on the list, where there's basically no oversight of the list and no recourse if you happen to be placed on the list. This lawsuit, by Rahinah Ibrahim (who had been a Stanford PhD student) is challenging that.

In that case, a Stanford University Ph.D. student named Rahinah Ibrahim was prevented from boarding a flight at San Francisco International Airport in 2005, and was handcuffed and detained by the police. Ultimately, she was allowed to fly to Malaysia, her home country, but she has been unable to return to the United States because the State Department revoked her student visa.

According to court filings, two agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation visited Ms. Ibrahim a week before her trip and asked about her religious activities (she is Muslim), her husband and what she might know of a Southeast Asian terrorist organization. A summary of that interview obtained by Ms. Ibrahim’s lawyer includes a code indicating that the visit was related to an international terrorism investigation, but it is not clear what other evidence — like email or phone records — was part of that inquiry.

The Identity Project blog is covering the trial, which kicked off earlier this week with a ridiculous situation, highlighted by BoingBoing. Apparently, one of the people set to testify in the case, Ibrahim's oldest daughter, Raihan Mustafa Kamal (an American citizen, born in the US), was blocked from boarding her flight to the US to appear at the trial, and told that she was on the no fly list as well. Kamal, a lawyer, was an eye witness to her mother being blocked from boarding her flight. The US knew that Kamal was set to testify and from all indications, in a move that appears extremely petty, appears to have purposely blocked her from flying to the US. Kamal was directly told by the airline that DHS had ordered them not to let Kamal to board. The airline even gave her a phone number for a Customs and Border Patrol office in Miami, telling her to call that concerning her not being able to board.

Judge William Alsup, who is known for his rather no-nonsense approach in court (and his willingness to dig very deep into understanding the issues), quickly noted that this apparent blocking of Kamal was ridiculous, and demanded that the government explain what happened. When they insisted they knew nothing about it, Alsup wasn't satisfied. Nor was he satisfied with the story they eventually came back with. As Edward Hasbrouck at the Identity Project reports:

Judge Alsup ordered the government defendants’ lawyers to investigate and report back. “You’ve got ten lawyers over there on your side of the courtroom. You can send one of them out in the hall to make a phone call and find out what’s going on.”

At the end of the first day’s session of the trial (more on that below), the governments’ lawyers told Judge Alsup that they had made inquiries and had been told that “the plaintiff’s daughter just missed her flight” and was rebooked on a flight tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon.

Needless to say, that story strains credulity. If Ms. Mustafa Kamal had merely missed her flight, why would she have been given a CBP phone number in Miami to call for information about what had happened? The governments’ lawyers insisted that, “That’s what we have been told”, but Judge Alsup wasn’t satisfied.

“We may have to have a separate evidentiary hearing about this,” Judge Alsup said, and ordered the defendants to provide further information tomorrow... “I want to know whether the government did something to obstruct a witness, a U.S. citizen.”

That was Monday. Tuesday morning, Ibrahim's lawyer proved that the DOJ was flat out lying the day before by presenting the "no-board" instructions that DHS had sent to Malaysia Airlines to the court:

“None of that was true,” Ms. Pipkin told the court this morning. “She didn’t miss the flight. She was there in time to check in. She has not been rebooked on another flight.” And most importantly, it was because of actions by the DHS — one of the defendants in Dr. Ibrahim’s lawsuit — that Ms. Mustafa Kamal was not allowed to board her flight to SFO to attend and testify at her mother’s trial.

Ms. Pipkin said that Ms. Mustafa Kamal had sent her a copy of the “no-board” instructions which the DHS gave to Malaysia Airlines, and which the airline gave to Ms. Mustafa Kamal to explain as much as it knew about why it was not being allowed to transport her. Ms. Pipkin handed Judge William Alsup a copy of the DHS “no-board” instructions to Malaysia Airlines regarding Ms. Mustafa Kamal.

As Hasbrouck notes, the airline deserves kudos for handing over that info. Many airlines would simply keep it a secret. Judge Alsup, however, will not consider the document yet, noting that there isn't evidence to its authenticity and it's not part of a sworn record. Thus, he said that when Kamal arrives in SF to testify, that can be a part of her testimony. While the lawyer pointed out that Kamal was hesitant to buy another ticket if she wouldn't be able to board again, Judge Alsup made it clear that she needs to come, and also appears to have made it quite clear to the DHS that if she is blocked again, there will be consequences:

“Get her on an airplane and get her here,” Judge Alsup responded. “She’s a U.S. citizen. She doesn’t need a visa. I’m not going to believe that she can’t get on a plane until she tries again. ” And Mr Freeborne, with disingenuous faux-solicitude, claimed that the government is “willing to do whatever we can to facilitate” Ms. Mustafa Kamal’s ability to board a flight to the U.S.

Judge Alsup wasn’t willing to take any action today on unproven allegations or unverified documents. But he made clear that, “I am disturbed by this…. We’ll hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it turns out that the DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the government’s case. I want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to what has happened. You find a witness and get them here.”

The report from Monday also describes other ridiculous claims by the DOJ, including trying to argue that information that was publicly available could not be included in the case because it was "sensitive security information" (SSI). Once again, Judge Alsup saw through the DOJ's bullshit and called them out on it:

That’s ridiculous. Are you saying that if the president makes a speech, TSA can retroactively make it a secret what he said? It cannot be the law that something that is publicly known later becomes hidden…

Here’s my ruling: If it’s in a document that’s SSI, but it’s also available from some other publicly available source, it’s public information, and cannot be withheld from the public in this courtroom…. The government is taking such an unreasonable position on how to run a trial. If it’s been in the public domain for years, you’re barred from making the argument that the plaintiff’s counsel cannot “disclose” it….

Trials are important. Trials are supposed to be public.

I want to categorically reject one thing: If information is publicly available in some other way, the government does not have the right to retroactively clamp it down and remove it from the public record. Even if it could have been protected as SSI within the government, if the plaintiff obtains this information independently, the government can’t clamp that down.

The plaintiff has the right to prove her case. If she can prove it through publicly available admissible evidence, she can do so even if that information is also included in internal government documents designated as SSI.

That’s the way I feel. That’s the law, that ought to be the law, and that’s the only way to run this country. That’s my ruling, and if the government disagrees, I invite you to take an emergency writ to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It would be an understatement to suggest that Judge Alsup is not impressed with the US government's actions so far. The notes from day two in the trial provide a lot more background on what happened. It would appear that the lawyers for Ibrahim are making a (rather compelling, from the evidence) case that bumbling US law enforcement officials confused two very different Malaysian organizations with similar names: Jemaah Islamiyah Malaysia, which is a terrorist organization, and Jamaah Islah Malaysia, "a non-profit professional networking group for Muslims who have returned to Malaysia after post-secondary schooling in the U.S. and Europe." The two organizations are, as you would imagine, quite different. Ibrahim is involved in the latter, and has no connection to the former, but it sounds like the FBI agents who interviewed her were unaware of the difference.

The further details of Ibrahim's life, her arrest and treatment, all suggest a situation where US law enforcement totally screwed up, and seriously mucked up someone's life -- and now they seem to be doing everything possible to avoid taking responsibility for it.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dhs, doj, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, raihan mustafa kamal, william alsup

Crowdsourcing Journalistic Pressure On Congress To Get Answers About DHS's Treatment Of US Citizens At The Border

from the join-in dept

A few weeks ago, we were among many who were stunned to hear the story of On the Media producer Sarah Abdurrahman on the show about how she, her family, and a bunch of friends were all detained at the Canadian/American border by US Customs and Border Patrol agents (CBP) in two different locations. Every single one of the people detained were American citizens, and they were all treated absolutely horribly. Many had their electronics confiscated, and they were kept in freezing conditions without any explanation or recourse. One man was taken away from his family, put in a cell, and then his family was told that "an agency" was coming to deal with him, and they were told nothing further (only later to find out it was because of an unpaid ticket from years ago.

Perhaps even more horrifying than the treatment that they all went through was the complete lack of response to any and all journalistic questions about this. The DHS basically refused to return any calls and just ignored the matter. Abdurrahman was able to get one person from one of the border crossings on the phone at one point, and was basically told that he wasn't going to tell her anything. The sheer lack of accountability, concern or transparency was both shocking and depressing. Since then, On the Media has continued to try to get answers... and has come up empty. Homeland Security and Customs and Border Patrol appear to be taking the position that maybe if they ignore this situation it'll go away.

Not likely.

In talking their situation over with some experts, the OTM team was told that the way to deal with this was to get Congress to hold DHS accountable, and the way to do that is to have constituents of Representatives who have oversight authority concerning DHS to call their Reps and demand answers. OTM has tried calling their own Reps without much luck, so they've instead decided to crowdsource the journalistic effort. They're asking basically all of their listeners to put on their journalist hats, and to call Congress, asking some specific questions. If that listener happens to be represented by someone on a DHS oversight committee, it connects you directly to that office. Otherwise, they'll pick randomly from the list (of course, non-constituent calls tend to have less sway with Congress).

To make this even easier, they've built a tool to make it easy to call Congress, complete with the list of questions they'd like you to ask and a form to fill out the answers. Oh, and they've made the whole thing embeddable. It's at the bottom of this post. For those who think this doesn't have an impact, you should never underestimate the power of phone calls to your Representatives. They tend to have significantly more influence that most people expect.

Filed Under: border patrol, cbp, crowdsourcing, customs and border patrol, homeland security, journalism, on the media

Border Patrol's Horrific Treatment Of On The Media's Producer, Family & Friends Highlights The Lack Of Accountability From DHS

from the shameful dept

By now we've all heard plenty of stories about ridiculous goings on at the border by Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol agents. We've written many times about questionable electronics searches. Still, I urge people to listen to the story that On The Media producer Sarah Abdurrahman did for last week's episode, all about how she, her family and friends were all detained at the Canadian border for around six hours, the treatment they received and the lack of answers that anyone is willing to give when she asked questions (as a journalist) about these actions. Listen to it and try not to get angry at the shameful behavior of these agents supposedly representing our country.

Everyone they detained was an American citizen, coming back to the US after attending a wedding of a cousin. They were treated terribly, put in a cold room with no food or drinks, and no information on what was going on. CBP demanded they hand over their electronics, and made it clear they might not get them back. The thing is, this isn't a unique situation. As the report notes, there's almost no oversight over CBP actions, allowing them to act with impunity. In the report, the story is told of a 4-year-old girl, an American citizen, who was detained for 14 hours, in a cold room, without being allowed to speak to her parents and given no food beyond a cookie. And then she was deported. Even though she was a US citizen. She was allowed to come back weeks later, but now has symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Abdurrahman's own story is perhaps not that crazy, but is still ridiculous. She tried to find out information during the detainment, but was repeatedly told "it's not your right to know." She wasn't even allowed to know the names of the CBP agents who detained them. When she asked, agents turned their backs to her so she couldn't see their name tags. Multiple attempts at getting Homeland Security or CBP to respond to questions failed.

She also tells the story of some other wedding attendees who were similarly detained with incredibly obnoxious behavior from CBP agents. The first one they met was quizzing everyone in the car on their names, and the 3-year-old kid in the back cheerily volunteered his name and the CBP agent snapped at him. The agents initially promised that they wouldn't search their phones, but then demanded that people unlock their phones, and even told them the phones would be confiscated and not returned. People complained that they needed their phones for work and were basically told too bad. Abdurrahman notes that three full cars of people from that one wedding all had their phones confiscated, and she notes that DHS claims only about 15 phones are confiscated each day by CBP, and wonders why everyone from one wedding appear to have nearly reached that quota.

Then there's the really ridiculous part: one of the people detained went through mutliple invasive body searches, and then after five and half hours was suddenly handcuffed and locked up in a jail cell with no explanation at all. He asked the officers to let his family know what was going on, but they didn't. Instead, they told his family to leave, and when they asked what happened, his family was told that "an agency" was coming to "pick him up," without giving any more details -- obviously leading to the worst assumptions. Instead, it turned out the guy had an unpaid ticket for a crooked license plate from 2006. CBP called the Michigan State Police to come "get him" over this -- and, again, didn't explain any of this to his family.

Basically, the CBP seems to act like you'd expect pretty much any group in authority with no oversight to act. They seem to feel free to terrorize people just because they can and because there are no recriminations. And there's basically nothing to be done about this. Abdurrahman finds out that they can submit a complaint, but that such complaints rarely lead to anything, other than getting a cursory letter saying that the complaint has been "dismissed."

The stories and quotes from the various individuals who went through this -- all American citizens just trying to get back into their own country -- are heartbreaking. They talk about how dehumanizing this is, how unwelcome it makes them feel in their own country, how it feels like an attack on their dignity, how it makes them feel like an animal. It's horrifying and shameful. It's also depressing. This is not how any country should act, especially towards its own citizens, and when it's my country acting this way, I'm horrified. Yes, all the stuff about America standing for freedom and whatnot can be seen as its own form of propaganda -- and most people realize that the US has never really lived up to the ideals it sets forth, but to have them stomped on so blatantly, and then having no one willing to answer for them is just... horrific. Sarah, her family and friends, all deserved much better. And, we, as American citizens all deserve much better.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dehumanizing, dhs, homeland security, sarah abdurrahman, us citizens