> "The Quiet Skies program was ended in June 2025 by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noehm. The same day as the Senate hearing on Quiet Skies last week, the TSA announced that Secretary Noehm was firing five senior TSA officials associated with the Quite Skies program, including the TSA’s executive assistant administrator for operations support and the deputy assistant administrator for intelligence and analysis."
And the TSA and DHS have consistently asserted authority and exercised power — legally or not — to blacklist and surveil travelers without needing any suspicion of criminality.
So the surveillance is a 4th amendment search violation and the blacklist is a 5th amendment due process violation. It would be nice to have a government agency to enforce those. And an electorate that cares about them.
With context (e.g. no due process) those logs are chilling
> redacted ate sandwich
> redacted and UNK1 purchased head phones
> redacted and UNK1 used their phones to scroll through news
> UNK1 opened settings app and top of phone showed 'redacted iPhone'
All that work being done manually is one thing -- it would be limited to high profile targets. But with AI, its concerning that this kind of detailed transcript could be scaled to mass surveillance.
first class, is the new second class, anybody worth anything flys private, ie: if you have a ticket, you are on the list that way, further restrictions may apply.
at this point it would take an very special and exceptional circumstance to prompt me to fly internationaly
I’m flagging this post; the discussion went off the rails. I don’t understand how “government ends dubiously legal program that was abused and weaponized” can in any way be perceived as tyrannical.
I'm a little confused by this article. It is facially opposed to extrajudicial blacklists, which, sure, I'm 100% on board with. Those are civil rights violations.
But it seems to spend most of its time and evidence on what seem to me to be totally fine surveillance. It's not a 4th amendment violation for a police officer to be in a public place and pay attention to the public movements of suspects. You don't need a search warrant to write down "so and so went to the bathroom" You don't even need any police powers. I'm pretty sure any random person could make a log of what they can see someone on an airplane they were on did during the flight. What abuse of power is supposed to be involved here?
12 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 36.0 ms ] threadCredit where credit is due!
> redacted ate sandwich
> redacted and UNK1 purchased head phones
> redacted and UNK1 used their phones to scroll through news
> UNK1 opened settings app and top of phone showed 'redacted iPhone'
All that work being done manually is one thing -- it would be limited to high profile targets. But with AI, its concerning that this kind of detailed transcript could be scaled to mass surveillance.
Also see numerous typos in the article, including a mention of 'Quite Skies'.
But it seems to spend most of its time and evidence on what seem to me to be totally fine surveillance. It's not a 4th amendment violation for a police officer to be in a public place and pay attention to the public movements of suspects. You don't need a search warrant to write down "so and so went to the bathroom" You don't even need any police powers. I'm pretty sure any random person could make a log of what they can see someone on an airplane they were on did during the flight. What abuse of power is supposed to be involved here?