DEA Paid Amtrak Employee To Pilfer Passenger Lists 127
Via Ars Technica comes news that an Amtrak employee was paid nearly $900,000 over the last ten years to give the DEA passenger lists outside of normal channels. Strangely enough, the DEA already had access to such information through official channels. From the article: The employee, described as a "secretary to a train and engine crew" in a summary obtained by the AP, was selling the customer data without Amtrak's approval. Amtrak and other transportation companies collect information from their customers including credit card numbers, travel itineraries, emergency contact info, passport numbers, and dates of birth. When booking tickets online in recent years, Amtrak has also collected phone numbers and e-mail addresses. ... Amtrak has long worked closely with the DEA to track drug trafficking activity on its train lines. The Albuquerque Journal reported in 2001 that "a computer with access to Amtrak's ticketing information sits on a desk in the [DEA]'s local office," wrote the ACLU.
the important question is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Has the DEA been sending him a yearly 1099 for taxes? if not, then the IRS needs to audit the DEA.
You can't travel anonymously... (Score:1, Interesting)
Why? Seems like exactly the opposite — DEA does know, Amtrak has the information, and DEA arranged for the information to be available to them at ease...
I'm not surprised either, but I don't see, how this is unconstitutional. The Constitution has nothing on the right to travel and, if you ask a government official, you'll quickly realize, they consider traveling to be a privilege instead.
You can not buy an Amtrak ticket anonymously. And you can not give your ticket to anyone else. With air-tickets this fraud was put upon us (years before 9/11) with the argument, that the airline and the law-enforcement need to screen the passenger names against list of criminals — so they need to know all names in advance.
But most Amtrak tickets are purchased within hours before departure, AFAIK, so this argument would not hold.
We need the traveling to be explicitly declared a right, that only the Judiciary can suspend after a trial — rather than a mere privilege, that the Executive can withdraw on their whim (such as by adding you to a "no-fly" list [slashdot.org]) or, indeed, demanding to "see your papers" (and recording them for future use).
I can't see it happening any time soon, though. Bushitler-created TSA has only expanded under the Nobel Peace Prize Administration — and now insists on covering not just air-travel, but all mass transit [nytimes.com]. Driving a personal car has required a government permission for near a century, and being driven by someone else is increasingly difficult too [dailytech.com].
Re:the DEA isnt about drugs. (Score:2, Interesting)
You realize those California dispensaries may be legal according to state law. but run afoul of federal law because of the federal prohibition on drugs.
because? i don't know why...why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol but did not require one for other drugs?
i believe they often use the interstate commerce clause...but if the state views it as legal and it never crossed state lines, then it seems the fed's shouldn't be able to touch it.