Sweden Abruptly Decides Esports Are Not Sports When It Comes To COVID-19 Exemptions

from the going-viral dept

We've marked an awful lot of progress markers when it comes to the emergence of esports into the popular lexicon throughout the world. If there were a general theme to those posts, it certainly would be the progress esports has made in being considered a real, established sport, and not just a hobby that borrows that word with no validity. Progress, as I enjoy saying, is not linear, however.

And now it appears that how at least one nation is dealing with the world's early emergence from COVID-19 protocols, is exposing one minor step back on all the progress. Sweden was set to host Valve's DOTA 2 big championship contest, The International, until very recently when the country's sports federation suddenly decided that esports aren't actual sports when it comes to COVID-19 travel exemptions. By way of background, this tournament was originally supposed to be held in Sweden in 2020, but it got pushed to 2021 due to the pandemic. As Valve planned for the event, it worked with the Swedish authorities to make sure everything was a go.

As Valve outline in a blog post, Sweden still has a number of stringent restrictions in place regarding public gatherings, which would otherwise threaten the ability to hold a big in-person tournament like The International, even though elite sporting events have been excluded from these.

Valve claims that as planning continued local authorities “continued to reassure us in our regular and constant communications with them that The International - Dota 2 Championships qualified for the same exemptions other elite sporting events there received.”

The exemption language specifically states that travel exemptions would apply to, among other categories,:

-people travelling for the purpose of performing highly skilled work, if their contribution is necessary from an economic perspective and the work cannot be postponed or performed remotely, including people who will take part in or perform necessary tasks at elite sports competitions

That sure does sound like The International would fit the categorization. Due to that and to the communication with the Swedish government, Valve planned to host the tourney in Stockholm. Then, suddenly, The Swedish Sports Federation voted to not allow any esports organizations as members. As a result, the COVID-19 exemptions no longer would apply to anyone traveling to the country for the tournament. Soccer and other sporting matches that include large crowds and international players are all moving forward; esports tourneys like The International will not.

Not wanting to give up, Valve instead asked Sweden’s Minister of the Interior to “reclassify The International - Dota 2 Championships as an elite sporting event.” Which he immediately refused. They then appealed directly to the Swedish government, and were knocked back again.

So now, as July approaches, Valve has decided to all but abandon their Swedish plans and start “looking for possible alternatives elsewhere in Europe to host the event this year, in case the Swedish government is unable to accommodate The International - Dota 2 Championships as planned.”

Now, we can argue all day long whether the world in general, or Sweden in particular, is in the right place when it comes to combatting COVID-19, whether large sporting events like this should even be held, or under what circumstances they should be held. But what doesn't seem to make sense in any capacity is to have the approval to host this agreed upon tournament live at the pleasure of a Swedish sports organization's opinion on whether or not esports is sports-y enough to warrant the same exemptions as other large sporting events.

Two steps forward, one step back, when it comes to esports' place in the world alongside more traditional athletic events. And with just a dash of annoying bureaucracy to boot.

Filed Under: covid, covid-19, esports, sweden, travel

Federal Court Says The DHS's Terrorist Watchlist Unconstitutionally Deprives Travelers Of Their Rights

from the fix-it-or-ditch-it dept

A federal court [PDF] has just declared the federal government's Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) unconstitutional. It's not that the government can't maintain a database of travelers it feels are enough of a threat to hassle repeatedly, it's that it can't do this without providing more information to, and better redress options for, those it has placed on this list.

Unlike the "No Fly List," TSDB placement doesn't necessarily prevent those on the list from traveling. It just means they'll be subjected to enhanced screening processes and detentions that can last for hours. Travelers are not informed when they are put on this list. Nor are they told whether or not they are on this list if they ask the government why they're being searched and detained every time they attempt to board a plane or return from a foreign country.

The guidelines for placement on the TSDB are vague. They're also something the government isn't willing to discuss. A nomination can be performed by almost any federal agent for almost any reason. This is how the US government ends up presiding over a so-called terrorist watchlist that contains children as young as four years old.

The sole avenue of redress provided by the government does not work. The DHS's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program was revised after being declared unconstitutional by this same court in 2015. The new version was considered adequate for travelers placed on the more restrictive "No Fly" list. But it isn't adequate for those the government feels are benign enough to be allowed to board planes, but somehow still dangerous enough to be subjected to lengthy interrogations and highly-intrusive searches.

The entire redress process is a black box. The DHS takes the complaint, determines whether or not the person is on the TSDB, and then tells the complainant nothing. Unlike the revamped redress process for the "No Fly" list, possible watchlist members are never told whether or not they're on the watchlist, or whether they're still on it after the government has taken a second look at their nomination.

The government tried to dodge this lawsuit by claiming two things: first, that traveling around the country without being hassled is not a right. Second, it said the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their non-litigation options, pointing to the very TRIPs process the court has declared unconstitutional. The court points out the plaintiffs are suffering real, ongoing harm due to their placement on this watchlist. That's enough to make the broken redress process the DHS offers unconstitutional.

Coupled with Plaintiffs' movement-related rights are their reputational interests and claims of reputational harm resulting from their placement on the TSDB. A person has certain rights with respect to governmental defamation that alters or extinguishes a right or status previously recognized by state law, known as a "stigma-plus."

[...]

Here, Plaintiffs' reputational interests implicated by their inclusion in the TSDB are substantial because of the extent to which TSDB information is disseminated, both in terms of the numbers of entities who have access to it and the wide range of purposes for which those entities use the information, including purposes far removed from border security or the screening of air travelers. For example, TSDB information is used in the screening of government employees and contractors, for which purpose access to the TSDB is provided to certain large private contractors to screen certain employees, as well as private sector employees with transportation and infrastructure functions.

Additionally, and significantly, the FBI shares an individual's TSDB status with over 18,000 state, local, county, city, university and college, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies and approximately 533 private entities for law enforcement purposes. These private entities include the police and security forces of private railroads, colleges, universities, hospitals, and prisons, as well as animal welfare organizations; information technology, fingerprint databases, and forensic analysis providers; and private probation and pretrial services. The dissemination of an individual's TSDB status to these entities would reasonably be expected to affect any interaction an individual on the Watchlist has with law enforcement agencies and private entities that use TSDB information to screen individuals they encounter in traffic stops, field interviews, house visits, municipal permit processes, firearm purchases, certain licensing applications, and other scenarios. For example, Plaintiffs might experience in other interactions with law enforcement agencies or affiliated private entities the same kinds of encounters they complain about at the border being surrounded by police, handcuffed in front of their families, and detained for many hours. In short, placement on the TSDB triggers an understandable response by law enforcement in even the most routine encounters with someone on the Watchlist that substantially increases the risk faced by that individual from the encounter.

Given what placement on the list takes away from those on it, the process provided by the DHS to seek redress is not Constitutionally adequate.

DHS TRIP, in its current form, provides no notice concerning whether a person has been included or remains in the TSDB, what criteria was applied in making that determination, or the evidence used to determine a person's TSDB status. Nor does the DHS TRIP process provide the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon to assign them TSDB status. Give the consequences that issue out of a person's inclusion on the TSDB, the Court concludes that DHS TRIP, as it currently applies to an inquiry or challenge concerning inclusion on the TSDB, does not provide to a United States citizen a constitutionally adequate remedy under the Due Process Clause.

The DHS will need to fix its redress process. Again. What may have sufficed for the more restrictive "No Fly" list does not come close to being constitutional when it comes to its other, far more expansive, watchlist.

Filed Under: civil liberties, dhs, due process, terrorist screening watchlist, terrorist watchlist, travel, tsdb
Companies: cair

FOIA Documents Detail DHS/CBP's Rules-Free Rollout Of Biometric Scanning Program

from the where-we're-going-we-don't-need-rules dept

The push is on to implement biometric screening at major US airports. The DHS has been pushing this for awhile, telling concerned travelers all they need to do to opt out is not travel. The pilot programs don't seem to have produced anything in the way of actionable results, but the administration's insistence that the US is surrounded by terrorists has dropped a lead foot on the DHS's gas pedal, resulting in an accelerated process that ignores both concerns about biometric scanning tech and the concerns of the traveling public that will be subjected to it.

EPIC's numerous FOIAs have resulted in an impressive stash of documents detailing the DHS's biometric scanning surge.

According to 346 pages of documents obtained by the nonprofit research organization Electronic Privacy Information Center — shared exclusively with BuzzFeed News and made public on Monday as part of Sunshine Week — US Customs and Border Protection is scrambling to implement this “biometric entry-exit system,” with the goal of using facial recognition technology on travelers aboard 16,300 flights per week — or more than 100 million passengers traveling on international flights out of the United States — in as little as two years, to meet Trump's accelerated timeline for a biometric system that had initially been signed into law by the Obama administration. This, despite questionable biometric confirmation rates and few, if any, legal guardrails.

The documents contain little that suggests the DHS will be addressing the numerous concerns that have resulted from its biometric scanning rollout. Nothing delivered by the CBP shows any limits placed on partnerships with the private companies supplying the tech, including their use of the wealth of data supplied by travelers. Data-sharing appears to be part of the CBP's plan, and there's nothing in the paperwork suggesting the government will deter private companies from exploiting the biometric data their scanners collect.

What little the CBP did have to say about its biometric scanning program is that it's definitely going to happen and it's definitely going to keep expanding. And it's going to do this under the cover of darkness as the CBP moves forward with the program it sells as a "convenience for travelers."

The documents also suggest that CBP skipped portions of a critical “rulemaking process,” which requires the agency to solicit public feedback before adopting technology intended to be broadly used on civilians, something privacy advocates back up.

Minimal oversight meets minimal transparency. It's the sort of officious brushoff we've come to expect from terrorism-related government programs. The less the public knows, the less likely it is to express its concerns in actionable ways. The rollout also has the advantage of operating in a legal vacuum. There's not a lot of casework on the suspicionless gathering of biometric data. It could be argued someone's face has no privacy expectations when it's being worn out in public, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the government should be able to collect this data en masse and hold onto it for an indefinite period of time.

So far, data shows facial recognition tech isn't the miracle proponents believe it is. Deployed systems have tended to produce a large number of false positives. And if they're kicking out false positives on a regular basis, they're also likely missing the people the systems are supposed to identify and remove from circulation. The government's refusal to discuss the limitations and use of this tech publicly only adds to the problem. The public's best source of info comes from documents sued out of the agency's hands. Forced transparency isn't really transparency.

Filed Under: airports, biometric scanning, cbp, dhs, facial recognition, homeland security, surveillance, travel

New Zealand Airports Customs Officials Performing 'Digital Strip Searches' Of Travelers' Electronics

from the putting-the-'awful'-back-in-'lawful' dept

Despite DHS hints that foreign airports were falling down on the "security theater" job, it appears a few customs officials are more than happy to engage in local versions of "extreme vetting." New Zealand customs officials are way ahead of the DHS in this department, having turned airports into rights-free zones where nearly anything can happen... to travelers.

According to an investigative report by New Zealand's 1 news, airport customs officials routinely force up to two travelers each day to give up their electronic devices and passwords for searching. According to the customs agents, the program is designed to look for smugglers by performing a "digital strip search" on the phones and laptops of travelers. This does not require a court order, but the agents do claim to adhere to New Zealand's privacy act.

Yes, somehow the stripping of someone's electronic privacy still "adheres" to the privacy act. One would think "smuggling" would be routine criminal act, not worthy of "digital strip searches." One would also think some sort of reasonable suspicion would be needed to proceed with this, as compared to anti-terrorist activities which usually result in rights-violation blank checks being issued to customs authorities.

The data shows more than 1,300 people have been subjected to these suspicionless "strip searches" since 2015, with less than a third of those being New Zealand citizens. The majority of those searched are foreigners and it appears visitors to the country should somehow expect delays of up to five hours thanks to this supposedly random vetting process.

And there is no option to refuse this additional, highly-invasive search. As Techspot reports, travelers refusing to hand over their electronic devices can be subject to fines of $5,000. That makes it a very expensive trip, especially for foreigners. Extra delays, extra costs, zero privacy -- all in the name of keeping untaxed cigarettes out of NZ or whatever.

Filed Under: electronics, new zealand, privacy, searches, travel

Basically The Entire Tech Industry Signs Onto A Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Exec Order

from the we-need-to-stand-up dept

I've been quite clear how I feel about Donald Trump's awful executive order that places a blanket ban on people entering the US (even if they had valid visas) from 7 countries, including a permanent block on Syrian refugees. Tons of people have been protesting this decision, and multiple courts have ruled against it. There has been some discussion over whether or not the tech industry was really going to stand up against this move, and some of the early statements about the executive order were a bit weak. However, late Sunday night, basically the entire technology industry (plus some companies from other industries as well) signed onto an amicus brief calling the order illegal and unconstitutional (technically, it's a motion asking for permission to file the amicus brief, with that brief attached).

The brief was filed in the Ninth Circuit appeals court, which is one of the first appeals courts considering the executive order, after a federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on enforcing the exec order. On Sunday, the appeals court refused to reverse the lower court, keeping the TRO in place. However, it also gave both parties (the lawsuit itself was filed by the state of Washington) a very quick turnaround time to file written arguments to be considered.

Given that incredibly short time frame, the fact that 97 companies -- including some of the world's largest -- but also some tiny ones, like the Copia Institute (the think tank arm of Techdirt), were able to come together and not only get a detailed amicus brief together, but also get sign on from all of those companies (on Super Bowl Sunday, no less), is impressive. Having been through the process in which amicus briefs with multiple signers has been done before, normally there's lots of hemming and hawing from different companies and nitpicking over certain choices. It takes a lot of effort. Update: Another 30 companies have signed on as well.

But this issue was so important and so core and fundamental to our basic values, that basically the entire industry came together and signed onto this. You name the company, and it's probably signed on. There are the big guys: Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple (despite a false Washington Post article that claimed none of them had signed on). There are lots of other huge names as well, including Twitter, Snap, Uber, Airbnb, Lyft, Dropbox, Cloudflare, Box, eBay, GitHub, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Medium, Mozilla, Patreon, Paypal, Pinterest, Reddit, Salesforce, Spotfy, Stripe, Wikimedia, Yelp, Y Combinator and many, many more. Update: Among the notable companies in the "late" sign on, were SpaceX, Tesla, Slack, Pandora, Adobe, HP, Evernote, Udacity and more...

I highly recommend reading the full amicus brief -- which makes an economic argument, a moral argument and a legal argument all wrapped up in one.

Immigrants make many of the Nation’s greatest discoveries, and create some of the country’s most innovative and iconic companies. Immigrants are among our leading entrepreneurs, politicians, artists, and philanthropists. The experience and energy of people who come to our country to seek a better life for themselves and their children—to pursue the “American Dream”—are woven throughout the social, political, and economic fabric of the Nation.

For decades, stable U.S. immigration policy has embodied the principles that we are a people descended from immigrants, that we welcome new immigrants, and that we provide a home for refugees seeking protection. At the same time, America has long recognized the importance of protecting ourselves against those who would do us harm. But it has done so while maintaining our fundamental commitment to welcoming immigrants—through increased background checks and other controls on people seeking to enter our country.

[....]

The Order effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies. It hinders the ability of American companies to attract great talent; increases costs imposed on business; makes it more difficult for American firms to compete in the international marketplace; and gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations— and hire new employees—outside the United States.

The Order violates the immigration laws and the Constitution. In 1965, Congress prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin precisely so that the Nation could not shut its doors to immigrants based on where they come from. Moreover, any discretion under the immigration laws must be exercised reasonably, and subject to meaningful constraints.

There's much more in the full brief, and hopefully the court allows it and recognizes how momentous this is. I've never seen anything that so many tech companies have gotten behind (including things like SOPA), and this happened so fast that it is literally unprecedented. A whole bunch of people put in a tremendous effort to actually get this done (including more than a few having to miss the Super Bowl to get this done...). Andy Pincus from Mayer Brown deserves a specific shoutout for being the main lawyer putting the brief together.

We shall see what happens from here, but having basically the entire tech industry rise up in a single voice to say that this order is not right is nice to see. In this day and age, it's easy not to speak out and to just sit on the sidelines. But this is important, and when it mattered all of these companies spoke out.

Filed Under: amicus brief, donald trump, executive order, muslim ban, tech industry, travel, visas
Companies: apple, copia institute, facebook, google, microsoft, netflix, snap, twitter

Belgium Wants EU Nations To Collect And Store Personal Data Of Train, Bus And Boat Passengers

from the what-next?-bicycles? dept

It's become pretty common for the authorities to collect personal information about passengers from airlines, supposedly to ensure security. It's a sensitive area, though, as shown by the many years of fraught US-EU negotiations that were required in order to come up with a legal framework for transferring this data to the US when EU citizens were involved. However, not all EU countries are so concerned about that privacy thing. Belgium, for example, thinks that the current approach doesn't go far enough, and that it should be extended to include all forms of mass transport. As this EurActiv article notes, the Belgian parliament has already voted to bring in a national system for trains, buses and boats by May 2018, and the country is calling for the rest of the EU to follow suit:

In response to a number of terror attacks, Belgium wants greater control over who travels on its trains, buses and boats and will present its plans at the next meeting of EU interior ministers at the end of January.

However, there's a problem. Last year, the EU finally passed the EU Passenger Name Record (EUPNR) directive:

The EU PNR directive will oblige airlines to hand EU countries their passengers' data in order to help the authorities to fight terrorism and serious crime. It would require more systematic collection, use and retention of PNR data on air passengers, and would therefore have an impact on the rights to privacy and data protection.

Despite data protection safeguards that were included, resistance to bringing in this directive was fierce from many quarters. EurActiv says:

According to EU diplomats, the decision on air traffic passenger data was already a "big step" and that measure only applies to travellers going to or from third party destinations.

Against that background, asking the EU to extend the PNR scheme to include trains, buses and boats may be going too far, so to speak. Nonetheless, it's a bad idea that's now out there, and all-too likely to spread.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: belgium, eu, personal data, terrorism, travel

Law Enforcement: Traveling From Anywhere To Anywhere Is Suspicious Behavior

from the a-nation-of-300-million-drug-dealers dept

Want to travel from anywhere to anywhere in the United States without being hassled by law enforcement officers? Good luck with that, citizen.

USA Today's Brad Heath pointed out an interesting footnote in an asset forfeiture filing that made the assertion that traveling from Chicago to Los Angeles is inherently suspicious. (One presumes the opposite is also true.)

If you can't see the embed, the government's footnoted assertion reads:

Chicago is a known consumer city for narcotics and Los Angeles is a known source city where narcotics can be purchased.

Also of note: suspect had a backpack, an item used to carry stuff -- something no legitimate traveler would possess.

Turns out this sort of ridiculous assertion isn't limited to this particular filing. Law enforcement agencies are of the firm belief that traveling between any cities where drugs might be "consumed" (which would be every city in the US) and any cities where drugs might be sold (again, the list is long and inclusive) is a healthy indicator of drug-related activity.

The following map lists "known" drug "source" [red] and "destination" [blue] cities, along with links to relevant court filings or statements by law enforcement officials. Pretty much traveling from any large city to anywhere else could be construed as a drug run.


Even though the courts are sometimes unimpressed by this facet of reasonable suspicion, it's still routinely used to justify searches of all things.

US v. Green

Once we discount the facts with which we find weaknesses, we are left with Green's arrival on a plane from a known source city, and her vagueness about the purpose of her trip. These facts are insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

US v. Newland

Given that nearly every stretch of interstate is considered a drug corridor, the fact that a stop occurred on any such route is almost meaningless. See United States v. Wisniewksi, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1093 (D. Utah 2005) (“[T]raveling on a ‘drug corridor’ cannot reasonably support a suspicion that the traveler is carrying contraband. To so hold would give law enforcement officers reasonable suspicion that every vehicle on every major—and many minor—thoroughfares throughout this country was transporting drugs.”), aff’d, 192 Fed. App’x 749 (10th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, because of courts’ willingness to designate various cities and states as “source” regions for narcotics, it is likely that most major roads in this country could be considered drug corridors. See Foreman, 369 F.3d at 795 (Gregory, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.3 38 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing cases recognizing, inter alia, Colorado, Texas, Florida, Arizona, the entire West Coast, New Jersey, New York City, Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale, Houston, Chicago, and Dallas as drug source cities or states); State v. Quirk, 842 N.E.2d 334, 343 (Ind. 2006) (“[C]onsidering the substantial number of states and cities that have been designated as sources of drugs, a motorist, in our highly mobile society, would be hard pressed not to travel either from, to, or through a drug-source jurisdiction.”).

Speaking of which, if you're not flying, you're probably driving. Nearly every major highway in the US can be considered a "drug corridor," depending on who you ask. These "drug corridors," also known as "interstate highways," are prime trolling spots for asset forfeiture. Traveling along these roads subjects out-of-state travelers to instant suspicion and warrantless searches, simply because these roads are also used by drug traffickers. Good luck avoiding using one of these highways during a road trip.


Now, some of you might be saying, "Every one of these cases cited resulted in a law enforcement officer finding drugs! They're right to be so suspicious!" Well, arrestees have more motivation than most to challenge the constitutionality of a search. Many innocent people who have been illegally searched simply because they're on one of these roads/in any major airport won't file a lawsuit. In fact, many people probably believe law enforcement has the right to search people and vehicles simply because of their originating cities and/or destinations. On top of that, many searches and seizures are tied to asset forfeiture, where no conviction is ever obtained and the amount of money seized suddenly seems unimportant when a lawyer informs someone they'd need $5000 or so to even consider fighting the uphill battle to liberate the seized funds.

And if you don't believe me, here's Eighth Circuit Appeals Court Chief Judge Richard Arnold -- from all the way back in 1992 -- explaining the dangers inherent to viewing travellers as drug traffickers simply because of where they're going or where they've come from.

The White opinion is less than three years old, and none of our cases decided since that time has questioned it or thrown doubt upon it in any way. There are differences between the present facts and those in White, to be sure, as there always are, but the differences, on balance, do not place this search and seizure appreciably closer to the line of legality than what happened in White. Like Weaver, White was “very nervous,” he arrived from a source city, the flight was early in the morning, and White had no checked luggage. Some of the facts in White, indeed, appear stronger than the present case: for example, White had purchased his ticket with cash, and it was a one-way ticket. The agents did not know whether Weaver had bought his ticket for cash or not, or whether it was one way. Weaver did not have a copy of his ticket, but sometimes innocent people lose their tickets, to say nothing of ticket coupons which may be of no further use to them. I have lost tickets myself. Weaver had no identification, or at least declined to produce any, but this was his undoubted right: we have not yet come to the point in this country (except maybe in airports) when citizens must identify themselves to public employees.

[...]

Airports are on the verge of becoming war zones, where anyone is liable to be stopped, questioned, and even searched merely on the basis of the on-the-spot exercise of discretion by police officers. The liberty of the citizen, in my view, is seriously threatened by this practice. The sanctity of private property, a precious human right, is endangered. It’s hard to work up much sympathy for Weaver. He’s getting what he deserves, in a sense. What is missing here, though, is an awareness that law enforcement is a broad concept. It includes enforcement of the Bill of Rights, as well as enforcement of criminal statutes. Cases in which innocent travelers are stopped and impeded in their lawful activities don’t come to court. They go on their way, too busy to bring a lawsuit against the officious agents who have detained them. If the Fourth Amendment is to be enforced, therefore, it must be by way of motions to suppress in cases like this.

This is America, post-declaration of (drug) war. This has been 40 years in development. Now, we've added the faulty assumptions of the post-9/11 "national security above all" mindset to it. Traveling from anywhere to anywhere is to invite the suspicions of our nation's domestic "warriors" who patrol our airports and highways, ever-vigilant for the opportunity to rip open luggage or toss a rented car in hopes of finding drugs… or better yet, cold, hard cash.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, doj, probable cause, suspicion, travel

DailyDirt: Getting From Point A To B... Really Really Quickly

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Transportation has evolved from simply walking to riding to flying to sailing and orbiting and all kinds of modes of travel. We've grown accustomed to speeds of 100-600 mph or so, but it's possible to go a lot faster. A Concorde jet could go over 1,000 mph, but those planes aren't in service anymore. Traveling to space might not appeal to that many people, but getting from NYC to LA in an hour might. Check out a few concept vehicles that could accomplish supersonic (or hypersonic) travel.

• Elon Musk's Hyperloop project isn't totally crazy. It's still somewhat crazy, but there are some people building a prototype now -- so a working version might exist someday. [url]
• SpaceLiner is a suborbital, hypersonic, winged passenger transport concept that could take people from Europe to the US in about an hour. Flying on what is essentially an intercontinental missile probably has some additional security issues, but there are plenty of other practical problems for this transportation idea. [url]
• Other evacuated tube transport systems (aka vactrains) could travel 5,000 mph all over the globe. That is, if anyone wants to build the tubes across oceans.... And maybe China will do it. (Or maybe not.) [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: concept vehicles, concorde, elon musk, evacuated tube transport, hyperloop, hypersonic, spaceliner, supersonic, transportation, travel, vactrain

Laura Poitras Sues US Government To Find Out Why She Was Detained Every Time She Flew

from the time-for-some-answers dept

These days, Laura Poitras is known as the Oscar-winning director of the Ed Snowden documentary CITIZENFOUR, and with it, one of the reporters who helped break Snowden's story in the first place. Pre-Snowden, she was a not-as-widely-known-but-still-celebrated documentary filmmaker, who also got some attention after her future colleague Glenn Greenwald wrote an article about how she was detained at the border every time she flew into the country (which was frequently, as she had made a documentary, My Country, My Country, concerning the Iraq War, along with The Oath, which reported on two Yemenis who had worked with Osama bin Laden). As Greenwald wrote back in 2012:

But Poitras’ work has been hampered, and continues to be hampered, by the constant harassment, invasive searches, and intimidation tactics to which she is routinely subjected whenever she re-enters her own country. Since the 2006 release of “My Country, My Country,” Poitras has left and re-entered the U.S. roughly 40 times. Virtually every time during that six-year-period that she has returned to the U.S., her plane has been met by DHS agents who stand at the airplane door or tarmac and inspect the passports of every de-planing passenger until they find her (on the handful of occasions where they did not meet her at the plane, agents were called when she arrived at immigration). Each time, they detain her, and then interrogate her at length about where she went and with whom she met or spoke. They have exhibited a particular interest in finding out for whom she works.

She has had her laptop, camera and cellphone seized, and not returned for weeks, with the contents presumably copied. On several occasions, her reporter’s notebooks were seized and their contents copied, even as she objected that doing so would invade her journalist-source relationship. Her credit cards and receipts have been copied on numerous occasions. In many instances, DHS agents also detain and interrogate her in the foreign airport before her return, on one trip telling her that she would be barred from boarding her flight back home, only to let her board at the last minute. When she arrived at JFK Airport on Thanksgiving weekend of 2010, she was told by one DHS agent — after she asserted her privileges as a journalist to refuse to answer questions about the individuals with whom she met on her trip — that he “finds it very suspicious that you’re not willing to help your country by answering our questions.” They sometimes keep her detained for three to four hours (all while telling her that she will be released more quickly if she answers all their questions and consents to full searches).

It wasn't only at the border that she was subject to such searches. Often, even when flying domestically within the US, she was called out for further scrutiny and searches.

After Greenwald's article, a bunch of documentary filmmakers signed a petition protesting the treatment of Poitras, and between the press coverage and the petition, the harassment of Poitras suddenly stopped.

After this, she filed some FOIA requests to find out why she had been supposedly given a high threat rating in the DHS database, causing such detentions. Not surprisingly, the government refused to reveal any such information. And that brings us to the latest, where Poitras, with help from the EFF, has now sued the US government (specifically the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice) to get them to reveal why she was considered a threat.

As the filing itself explains, Poitras filed FOIA requests with basically every part of the government that might have information on her detentions, and basically got nothing in response from any of them, either by mostly ignoring the requests or rejecting them.

As the lawsuit also notes, Poitras took detailed records of her detentions (when she could -- in at least one instance she was denied the use of a pen to take notes after being told she might use it as a weapon). And the lawsuit includes some detailed descriptions. Here's just a snippet from a much longer list.

On or around August 22, 2006, while traveling from Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”) in New York City after attending the Sarajevo Film Festival, Plaintiff was paged to security while transiting through the Vienna International Airport in Vienna, Austria. Plaintiff was thereafter taken into a van and driven to a security inspection area. All of Plaintiff’s bags were searched and xrayed. The head of airport security at the Vienna International Airport told Plaintiff that her “Threat Score” was 400 out of 400 points. Plaintiff was eventually allowed to board a plane to the United States. Upon her arrival at JFK, CBP agents again met her at the gate. Plaintiff was thereafter escorted to a holding room, where she was detained and questioned for roughly two (2) hours, and where her bags were searched for a second time, before being allowed to enter the United States.

On or around November 26, 2006, while traveling from Paris, France to Newark on her way home from a vacation, Plaintiff was met by boarder agents upon her arrival at Newark. She was detained and questioned for 30 minutes.

On or around December 17, 2006, while traveling from Dubai, United Arab Emirates to JFK after attending the Dubai Film Festival, Plaintiff was met by border agents upon her arrival at JFK. She was again detained and questioned before being allowed entry into the United States. The CBP agents asked Plaintiff when she had last been to Atlanta, Georgia and told her that she had a criminal record, despite that she had never been arrested.

Unfortunately, the courts have been pretty deferential to the government concerning things like the "no fly" list and the terrorist database, which means this lawsuit might be a long shot. However, one hopes that a judge will see both the clear ridiculousness of the treatment and the rather obvious fact that it was designed to intimidate Poitras and chill her First Amendment rights, and consider forcing the government into releasing these documents.

Filed Under: border patrol, cbp, chilling effects, detained, dhs, laura poitras, travel, tsa
Companies: eff

Cheney Biographer, Fox News Contributor Put On DHS Terrorist Watchlist; Harry Reid's Spokesperson Says It's No Big Deal

from the oh-really? dept

Stephen Hayes, who is the official biographer of former Vice President Dick Cheney and who also authored an entire book promoting dubious claims that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a close working relationship, is the sort of person who basically seems to support nearly all of our government's excesses in the supposed "war on terror." So, as some people noted, there seems to be a bit of irony in the fact that he has ended up on the DHS Terrorist Watchlist.

As we've discussed, the recently leaked guidelines about how you get on the watchlist shows that it's incredibly (and ridiculously) vague. It can be summed up as "someone at DHS thinks you did anything that might possibly be suspect, so onto the watchlist you go." That's why nearly half of the people on the list have no actual terrorist affiliation.

As for how Hayes ended up on the list, he claims it's because he recently booked a one-way flight to Istanbul for a cruise, returning to the US from Athens a few weeks later. Indeed, that seems likely. Marcy Wheeler has been pointing out for a while that one of the criteria to be put on the watchlist is merely "travel... to a locus of TERRORIST ACTIVITY" and apparently Istanbul counts.

In fact, Spencer Ackerman, at the Guardian, actually got US officials to quietly admit that those reports you've heard of 100 Americans "fighting for ISIS" is an almost entirely bogus claim based entirely on Americans who "travelled to Syria or attempted to travel to Syria over the past 18 months." In other words, if you're an American and you happened to travel to or near Syria, the US government claims you're fighting for ISIS -- even if, say, you went to provide humanitarian aid or to fight against ISIS. The US government doesn't care. Onto the "terrorist" list you go.

Speaking of not caring, when asked about Hayes being placed on the watchlist, Senator Harry Reid's long-time spokesperson (who previously worked for Senator Ted Kennedy) gave a "who cares?" response:

I have no idea and frankly don't really care why [a] Bush/Cheney apologist ended up on a TSA watch list -- Senator Kennedy was on a list as well

That is... an absolutely ridiculous response, and shows just how out of touch those in power have become. The proper response is that if people like both Stephen Hayes and Ted Kennedy are ending up on a terrorist watchlist something is seriously screwed up with that list and the process to get people on the list. Besides, isn't it a little disturbing that a person in power on one side of the traditional political spectrum shrugs off the government putting someone at the other end of that spectrum on a terrorist watchlist?

No one's legitimately worried about any harm done to Hayes for being on that list. He's going through the motions to get off the list, which I'm sure will work out just fine. Because he's white and a person of some influence with connections to famous politicians. But, as we've covered, if you happen to be Muslim, and happen to be put on the list it's nearly impossible to get off. Even if you're politically connected, being Muslim means that you can be put on a watchlist here in the US.

At some point you have to ask what is the point of all of this. It doesn't seem to be about making us any safer.

Filed Under: dhs, dick cheney, harry reid, homeland security, isis, james manley, stephen hayes, terrorist watchlist, travel, tsa, tsdb