The admission will be a boost to campaigners who want to derail
a deal between the European Commission and the US on passenger data
sharing on the grounds that the US does not protect personal
information well enough.
An investigation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s
own privacy office was conducted into some aspects of Secure
Flight, the successor to the CAPPS II
passenger screening programme which is run by DHS's Transportation
Security Administration (TSA).
That programme had already been suspended by the time the
privacy office produced the report. Angry at inadequate privacy
protection, Congress has specifically barred the Government from
operating another passenger screening programme unless watchdogs
are first satisfied that privacy, accuracy and security are good
enough.
"As ultimately implemented, the commercial data test conducted
in connection with the Secure Flight program testing did not match
TSA's public announcements," said the report. "Part of the reason
for this discrepancy is the fact that the Fall Privacy Notices were
drafted before the testing program had been designed fully."
"Material changes in a federal program's design that have an
impact on the collection, use, and maintenance of personally
identifiable information of American citizens are required to be
announced in Privacy Act system notices and privacy impact
assessments. In addition, not meeting these requirements can
significantly impair a program's credibility," it said.
The Government Accountability Office, which audits government on
behalf of Congress, produced a similarly damning report in 2005
which said that the TSA "did not fully disclose to the public its
use of personal information in its fall [autumn] 2004 privacy
notices as required by the Privacy Act".
The DHS's own report admitted as much. "TSA announced one
testing programme, but conducted an entirely different one," it
said.
The revelation will be fuel for privacy activists who have
condemned the European Commission's passenger data sharing scheme
with the US. Opposed by the European Parliament, that scheme was
ruled unlawful on a technicality by the European Court of Justice,
but an almost identical but technically correct replacement was put
in place.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer