TSA nominee misled Congress about accessing confidential records
 

I think we need to move on and choose someone whom hasn’t abused his position in previous service and apparently misleading congress. (another vetting issue?).


TSA nominee misled Congress about accessing confidential records

By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Friday, January 1, 2010; A01



The White House nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration gave Congress misleading information about incidents in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database, possibly in violation of privacy laws, documents obtained by The Washington Post show.

The disclosure comes as pressure builds from Democrats on Capitol Hill for quick January confirmation of Erroll Southers, whose nomination has been held up by GOP opponents. In the aftermath of an attempted airline bombing on Christmas Day, calls have intensified for lawmakers to install permanent leadership at the TSA, a critical agency in enforcing airline security.

Southers, a former FBI agent, has described inconsistencies in his accounts to Congress as "inadvertent" and the result of poor memory of an incident that dates back 20 years. He said in a Nov. 20 letter to key senators obtained by The Post that he had accepted full responsibility long ago for a "grave error in judgment" in accessing confidential criminal records about his then-estranged wife's new boyfriend.

His letter to Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, and Susan Collins (Maine), the ranking Republican on the panel, attempts to correct statements about the episode that were made in a sworn affidavit on Oct. 22 and have been reported.

Southers did not respond to a request for an interview.

'A serious error'

Southers's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians, who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens' privacy.

Southers first described the episode in his October affidavit, telling the Senate panel that two decades ago he asked a San Diego Police Department employee to access confidential criminal records about the boyfriend. Southers said he had been censured by superiors at the FBI. He described the incident as isolated and expressed regrets about it.


TSA nominee misled Congress about accessing confidential records

Those whining about Republicans holding up this nomination will either remain mum about this, or they will dismiss it, despite the fact that if he was a Republican nominee they'd be pissing their diapers over it...

Being misleading is what Obama, his associates and the Democrat Party are all about. Southers lied and is now claiming that was about the only time he's done that in his entire life, which was another lie in itself. Which leads one to consider if Southers is smart enough not to want to be grilled for this and therefore if he will withdraw from the nomination.

I don't think the issue is democratic OR republican. The issue is one of trust. Every day I work with much confidential information all around me. Do I have the right to access and all of it? Yes. Do I have the NEED to? No. Not unless the chart I access is that of one of my patients. And accessing confideential information when you don't have the need to is a violation of a sacred trust.

I can understand why he did this. The article doesn't mention if there were children involved. But ceratinly any person in a divorce situation whose wife was bringing someone else into the home where his children likely were is troublesome for anyone who has ever divorced. But that is one of the trade offs you have to consider before you decide to get a divorce. That situation does not give you the need to know regarding your ex's boyfriend's confidential information.

As the supervisor of the house in a hospital several years back I had the right to access any record on a need to know basis. But that doesn't make it OK to go poking around in my next door neighbor's or my sister in laws medical record. And to do so has harsh penalties. It seems much harsher than in this case if he was only 'censured.'

If you don't have the need to access it, you don't have the right.

You may have the ability to do it, but you don't have the right...

It would be nice if you could let a thread progress without getting into one of your littel semantic games. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

It would be nice if you learned what "semantics" meant.

If you have the need to access patient information, in your role as an alleged medical professional, you have the right to do that. But just because you have the ability to do it doesn't give you the right to do it...

The quest for perfection in government is noble, especially coming from the unabashed supporters of a drunk driving, convicted vandal as president.
Does one consider the requirement that the nominee be human, and as a human will have faults?
Twenty years ago is a long time, a person going through a divorce who's wife and children are living with another man may have enough curiosity about that man as to cause him to violate rules which are violated every day by hundreds, if not thousands of people in the law enforcement community.
The incident is on his record, he explained it imperfectly, but I don't see where the "misled congress" headline is justified.
The real issue is will this nominee make the country safer in the position for which he has been nominated.
Then again maybe the GOP should filibuster every Obama nominee, then if there is a terrorist event they can say they were right, and isn't the death of thousands of ordinary Americans worth it if it benefits the Republican Party?

Whatever you can find out about someone through public channels is quite OK. But you violate a sacred trust when you go poking around in something you have no right to. Just because 'hundreds or thousands' do it doesn't justify someone else doing the same thing. As to that hundreds or thousands statement, do you have any evidence that this happens that frequently?

I have known people to lose jobs in health care over this kind of thing. There was a supervisor where I worked whose husband was in the hospital. She would come in and the staff would know his labs before she would. When she complained employees were terminated. In health care you don't even have the right to access your OWN records without going through the proper channels.

I'll cut NO slack on this one. The man is either ethical or he isn't. He isn't. End of story. Point. Blank. Period.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifyea. okay thenhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif……having been here for over 3 years goober, and seen your vitriol ala Bush and his cohorts, choices etc. I am not impressed with your newfound sympathy with/for the human condition, as it applies to politics….nice try though. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

Well, shit. I guess that makes it okay then...

The incident is on his record, he explained it imperfectly, but I don't see where the "misled congress" headline is justified. Of course you don't.

Which only suggests that the headline is more than justified...

The real issue is will this nominee make the country safer in the position for which he has been nominated. Apparently, the guy has a problem following the rules.

Do you now dismiss the need to follow rules?

Nevertheless Reid still says he will seek "a quick confirmation" when they get back from their 1 month vacation.

of course he will...and why not? the reps will lay down like dogs ala giethner and the rest, unless they are ready to finally stand their grouund on this kind of issue. this is little diofferent than that ohio comptroller wjho ran joe the plumbers recrods and got adminshied and I think sacked for it, as she shbould have been. yet there are those that defnd this.....i cannot beleive it.

Wheres all the screeching about the pat act and wire taps and peoples rights not to live in a police state who can check your personal information without cause....? Oh wait I get it…its the human condition….

I would think you'd have a point if you hadn't worshiped Teddy "The Killer" Kennedy. But, since you have, you obviously don't have a problem with drunk drunk driving, or manslaughter for that matter, I can only assume this line is in praise of our last president...and I didn't even know you had a heart for Republicans. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

well, thats that, so long homey.


TSA pick goes down swinging | POLITICO 44

This kind of crap probably goes on more than you think. I have a friend who's mom ask her son who is in the FBI to access the records of the man his sister was dating and he did.