Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

I suggest you read the actual opinion: http://tsaoutofourpants.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/corbett-....

Basically, the opinion decided three things:

1) The TSA acted reasonably to pixilate the names and faces of low-level TSA employees in the released videos;

2) The TSA's search for relevant documents was reasonable and the plaintiff did not provide any information that refuted the reasonableness of the search; and

3) The District Court was not empowered to review the substance of the redactions because Congress gave that power to the Courts of Appeal.

I didn't see anything about the court sanctioning "lying."

Basically this dude sounds like a crank who filed a pro se complaint with a laundry list of alleged Constitutional and statutory violations that didn't actually hold water and is now mad that the District Court told him to pound sand.

View on HN

The opinion actually does seem to suggest that it was okay to lie about the existence of the records - it's near the end, here's the relevant section:

> Finally, Plaintiff maintains that Broward violated the FPRA by falsely denying the existence of surveillance footage from the security checkpoint.

> Like FOIA, the FPRA provides that Florida citizens have a broad right to inspect the records of public bodies absent a clear and specific exemption from disclosure.

> TSA regulations, meanwhile, provide that airport operators must “(1) Restrict the distribution, disclosure, and availability of sensitive security information (SSI), as defined in part 1520 of this chapter, to persons with a need to know; and (2) Refer all requests for SSI by other persons to TSA.” 49 CFR § 1542.101(c); see also id. §1520.9(a)(3) (providing that airport operators must “[r]efer requests by other persons for SSI to TSA”).

> Here, Broward acted pursuant to federal regulations and the OTA when it consulted the TSA regarding Plaintiff’s records request, and it acted at the direction of the TSA in denying the existence of surveillance footage. The Court therefore has difficulty in concluding that Broward’s actions could be unlawful under the FPRA.

Granted, this mingles both the federal FOIA and the state FPRA, but I believe the opinion is saying that neither was violated by the denial of the existence of the information.

Dude/crank here. Read section IV-e of the opinion (starting p. 17) for the discussion on the lying.

You're missing the court's reasoning. First, the issue is moot, since you got the footage. Mootness is a Constitutional limitation on the judicial power. Constitutional standing requires an injury, causation, and redressability. If your injury has already been redressed through the release of the video, it's Constitutionally improper for the District Court to adjudicate the issue.

Second, the District Court isn't saying that it's okay to lie in response to a request under the FPRA in general. Rather, its saying that because Broward was acting at the direction of the TSA, the TSA's direction to deny the existence of the footage preempted any requirement under the FPRA to respond to the request. Remember, lying is not in general illegal. It's only illegal in specific contexts under specific statutes.

1) Mootness: see Roe v. Wade. A decent breakdown on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness#Capable_of_repetition....

2) The TSA doesn't get to "direct" a state agency to violate state law unless they are empowered to do so by law. There is no basis in law for the TSA's assertion that lying is required. A Glomar response would have protected their interests, but they lied to avoid having to admit to having embarrassing footage.

I wonder if the submitter would also post unpixelated faces, names, etc. for employees who gave him bad service at a restaurant. I was actually quite taken aback that he's so eager to dox people, government workers or not.

The TSA did not give me "bad service" -- they violated my rights. Government employees absolutely should be on notice that the public can and will inspect their behavior while on taxpayer time, and that they will be held responsible for abuse of the power lent to them by the people.

> will inspect their behavior while on taxpayer time

Government employees are taxpayers too, man.

...and so they also get a vote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com