Airlines Don't Want You to Know They Sold Your Flight Data to DHS 99
An anonymous reader shares a report: A data broker owned by the country's major airlines, including Delta, American Airlines, and United, collected U.S. travellers' domestic flight records, sold access to them to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and then as part of the contract told CBP to not reveal where the data came from, according to internal CBP documents obtained by 404 Media. The data includes passenger names, their full flight itineraries, and financial details.
CBP, a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), says it needs this data to support state and local police to track people of interest's air travel across the country, in a purchase that has alarmed civil liberties experts. The documents reveal for the first time in detail why at least one part of DHS purchased such information, and comes after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detailed its own purchase of the data. The documents also show for the first time that the data broker, called the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), tells government agencies not to mention where it sourced the flight data from.
"The big airlines -- through a shady data broker that they own called ARC -- are selling the government bulk access to Americans' sensitive information, revealing where they fly and the credit card they used," Senator Ron Wyden said in a statement. ARC is owned and operated by at least eight major U.S. airlines, other publicly released documents show. The company's board of directors include representatives from Delta, Southwest, United, American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, JetBlue, and European airlines Lufthansa and Air France, and Canada's Air Canada. More than 240 airlines depend on ARC for ticket settlement services.
CBP, a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), says it needs this data to support state and local police to track people of interest's air travel across the country, in a purchase that has alarmed civil liberties experts. The documents reveal for the first time in detail why at least one part of DHS purchased such information, and comes after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detailed its own purchase of the data. The documents also show for the first time that the data broker, called the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), tells government agencies not to mention where it sourced the flight data from.
"The big airlines -- through a shady data broker that they own called ARC -- are selling the government bulk access to Americans' sensitive information, revealing where they fly and the credit card they used," Senator Ron Wyden said in a statement. ARC is owned and operated by at least eight major U.S. airlines, other publicly released documents show. The company's board of directors include representatives from Delta, Southwest, United, American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, JetBlue, and European airlines Lufthansa and Air France, and Canada's Air Canada. More than 240 airlines depend on ARC for ticket settlement services.
Re:fake news!!! (Score:4, Informative)
It is perfectly fine for the government to break laws and trample all over your rights as long as trump and his administration does it.
It didn't start this year [slashdot.org]. Stop becoming a meme. No one in government in any party in this country care about you or your privacy.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather, you made an incorrect presumption, and he corrected you. What you're doing is even more intellectually dishonest than both sides-ism.
Speak of intellectual dishonesty, it's no wonder you and drinkypoo keep crushing on each other.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Except he used a fake source and tried to pass it off as real, making him a liar.
You're the only one lying here bud. I re-posted with the correct article. Nothing was fake. You're constant claims without anything to back them off looks pretty childish. Just admit you made an incorrect claim (like an adult), and get on with your day. Don't double down on something provably incorrect.
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Except he used a fake source and tried to pass it off as real, making him a liar.
A liar is somebody who intentionally deceives. He made an error when he posted the link, and later corrected it. The original commentary remains truthful and valid. The fact that you're claiming otherwise is a blatant lie on your part, even without your shitty, substandard reasoning.
Now you're trying to both sides again by saying I'm not better than the liar that he is.
I never did it even once, which by your own reasoning makes you even more of a liar than he is.
Things happen chronological, just to let you know. Both of your accounts don't seem to know that.
My other account was replaced with this one. I literally haven't posted on it since 2012. By your own reasoning, you've lied yet agai
Re: (Score:2)
See. This post is what AC is for. When you want to post something retarded but you don't really want it attached to your name. Of course, sometimes you know you are posting flamebait and want credit. Just depends on the day!
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
It was flaccid the entire time you had it in your mouth. I didn't want to say it at the time, but you're the opposite of attractive and your bad smell prevented me from closing my eyes and pretending it was somebody else. You kept begging to taste dragon dick, and you were so pathetic that I just felt bad for you. So I let you do it as an act of mercy and regretted it as soon as you started. I never wanted your dirty mouth on my dick to begin with and I had to wash for like an hour after just to get the ste
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
"Speak of intellectual dishonesty, it's no wonder you and drinkypoo keep crushing on each other."
Rent-free. Shitty view though.
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
But you like shit.
Voters!!! (Score:2)
Every year crime goes down regardless of the number of police but every year we keep adding more and more police.
The job of a cop is to arrest people or give them tickets. Both of which have numeric values associated with them meaning they have quotas whether anyone likes to admit it or not.
This means you have too many cops and not enough crime.
And that means the cops are g
Re: (Score:2)
Will we see probationers next?
From David Brin's Sci Fi novel Sundiver:
"Then, as now, the Citizens loved the Probation Laws. They had no trouble forgetting the fact that they cut through every traditional Constitutional guarantee of due process. Most of them lived in countries that had never had such niceties anyway."
There were Citizens and Probationers. All probationers were required to carry a surgically implanted transponder. They weren't considered citizens and could not vote, Their movements were closel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can already see this with a rash of perfectly sober people being arrested for DUI.
Then perhaps we need to make it that DUI is no longer a crime.
I can hear the typing now, "Are you saying we should not have cops take drunk drivers off the road?" No, I am not making that claim. If people are so drunk that they can't keep their vehicle between the lines on the road, obey posted road signs, or otherwise pose a threat of harm to people and property, then they need to be taken off the road. Why make their blood alcohol level a matter of record? I'm quite certain that different people react
Re: (Score:2)
You have this spectacularly arse-over-tit. The reason that American cops are able to arrest sober people for DUI in a way they just can't in, say, the UK, is because the US relies on exactly the kind of subjective bullshit field sobriety tests you're advocating for here, instead of an objective breathalyser test.
On top of that, the actual root cause of the US's relatively high level of drunk driving is that you have such a wildly car-centric culture that driving is often the only way to get to the bar.
Re: (Score:2)
And which filthy, unsanitary orifice did you pull that nasty piece of anti-police propaganda out of? No, that's not their job. Their job is to maintain order, and sometimes that can best be done by arresting whoever's disrupting order, or by giving them a ticket. If they can prevent or end a breach of the piece without any arrests or tickets, so much the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs propaganda? Just observe some sheriff or city PDs around end of the quarter, for how many more cops are out patrolling for speeders. Ticket quotas are a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what state you live in. In my home state of Arizona, it's against the constitution for police departments to institute ticket quotas.
The Arizona state constitution does not apply to Indian reservations though -- and the difference in how often and for what you get cited is pretty stark. There's this tiny stretch of road, basically a quarter mile, that I used to drive through that was just barely within the reservation, and I'd see Gila River police send unmarked cars, usually more than one at a t
Re: (Score:2)
Every year crime goes down regardless of the number of police but every year we keep adding more and more police.
Every year, crime goes down.
Every year, we keep adding more and more police.
Sooooo... everything is good?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:fake news!!! (Score:5, Funny)
You're not smart enough to use the internet, liar. Your link is to this story on slashdot.
Correct article [thestreet.com]
You lack proper reasoning skills. Posting the wrong link makes me a moron, not a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting a fake source makes you both.
Cool story, but nothing to back up your claim that "TheStreet" doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't start this year [slashdot.org].
Not according to your link which is dated 2025.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't start this year [slashdot.org].
Not according to your link which is dated 2025.
correct link [thestreet.com]
Stupid mistake on my part.
Re: (Score:1)
Dated June 10th 2025.
Re: (Score:2)
Dated June 10th 2025.
That's why you have to read the link. Such actions would help you not look more foolish than the clown who posted an incorrect link
ARC is apparently selling data to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security. ARC entered into a contract to provide data beginning in June of 2024, and the contract remains in effect until 2029.
Re: (Score:2)
Dated June 10th 2025.
Here, I'll spoon feed you the relevant part of the linked story:
ARC is apparently selling data to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security. ARC entered into a contract to provide data beginning in June of 2024, and the contract remains in effect until 2029.
I don't like Darth Cheeto. I don't like that he ignores the law and the constitution when it suits him. But you cannot blame him for something done by the Biden administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes! It started last year. Who started the rights trampling organization, DHS? Hint: also, a well known liar and middle name is W
So you read a summary, and blame Trump. Then you find out this action started during a different administration, so you blame piece of shit that started the DHS? You do understand that each presidential administration appoints people to run those departments, right? Shouldn't one of the administrations after Bush changed or eliminated the department?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about Trump? Why doesn't he change or eliminate the department? Why doesn't he stop the end run around the constitution? It is because trump spends each and everyday figuring out how to rip apart the constitution and violate your rights.
He should close it, but he won't. He's his own type of corrupt. My point was that his administration had nothing to do with starting the process of buying customer data from airlines. That was the previous administration. Your response to the article was to blame Trump. He can be blamed for tons of shit, just not this, unless he allows it to continue. If that happens, he's just as much to blame as the brain-dead guy before him.
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
Probably because DHS is a good thing, regardless of when or who it began under. Prior to that, each federal law enforcement agency was independent, and among other problems, they never shared information among one another, which was found to be the biggest reason why 9/11 wasn't prevented, in addition to a number of other historical cases where it lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Prior to DHS, the US was the only country with law enforcement agencies that would at times work against each other.
Anyways, have
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to DHS, the US was the only country with law enforcement agencies that would at times work against each other.
So the solution to too many law enforcement agencies is to create one more? How does that logic work out?
As an example, if there's someone smuggling drugs over a border into the USA then that could fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI, DEA, CBP, TSA, or USCG. How many federal agencies do we need to track drug trafficking? Should we even have the movement of marijuana or cold medicine be a crime?
The DEA is clearly redundant as it does nothing that then FBI or ATF doesn't already have jurisdiction over.
Re: (Score:2)
So the solution to too many law enforcement agencies
Is to bring them all under one roof.
is to create one more?
DHS is not an agency.
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
When was the last time your meth lab got raided by DHS agents? How long has it been since DHS agents seized your kiddie porn collection?
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
"Probably because DHS is a good thing"
Yum, boots!
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
Huh, I pegged you as more of a tankie, but it does make sense that you can't resist a communist in uniform, because you're a rebel.
So I think you're missing the point (Score:2)
But that's a hell of a lot to type out so he just made a flippant comment about Trump and counted on your ability to read context and nuance. Which given tha
Re: (Score:3)
CPB and the government have been collected data directly from the airlines ever since the aftermath of 9/11 through a number of programs, for example to check passengers against watch lists and to verify the identity of travelers on international flights.
What has changed is that by buying data from a commerical broker instead of a a congressionally instituted program, it bypasses judicial review and limits set by Congress on data collected through those programs -- for example it can track passengers on dom
Re: (Score:3)
I have expected that the DHS get my travel data since September 11th 2001, so why is this news now?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I too expected that they would already have what flights I took. I didn't have any reason to expect them to know how I paid for it, though.
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
"Gas or a$$" comes to mind.
What laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is perfectly fine for the government to break laws
What laws did your government break? The airlines were not compelled to release the data, they chose to sell the data to the government. If anyone broke the law it was the airlines who sold the private data they held...which is probably why they required the government not to tell anyone how they got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What laws did your government break?
We will see if you can follow this story.... let's say I'm a car thief. I want to steal your car, but in my state putting a GPS tracker on your car is illegal. I go to Ford and buy all the telemetrics (GPS) and find out when and where your car will be everyday. I then use this data to steal your car.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're willing to break the law by stealing my car, why are you unwilling to break the law by putting a GPS tracker on it?
Bad Example (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If anyone broke the law it was the airlines who sold the private data they held...
This is America, not Europe. Your privacy isn't legally protected pleb. Now shutup while we sell every thing we know about you to whomever comes along with a dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
What laws did your government break?
Just two of the most basic laws that the country is founded upon: both the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution.
I am sure there are others; however, I am not competent to speak to them.
So this is disturbingly legal right now (Score:3)
It's a loophole that absolutely should be closed but you are correct with the current right-wing extremist administration there is basically no chance in hell of that loophole being closed.
It's like how basically everyone agrees that civil asset forfeiture or the practice of cops charging your property with crime instead of you and then stealing it should be illegal but it never gets bann
Re: (Score:1)
You believe this to be a "right wing" thing? I'm certain both sides play this game of civil asset forfeiture. The Left hates the guns, the Right hates the drugs, both use civil asset forfeiture to their advantage. If this bothers you then use the soap box, ballot box, and jury box to work against it. If it gets to that fourth box of freedom, the cartridge box, then things have gone very wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump has been POTUS for only six months, you believe this only started with him?
If you don't want the government to trample on your rights then make it a personal policy to vote for people that want to shrink the size of government. With enough people doing that we can get the government to fit inside the box it came in from 1776.
Re: (Score:2)
(My original reply seems to have disappeared so redoing it)
Four years and a little over five months, but yes, this wasn't an appropriate criticism.
A better one would have been "They set up all this shit and didn't foresee the risks, and now we have a fascist [wikipedia.org] in office salivating at the chance to abuse this information?"
Re: fake news!!! (Score:2)
None of this is illegal in the USA. When you sign up for any digital service, you give the service provider rights to collect, aggregate, and sell your data to anyone they choose without your consent. Unless their terms of service say they wont sell your data to law enforcement, then nothing illegal has happened. Is it moral? Debatable. But legally and constitutionally, it is fine. https://www.congress.gov/118/m... [congress.gov]
Next up: Don't trample on my privacy fee (Score:2)
Auction would be better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google outbids me for my data every time.
watch out, Scooby!! (Score:1)
“If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states' rights. We can’t let them take away our states’ rights too, especially our right to protect ourselves.”
Noem, well-known dog killer and current trump cabinet member, takes quite a drastic turn in response to trump deploying federal troop and her love of states' rights. See if you can spot the hypocrisy.
We will deploy troops "for the safety of this community.”
I wonder if that was her excuse for murdering puppies? You got to hand it to the puppy skull basher. They don't even try to hide their fascist intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Short to taking states right to extremes of wanting to start another civil war most conservatives are concerned when the federal government tries to expand into areas historically handled by the states, they don't imagine the supremacy clause does not exist.
We did this back in like 2010 when AZ tried do immigration enforcement. The courts made it pretty clear that they could not even carry out black letter federal immigration law, let alone add their own. It is beyond any reason then to assume state and lo
Re: (Score:3)
Executive orders aren't law, and some shit Trump makes up isn't sound legal theory.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL like that time Obama created what amounts to an entire immigration PROGRAM DACA out of nothing but EOs that now nobody can do anything about?
Correct EOs are not laws, but Trump's immigration related EOs for the most part are not attempting to make law. They are no more and no less the same priority/priority stuff every previous administration as done.
So just to be clear what you are saying here. Obama with just EOs can create a program where the government actively solicits applications to remove indi
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is not my guy, you can throw him in the Hague right alongside Trump for all I care. Hell, scoop up Biden and Bush while you are at it.
BUT, there is a difference between setting enforcement priories for CBP such that you are spending less resources on deportation vs completely trampling on people's civil rights by renditioning them to death camps in countries where they aren't even citizens (while ignoring court orders to recall them), capriciously revoking green cards based on slap fights the VP gets
Re: (Score:2)
A state run prison is not a death camp.
The due process questions are BS, a court had already found he was gangster, he is now on trial for human trafficking. We are not better offer because some activist judge brought him back to the sates.
It is all slap fights, none of this about efficent, fair, immigration or legal processing.
I guess I don't see the point of this. (Score:3)
I understand that it's shady of the airlines to sell this data without disclosing it, although I assume it's somewhere in that fine print. The current digital economy is all about selling data, so that's a revenue stream, and we shouldn't be surprised.
I also understand that it's technically legal for law enforcement to buy data in bulk, so long as it isn't targeting individuals in the purchase. I don't like it, but that's the current law. Congress should change that.
What I don't understand is, the TSA already has all of this information sans perhaps the credit card info. Why is the government, who is already in possession of this data, paying the airline surrogate for it? Are the data systems incompatible between agencies? (rhetorical) And if so, would it cost more to remedy the compatibility than it does to just buy it from this "ARC."?
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't understand is, the TSA already has all of this information sans perhaps the credit card info. Why is the government, who is already in possession of this data, paying the airline surrogate for it?
My understanding is the government is supposed to destroy the records it collects within a relatively short time frame. Buying the data means they can hold onto it for as long as they want...
Re: (Score:2)
FOIA would indicate otherwise, unless this is some retention policy specific to TSA. Still doesn't make sense. They could just change that rule for free (Congress or otherwise.)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually things like that are safeguarded - the TSA obtained the data for specific purposes only and other purposes are disallowed. This is usually done by databases logging all accesses to the data so inappropriate accesses can be traced.
If they wanted to do things without logging then they have to buy that data to freely use it.
It's like how even if you work for the IRS you can't look up anyone's tax return unless you were working on something in their file. It's why no one leaked Trump's tax returns, beca
Re: (Score:2)
You need better privacy laws. In GDPR countries they can't just bury stuff like that in the fine print. They have to get explicit, opt-in permission, and make it extremely clear that they want to sell your data to people like DHS.
In fact even before we had GDPR, arguably that would have fallen under the "red hand rule", which basically states that if a contract relies on some unusual term that is likely to be of great interest to the person agreeing to it, it needs to be adequately highlighted (marked with
I just fly with ... (Score:2)
Breaking News from the 2000s (Score:2)
Is there anyone who is aware of concepts like Secure Flight and the No-fly List really thinking that prior flight information isn't being kept by DHS and used in evaluating future security stance?
If you fly a one-way, last minute cash ticket to Iran, be prepared for that flight data to be taken into account on future US flights. This should be obvious to everone.
Re: (Score:3)
Came here to say that the only surprising thing is that it was *sold,* I assumed it was just handed over for free since at least 9/11.
TSA? (Score:2)
I guess sure its more data, but is it much more?
I mean the TSA (part of DHS) already had/has access to every boarding pass. At least for the first outbound flight, most trips being round trips, they already had your travel plans. I guess some of the connectors might possible have been unknown to them but realistically they probably already have enough other data sources to figure it out.
To me this speaks more about how ineffective and bad at IT / big data DHS is that would even need/want/bother with buying
Re: (Score:1)
When it isn't actually your money being spent, you'd be amazed at what you're willing to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure 'amazed' is the right word!
The only sane reaction to all this is to say: JUST DOGE IT!
Re: TSA? (Score:2)
You mean spend billions to save millions?
Don't care (Score:1)
I don't care if they sold data about me. It would be nice to get a cut, sure. But other than that? Fuck it.
What I am really interested in as far as airlines go is more leg room and comfortable seating in general.
Surpised It's Sold (Score:2)
I always thought that the airlines were providing this information to DHS/TSA under mandate.
I'm surprised that the airlines could sell it rather than just hand it over as part of normal operations.
Buying ticketing data ... (Score:2)
Waitaminute... (Score:2)
Our tax dollars paying for this is bad enough, but paying for it multiple times?
I agree with Clinton and Obama... we need an audit of the government to stop this wasteful spending.
because the gov't already (Score:2)
gets it for free
I really want to be alarmed... (Score:2)
But having just got back from going on a week vacation to visit my family in another state, my credit card purchases clearly show my activities, my cellphone kept in touch, and fucking Google quickly figured out where I was and started showing me state specific ads.
I'm sure there is at least one more way I'm being tracked that I do not even realize. Maybe CCTV feeds with facial recognition. We very much live in a surveillance society. Former authoritarians could only dream of such power.
It's really a shame,
Why would CBP need to buy access? (Score:2)
They should have access to this data by law, for free.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have access to this data by law, for free.
There are restrictions in place on data they collect, data they purchase do not have the same protections.
Missing the larger point (Score:2)
Many replies here that DHS either already has or should have this data miss that data purchased is not subject to the same restrictions and protections as data they collect.
Private entities do not "tell" government agencies (Score:2)
Private entities do not "tell" government agencies to do anything. That is ridiculous. Government agencies can and do *agree* with private entities by contract to do and to refrain from certain things they believe are acceptable costs for the benefits gained, which is okay as long as what they agree to is not prohibited by law. Civics 101. Big difference.
Everyone is doing it. (Score:2)
Who is NOT doing it?