“Change We Can Believe In” Donation Drive

Change In October, I posted that I wouldn’t be pursuing an appeal in my case against stop and frisk, which was dismissed on the theory that I couldn’t prove that the 4 plainclothes cops who stopped and frisked me were actually real police officers (they might have been, you know, just ordinary citizens playing a game!). I think the ruling was wrong, but I felt that I couldn’t effectively pursue that appeal in addition to the two actions I have against the TSA, which are more important to me, especially in light of the advances against stop and frisk made by others this year. Each of these cases I take on generate hundreds of pages of complex legal documents, monetary costs, and stress — all totally worth it, by the way.

As a result, the NYPD asked for, and received, a judgment for their costs in arguing the absurd, over my objections and despite their request for costs being after the deadline set by federal rules. They don’t get attorney’s fees, but court reporting fees, copies, etc., resulted in a bill for $820.15.

I’d like to send them this $820.15 in coins, and I’d like your help! If you have a coin jar that you’ve been filling and would like to use it to make a statement, mail it my way. The USPS Small Flat Rate Box would fit well over $100 in coins and costs $5.80 — potentially less than CoinStar would charge you to count them (no worries, I have access to a free coin counter). If you don’t have coins sitting around, I’d be happy to turn your PayPal, Bitcoin, or check donation into pennies, nickles, dimes, and quarters on your behalf. Here’s how:

Coins: Mail to Jonathan Corbett, 228 Park Ave. S. #86952, New York, NY 10003
PayPal: Donate here!
Bitcoin: 15ftA2938sp7Mnsi8U7wYVmEtd4BRbFnkT
Check: Make out to Jonathan Corbett and mail to the address above

Once I get the coins together, I shall assemble them into a sculpture that expresses my feelings towards the NYPD and send it their way. I’ll, of course, post a picture. This, my friends, is change that we can believe in! 😀 Thank you in advance for your support and for helping me to not only continue to fight against abusive governments in court, but also to help me make this special message to the NYPD.

December 9, 2013 6

Judge in CA: If Secret Information Is Published, It Is Public

If you’ve been following my recent Orwellian saga where the government accidentally published one of my sealed briefs, exposing information embarrassing to the TSA to the public, and then demanded that I stop talking about it despite it having been published to millions, there is some good news out in California.

A federal judge for the Northern District of California was confronted with a similar question in another case you may have heard about: Ibrahim v. DHS — the foreign-born professor who left the U.S. for a few weeks to be never allowed back because she was erroneously placed on the no-fly list (which apparently causes your visa to be revoked). The government in that case was demanding that Sensitive Security Information — the D.H.S. monicker for “stuff it wants to keep secret” — be prohibited from disclosure in open court, even if that SSI was gleaned from a public source. U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup firmly and unambiguously rejected that argument in a ruling delivered orally on Monday:

[I]f the government was contending that the ABC list and its very existence was secret and should be SSI, and the plaintiff was able to prove and wanted to try to prove that there was such a list and could do it from independent sources, the government cannot clamp that down and say: No, you can’t even mention it because that’s SSI, if there is an independent public source for that information.

So in my view, the plaintiff has the right to try to prove its case. And if it can prove its case entirely through publicly available information, even if the same — the same information is within the government designated as SSI, the plaintiff can still use that publicly available evidence if it’s admissible.

Let’s hope the court in my case decides the same. I’ve sent them a copy of Judge Alsup’s ruling to help them. 😀

Excerpt from Ibrahim v. DHS Ruling Re: SSI

December 6, 2013 14

NYPD Shoots at Unarmed Man, Hits Bystanders, Charges Man With the Shooting

You can’t make this stuff up.

The New York Times reports that last September, NYPD officers in Times Square came across a mentally disturbed man. When the man reached into his pocket, the cops assumed he was going for a gun (despite it being impossible for the man to have a gun, since guns are illegal in NYC!) and shot at him 3 times. All three shots missed, and two of them hit bystanders. The man was subdued with a Taser and found to have no weapons at all.

Yesterday, it was announced that the man was indicted for assaulting the two bystanders on the theory that he was responsible for the cops being “forced” to shoot at him and injure other people.

The Assistant District Attorney responsible for this assholery is Shannon Lucey. If you’d like to express your outrage, the DA’s office has joined the 21st century and accepts e-mails. No, just kidding, you’ll have to call them (preferably with a rotary phone).

December 5, 2013 8

Why You Should Care About NSA Spying On You Personally

The following thought process is quite common among Americans:

I know the government can read my e-mails, tap my phone calls, watch my Facebook, etc.
I’m not doing anything wrong… my life would probably bore an analyst to sleep.
So why should I care? I’ve got nothing to hide, and it probably keeps us safer!

HuffPo published an article today entitled, “Top-Secret Document Reveals NSA Spied On Porn Habits As Part Of Plan To Discredit ‘Radicalizers’.” The article details how the NSA will go through the e-mails of its targets to find not merely evidence of criminality, but anything it can use to discredit an opponent. You’re a radical Muslim but read pornography? If your followers knew, maybe they’ll think you’re less holy. You’re a U.S. military officer who doesn’t tow the political line? Maybe revealing your affair will force you to resign.

Back to the thought process described at the beginning, if you think you have “nothing” to hide, perhaps you were thinking “nothing criminal.” That’s likely not true since, because we’ve criminalized virtually everything, the average American commits 3 felonies per day, generally not even knowing. But even if it were true, it doesn’t matter: someone who knows everything about you can destroy you. Perhaps there’s a youthful indiscretion that, if known, would cost you your job. Or perhaps you merely snuck out of work for a few hours without telling your boss. Maybe you don’t want it revealed that you’re gay. Or a supporter of a particular political cause. Or afflicted by a mental disorder.

Maybe you’re 100% “pure” and have no vices. But someone who knows everything about you can set you up. They would know just how to make it seem like something was done the way you would do it, and just what it would take to convince everyone in your life to believe the lie, because they’re spying on them too.

But they’d never do that to you personally, because why would they target you? Ahh, they probably wouldn’t do it to you now. But maybe in 5 years, there’s a popular political movement that you feel you can’t support. Or your favorite hobby has been branded a criminal act. Or maybe you just pissed off an NSA analyst by taking the last Xbox 360 at Walmart on Black Friday.

Your privacy is important, even if you’re doing absolutely nothing wrong. A society in which the government can pick any one of us to crush is a scenario much more dangerous than a middle eastern terrorist.

November 27, 2013 6

Has the TSA Changed Their Pat-Down Procedure?

Perhaps the most insidious component of the TSA’s enhanced pat-down procedure rolled out in October 2010 was the part where TSA screeners were required to “meet resistance” between your legs. That is, they would cup your ankle with their hands and move their hands upward until “something” stopped them. That “something” being your genitals, of course.

The last few pat-downs I’ve had, however, have taken a different approach: instead of starting at the bottom and moving up, they’ve started at the top (front or back of thigh) and moved down. This makes it significantly less likely for them to bump into “sensitive areas,” whether by accident or as part of the procedure.

I tried asking two of the screeners if things had changed (they’re not supposed to say — that’s a secret, you know! — but I figured I’d ask anyway). One of them replied that some screeners do it differently, and that was just how he did it, and the other said it’s been that way for years. So, I’m curious: those of you who have had pat-downs within the last 6 months, did they start from the top or botttom of your legs?

November 25, 2013 23

TSA Files Secret Motion in Case Against Scope & Grope

My case against the TSA’s nude body scanners and invasive pat-downs has had an interesting month after court officials accidentally posted one of my sealed briefs — containing secret and embarrassing TSA documents — which was later published by the media. I was then ordered not to talk about the contents of those leaked docs, even though, by now, tens of millions of people have read about them. The TSA then unilaterally declared that it has the right to edit and file my own briefs for me.

Pending before the court now is another motion filed under seal, listed on the public docket as “MOTION to compel filed by Respondent Transportation Security Administration…”

I have a copy of the motion, but I’m prohibited by court order from publishing it here (and it appears the clerk’s office has learned how not to accidentally post sealed documents). A “motion to compel,” as a general matter, is a request for a court to order someone to do something. Why would the TSA need to do this under seal? I unfortunately can’t answer that question for you yet. What I can say is that I filed my opposition to the motion today and asked the court to unseal the motion in its entirety.

The TSA is not an organization that needs to operate in secrecy. “Security through obscurity” — a security mechanism that requires its operations to be hidden — doesn’t work, because people always find out how things work. It is universally derided in the tech security world, and the same logic applies to physical security. The alternative is to open your security model such that experts all over the world can review it, identify issues, and fix them. That’s the security we need. It’s too bad the TSA doesn’t feel the same way.

November 21, 2013 6

US Senators: “No Evidence” NSA Spying Necessary

Six months ago we learned that the NSA keeps a record of pretty much every phone call made within, to, or from the United States. Because terrorists, of course. Which terrorists have been brought down by this mass collection of data? Can’t tell you… classified!

Nowadays, most of us have come to understand that “classified” means “embarrassing” more often than it means “secret that would aid our enemies.” The government, simply, has lost its credibility after having been shown to have abused our trust over and over. But for those who still give the government the benefit of the doubt, three men with access to the classified rationale behind the phone spying have gone on the record that “no evidence that the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records has provided any intelligence of value that could not have been gathered through less intrusive means.” These three men are U.S. Senators Udall, Wyden, Heinrich, all of whom are on the Senate’s Intelligence committee.

The Senators’ statement comes in the form of an amicus brief filed in First Unitarian Church v. NSA, which is the EFF’s challenge to NSA spying. This brief devastates any argument the government has, or planned to, put forward that the phone spying is necessary to fight terrorists. I have no idea how the U.S. attorneys arguing the other side can possibly defend their client at this point. Make some popcorn, the DoJ is about to have to get creative.

November 20, 2013 11

Syracuse Airport Installs “Exit Portals” To Lock Travelers Inside Terminal

The latest invention for controlling a population in transit: meet the TSA-approved “exit portal,” or, as some call it, the “detention pod.” These little devices are installed at the exits to the secure area of the terminal and use an airlock-like system where you enter the first door, the first door closes, and then the second door opens. Syracuse Airport is the first to give them a try

The airport claims that this is so the exits can’t be used as an entrance, thus saving them the $11/hour that they used to pay to have a security guard make sure no one goes the wrong way. It’s unclear how much the portals cost and how many thousands of hours of a security guard’s salary it cost to buy them. It’s also unclear why they would use these machines instead of a pretty ordinary one-way turnstile or, as some airports already use, entirely unobtrusive sensors that detect when someone is walking in the wrong direction and sound an alarm.

What *is* clear is that these devices represent another opportunity for the TSA to violate the public. Perhaps the TSA sees you walking through the terminal and determines that you’re suspicious or. you know, your credit score wasn’t good enough. They can then lock you inside these machines for “additional screening.” What happens if there is a fire, or another terminal shooting, and people need to exit immediately? Surely there’s an “emergency mode” where the portals simply open, but does it work if the portal controller is on fire?

The TSA comes up with an impressive quantity of bad ideas. Be sure to let Syracuse Airport know that you don’t appreciate their support of this one.

November 18, 2013 14

Three Years Later…

My fight against TSA assholery began 3 years ago with a tiny 5 page complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in Florida, which has now grown into over 1,000 pages of legal filings, 3 trips to the Court of Appeals, one trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, and, of course, embarrassing the TSA in front of the world by showing, on camera, that their nude body scanners don’t work. I’ve been kicked out of three airports, equated with a terrorist by the DoJ, and gagged by the courts. I’ve presented my findings to Congress and to the TSA itself at its Arlington headquarters and testified in front of the legislature of the State of Texas. My work has been at the top of virtually every social sharing site and featured on Drudge Report. And that’s just the TSA — I’ve had even more fun with NYPD stop-and frisk and the NSA scandal.

We’ve seen several small steps towards success. The worst types of nude body scanners (both for the health and privacy conscious) have been removed from airports. The TSA no longer threatens $11,000 fines for those who refuse groping, nor sics the cops on them (mostly). Pat-downs have been modified for seniors and children. Airports across Europe are tossing their scanners aside. The TSA was forced to accept public comment on the nude body scanners. And, most importantly, pretty much everyone is now clued in that the TSA is an utter waste.

I’ve never worked so hard at anything in my life, and it’s because of your support — your encouraging comments, your stories by e-mail, and your generous donations — that I’ve been able to keep going. Thank you again for being here with me, and I look forward to seeing another year of rolling back the TSA.

[Edit — Also, happy 200th post, apparently!]

Donate to support the last remaining lawsuit against TSA body scanners!
PayPal or Bitcoin: 15ftA2938sp7Mnsi8U7wYVmEtd4BRbFnkT

November 16, 2013 11

Want to Know Why The TSA Needs to “Touch Your Junk?” Sorry, That’s Classified!

In 2010, the TSA implemented a radically invasive search program that transformed the agency from a mere inconvenience to the most despised agency in the country. Late that year, the nude body scanners and enhanced pat-down procedures were rolled out as primary screening, ensuring that the TSA would either look at or touch every inch of your body. The pat-down involves a TSA screener literally putting their hands in your pants (they call it a “waistband check”), in the name of your safety.

Is all this really necessary? For what purpose does the TSA require a hand on your genitals? Internal TSA documents leaked by a federal court a couple weeks ago provide some insight on the matter (that I’ve been ordered not to discuss, so you’ll have to click the link to find out why!), but my lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of “scope-and-grope” forces the TSA to explain itself in writing. The time has finally come, and their answer?

Sorry, that’s classified!

The TSA filed on Tuesday a motion to submit their brief — the one that explains why they “must” abuse travelers in airports nation-wide — under seal and ex parte because it will contain information administratively classified as “Sensitive Security Information.” “Under seal” means the public doesn’t get to see it, and “ex parte” means that the other side of the case (me) doesn’t even get to see it. (They were nice enough to offer to send me a redacted copy at some point, which I’m sure will resemble a stack of black construction paper.)

The TSA is, essentially, saying to the public: “Trust us, we need to use scanners to conduct a virtual strip search, touch your body anywhere we like, and anything else we deem necessary, but we can’t tell you why because then the terrorists would win.” At this point, does anyone still believe them?

Corbett v. DHS – Motion to File Under Seal (.pdf)

Donate to support the last remaining lawsuit against TSA body scanners!
PayPal or Bitcoin: 15ftA2938sp7Mnsi8U7wYVmEtd4BRbFnkT

November 7, 2013 23

Author: Jonathan Corbett