at secondglance -- world

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

05/19/26 5:21:07am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 ]

Subject: at secondglance

Author:
pa

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12/12/05 7:28:56pm
In reply to: pjk 's message, "Re: secret is as secret does" on 12/11/05 6:18:23pm

>Hey pa -
>
>I'm not sure how your post pertains to deferring to a
>secret law in order to justify asking for ID to get on
>a plane.

Hi, pjk, it pertains only in that I was offering a foundation of knowledge/history regarding the development of the concept of "sensitive security information".

the "whose trade secrets?" you inquired about...this is the actual language of the 1974 act...not an explanation on my part.... as I think you may have assumed....

the 1974 trade secret reference, I think though
refers to the 'trade secrets' of the Federal Aviation Administration, which provides them (and later upon umbrelling and transferring of Sensitive Security Information first DOT then Homeland Security)
with authority to prohibit disclosure of information that would be �detrimental to
transportation safety.�

from the following document: Congressional Research Service � The Library of Congress,CRS Report for Congress,Interstate Travel: Constitutional Challenges
to the Identification Requirement and OtherTransportation Security Regulations, American Law Division:

(full paper can be found here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32664.pdf)

The following categories constitute SensitiveSecurityInformation: security programs and contingency plans; security directives;security measures;
security screening information and; a general category consisting of �other
information.�

From this paper as well: As recently as last term
the Supreme Court has upheld the general notion that citizens have a right to anonymity
especially in situations where a citizen is not suspected of a crime.

Anyway, this is a very informative piece�.not making a judgment yet personally, thanks for the tip on this topic pjk�very interesting and important

(have you read about the stealing controversy and the republican congresswoman�s episode similar to Gilmore�s? )

>And whynot refer to "Executive order" or some such thing?
>Wierd.

Have you read any SLATE articles on the topic....pretty indepth one here also referring to the initial changes begun in 1974, and offering a detailed explanation of the genesis:
http://www.slate.com/id/2109922/

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]