TSA Withdraws Subpoenas Against Bloggers 125
wwphx writes "In the wake of public outcry against the Transportation Security Administration for serving civil subpoenas on two bloggers, the government agency has canceled the legal action and apologized for the strong-arm tactics agents used."
"Whoops, sorry" (Score:5, Insightful)
"We didn't realize our dick move would receive so much public attention."
21st Century Socia media buptkiss whoopin' (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah, buddy.
Welcome to the age of social media on the internet, where not only does stuff *not* stay secret for long, it spreads faster and farther than ever before, and to people who otherwise wouldn't give a fit because a friend or family member they care about *does*.
This is the magic of still living in a (semi) free society.
Re:21st Century Socia media buptkiss whoopin' (Score:5, Funny)
, it spreads faster and farther than ever before
Except on /. where it still takes 4 weeks to a year...
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Yeah, but to make up for that, Slashdot posts it more than once.
Re: (Score:1)
This is why the internet and all communications must be monitored. Must think of the children and the terrorists. And the children terrorists.
Obviously not a parent.... (Score:2)
Must think of the children and the terrorists. And the children terrorists.
As a parent, I'd guess you don't have kids.
Newsflash!: Children ARE terrorists!!
Your quoted comment is both repetitive and redundant. ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We're sorry we did this in a way that got national publicity. Next time, we'll do it in a way that is less likely to do so, such as sending these enemy combatants [as the information they disseminated was clearly only to aid terrorists] to Iraq/Afghanistan/etc and apply some information retrieval techniques on them.
Their family may notice they've gone, but they won't know where they've gone to...
Re: (Score:2)
Some people! How many times do you have to leave a horse's head in their bed before they get the message and join the Societe Anonyme des Hippophages?
Re:"Whoops, sorry" (Score:5, Informative)
TSA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I couldn't agree more. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's so you can't see what or who they're looking at.
Re: (Score:2)
So you can't identify them. I've noticed cops wearing black tape on badges when any officer anywhere is killed. Even in Argentina. I'm in the US.
I thought the black tape/strap was a symbol of mourning, not anonymity.
Re:"Whoops, sorry" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Jefferson was probably referring to vigilance by the people. OTOH in his time period, after the revolution, "the people" == "the gov't" was seen as a valid equation.
Re:"Whoops, sorry" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:"Whoops, sorry" - this is AFTER.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"We didn't realize our dick move would receive so much public attention."
This is AFTER they took the guy's laptop, imaged it and returned it to him with a corrupted disk, reportedly.. of course they don't need the subpoenas anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of these days government agencies will realize that they can't pull shit like they did back in the 50's era of commie hunting. Information and public dissent spreads like wildfire thanks to the internet and social media. The quicker the assholes that run our government learn this, the happier everybody will be.
Re: (Score:2)
When a violation of someone's rights leads to a protest in Washington that results in the riot police being called, maybe they'll listen. They're going to be more than happy to do this exact same thing int he future. They'll go after someone, get the information they want, then "apologize" and blame it on poor judgment of some random whipping boy in the agency. They'll insist that they were st
Re: (Score:2)
One of these days government agencies will realize that they can't pull shit like they did back in the 50's era of commie hunting.
I'm pretty sure that a precondition for them to realize that they can't pull shit like they did in the 50s is that they actually can't pulls hit like they did in the 50s. Other than a few minor noisy issues like this one, on the whole, they're doing just fine with Tail-Gunner Joe's playbook.
Re: (Score:2)
"We didn't realize our dick move would receive so much public attention."
I am not quite sure that was their motivation. Possibly paranoia, possibly reality, I suspect the laptop was modified just a wee bit...
Frischling says the laptop was returned to him with “tons and tons of bad sectors” and a corrupt operating system. The audio on his computer has also stopped working, and a red light glows from the audio jack.
I am not exactly sure what audio jack on what laptop has a red light in it that glows... weird...
Re: (Score:2)
Optical audio port. There's one in my old laptop too. It tended to be switched on when I installed a new system. Since he mentions a broken OS, he's probably reinstalled and doesn't have the right drivers.
Or MAYBE, the TSA infected him with the HAL 9000 virus.
"I'm sorry Steven, I can't let you listen to that."
Re: (Score:2)
Optical audio port. There's one in my old laptop too. It tended to be switched on when I installed a new system. Since he mentions a broken OS, he's probably reinstalled and doesn't have the right drivers.
Or MAYBE, the TSA infected him with the HAL 9000 virus.
"I'm sorry Steven, I can't let you listen to that."
Ah yes... forgot about optical audio ports... most of our customers dont have such high end machines.
Re: (Score:1)
Frischling says the laptop was returned to him with tons and tons of bad sectors and a corrupt operating system. The audio on his computer has also stopped working, and a red light glows from the audio jack.
So was that metric tons, short tons, or shit tons of bad sectors? I mean, it's bad enough we all can't decide on what the fuck a megabyte is...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jeebus! How is wishing I had mod points so that I might have modded up the message I was referring to "Off Topic"?
I swear, some of these slashdotters are SO OCD.
Get a life, move out of your mother's basement. KISS A GIRL!
Re: (Score:2)
KISS A GIRL!
This is /. ! Are you kidding?
Re: (Score:2)
<Professor Farnsworth>"A man can dream."</Professor Farnsworth>
Pity (Score:3, Funny)
Since their new guideline was published everyone is going to know about these changes in security. If only these bloggers would have kept quiet, the only ones who would know would be the millions who go through the airports. Someone has to pay for a lapse in secrecy of this magnitude!
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe so, but one thing:
Hrm.. [nytimes.com]
It also listed people who would be exempted from these screening procedures such as heads of state and their families.
Now the bad guys know is all they have to do is get a family member of a "head of state" (whatever that means), to defect to their cause, or impersonate such a person successfully. :(
What the heck is the security justification for heads of state, or their families to be exempt?
Their luggage (or the item a bad guy secretly planted in their luggage at s
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: Diplomatic Passport. Followed by another two words: Diplomatic Incident.
We know that the US doesn't have much regard for the rights of plebes but, since the generally-accepted retaliation for mistreating foreigners with diplomatic status is other countries mistreating your persons of diplomatic status, they're going to try and avoid messing with heads-of-state if possible. It just gets ugly.
Also,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A good example is diplomatic couriers, who have diplomatic passports but are still subject to the ordinary treatment. What is not searched is the diplomatic pouch. The document says as much, and says that the pouch must be in the courier's line of sight at all times while the courier is being processed.
Look over here! (Score:2, Insightful)
Look here at my left hand, which is withdrawing the subpoenas everyone is upset about.
Over here, is my right hand, doing nothing at all (except issuing new ones to other bloggers).
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And this time they'll remember to amend the subpoena to make it illegal for the recipient to talk to anyone but their lawyer about the existence of the subpoena. i.e: double secret subpoena!
Re: (Score:1)
And this time they'll remember to amend the subpoena to make it illegal for the recipient to talk to anyone but their lawyer about the existence of the subpoena. i.e: double secret subpoena!
IANAL but you can't send someone a document to force them to shut up. Even in the military, you have to swear an oath and/or sign a document that you won't reveal classified information. In business, you sign a non disclosure agreement. However you have to GIVE consent. It can't be assumed.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL but you can't send someone a document to force them to shut up.
See Gag order [wikipedia.org]. For example, see Librarians Describe Life Under An FBI Gag Order [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Such a subpoena would be illegal prior restraint on free speech.
Thankfully, we still have the constitution and the 1st ammendment. No item in the patriot act or other laws has the legal authority to override that.
Besides, if they can tell their lawyer about it, their lawyer can disclose the information.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a subpoena would be illegal prior restraint on free speech.
Unfortunately the provisions in the Patriot Act that allow exactly those kinds of subpoenas are still in full effect, since no judge has yet had the opportunity to declare them unconstitutional.
Actually, there may be some cases still pending that could invalidate them, but because of the gag orders no one will ever know about them.
LIke... DUH. (Score:1)
Morons: 0
> 1 Braincell Persons: +1
And the lesson is (Score:4, Insightful)
Cooperate - and get two hours of grilling and a borked laptop. And the half-assed apology.
Tell the feds to go get a clue about procedure and return with a warrant - get the half-assed apology and keep your electronics in working order.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't cooperate and get designated a security threat. Try not to pretend that the system works. It doesn't. This was a rare instance where a person who stood up for his rights won in the end. It doesn't usually end up like that. The TSA could have easily filed the obstruction of justice charge, even though they knew it would be BS. They would then drop it a month later and face no consequences. Then the blogger would have to try to get the money in legal fees back from the government. Fat chance! A broken l
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
According to the article it was a civil subpoena.
And TSA agents are not police officers.
Obstruction of justice is apparently not applicable to civil matters..
The penalty for failure to comply with a subpoena depends on the jurisdiction/court that issued it, and usually some warning of that effect would be on the document.
Won't next time, or only if victim makes noise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Will they also refrain from doing this kind of thing next time, or do so only if the victim doesn't keep quiet?
In any case, this blogger's refusal to keep quiet is inspiring.
The apology's nice and all . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
. . . but someone should have to fall on his or her sword over this. If those field agents acted on their own, it would be they; if not, then whoever they worked for that authorized the tactics should be holding a sign saying "WILL WAND YOUR CROTCH FOR FOOD."
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask real nice, they'll pat you down too. No, check there again, that felt good. Oops, I mean, I might be hiding a salami there. :)
His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Damn, I bet his machine is full of spying devices, including one where the audio card used to be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hard to imagine installing a spying device with a glowing red LED, but then the TSA isn't known for its stunning efficiency. More likely the just screwed up his computer and some standard warning light was activated.
They should owe him a new computer and say 100 hours of consulting time to ensure that his data and software are properly transfered to the new computer. Say $30K total.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What, trust them to give him a replacement computer? Under the circumstances I'd request the CASH and buy my own laptop.
Re:His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's a MacBook, then there's a little flap at the end of the audio jack. Behind that flap is an LED that is used to transmit SPDIF audio over fiber. (The Apple SPDIF adapter is longer than a standard audio jack, and pushes past the jack to the LED).
If you are exceptionally violent with the machine, I suppose it's possible to damage or dislodge the flap, which would cause red light to shine out the audio jack whenever the sound card is on. Between this, a broken keyboard, and a "ton of bad sectors," it sounds like they took the Israeli approach [slashdot.org] to handling people it thinks don't agree with its tactics. Except the TSA managed to actually destroy data.
Re:His returned laptop now glows red in audio jack (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like they knew they wouldn't find anything, so a few "accidental" drops to the laptop was their preferred interrogation method. While I do find this works sometimes on PC's, it rarely works on a laptop.
It sounds like they were looking to punish him for posting it, rather than actually looking for information.
At one company I worked for, we received a few computers from Europe. They had been shipped separately, just because that's how they arrived for shipment. One showed up at our office in pieces. The pieces appeared ok, but not a single part worked. I'm pretty sure they thought we were smuggling something inside the computer. Come on, was it necessary to remove and manhandle the motherboard, just to see that it didn't contain any drugs? We didn't get an apology, nor reimbursement for it. the US Customs stance was, "That's the way we got it, when we inspected it.". Ya, right.
Consistency is not in their methodology though. We shipped a lot of equipment around to various locations. Most got there fine. The occasional piece was mishandled by the shipping companies. Some were held for weeks by customs. It makes it hard to work, when you ship say 20 pieces, and only 15 show up on time.
Re: (Score:2)
No violence necessary. And there's no flap. It's a microswitch that detects whether the longer connector is there or not. If that switch gets knocked into the wrong position, the computer assumes there's a digital connector in place and enables that hardware.
This happens occasionally [macrumors.com] to people. The fix is to take
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As much as the conspiracy theorist in me would like to believe they added spying devices to the computer, chances are they just screwed up the hard drive in shipping. Of course either way it's unacceptable and they owe him the value of his time, fixing the thing, and lost data.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the funniest part of the whole FA. Like something out of the simpsons for crying out loud.
Apology schmapology already (Score:5, Insightful)
Has there been an offer of compensation? Has anyone been fired?
If not, then it's not an apology, it's just regret at being caught.
The only question (Score:5, Interesting)
in my mind is: Did they stop legal action against him because they FOUND the source of the leak?
Type of laptop in picture (Score:1, Interesting)
It looks like a black MacBook (look at the power supply on top of it).
"The agents then tried to image his hard drive, but were unable to do so."
Hehehe. Maybe they didn't know how to image it because it wasn't Windows? :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they didn't know how to image it because it wasn't Windows?
Which unequivocally proves that he's a terrorist. If he didn't have anything to hide he wouldn't have gone to such lengths to prevent investigators from performing their sworn duty.
Re: (Score:2)
just ship a linux laptop that boots with a video of the Chuck sequence when hes looking at terrorst data, and shows pics and images of boms , and nukes.
Then put a fake movie style login screen with giant green cursor and noises for each key press, with a countdown to self destruct in 10mins.
The TSA would freak out and really believe it to be real.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
then they should be fired for being idiots since
1 removing the hard drive is documented online
2 only a true idiot would try to get a FORENSICS QUALITY image from a system without some sort of write blocking inplace
3 a binary dump of the drive does not care about the disc format
Hopefully... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully the first in a long line of realizations that when you do something stupid publicly, you can't harass or sue someone for pointing that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the public wakes up and helps out. Props to this guy for not shutting his mouth, but there have been plenty of other people who continued to speak out only to have the public more worried about the bread and circuses.
And of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice the guy who caved in to their threats ends up out a laptop.
The guy who didn't cave and refused to bend over still has his working computer hardware.
As always "never talk to the police" wins again. Even when you have done *nothing* wrong (and not just in the domain they are telling you they care about, across all domains) there are only two things you should say to the police:
1. No you may not search that/open that/have that/come inside.
2. I'm not saying anything without my lawyer present.
Re:And of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really sad how true this is. I used to think 'I'll just comply and everything will be perfectly fine and I can be on my way.' Then somewhere along the way I realized that cops who want to do improper searches are assholes to start with, and they've already decided you are guilty and will treat you as such. If you make them do the paperwork first, then there -is- paperwork to show that it happened and you can't get into a situation where it's their word against yours that it even happened.
As for the laptop... I know when they search a car or house, they have to put things back as they are. Does that not apply to electronics as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that the fact that if all they have to go on is a hunch or gut instinct they are far less likely to actually get a warrant. It goes like this:
DA: I need a warrant, this guy is our guy!
Judge: What is your evidence?
DA: I have no evidence, but I know it's him!
Judge: Uh... ok, I can't just give out warrants for no reason.
DA: But he's the guy!
Etcetera etcetera. Now, they don't exactly need a lot of evidence, and what they have doesn't need to be all that solid to get a warrant, but if they're just fishin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They do? There are numerous stories of people's cars that were searched and left trashed (inoperable). Is that a violation of how they are supposed to work, or the way they do it?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you have to know to ask them to put it back like it was. If you don't ask, they don't have to.
Yeah, it's really messed up. It should be automatic.
Re:And of course... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
That’s because, as I always say: It’s not about what you have to hide. It’s about what they want to find.
Cardinal Richelieu also had a nice saying about seven lines of the honest man being enough, to find something, to let him hang.
The “funniest” thing is, that the exact description of what the TSA does to people, is “terror”. They’re the real terrorists. But as all terrorists, they have more powerful backroom figures who control the big picture. The “terrorists” are just straw-men.
Re: (Score:2)
A huh. So the TSA is the real terrorists. And the guys who blow up planes are the fake ones?
Re: (Score:2)
In my country, such behaviour once was typical of its "secret state police". That part of my country was then named German Democratic Republic, and then Americans scowled about these so-called `socialistic' states (who were never s
Re: (Score:2)
How did you come up with the idea, that they are mutually exclusive?
By the way: You know that Bin Laden was a CIA agent, right? You know that the weapons they use, were paid for by the US military. (I know this from first-hand sources, since I have a photo of my father, with a US rocket launcher, trying to free his country from the Russian invasion. [Unfortunately, I have no contact with him anymore. Thanks for making the cold war hot in our country. {I don’t blame the people, I blame a part of some g
Re:And of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The talking heads call it a "war on terror" and all the while it's our own government who tries to keep us afraid with colored charts and media scaremongering. Then some fucking moron tries to blow up a plane and ends up lighting his nuts on fire and the government agents have an excuse to further terrorize the citizens. They will continue to let the occasional bomber through every now and then, and the cycle will continue.
There is an old saying that applies here: Never ascribe to malice that which can readily be explained by incompetance.
The TSA believes in what they are doing, as does the DHS. They are not creating increasingly inconvenient security measures to instill terror, they are honestly trying to prevent the next attack.
However, their misguided attempts at this do not prevent new attacks, it simply terrorizes the citizens, making their lives worse.
There is nothing TSA has in place right now that would stop hijackers from sneaking box cutters on to airplanes once again and hijacking the plane. I know this because in the past year a friend of mine accidentally snuck a box cutter through at least 6 TSA screenings, maybe even more since he wasn't sure exactly when he put the thing in his bag. The only measure that has been implimented that would have any effect at all is the pilots locking the cockpit door. That's it.
The hijackings wouldn't get very far today, however, in spite of the TSA's ineptitude, because the conventional wisdom for what to do in a hijacking has changed. It used to be thought that it was best to wait it out, and in the end everyone goes home. Today we know we need to act immediately, and while a few may get hurt, there is no scenario where an entire plane full of passengers is defeated by a hijacker.
So what do we gain from TSA? Nothing, that's what. Just keep the cockpit locked and act when someone tries to hijack the plane. Done. Flying is safe once again.
Re: (Score:1)
There is an old saying that applies here: Never ascribe to malice that which can readily be explained by incompetance.
You're thinking of Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
*standing ovation! wins '+n Most Insightful' Award, due to me not currently having mod points*
Well
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is an old saying that applies here: Never ascribe to malice that which can readily be explained by incompetance.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive you know...
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
As always "never talk to the police" wins again. Even when you have done *nothing* wrong (and not just in the domain they are telling you they care about, across all domains) there are only two things you should say to the police:
1. No you may not search that/open that/have that/come inside.
2. I'm not saying anything without my lawyer present.
I see the wisdom in this, but there's a question I've always wanted to ask the experts who advocate this approach. What if you have a serious interest in the police completing their investigation as quickly and effectively as possible? For example, suppose your child has been abducted while in the custody of your ex-spouse. You are innocent and want the culprit found, but you also know that statistics and profiling will tell the police that you yourself are the most likely suspect. Do you spill all the info
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cost benefit trade off.
If the police are trying to find your missing kid then the benefits probably outweight the costs. Most parents would trade not just anything by everything to get their kid back, so most will likely do all they can to provide information.
The *never* is a little extreme, but it's the safe default. And not talking should be the usual response unless the circumstances are very strange.
What it really boils down to I guess is "never talk to the police if they are the ones wanting to
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, if you don't lawyer up, their profile may lead them to focus EXCLUSIVELY on you while if yoy do lawyer up, perhaps they'll look at other possibilities while they await a warrant.
Pretty much, as soon as they go from accepting whatever you can tell them to detaining you for questioning, they've already blown it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If the cops have showed up at your doorstep and you didn't call them; they've already decided you're guilty and are there to try to pin something on you; even if it's not your hypothetical kidnapping. And the legal system is simply too complicated now for a layman to safely navigate. So yes... a lawyer is an imperative. (And yeah, as you say, in your scenario you're already and automatically a suspect.)
Even if you have information you do want the cops to have, it's safest and smartest to insist on being
Re: (Score:2)
The concern isn't that they'll keep you arrested or that they'll use "he wanted a lawyer" as evidence, but that by looking bad to them they'll make you the prime suspect and focus their efforts on you rather than on whoever actually did the kidnapping. Rather than searching for whoever did it, the GP is concerned that they'll focus their efforts on trying to get something solid on you.
That said, even if you do get the assholes, I think that one of their superiors would be more concerned with covering their
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase Chris Rock, "Why didn't Kobe use Johnnie Cochran?" "Well, if you use Johnnie Cochran, you like guilty!" "Sure you do, but you're at home. If I gotta choose between looking innocent in jail, and looking guilty at the mall, I know which way I'm going."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I missed the "am I free to do" part.
But the lawyer bit is important when the answer to that is "no".
TSA agents need to get back to work (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of throwing people's laptops around, these guys need to get to work. There is plenty of work to go around, from airports to every other kind of transportation facility you can think of.
Federal agencies are full of people who want to carry and gun and work security, since it's easier to stomp around with a badge than to do the drudge work of investigation. Every agency wants to have a police force of its own.
TSA is a special case, since it actually is a sort of police force. So put these smart guy agents on the front line, at airport screening lines, where their elite abilities can be better appreciated. And shorten waiting times.
Obligatory (Score:1)
diversion (Score:3, Interesting)
Did they get the information they were looking for?
Does "giving up" keep them from answering for their behavior in front of a judge?
Subpoena probably wasn't valid. (Score:5, Informative)
As I mentioned yesterday [slashdot.org]. the subpoena probably wasn't valid. Once one of the recipients announced he would challenge it in court, the TSA probably withdrew it because they were going to look even dumber when a Federal judge threw it out.
There are some real questions about a law enforcement organization having administrative subpoena power. In criminal investigations, subpoenas should come from a judge. Congress has repeatedly refused FBI requests for that power. I don't think that Homeland Security has it, either. But regulatory agencies with narrow remits often have it, so they can demand records relevant to whatever they regulate. The Department of Transportation had it for use in safety investigations and such. Typically they'd be asking for maintenance records.
When Homeland Security picked up the Transportation Safety Agency from the Department of Transportation, they got DoT's administrative subpoena authority in the transfer. That's what Homeland Security was trying to use here. That clearly went beyond Congressional intent. And in any case, the subpoena hadn't been approved by one of the short list of people authorized to approve it.
Re:Subpoena probably wasn't valid. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wants to be able to serve other types of administrative subpoenas.
From FBI Director Muller's testimony before Congress. [fbi.gov] It didn't work; Congress said no. [thenation.com]
Re: TSA Withdraws Subpoenas Against Bloggers (Score:2, Interesting)
The blurb you make insinuates that they "caved in" when in fact one of the bloggers gave up their laptop so in all likelihood they got the info they wanted off that laptop and that's why they dropped the subpoena.
Apologized? (Score:1, Troll)
Well, that's nice of them, but it should have never happened in the first place.
Terrorist "DHS" cripples US ... again. (Score:1, Troll)
LITTLE BROTHER, Detroit, Sunday -- The American-based terrorist group "Department of Homeland Security" (the Arabic term for "Department of Homeland Security") has successfully hobbled the American economy once more [newstechnica.com].
DHS stuntman Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab caused a minor conflagration aboard a Detroit-bound plane on Saturday. "It worked spectacularly well," said his father, Nigerian banker Bnkr. Alhaji Umaru MUTALLAB. "He sent TWENTY-FIVE MILLION (25,000,000.00) Twitter messages about it. 'Stuck on runway fo
Returned? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its an old trick to search something and give it back with a logger or spyware.
Then raid again/sneak and peek, or have an upload of the log at a later date.
ebay the hardware asap or take to a security expert and then ebay.
Incinerate (Score:1)