The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is invoking its little-known secrecy powers to hide a variety of information from the public, labeling the information as Sensitive Security Information (SSI). The agency's excessive and unreasonable use of the power is troubling, with recent examples defying common sense, and revealing that TSA withholds information from those who use it for safety reasons or even for their jobs. TSA has demanded that airplane pilots avoid flying near nuclear power plants, in what seems like a reasonable request. If pilots pass near the facilities, fighter jets will intercept them and force a landing. However, the agency then refused to provide locational data for the nuclear plants so the pilots could comply. In an effort to help pilots abide by the order, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association spent several days compiling a list of facility locations from public information and posted it on the Internet. TSA demanded that the group take the information down because the agency believed it could assist terrorists. This publicly available information, when compiled into one place, was now SSI. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory estimates that if a railcar carrying chlorine through the District of Columbia exploded, up to 100,000 people could be killed. The D.C. Council wanted to know if trains containing hazardous chemicals were being re-routed to protect against attacks. TSA refused the council access to the information, again claiming it was SSI. Unsatisfied with the safety of its citizens being an unknown, the council passed legislation forcing the re-routing of trains carrying hazardous materials. A court battle has ensued, and TSA continues to assert it cannot release such information to local and state governments or civil litigants. Finally, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration investigated work-related hazards faced by employees at the Portland International Airport in 2004, after the agency received safety complaints. However, in the end the agency refused to release its report publicly because TSA considered the document SSI. The above examples illustrate how the TSA is overusing the SSI designation to hide information from concerned citizens. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 expanded SSI significantly. TSA altered it again in May, 2004, to include information exempt from open government laws, including the Freedom of Information Act. Those granted access to SSI by TSA must sign non-disclosure agreements. Many complain that TSA uses its ability to categorize information as SSI excessively and inconsistently. Last September, two House members asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the agency's use of SSI, citing numerous examples of its misuse. The members acknowledged the need to protect certain types of information, but emphasized that it must be done in concert with ensuring the public's right to know. The former chief security officer at the Department of Homeland Security, Jack Johnson Jr., has expressed a conflicting opinion stating, "When it comes to choosing between the public's right to know and the safety of the country, I will err on safety every time." While everyone can agree that the safety of U.S. citizens is a high priority, government agencies such as TSA underestimate how much public disclosure can contribute to ensuring safety. The aforementioned cases show that reasonable access to information could improve safety conditions for communities and workers. Disclosure means that instead of a handful of government employees working to solve security and safety problems, knowledgeable and empowered citizens can participate in insuring a safe country.