Perhaps for no other reason than the irony, perhaps we could all post the link to Secrecy News, a project of the Federation of American Scientists. In one report this week, we learn of a former US Republican Congresswoman learning about secret regulations while undergoing an airport security check:
Chenoweth-Hage, an ultra-conservative former Congresswoman (R-ID), requested a copy of the regulation that authorizes such pat-downs. "She said she wanted to see the regulation that required the additional procedure for secondary screening and she was told that she couldn't see it," local TSA security director Julian Gonzales told the Idaho Statesman (10/10/04). "She refused to go through additional screening [without seeing the regulation], and she was not allowed to fly," he said. "It's pretty simple." Chenoweth-Hage wasn't seeking disclosure of the internal criteria used for screening passengers, only the legal authorization for passenger pat-downs. Why couldn't they at least let her see that? asked Statesman commentator Dan Popkey. "Because we don't have to," Mr. Gonzales replied crisply. "That is called 'sensitive security information.' She's not allowed to see it, nor is anyone else," he said.I suppose the list of secret regulation topics is also secret so we can't know a head of time when we might trip up.
Comments
alfons - November 18, 2004 1:40 PM
"Like a dog!"
Lisa Howard - November 18, 2004 5:04 PM
I know a lot of people say Kafkaesque when they really just mean weird or surreal, but this is genuinely Kafkaesque. It's even 'Trial of K' Kafkaesque.
Alan - November 18, 2004 5:21 PM
[Ed's Tutonic great-uncle: <i>Kafka ist verbotten! Report to sector 17, Meeesss Leeezzza.</i>]
alfons - November 19, 2004 6:59 AM
Hmm, surprisingly more people made the link to Kafka's Trial (and its hardly bearable last few words); see here (Slate's report of the incident).
Scary and creepy.
John of Argghhh! - November 20, 2004 2:25 PM
That little bit of trivia about 'sensitive security information' greatly limits my blogging, and in most cases, properly so (I do exercise some editorial judgement...).
However, Chenoweth-Hage is the victim of the rules-writing process. They could have given her copies of the enabling legislation, from which the TSA has inferred its authorities and developed and adopted it's practices.
Since the practices (after the public comment phase) are descriptive in nature, the relevant wording probably does contain sensitive information, i.e., the criteria that trigger the more personal search. Which is what the TSA was protecting.
But most of the TSA people you deal with don't understand the law and rules under which they operate, anyway. Had I been around to deal with Ms. Chenoweth-Hage, I simply would have referred her to the enabling legislation, and pointed out that Congress, of which she was once a member, set it up that way.