FBI Raids Security Researcher's Home

Sparr0 writes, "The FBI has raided the home of Christopher Soghoian, the grad student who created the NWA boarding pass site. Details can be found on his blog including a scanned copy of the warrant. The bad news is that he really did break the law. The good news is that Senator Charles Schumer did it first, 19 months ago, on an official government website no less. The outcome of this trial should be at least academically interesting. At best, it could result in nullifying some portion of the law(s) that the TSA operates under." Read on for Sparr0's take on what laws may apply in this case.

Boiling down some of the legalese, the charges (if any are filed) will be "conspiracy to knowingly present a false and fictitious claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof in violation of USC 18 (secs. 2, 371, 1036, 1343, 2318) and USC 49 (secs. 46314 and 46316) and 49 CFR (secs. 1540.103 and 1540.105)" (edited for brevity).

Conspiracy?

[TubeSteak]

A conspiracy with who?

Re:For his sake

[Lord_Dweomer]

Oh no, not a hell storm of nerds posting anonymous comments on Internet messageboards! Anything but that!

I'm actually referring to the mass media who will be picking this story up, posting it online, and informing the unwashed masses about the situation. The internet is FAR more than anonymous nerds these days, perhaps you'd better re-evaluate your statement.

Re:What did he expect?

[siddesu]

Of course, if it wasn't your house, but a hotel, both you and your guests would surely be _WAY_ safer if only hardened criminals knew about your lock problems and how to open the door.

After all, we know that about half the population of any given country is just waiting for a chance to get on a plane with a bomb, and that the turrists are spontaneous people who don't research and plan in advance.

What is funny is that while there's a law to punish the guy, apparently nothing will be done to either Northworst, or the TSA for not doing their job. America obviously takes air travel security seriously.

Exposing the powerful is always a crime

[davecb]

And so a corollary is that any security researcher who exposes a risk or danger is a criminal (;-))

--dave

Re:Cue typical slashdot pro-State responses...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. "If you don't like it, move away."

You already pointed out that this point of view is morally bankrupt. It also may not be an option in the future. There's a rule inching toward approval to let the DHS deny permission to leave the country [hasbrouck.org].

Schumer may not be relevant

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Senators have constitutional immunity for what they say in the Senate. That might extend to his official website, though Proxmire set a precedent that points in the opposite direction.

More to the point is that Bruce Schneier was pointing out the boarding pass problem in _2003_.

Senators are not above the law

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is above the law. Not only that but everyone is entitled to equal application of the law. If it is shown that the law is being applied unfairly to one group and not to another, that invalidates any convictions.

The prosecutor has to show why the senator was not prosecuted or has to prosecute the senator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [wikipedia.org]

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Millenniumman]

He didn't have to publicly supply a way to bypass security. That is endangering everyone unnecessarily. First he should have contacted the airport security officials privately about it. If they did nothing, he should have then announced that he had found a way to bypass security, but not given any specifics. If they still did nothing, he should have publicly reported the problem.

It's like someone showing burglars into your home to show you that you have a security problem, before they even tell you.

No, not necessarily

[RKThoadan]

"He really did break the law?" I don't think so, but I'm not qualified to make that statement and neither are you. It takes a judge or a jury to say that. To me, it doesn't appear that he conspired to do any such thing. He simply wanted to public to realize how insecure it really was. It sounds like this law requires such intent. There is also the question of whether Northwest Airlines would be considered a Government agency or department for the purposes of this law.

Re:Real reason he is being arrested:

[Jeremi]

No, they are saying he's lying by presenting a fake boarding pass to TSA agents

... well, he didn't do that...

or making it easy for other people to do so.

I think part of his point is that it was already easy for other people to do so. Not that pointing out the obvious will probably help him much from his cell in Gitmo...

Legal Defense

[BertieBaggio]

The fact that he is going through this for pointing out a flaw is pretty horrifying. That said, hopefully the justice system will 'do justice' to keep this guy out of prison. Even still at best he's going to be pretty shaken up by this for a while to come, and probably be out a fairly sizable chunk of money in legal defense; at worst, he's gonna have a pretty horrible time (can't check punishments as all but final 2 of the USC links The Fine Summary are 404s). All for pointing out what should be a fairly apparent flaw in a 'security' system. I guess the guys at the FBI just like arresting folk [wikipedia.org] for things like that. Hell, why didn't they arrest Andy Bowers of Slate for his research / article [slate.com] too?

Also, can some pro-2nd amendment folk go and give him some "legal defence"? You know, protect people from the government and all that... ;-)

Re:Read The Declaration of Independence.

[Lumpy]

And that did that AFTER they were of a size of group that was not easily quietened or disappeared. Until then you HAVE to be the silent dissent that they cant put a finger on. Only after your numbers are large enough that you can put up a fight and they have to think twice before arresting you and hanging you for treason.

The founding fathers did not sign that document and then nailed a copy to the kings door when it was only 8 of them. They did that quietly and only AFTER they had sufficient strength to overcome the oppression that would be sent when they made their intentions public.

THAT is the difference. If the article's author got 30-40 researchers and professors to all stand together and say "screw you Homeland security! you give us NO security!" and then published the proof to that effect, the FBI would not have raided their homes in 24 hours, a cowardly senator would not have opened his big trap against them and the government would have had to treat them very VERY differently.

A single person is easily opressed and removed. a larger group, specifically a group that is well known is not.

My response to Rep. Markey

[riffer]

My letter to Congressman Markey can be seen here: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=28 1474976826167 [gather.com]

I encourage all other security professionals to do the same.

Re:GNUnet vs. Freenet

[ResidntGeek]

I'm not sure, to be honest. So far GNUnet hasn't avoided that fate; there's not too much content on the network yet. I try to keep the daemon running on my computer whenever it's on, and encourage its use whenever the topic of P2P networks compes up, but I doubt it helps much. I assume Freenet and/or GNUnet will grow as the RIAA sues more people and starts leaning on ISPs to block networks like Gnutella, but who can tell?

Worse and Worse

[EPAstor]

Damn... I just don't know what we can do to fix this anymore. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if there's any chance of getting our freedom back. And the media coverage of all these problems? Nil. How in the world do we get enough people to notice, at this point? Also, are we college students really so apathetic now? The draft for the Vietnam War started riots, but there's next to no noise on campus over these problems - even at liberal schools... I haven't lost hope yet, but how can we get the people of the United States to start caring again?

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[maxwells_deamon]

Why not leave the site up, monitor it and "talk" to anyone who presents a boarding pass made on the site? You would have the name and flight info!

This is just being a bully instead.

Disclamer: I did not see the site when it was up so I have made some assumptions here which could be wrong.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[incabulos]

It seems to me that the TSA ought to be investigated into supporting and encouraging terrorism.

Deliberately keeping flawed airport security systems in place ( for over a year ) even though you know that it provides no safety to people? Lying to the people who you are charged with protecting about how safe they really are, and attempting to silence all criticism that may actually result in these systems being scrutinised so that security improves?

Doesnt it look like the TSA is trying to help terrorists? And when there is another terrorist attack conducted via an airport, what happens? The TSA will ask for and receive even more power! They (incredibly, how on earth did this conflict of interest happen?!) have a motive to help terrorists, and now this security reseacher has uncovered evidence that supports this viewpoint - that they are deliberately endangering people by keeping this flawed system in place.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[dircha]

Contribute to his defense fund and before you know it you are "providing material support to a terrorist organization".

All it takes is for Bush to give the approval for a charge with those magic words, and you can be declared an enemy combatant, tortured and shipped off to Gitmo indeterminately - being a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil means nothing. They wouldn't have pushed the Congress so hard for it if they didn't intend to use it.

Is it so inconceivable? Contributing money to an Islamic charity the provides relief to the wrong people can get you a charge of providing material support to a terrorist organization.

This man is engaging in conspiracy to provide forged documents to terrorists. I'd call that material support. Under the new policy, that's all the grounds Bush needs to declare him an enemy combatant.

Contributing to the defense fund of an enemy combatant might just get you the same.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[FractalZone]

"It's probably a little bit more dangerous to live in a very free country, than one with a strict totalitarian regime who controls every movement everybody makes... but most people will take that tradeoff."

One can only hope that most people see their freedom/liberty and individual rights being slowly eroded in the name of (bogus) safety.

I don't know about you, but I have never been directly adversely affected by a terrorist or some obvious act of terrorism (not the namby-pamby kind of "terrorism" that involves nothing more than someone feeling uncomfortable or vaguely threatened).

On the other hand, the War on Terrorism, like the War on (Some) Drugs, and every other crisis the U.S. government invents to further its agenda, to the detriment of the best interests of the people and in direct opposition to its ostensible reason for being, namely to uphold the Constitution of the United States, is making my life (and quite probably that of most people reading this) worse on a regular basis.

These days, unlike when I was a teenager, the equivalent of the Gestapo goon's order, "Your papers, please!", is very real in the USA. The jackbooted thugs are not Nazi Germans, but rather TSA, BATF, DEA, EPA, and FBI agents as well as other minions of the federal government and their state and local bully boys.

Why should any average person, engaged in ordinary behavior be expected to carry ID, much less present it like a good little subject/ward of the State?

Of course, I may be out of touch...I remember when the very notion of patenting an idea was considered absurd. Software patents would have been dismissed as ludicrous. So it goes...downhill. I also remember when I could go to the airport, buy a ticket (paying with cash if that was my preference), get on a plane and travel, effectively anonymously as one's stated name was simply accepted, and arrive at my chosen destination (within the U.S., anyway); never feeling the presence of any government agency looming over me (with the remote exception being the FAA :-).

It all boils down to this: Who do you want controlling your life (and the lives of the people you interact with on a daily basis) -- you (and them), or Big Brother armed with the latest high tech surveillance gear, weaponry and a nearly complete disregard for the Constitution?

I'll take my chances when I get on a flight to Las Vegas that some rabid anti-abortion, anti-gambling activist group has not decided to hijack the plane and crash it into Caesar's Palace as some sort of protest against all the imagined evils that it's members think Sin City represents.

I know, based on statistics and documented history, that I am far more likely to be harmed by government than I am by an organization such as Al Quaeda. Taxes taken out of my pocket to fund these government Wars on This, That, and The-Other-Thing which just happen to make me less free are definitely a threat to my well being. Are you any different?

For liberty,
Fractalzone