***Update: 6/9/2011 - There have been many different interpretations of the photography portion of this post, so I wanted to clarify things a bit. We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity unless it interferes with the screening process at our checkpoints. While our current policy remains the same, TSA is reviewing our guidance to officers at the checkpoint to ensure consistent application. Our goal is to protect passenger’s rights, while safeguarding the integrity of the security process. ***
You may have seen the video of a woman at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport who was upset about her screening experience.
You may have seen the video of a woman at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport who was upset about her screening experience.
TSA takes all allegations of improper screening seriously and investigates each claim to the fullest. After reviewing this passenger’s time at the checkpoint, we found that our security officers acted properly and neither the CCTV footage nor this YouTube video support any of the allegations levied. Real violations of our protocols are worth every ounce of our energy to investigate, but this alleged incident does not meet that threshold.
This incident has also raised many questions about whether or not passengers can film at checkpoints. This topic is currently under review, but you can read this blog post on our current policy for photography at checkpoints.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.
234 comments:
1 – 200 of 234 Newer› Newest»So you say it is appropriate for TSOs to say that filming is forbidden - even though you yourself have said it is not forbidden?
Bob,
What does "This incident has also raised many questions about whether or not passengers can film at checkpoints. This topic is currently under review." mean?
Is the TSA considering banning filming at checkpoints? If so, on what basis? Also, why do TSA agents continue to threaten those who are filming checkpoint incidents? Is this a training issue, or is the hope simply that citizens aren't aware of their rights and can be intimidated into turning off the camera?
"This incident has also raised many questions about whether or not passengers can film at checkpoints. This topic is currently under review, but you can read this blog post on our current policy for photography at checkpoints."
Bob, there is nothing to review. If the airport is a publicly operated space, please tell us under what authority DHS or TSA can ban photography?
So are you and TSA saying it is proper screening procedure to feel a womens breast?
I haven't even bothered to view this video; I've read enough to assume that the woman was setting herself up for this encounter.
I suspect that this woman could actually be accused of interfering with the screening process, considering that I've read that she was shouting.
This should not in any way interfere with passengers' ability to photograph and film at checkpoints. CPs are public places, etc. If someone wants to purposely create a disturbance at the CP for the camera, let them be charged for the disturbance, not the camera.
I was considering having by brother film my pat-down if it ever occurs, but considering that the TSA in vivo tries to prohibit video taping, I'd rather not risk having my camera confiscated.
"This incident has also raised many questions about whether or not passengers can film at checkpoints. This topic is currently under review,"
This is absolutely perfect. Information is getting out via youtube that is riling up the masses, so that flow of information must be stopped!
You've stomped all over the tenth and fourth amendments, why not take on the first?
Seriously? Your blog post clearly says that no one is prohibited from filming at checkpoints, and yet you say your employees acted appropriately by yelling at the cameraman, threatening illegal arrest (aka kidnapping at gunpoint)?
Two words, "Bob": COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Concerned aObserver wrote, "I've read enough to assume that the woman was setting herself up for this encounter."
Everyone who interacts with TSA staff sets himself or herself up for such an encounter. Having a video camera running when you're searched just makes sense. You never know what those people are going to do to you, and they might lie about it afterward.
The TSA is nothing but a contradiction unto itself. Blogger Bob says one thing, the TSO's say another thing. The TSA website says one thing, the TSO's say another thing, and while the TSO's contradict TSA policy, innocent, hard-working American citizens have to suffer by being humiliated and having their Constitutional rights violated!! ABOLISH the TSA!!!
TSA has determined that TSA acted appropriately. What a surprise, you find yourselves innocent.
The terrorists have won; they have our government violating our rights in the the name of "protecting" us.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
--- James Madison
The topic of filming at the checkpoint is "under review"? Just where will the TSA draw the line as far as checkpoint?
Only two years ago, a TSO approached me atop the parking structure at Terminal 4 at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix while I was taking photos of the planes for a class I was taking in Digital Photography. He insisted that it was illegal for me to take photos of the planes, the terminal, and the Phoenix skyline. He said that if I didn't stop immediately and delete the photos he would summon the police.
I told him to call the police immediately.
He stormed off in a huff and 45 minutes later, I was still shooting photos with no TSOs or police in sight.
Will the TSA now consider the entire airport to be part of the checkpoint?
Of course the TSA is now considering banning filming at checkpoints. This would help do away with most of the bad press since the controversial screening methods went into effect. How convenient. Unfortunately for us citizens it would mean one less means to keep this out-of-control federal agency in check.
I am an American born citizen in my mid fifties and never have I seen such abuse and disrespect for citizens by a government organization.
Congress - please do something!
And of course you'll never consider that if these sorts of molestations are according to protocol, then the protocols are the problem -- as are the people administering them. But, hey, I'm sure bin Laden appreciates that his willing accomplices in TSA are still doing his work for him even after his death.
Creepy how the TSA always claim their agents never broke their 'current procedures'. The only thing that tells me is that the current procedures are sick and twisted and should be revoked (or at the very least, reviewed.)
Pretty clear to me the point of this whole incident was to get the local police to write up a report. On that basis they could have attempted to take some legal action.
I would advise the TSA to use this as an example to all your TSO's on how to handle people and videos. You immediately loose in the court of public opinion when a TSO issues a threat. If a TSO has any problem with someone taking pictures they should notify the airport police and let them handle the situation. Remember sunlight is the best disinfectant, and any attempt to ban photography will likely erode your support base even further.
The second this woman started to freak out, all the TSO's should have backed away and called the airport police. The woman looks like an idiot, and you look like a professional. The pattern so far from TSO's has been confrontation and things turn into a street fight. BAD IDEA.
if your policies were sound then you would have no problem with the transparency the public demands. You CANNOT prevent people from filming in public. What next? Will you try to ban people from being at all critical of the TSA while in the airport?
I've solved the problem by simply refusing to fly.
Airlines are starting to recognize that passenger counts are down and have responded by cutting flights and raising rates. Eventually so few people will be flying that it will become prohibitively expensive to fly and the US airline industry will be a thing of the past.
It is too much to hope that states and airlines will grow a set and tell the TSA to buzz off.
@ Concerned Observer "I suspect that this woman could actually be accused of interfering with the screening process, considering that I've read that she was shouting."
Yes, we should all strive to make strangers violating every creavice of our bodies comfortable by shutting up and taking it.
I can understand the concern by TSA over the filming of incidents at checkpoints. The filming only serves to inflame passions for liberty and freedoms which are anathema to any authoritarian organization. Tyranny does not grow well in the light of truth. Think of how many incidents could be hidden without photographic proof.
"Concerned Observer said....
I was considering having by brother film my pat-down if it ever occurs, but considering that the TSA in vivo tries to prohibit video taping, I'd rather not risk having my camera confiscated."
I understand your concern and it is entirely justified (they may not confiscate it just make you miss your flight or get arrested).
This however is exactly what the TSA wants to happen. This is also why the TSA has much fewer complaints than they should have.
Under what authority were the TSOs planning to seize the traveler's luggage?
Is this more planned inconsistencies to keep the terrorists guessing? You guys are good!!
I'm just happy you all are doing such a fine job keeping us safe. I go to bed every night thinking, "God bless our Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and TSOs"
Did anyone expect Bob to say anything different? Come on, when does TSA EVER admit fault?
Anytime something like this happens, Bob will always say the screeners acted properly, whether they did or not. Nothing ever changes, and there's no accountability.
If anything, TSA's repeated inaction in these situations shows that it DOESN'T take these seriously.
Heck, I'm still waiting for responses on my last TWO complaints from BWI. One of them was escalated to a TSI, which, after giving him all the details I asked for, was never heard from again. The last one about a retaliatory secondary was completely ignored.
Your actions show otherwise, Bob. Pardon me for being skeptical.
Earl
If the TSA were using intelligence instead of their wondering hands to screen law-abiding taxpaying passengers there wouldn't be any stories like this...
It's clear that they went there to provoke a confrontation.
It's also clear that the TSA agents were overstepping their authority by claiming that it was illegal to film them.
Randy
RB says:
So are you and TSA saying it is proper screening procedure to feel a womens breast?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
What you mean "feel"?
What's the intent of the screener? Is it to feel what a boob feels like, or is it to feel around for something that may have triggered the alarm?
If it's to feel around for something that may have triggered the alarm, you have no case.
"Real violations of our protocols are worth every ounce of our energy to investigate, but this alleged incident does not meet that threshold."
how are we supposed to know? can you let us know what the protocols are? didn't think so. all we can do is complain about what feels wrong, and a lot of what seems to happen at the checkpoints these days fits the bill.
Concerned Observer said...
I was considering having by brother film my pat-down if it ever occurs, but considering that the TSA in vivo tries to prohibit video taping, I'd rather not risk having my camera confiscated.
**********************
Regretfully, this is exactly what the TSA wants -- intimidation. Please don't let them get away with it.
The lady should have been arrested for public disturbance and interfering with the screening process. It is neither molesting or unreasonable to have your privates searched at an airport when a violent sect of religious death-worshippers have used weapons hidden in their privates to attack airplanes and who continue to warn that more attacks on aviation are coming.
As for the filming, it's a public area. The TSA screeners need to be educated to this.
It's really sad to see our government saying it is proper to be grabing people's private parts. Not to mention under the fourth amednmendt of the U.S. Constituion searches without warrants are a felony.
After viewing both videos, and get the feeling this guy is some type of activist.
Here is how I stand on this situation:
- Unless you live under a rock, you should have some kind of idea of what the TSA does at security check points.
- If you don't want to be pat down, then agree to the scan.
- If you don't want to be scanned or pat down, don't fly. No one is forcing you to fly, and there are plenty of other forms of transportation out there that will get you from point A to point B.
Having said that, I will agree that there needs to be some kind of standard set of rules/laws for filming at a TSA security checkpoint. So I guess I will agree with him there.
BUT, I still think this was set up, and I do not see any sexual harassment on the TSA's part.
If a policy is imposed for filming... I would say the only rule should be to prevent a photographer from recording the xray/body scan screens, as I would consider that an invasion of privacy.
Beyond that single rule, I see no reason to prevent photography at CPs
We don’t prohibit public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations.
Blogger Bob
31 March 2009
Bob,
You did a blog post awhile back saying TSA does not prohibit taking photographs or video at the checkpoint.
In this blog post, you state this is under review. That means it hasn't changed yet.
Thus the TSO's in the video did act inappropriately.
"but you can read this blog post on our current policy for photography at checkpoints. "
And that blog post says it is OK to photograph and video.
So how can you say the officers acted properly?
Do you think the American public are fools?
Bob,
So you are trying to argue that TSO's "act properly" when they don't follow "current policy"?
WOW!
Check points are federal property.
This woman and her partner set this whole thing up. She just wanted her 15 min. of fame on youtube. WOW what a sad excuse of a human being.
Big surprise that you are considering banning filming since you are violating peoples privacy and the US constitution every day. It would of course be convenient for you to not have proof of it.
Just like the police in several US states will not allow you to film them when they violate the same rights.
I am just happy that I am not an american and do not have to be considered with your porn scanners and groping. I just can not travel to the US and that is quite ok with me since I am not interested in supporting police states.
This person (woman) planned the whole ACT in order to disrupt the check point. Maybe she should spend more time working on her acting skills. They were a team looking for a youtube video. TSA did nothing wrong...grow up america.
Taxpayers would save a lot of money at zero cost if, instead of employing "Blogger Bob", the TSA just automatically post "our security officers acted properly" every other day.
TO SAUL:
THE AIRPORT MAY BE PUBLIC PROPERTY BUT THE CHECKPOINT IS FEDERAL PROPERTY(THAT IS RENTED OUT) HENCE I BELIEVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION.
"we found that our security officers acted properly"
It isn't up to the TSA to make that determination. Once someone has accused an agent of sexual molestation, the agent should have been arrested like anyone else, and a court would decide whether a crime was committed.
I notice you're not saying anything about the agents who blatantly misstated TSA policy on photography. Apparently you think it's OK for agents to lie to people.
What is "under review"? If you outlaw checkpoint photography entirely, it would be an admission that you intend to misbehave and don't want any record of it to get out. Good way to lose any remaining respect.
"...allegations of improper screening..."
There can be no improper screening when the procedure is defined each time they do it. Proper or improper screening is whatever TSA says it is a the moment.
Remember that when you book your loved ones on a flight.
Bob continues to lie or at least mislead in saying that the agents in question acted properly.
Per the screening technique: maybe, and probably yes in their eyes.
In telling the man he could not film the actions of the agents, they acted very "improperly". This keeps being an issue because either the TSA training is severely lacking (I'm absolutely sure of this) or they are being purposely trained in this manner in order to intimidate the flying public (also very likely).
These tactics are very common, even with supposedly well trained LEO's who want to act with impunity to violate the people rights and cover their own behinds.
"Not to mention under the fourth amednmendt of the U.S. Constituion searches without warrants are a felony."
Actually, it says nothing of the sort.
If a party gives consent to a search, a warrant is not required, even if the party is unaware of their right to refuse to cooperate. 99% of police searches are done without warrants under consent.
Since regulations REQUIRE searches at airport checkpoints, the 4th amendment is automatically off the table because each passenger has to consent to the search to board the plane. If you don't want to be searched, you can't enter the airport. All airports have signs informing people at the entrances that they are subject to search and this applies ANYWHERE in the airport because the simple act of entering the airport is an implied consent to be searched.
Additionally, In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on post-9/11 airport security procedures, but the Ninth Circuit ruled in United States. v. Daniel Kuualoha Aukai that "airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings."
The TSA didn't kill the 4th amendment, the courts did that long before the TSA showed up. TSA is mandated by congress to perform screening and whining on a blog isn't going to change that. If you want change, talk to your congressman.
To MRFLIGHT:
And where is it decreed that you cannot take photos on federal property? Please tell me.
We must have forgotten the reason TSA was created. Also, flying is not a right, it is a privilege. I will consent to the necessary searches to ensure I make my destination every time.
"... and neither the CCTV footage "
Then you should have no problem posting the footage.
What is the TSA trying to hide?
8675309 said...
"Since regulations REQUIRE searches at airport checkpoints, the 4th amendment is automatically off the table because each passenger has to consent to the search to board the plane. "
This is where your understanding of the situation is incorrect.
If the Airport owner or Airlines want to search you, they can with no Constitutional violations. It is private property.
The TSA Checkpoint, as has been pointed out several times, is a Federal Government Controlled Area. Government Agents are compelled to honor the Constitution of the United States. They are not allowed to do what they are doing because they are Government and the Constitution says they can't.
There is no implied consent, there is no such thing as a Constitutional Free Zone. What the TSA is doing is wrong and it shouldn't be too much longer before the Courts agree. And if the Courts don't agree the TSA is in the wrong, then it will just be a bit more time until We the People elected enough Politicians to make it wrong.
And, just because I am worked up again... Tthere is no Federal Law that gives the TSA its authority. There are regulations, policies, procedures, but no Law. The TSA does not have the weight of law behind them, nor are they Law Enforcement Officials.
Notice that the recording of this scene, ostensibly by her family member, starts with her hysterics. It doesn't start with the screening. It starts with her going off the deep end. Is this intentional? Seems so.
Why doesn't the recording individual show us the part when the screening started -- pre-hysterical outburst -- so we can see, for ourselves, whether the agent inappropriately/sexually touched the woman's boob.
Could it be that they didn't want the actual screen to be seen cuz it didn't amount to what she says happened? Think so.
Could it also be that she went into the screening with an attitude? Possible.
About half my posts are not being uploaded, and all follow blog rules.
Censorship?
TO SAUL
True I do not know if it says anything about that under federal jurisdiction, my complaint however is people have been citing state laws on photography on public spaces, but people fail to realize the checkpoint is not under state jurisdiction but federal, on the other hand I believe there is something about taking photographs or videos of security installations, hence if this is true then a federal checkpoint is a security installation
Why doesn't the recording individual show us the part when the screening started -- pre-hysterical outburst -- so we can see, for ourselves, whether the agent inappropriately/sexually touched the woman's boob.
Could it be that they didn't want the actual screen to be seen cuz it didn't amount to what she says happened? Think so.
-------------------------------
Why doesn't the TSA show us the CCTV footage?
Could it be that they don't want the actual screening to be seen?
i think that all the "how can they stop filming in the tsa areas" blogs should be moved to the off topic area as it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. its just making for more and more tangents about video not the topic itself.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
RB says:
So are you and TSA saying it is proper screening procedure to feel a womens breast?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
What you mean "feel"?
What's the intent of the screener? Is it to feel what a boob feels like, or is it to feel around for something that may have triggered the alarm?
If it's to feel around for something that may have triggered the alarm, you have no case.
June 4, 2011 12:01 AM
....................
Gosh Bob [not the blogger] just what happens when you place your hands against something or someone?
You feel!..................
Doing this feeling to a strangers breast, buttocks, genitals or other private body parts is not in accordance with social norms in the US. In fact in most areas it is a crime and yes TSA employees are comitting a crime if they feel those body parts since TSA Administrator John Pistole said those body parts were not contacted during a pat down.
That is why the bill in Texas got started and why one is gaining footing in Utah.
Now if TSA employees wish to continue with these illegal actions then they should not be surprised when the law comes knocking.
I'll be happy to earn the $6 per day to sit on a jury and hear a TSA employees defense.
8675309said...
"Not to mention under the fourth amednmendt of the U.S. Constituion searches without warrants are a felony."
Actually, it says nothing of the sort.
.....................
You seemed to have left out part of the second court ruling you referenced which is a problem for TSA.
A TSA search is not limitless. There are bounds that cannot be exceeded and TSA has clearly gone far beyond any reasonable definition of an Administrative search when TSA employees are putting their hands in peoples paants, feeling between peoples legs, pushing their hand between the buttocks and especially doing these things to children.
..............................
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ü No. 04-10226 Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ý D.C. No. CR-03-00062-1-HG
DANIEL KUUALOHA AUKAI, OPINION Defendant-Appellant
IV.
[7] Although the constitutionality of airport screening
searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such
searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening
search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it “is no
more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of
current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or
explosives [ ] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that
purpose.” Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport
screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.
I've read this blog for a good long time, and I notice a disturbing pattern. When the TSA determines that its agents have acted properly, we get chapter and verse about the incident, with links and information and all else one could wish. When the TSA determines that its agents ARE at fault, we're told that the details cannot possibly be disclosed without putting national security at risk.
Anonymous wrote: Why doesn't the TSA show us the CCTV footage?
Heck - why doesn't the TSA have live webcam feeds at each checkpoint?
There's nothing better for feedback and process improvement than having more eyes on a problem. Look at how the Open Source community deals with security-related issues. It's call "peer review." The only reason to keep security procedures "SSI" is because the TSA doesn't want the world to know just how incompetent they really are.
Anonymous asks:
Why doesn't the TSA show us the CCTV footage?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
One would think that the one who is critical of the process, the one who recorded the scene, would have wanted to record and to show the beginning of the screening of that woman. But no.
Maybe TSA doesn't have footage of the scene.
Maybe TSA is required not to show the footage willy-nilly cuz it would jeopardize sensitive, security placements and processes. Maybe the woman will sue, and the footage will be shown in court. However, the woman will probably realize that her set up of TSA will not fly in court.
Anonymous asks:
Could it be that they don't want the actual screening to be seen?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
It could be, but probably not the case. The dude recording the scene has the greatest interest in showing the entire scene. But he didn't. Gee, I wonder why.
If we were to see the entire scene, starting with the patdown of the woman, we would probably realize what we realized with the patdown of the six-year-old girl – that is, that there is no basis for complaint.
There was no TSA agent going down the pants of the six-year-old, and the video of the woman that started with her hysterics, not the screening, would've shown no inappropriate touching. No sexual molestation. And that's the most sensible explanation of why the person who recorded the scene doesn't show the beginning of the screening process for that woman.
Someone said:
"If the Airport owner or Airlines want to search you, they can with no Constitutional violations. It is private property."
Um, no. Not correct.
Maybe TSA doesn't have footage of the scene.
-----------------------------------
From Bob's post
"we found that our security officers acted properly and neither the CCTV footage nor this YouTube video support any of the allegations levied. "
-------------------------------
Are you suggesting Bob is being mis-leading?
"The dude recording the scene has the greatest interest in showing the entire scene. But he didn't. Gee, I wonder why."
---------------------------------
Maybe by the time he could retrieve his camera, it was already over.
Anonymous said...
We must have forgotten the reason TSA was created. Also, flying is not a right, it is a privilege. I will consent to the necessary searches to ensure I make my destination every time.
We haven't forgotten why they were created, we just don't believe they are actually doing a good job at doing it.
Please point to a legal reference that distinguishes a "right" from a "privilege". I don't believe any such distinction exists.
If you believe that the TSA screening is responsible for your safety you haven't been paying attention. They aren't actually very good at finding weapons.
Bob,
Many people have complained about the lack of accountability the TSA fosters among its employees.
When you, as an official spokesman of the TSA, state that TSO's not following current procedure "acted properly", you simply reinforce this perception that the TSA is unwilling to hold its employees accountable.
what about the Constitutional rights of those being filmed? are the ones filming asking them if its ok that be filmed? how about the tsa people? its nots like your just filming walls, you are filming individuals that have a right to say that they dont want to be filmed or that they dont want therir likeness associated with the film. they are the people that are being violated.
wow
Anon said: This woman and her partner set this whole thing up. She just wanted her 15 min. of fame on youtube. WOW what a sad excuse of a human being.
I agree. Its pretty convenient that this woman (over)reacts the way she does and just happens to have a son recording the whole thing, who knows what to say when officers tell him to stop filming. Also, if the woman is this upset, so would be the son but he seems to have a calm about him and instead of protesting with his mother, he just wants to stand his ground about the filming. They knew what they were doing the whole time. 15 mins of fame is right on point, Anon!!
Someone said:
If the Airport owner or Airlines want to search you, they can with no Constitutional violations. It is private property."
Um, no. Not correct.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Um, yes. Mostly correct.
The airport is owned by the municipality. It is public.
The airlines are privately-owned companies. Their airplanes are private property. Their station space is rented and can be considered private property.
ANYONE may be searched after they give their consent to the search. Consent to the search voids Fourth Amendment concerns. When you are on airport property, nowadays, and/or, if you walk onto the security checkpoint, you imply your consent; specific, verbal consent is not required. You are free to decide beforehand not to go into an area where there is the chance that you will be searched.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Maybe TSA doesn't have footage of the scene.
Anonymous says:
From Bob's post
"we found that our security officers acted properly and neither the CCTV footage nor this YouTube video support any of the allegations levied."
Are you suggesting Bob is being mis-leading?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
All I wrote is that "maybe" TSA doesn't have a recording. Maybe.
If they do, they've looked at it. Bob says they found nothing improper, and there's no evidence to show otherwise.
If you have a case, or, if the woman/the recording dude have a case for court, they can subpoena the TSA recording.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The dude recording the scene has the greatest interest in showing the entire scene. But he didn't. Gee, I wonder why.
Anonymous says:
Maybe by the time he could retrieve his camera, it was already over.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
It appears, from his recording, that he was calm and collected. It's clear to me that he planned ahead to record the screening of the woman. It was a set up. It's not spontaneous. There may even be security footage of them outside the checkpoint, setting it up.
RB asks:
So are you and TSA saying it is proper screening procedure to feel a womens breast?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
What you mean "feel"?
What's the intent of the screener? Is it to feel what a boob feels like, or is it to feel around for something that may have triggered the alarm?
If it's to feel around for something that may have triggered the alarm, you have no case.
RB says:
Gosh Bob [not the blogger] just what happens when you place your hands against something or someone?
You feel!..................
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Feelings for the breast, or feeling for something that can be hidden among the breasts?
RB says:
Doing this feeling to a strangers breast, buttocks, genitals or other private body parts is not in accordance with social norms in the US.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Are you telling the police that, too?
RB says:
In fact in most areas it is a crime and yes TSA employees are comitting a crime if they feel those body parts since TSA Administrator John Pistole said those body parts were not contacted during a pat down.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
It's clear that TSA agents are "feeling" around those parts with the BACK of the hands, not the palm of the hands. Sex molestation occurs when the perp uses the palm of his hands to grasp the shape of those parts.
RB says:
That is why the bill in Texas got started and why one is gaining footing in Utah.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Then, no one will fly in Utah, until the Department of Transportation, through TSA, can provide security for ALL passengers and visitors to the airports.
RB says:
Now if TSA employees wish to continue with these illegal actions then they should not be surprised when the law comes knocking.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Who says they're illegal??
RB says:
I'll be happy to earn the $6 per day to sit on a jury and hear a TSA employees defense.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
No, you won't. You won't even hear their defense here. What makes you think we believe that you'll hear their defense there?
If a TSA agent "sexually molested" this woman, did the police arrest the agent? No.
I would guess that the police prob'ly looked at the TSA recordings and found that the woman's high-RPM, high-volume hysterics were not justified, that her testimony is defective, not credible.
Anonymous says:
what about the Constitutional rights of those being filmed?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Nothing is added by the camera that eyes everywhere can't see.
Anonymous says:
are the ones filming asking them if its ok that be filmed?
Anonymous says:
No need in public, nor from public areas. No one has what the law calls "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in public.
Anonymous says:
how about the tsa people?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
They don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, either. What's more, they are doing a public job that is open to viewing.
Anonymous says:
its [sic] nots like your [sic] just filming walls, you are filming individuals that have a right to say that they dont want to be filmed or that they dont want therir likeness associated with the film.
Anonymous says:
When you choose to go public, you loose the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Anonymous says:
they are the people that are being violated.
Anonymous says:
As I've explained, no, they aren't.
Bob says they found nothing improper,
---------------------------------
Bob also said the officers acted properly even though they did not follow current policy
Anonymous said...
Bob,
When you, as an official spokesman of the TSA, state that TSO's not following current procedure "acted properly", you simply reinforce this perception that the TSA is unwilling to hold its employees accountable.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
What official ruling says that TSOs are not following "current procedure"?
When people are found not to be doing their jobs, they are, properly, corrected. That's just good leadership. And, if they continue not to do their jobs, they are fired cuz it is not in the best interest of the employing agency to have employees not doing their jobs.
Anonymous said...
"what about the Constitutional rights of those being filmed? are the ones filming asking them if its ok that be filmed? how about the tsa people? its nots like your just filming walls, you are filming individuals that have a right to say that they dont want to be filmed or that they dont want therir likeness associated with the film. they are the people that are being violated."
---
There is no expectation of privacy in a public setting, including the airport. If a TSO or a cop does not want to take the chance that a member of the public -- the public they are sworn to serve -- records them on film or video while they are doing their jobs, then they should find another line of work.
The same applies for anyone when in a public setting, such as on the sidewalk. If I take a picture of you and you tell me to stop, and I do not, I have not committed a crime. (If I follow you around and make contact with you, or verbally harass you, that is another matter.) If you yell at me to stop taking your photo, and you are still on that public sidewalk, and I do not stop, no crime has still been committed.
Again, there is no expectation of privacy in a public setting.
Anonymous said...
«i think that all the "how can they stop filming in the tsa areas" blogs should be moved to the off topic area as it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.»
It has everything to do with the topic. Bob wrote, "This incident has also raised many questions about whether or not passengers can film at checkpoints. This topic is currently under review ...".
You should have linked to the actual TSA website:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm
It's pretty clear that as long as you don't interfere with the screening, regardless of what the agent asks you.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
Why doesn't the recording individual show us the part when the screening started -- pre-hysterical outburst -- so we can see, for ourselves, whether the agent inappropriately/sexually touched the woman's boob.
Could it be that they didn't want the actual screen to be seen cuz it didn't amount to what she says happened? Think so.
Could it be they were lied to by the TSA employees, and told they could not video the screening? I think it's possible.
captcha: nogreaba - no grab-a?
Bob [not the blogger] said...
If we were to see the entire scene, starting with the patdown of the woman, we would probably realize what we realized with the patdown of the six-year-old girl – that is, that there is no basis for complaint.
There was no TSA agent going down the pants of the six-year-old...
Quote- I'm going to put my hand in your waistband, all the way around -unquote.
That's what the TSA screener says. That's what the screener does- puts her hand inside the girls pants.
Watch the video. It's about 45 seconds in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3sH1GaO_nw
Stop lying Bobnottheblogger.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Feelings for the breast, or feeling for something that can be hidden among the breasts?
That's a great idea, bob! Next time I'm caught feeling up some chick, I'll claim I wasn't 'feeling her breasts', I was "feeling for something that can be hidden among the breasts".
I'm sure the cops will just let me go, Right? After all, that's not assault or anything, right?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
It's clear that TSA agents are "feeling" around those parts with the BACK of the hands, not the palm of the hands. Sex molestation occurs when the perp uses the palm of his hands to grasp the shape of those parts.
So, if I rub the Back of my hand on your wife's... body... you won't have a problem with it, simply because it's the Back of my hand?
And are you seriously saying one cannot molest someone in a way other than... palming their parts?
To the many people on this blog who ask "why doesn't the person filming his mother being molested and show the entire scene?". Probably because this would likely not be expected and I'm almost positive TSA won't do a "retake" because he didn't have his camera ready. To the few people who have said the woman brought the whole thing on herself because she was in a TSA area, this is like saying a woman brought on being raped because she was walking down the street with a low cut shirt on. I know I've been subjected to extra screening many times and recently had a female TSO watch with "interest" while I was being patted down. This is the same thing I've been screaming about, but TSA doesn't care...and as long as you many sheep keep going through the machines (just don't complain to me when you start having health issues from it) TSA will continue to violate passengers. I have to endure it because of my work, but I don't like it and will protest any chance I get. How can TSA get on CNN/FNC/MSNBC and claim no one is complaining about their screening techniques or their personnel? Because they're allowed to do so because a select many people became afraid of the boogie-man when a bad event happened almost 10 years ago. Thank you very much....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guwy-kdwO2A
....................
Feel proud TSA. Feel very proud.
America's Terrorists!
kellymae81 said...
wow
June 5, 2011 3:51 PM
......................
Exactly kellymae81.
TSA has jumped the shark and left all reason and common sense behind.
Time to end the TSA experiment.
Bob--
I don't comment all that often, but your post simply defies any semblance of logic. You're saying that filming at checkpoints is OK, but that TSOs holding up bins to prevent people from filming is also OK? Is filming only OK if you're flexible enough to dodge the bins? This is ludicrous.
Either issue a regulation to prohibit filming (and wait for the lawsuits to begin), or live up to your policies and discipline your employees that don't follow them.
Bob [not the Blogger] says: "Sex molestation occurs when the perp uses the palm of his hands to grasp the shape of those parts."
Please provide references to laws, court cases, etc to support this ridiculous assertion.
First I have to say that the filming issue aside ( TSO's were incorrect on that one )but really filming your own mother when ( if in fact it was real and not a set up as I suspect it was ) and not comforting and helping her really. What kind of sion is he, he seemed in this video and the one days earlier when this same ( sur e0 thing just happened to this father ( now tell me this is nos a family set up) The son actually has the so much disrepect for his parents that instead of tryim gto calm and sort out the situation with TSA, the airlines and the police he instead accelerates and exacerbates the situation with his ramblings of nazis and his lack of rights he never stops to assist his parents in either vidoe, graeat compassion and respect for them both NOT...come on what may be sadder that we are commenting on a ghetto fami;y tryinmg to capitlaize on the deathjs of the victims of 911 this family is not much better than the terrorists themsleves, shame on you as a son and as an american !
Someone asked:
That is why the bill in Texas got started and why one is gaining footing in Utah.
And someone else answered:
Then, no one will fly in Utah, until the Department of Transportation, through TSA, can provide security for ALL passengers and visitors to the airports.
WTF?
There is a reported 13 states drafting similar legislation that draws a proverbial line in the sand for the TSA. And your saying that the TSA is going to turn all of them into no-fly zones?
First, the legislation moving through the various states says you can't do a certain level of pat-downs, certain areas are simply off limits to the hands of your Agents.
Second, you claim repeatedly that your agents don't touch those parts the bills say you can't touch.
So.... why would you shut down air travel out of those states for passing laws that, by your own admission you won't be violating. If your not doing what those bills say you can't how can the level of security the TSA be affected in any way?
And then, under what authority would you, the TSA, be able to close an airport?
Americans,
It's clear the TSA is NOT going to modify their pat-down procedures until new laws are passed or they receive a court order. For those who believe that law-abiding taxpaying Americans deserve better treatment at United States airports, contact your state legislators and your US legislators. The TSA has created a feedback farce that never gets addressed by anyone in their bloated bureaucracy. It is a waste of time and resources to complain to an agency that is inept.
In 2012, we will have an opportunity to elect leaders who believe American citizens deserve to be treated with respect, not treated like suspects.
TO SAUL
"Again, there is no expectation of privacy in a public setting"
So does that not mean YOU or a PASSENGER should not expect to have privacy at an airport? so then the body scanner does not go against YOUR privacy in a public setting
Anonymous said...
Bob says they found nothing improper,
---------------------------------
Bob also said the officers acted properly even though they did not follow current policy
June 5, 2011 6:41 PM
............
And a few months back Bob said TSA employees acted properly when they illegally held a lady hostage.
TSA has a strange understanding of "acted properly"!
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Ben Franklin
My gosh, What is America (land of the Free and Brave) coming to? I do not feel these
videos' were staged and I praise those who stood up to the Police Officers and the TSA.
This has to stop! There is NO laws for what these screeners are doing and it is NOT
against the law to film in public, but after these videos, there will be laws now.
Folks, STOP giving up your rights. Stop letting more and more laws be created that take
away your rights. WE HAVE NO RIGHT NOW TO THIS SCREENING. Like he said, "either be
groped, microwaved or Don't fly!" That is NOT a choice or option. We should be
able to fly if we can pay for it without being groped and/or microwaved. STOP THE CHAOS
and stop attacking those who have the guts to challenge those who try to Control you.
Any of you posting comments below defending TSA and this screening process, need your
HEAD examined and I hope you're groped good next time you fly and see how you feel about
it then.
rb said:
"I'll be happy to earn the $6 per day to sit on a jury and hear a TSA employees defense."
i bet you would rb. and im sure that with your morals you would tell the defense attorney of your contempt of all things tsa and would provide a completely unbiased opinion and verdict. you make me sick!
What's all this concern for photography? Sure it is allowed in general, but if the local TSA decides it is not allowed then you shouldn't be filming.
"we expect all contributors to be respectful"??
but the TSA hax no respect for the citizens of this country. sexual molestation has never been an honest way to make a living.Not to mention that TSA never deterred anything , just harras the population on a daily basis. on top of that we have to pay for our own torture. what a shame. what happened to america and its freedom?
Please leave us alone.
I just saw another video about two grannies who were forced to be stripped at the airport after going through full body scans, because they were carrying cash under their shirts for safety.
I´m sure the TSA is going to claim they were within protocol, but such a protocol is simply unacceptable.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Why doesn't the recording individual show us the part when the screening started -- pre-hysterical outburst -- so we can see, for ourselves, whether the agent inappropriately/sexually touched the woman's boob.
Could it be that they didn't want the actual screen to be seen cuz it didn't amount to what she says happened? Think so.
Anonymous says:
Could it be they were lied to by the TSA employees, and told they could not video the screening? I think it's possible.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
There is no reason to tell him not to record before he started recording, even if they have, or have no, authority to tell him not to record.
So a "regulation pat-down" can bring a woman to tears and screaming that she has been physically violated. I wonder how TSA employees sleep at night knowing what they are doing to fellow human beings.
Bob. It's sexual harassment. And if you touch my camera or my body I'm going to scream, and then I'm going to find a great lawyer and sue you specifically. Not the Tsa.
Looks like this family is trying to get a little fame and maybe a few bucks by staging this garbage. What a joke. If you want to protest the pat-down policy is your right, but to scream and yell about being sexually assaulted in an attempted to say you don't like the pat-down is pathetic.
The TSA has no right to exist!!!
Bob [not the blogger] says "ANYONE may be searched after they give their consent to the search. Consent to the search voids Fourth Amendment concerns. When you are on airport property, nowadays, and/or, if you walk onto the security checkpoint, you imply your consent; specific, verbal consent is not required. You are free to decide beforehand not to go into an area where there is the chance that you will be searched."
You are wrong Bob, and here's why. First, there is a long 4th amendment history of Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that the right to be free from unreasonable search requires that such searches use the lease intrusive means possible, the TSA, a public agency, grabbing of people's genitals clearly fails this test miserably.
As for the argument that people have "consented" to be molested by choosing to fly, this is also incorrect. The constitution guarantees the right of interstate travel, see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), meaning you cannot condition one person's right (to interstate travel) on their agreement to be deprived of other rights (from unreasonable search), such a Hobbesian choice is clearly unconstitutional.
Can the TSA explain exactly how physical pat-downs and body image scanners can better detect explosive materials on or within a person, than an explosive particle detection machine or "sniffer" dog?
Aidan Monaghan
Las Vegas, NV
Also, I feel I should add that your TSA decided to violate your policy which does not forbid cameras, but you say "TSA takes all allegations of improper screening seriously and investigates each claim to the fullest."
If that statement was remotely true, you would have not also stated "we found that our security officers acted properly." Its quite clear that there are several legal and policy violations, and you yourself at least have to admit that they violated the camera policies - not doing so makes you a liar.
Anonymous said...
I just saw another video about two grannies who were forced to be stripped at the airport after going through full body scans, because they were carrying cash under their shirts for safety.
Is it my imagination, or did TSA.gov have a front-page story on that? Because it doesn't now....
Bob [not the blogger] says:
If we were to see the entire scene, starting with the patdown of the woman, we would probably realize what we realized with the patdown of the six-year-old girl – that is, that there is no basis for complaint.
There was no TSA agent going down the pants of the six-year-old...
Anonymous says:
Quote- I'm going to put my hand in your waistband, all the way around -unquote.
That's what the TSA screener says. That's what the screener does- puts her hand inside the girls pants.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
She does not say, "I'm gonna put my hand inside your pants."
To say that the TSO put her hand in the girl's pants is deliberately to use inflammatory language that does not match the reality. The critics deliberately try to leave the impression that the TSO stuck her hand down the girl's pants when she didn't. The critics could, at least, be honest enough accurately to describe the scene.
It's impossible accurately to tell whether a person has hidden anything along the belt line by checking only from the outside.
i bet you would rb. and im sure that with your morals you would tell the defense attorney of your contempt of all things tsa and would provide a completely unbiased opinion and verdict. you make me sick!
June 6, 2011 2:40 PM
................
Would not be an opinion but a decision based of facts entered into evidence.
Your welcomed!
At what point do we as a people actually stand up for the rights and freedoms that were granted to us by our forefathers?
The TSA has repeatedly proven that it will not abide by it's own rules let alone the actual laws of our country. We have allowed the government to create yet another agency that is above the law.
Filming at the control points is the only oversight that this agency is going to see. We cannot allow any further injustices.
Anonymous said.. “So a "regulation pat-down" can bring a woman to tears”,
Let’s make this clear, this woman was not brought to tears by a pat-down. I have probably seen tens of thousands of people screened and not one has ever cried because of a pat-down. It doesn’t matter if this passenger is emotionally unstable or is just putting on a good show for the camera the point is that she created her own drama.
Anonymous said... “I just saw another video about two grannies who were forced to be stripped … because they were carrying cash under their shirts,”
Not true. I have screened plenty of men who had money belts or other hidden pockets with their cash and never once did they have to strip to get cleared through checkpoint. I have had several men who offered to drop their pants to prove what they were carrying was not dangerous, I always decline the offer.
After having watched this video all I can think is this was a setup. The son has his camera trained on his mother, who is acting somewhat irrationally, but never tries to calm her down. Instead he seemed to have a ready stream of comments about his dislike of TSA. Added to that the same thing happened to his father and he was there with his camera again?
It kind of makes me sad that we live in a world where people feel they have to invent problems, instead of just dealing with the problems that we already have.
Bob [not the blogger] asked:
… feeling for the breast, or feeling for something that can be hidden among the breasts?
Anonymous says:
That's a great idea, bob! Next time I'm caught feeling up some chick, I'll claim I wasn't 'feeling her breasts', I was "feeling for something that can be hidden among the breasts".
I'm sure the cops will just let me go, Right? After all, that's not assault or anything, right?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
You forgot one thing in your hypothetical: Are you a TSO, or a police officer? Or just some character off the street?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
It's clear that TSA agents are "feeling" around those parts with the BACK of the hands, not the palm of the hands. Sex molestation occurs when the perp uses the palm of his hands to grasp the shape of those parts.
Anonymous asks:
So, if I rub the Back of my hand on your wife's... body... you won't have a problem with it, simply because it's the Back of my hand?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
I don't have a problem with it, if you are a TSO, or a police officer, just doing your job, performing it according to regulations and training.
Anonymous says:
And are you seriously saying one cannot molest someone in a way other than... palming their parts?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
I'll say that it depends on the nature of the movement of the hand and in what context.
Anonymous says:
To the many people on this blog who ask "why doesn't the person filming his mother being molested and show the entire scene?" Probably because this would likely not be expected…
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Oh, it was expected.
Anonymous says:
…and I'm almost positive TSA won't do a "retake" because he didn't have his camera ready.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Judging from the reaction of the two, they were spring-loaded to expect to react the way they did. It's obvious that they are critics of TSA. So, the son would-a been ready to record the scene.
Notice that the recording starts at the very beginning of her tantrum. The screening process is too cleanly cut. It's a set up.
Anonymous says:
To the few people who have said the woman brought the whole thing on herself because she was in a TSA area, this is like saying a woman brought on being raped because she was walking down the street with a low cut shirt on.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Not outta the realm of possibility.
Anonymous says:
I know I've been subjected to extra screening many times and recently had a female TSO watch with "interest" while I was being patted down. This is the same thing I've been screaming about, but TSA doesn't care...
Bob [not the blogger] says:
"Care" about what? They've heard these complaints a bazillion times and answered them a bazillion times. The critics don't care about their answers. They just want what they wanna want.
Anonymous says:
… and as long as you many sheep keep going through the machines (just don't complain to me when you start having health issues from it) TSA will continue to violate passengers.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
If TSA is violating passengers, why no arrests yet?
The nice thing is that TSA records everything going on inside and just outside the screening area.
If LEO is called, no doubt that they lookit the recording to see whether what happened matches what is said to have happened. So far, no arrests. You do the math.
Anonymous says:
I have to endure it because of my work…
Bob [not the blogger] says:
You choose to endure it.
Anonymous says:
… but I don't like it…
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The terrorists don't like it, either.
Anonymous says:
… and will protest any chance I get.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
You won't make too much-a fuss cuz, then, you won't fly.
The proper way to protest is to contact your congressional delegation and tell them to pass legislation to relax security for your comfort. Then, when the terrorists discover the holes in security, we'll see how comfortable you are when the airplane blows up.
Anonymous says:
How can TSA get on CNN/FNC/MSNBC and claim no one is complaining about their screening techniques or their personnel?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
I doubt that they say that "no one" is complaining. Plenty are complaining, thinking that they're VIPs, that everybody else should be screened, but not them.
Anonymous says:
Because they're allowed to do so because a select many people became afraid of the boogie-man when a bad event happened almost 10 years ago.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Well, duh.
So, 9/11 is just just a "boogie-man," huh? Something imaginary, y'think. Heh.
Anonymous says:
Thank you very much....
Bob [not the blogger] says:
No. Thank YOU.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Sex molestation occurs when the perp uses the palm of his hands to grasp the shape of those parts.
avxo says:
Please provide references to laws, court cases, etc to support this ridiculous assertion.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
I would say that there's no point to sex molestation by using the back of the hand. It's possible – not probable, nor certain – that it could maybe perhaps happen once in a bazillion times that a perp would rather use the BACK of his hand, rather than the palm of his hand, to molest somebody; there are a lotta weirdos out there, after all. For virtually all molestations, however, the perp will choose to use the palm of his hand.
What folks tend to forget is we are regularly being deprived of one of our civil rights by a government organization (TSA). We have a right to expect NOT to be searched or have our belongings seized without due cause. Period. There is no 'well, unless a terrorist organization steals a couple of airplanes because we won't pay for sufficient air marshals. THEN we can do whatever we want to deprive you of your rights.' Really? So... the fact that proper air marshal training and staffing would cost a fraction of the TSA budget we think setting up a government organization whose members REGULARLY threaten the populace (abuse of power) with false punishments for not following their illegal commands. Sad really. It hasn't made us any safer (no matter what the TSA or any US government body may claim) as there is no proof that had the 'system' been in place in 2001 it would have stopped the hijackings. They used 'box knives' remember? So... tell me how that would have stopped someone from putting a sharpened plastic stake into their anal cavity while passing through the 'check point' and then removing it for use on the plane. Gross... yes. Possible... yes. Avoids the whole 'pat down' procedure... yes. So tell me again how we are safer by giving up some of our fundamental civil rights again?
Bob - congratulations on being recognized by Time magazine. An appropriate and well deserved honor.
Quoted:
"Jonathan B. said...
Bob. It's sexual harassment. And if you touch my camera or my body I'm going to scream, and then I'm going to find a great lawyer and sue you specifically. Not the Tsa.
June 6, 2011 4:46 PM
----------------------
Just like all the others that have stated the same thing and taken it to the courts. And the verdict is....
Hmmm, more crickets.....
sauronsfinger said...
"What's all this concern for photography? Sure it is allowed in general, but if the local TSA decides it is not allowed then you shouldn't be filming."
Maybe the "local TSA" (it's a federal agency) will declare that you cannot bring any books or magazines or DVDs on-board next time you have a seven-hour flight, since they might conceal explosives. Or that you can no longer put clothing in your checked or carry-on bags, because they might conceal explosives as well.
Sure these things are allowed in general, but if the local TSA decides they are not allowed then you shouldn't be bringing them on-board. Works for me.
-----
MRFLIGHT said...
"So does that not mean YOU or a PASSENGER should not expect to have privacy at an airport? so then the body scanner does not go against YOUR privacy in a public setting."
No, because the courts have upheld that the non-expectation of privacy in a public setting extends to what is normally visible to the naked eye.
See, for example, the following legal article --
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1857623
«A few things become apparent after examining the existing legal
framework surrounding photography rights. First, there are very few actual limits on the right to take pictures in public. Second, existing limits seem to be aimed at the most obnoxious and intrusive behavior, such as taking pictures underneath a woman’s skirt or repeatedly harassing someone after being asked to stop taking pictures.»
The images produced by the body scanners are analogous to the upskirt example given.
@sauronsfinger: "What's all this concern for photography? Sure it is allowed in general, but if the local TSA decides it is not allowed then you shouldn't be filming."
I disagree. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. TSA often tells us that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to worry about. Similarly, if TSA is doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about with being filmed. In fact, if they are doing things right, the film would exonerate them.
We already know that checkpoint video is unreliable. TSA has it show up when it helps them and it disappears when it doesn't. Without people filming at the checkpoint, we have a he said/she said.
The only thing TSA has said shouldn't be filmed is the x-ray monitor. Other than that, it's fair game. Don't like it? Don't work for TSA or mess up at the checkpoint and you have nothing to worry about.
Earl
"Real violations of our protocols are worth every ounce of our energy to investigate, but this alleged incident does not meet that threshold."
And how does Congress feel about TSA deciding whether or not it will investigate complaints? It's fairly reasonable and customary to expect every complaint will be processed and investigated. It becomes clear that TSA is not operating withing the guidelines of other agencies, and one wonders if this is why TSA complaints are supposed so low when every day those of us that travel regularly see problems playing out before our eyes.
Just saw you blog guys made the Time list. Good job!
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
I just saw another video about two grannies who were forced to be stripped at the airport after going through full body scans, because they were carrying cash under their shirts for safety.
Is it my imagination, or did TSA.gov have a front-page story on that? Because it doesn't now....
June 7, 2011 9:26 AM
..and now it does again. Hmm.
RB said...
8675309said...
"Not to mention under the fourth amednmendt of the U.S. Constituion searches without warrants are a felony."
Actually, it says nothing of the sort.
.....................
You seemed to have left out part of the second court ruling you referenced which is a problem for TSA.
A TSA search is not limitless. There are bounds that cannot be exceeded and TSA has clearly gone far beyond any reasonable definition of an Administrative search when TSA employees are putting their hands in peoples paants, feeling between peoples legs, pushing their hand between the buttocks and especially doing these things to children.
..............................
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ü No. 04-10226 Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ý D.C. No. CR-03-00062-1-HG
DANIEL KUUALOHA AUKAI, OPINION Defendant-Appellant
IV.
[7] Although the constitutionality of airport screening
searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such
searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening
search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it “is no
more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of
current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or
explosives [ ] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that
purpose.” Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport
screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.
June 4, 2011 7:49 PM
------------------------
Lol RB just proved himself wrong.
You quoted this court case after your argument that clearly throws your argument out the window. Here is why, this is the quote from your quote;
“is no
more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of
current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or
explosives [ ] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that
purpose.”
Well in the light of current technology and terrorist and smuggler practices to get weapons and explosives past security which we know about since they are using these tactics to attack military personnel in the middle east....then yes TSA's pat down and use of technology is not only neccesarry but also below the standard since terrorists are hiding weapons inside of their own bodies.... With that said if TSA was making there searches over what this ruling states they would be preforming cavity searches.
Good job proving yourself wrong RB!
you people are just ridiculous. I recently flew for the first time in about a year and though we had no trouble with the TSA people I was reminded of how unnecessary, expensive, and overstaffed this agency is. No other facet of Americna life makes me despair so much for the stae of our country. I also think it's inappropriate that the TSA use tax money to employ a full-time blogger to disseminate its PR which is readily available in other forums.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
She does not say, "I'm gonna put my hand inside your pants."
Correct. She says (as was quoted) "I'm going to put my hand in your waistband, all the way around".
Now, it's tricky, but follow along with me, okay? - The waistband is part of a pair of pants. Kind alike a collar is part of a shirt. If you put your hand "inside" someones collar, you have indeed put your hands inside their shirt. And if you put your hand "inside" a persons waistband, you have indeed put your hand inside their pants.
Got it?
TSO Jacob said...
Anonymous said.. “So a "regulation pat-down" can bring a woman to tears”,
Let’s make this clear, this woman was not brought to tears by a pat-down. I have probably seen tens of thousands of people screened and not one has ever cried because of a pat-down.
I've seen lots of people eat peanut butter sandwiches, and not one has died of a peanut allergy. Must mean peanut allergies don't exist, Right?
MRFLIGHT said...
TO SAUL
"Again, there is no expectation of privacy in a public setting"
So does that not mean YOU or a PASSENGER should not expect to have privacy at an airport? so then the body scanner does not go against YOUR privacy in a public setting
There is an OBVIOUS difference between taking a normal photo (or even video) of someone, and seeing them naked.
TSO Jacob said...
Anonymous said... “I just saw another video about two grannies who were forced to be stripped … because they were carrying cash under their shirts,”
Not true.
YES, true. Look at the front page of TSA.gov.
"An astute TSA officer at Luis Muñoz MarÃn International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico detected an anomaly on a female passenger screened using imaging technology. Further screening uncovered that she had strategically concealed approximately $55,000 in cash in her undergarments."
Why the heck the TSA is looking for people carrying money is beyond me. Money can't bring down a plane. Money can't endanger anyone.
Saul wrote "Maybe the "local TSA" (it's a federal agency) will declare that you cannot bring any books or magazines or DVDs on-board next time you have a seven-hour flight, since they might conceal explosives. Or that you can no longer put clothing in your checked or carry-on bags, because they might conceal explosives as well."
Well, gee, if we're going to discuss hypotheticals there's no use talking to you. Might as well ask me how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
In the words of Robert DeNiro in Deer Hunter ... "this is this, this is not something else."
FINAL ANSWERS.
1) Photography is up to the airport rules - which by the way are often owned and run by local or state entities - as TSA clearly states.
2) There ARE lawsuits winding their way through the courts concerning the genital touching and the naked pictures produced by scanners. It takes time of course. Don't count the crickets yet.
3) The current search procedures by the TSA have not been found legal, as the lawsuits are early in the process so no real court has tested them yet. The "carve out" exceptions to the the 4th amendment for airport security are lower court cases - such as US vs Davis - and even in those decisions they had to do some unnatural acts to support security searches. Ultimately, it may have to be tested by the Supreme Court. However, there is nothing left of our the 4th amendment - which administrative searches MUST still meet the requirements of, except for the warrant piece in some instances - if someone decides that strip searches and genital/buttocks/breast searches are reasonable when there have been zero US-originating airline passengers who have set off a non-metallic bomb in the last 43 years.
Contrast that to metal detectors, which are not strip searches, use commonly accepted safe methods, and only were used when hijackings started to occur 4 times a month. At least there was a real risk.
Of course, there seem to be a lot of TSA defenders who are extremely scared about incredibly remote possibilities...I often say their fear should mean they should seek alternate forms of transportation as opposed to throwing the US freedoms away and letting the terrorists win.
sauronsfinger said...
"Well, gee, if we're going to discuss hypotheticals there's no use talking to you. Might as well ask me how many angels dance on the head of a pin."
You had originally stated, "Sure it is allowed in general, but if the local TSA decides it is not allowed then you shouldn't be filming."
The problem with your statement is that the TSA can declare anything they want, but that doesn't mean such regulations are in accord with the fundamental law of our land, the Constitution. Photography happens to be something about which I am passionate, and unfortunately, the many cases of TSOs blocking passengers from filming is not hypothetical.
So instead of trying to bash my hypothetical situations, please say why I should have to obey a TSO's order which is not Constitutional.
Anonymous said...
Why the heck the TSA is looking for people carrying money is beyond me. Money can't bring down a plane. Money can't endanger anyone.
They aren't looking for money The problem is that their fancy expensive scanner machines don't actually detect explosives, the only detect shapes.
Anonymous said...
TSO Jacob said...
Anonymous said... “I just saw another video about two grannies who were forced to be stripped … because they were carrying cash under their shirts,”
Not true.
YES, true. Look at the front page of TSA.gov.
"An astute TSA officer at Luis Muñoz MarÃn International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico detected an anomaly on a female passenger screened using imaging technology. Further screening uncovered that she had strategically concealed approximately $55,000 in cash in her undergarments."
Why the heck the TSA is looking for people carrying money is beyond me. Money can't bring down a plane. Money can't endanger anyone.
June 8, 2011 8:21 PM
----------------------
They aren't looking for money, the machine detected an anomoly so they checked it and then found the anomoly was money. Those machines, if you have paid attention to the reports on them, find things under your clothes that aren't you. So if you have little rectangular bricks strapped to your chest the explosive guys are probably going to ask you what they are whether or not they are money is something differnt. However conceling over 10,000$ is acceptible suspicion for criminal activity for the police and the feds so TSA would be required by good samaritan law to report it =D
Quoted:
"2) There ARE lawsuits winding their way through the courts concerning the genital touching and the naked pictures produced by scanners. It takes time of course. Don't count the crickets yet.
-------------------
Uh huh. And you know this how? please state the facts concerning any cases of which you have first hand knowledge. Otherwise, I'm still counting crickets.
***Update: 6/9/2011 - There have many many different interpretations of the photography portion of this post, so I wanted to clarify things a bit. We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity unless it interferes with the screening process at our checkpoints. While our current policy remains the same, TSA is reviewing our guidance to officers at the checkpoint to ensure consistent application. Our goal is to protect passenger’s rights, while safeguarding the integrity of the security process. ***
Thanks!
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
There is no integrity in the TSA. the true goal of forbidding cameras is pure CYA and nothing more. Make sure you spell my name right on the enhanced search list!
Anonymous says:
First I have to say that the filming issue aside ( TSO's were incorrect on that one )but really filming your own mother when ( if in fact it was real and not a set up as I suspect it was )…
Bob [not the blogger] says:
So, you suspect it is a fact????
Anonymous says:
…and not comforting and helping her really.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
This is one of the parts that is suspicious. It leads one to believe that it was a set up – that is, it was more important to capture the scene for YouTube viewers, and not the whole scene at that.
Clearly, the police officers that were called, probably viewing the TSA recordings, watching the screening process on this woman – the process the son conveniently omitted – saw nothing illegal. That's why there were no arrests.
Anonymous says:
What kind of sion [sic] is he, he seemed in this video and the one days earlier when this same ( sur e0 thing just happened to this father ( now tell me this is nos a family set up) The son actually has the so much disrepect for his parents that instead of tryim gto calm and sort out the situation with TSA, the airlines and the police he instead accelerates and exacerbates the situation with his ramblings of nazis and his lack of rights he never stops to assist his parents in either vidoe, graeat compassion and respect for them both NOT...come on what may be sadder that we are commenting on a ghetto fami;y tryinmg to capitlaize on the deathjs of the victims of 911 this family is not much better than the terrorists themsleves, shame on you as a son and as an american !
Bob [not the blogger] says:
In any case, what could the son do? Interfere with the screening process??
Someone asks:
That is why the bill in Texas got started and why one is gaining footing in Utah.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Then, no one will fly in Utah, until the Department of Transportation, through TSA, can provide security for ALL passengers and visitors to the airports.
Anonymous asks:
WTF?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
You'll have to decode that, if you want me to understand what you're asking.
Anonymous says:
There is a reported 13 states drafting similar legislation that draws a proverbial line in the sand for the TSA.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The US attorney in Texas says that, if there is no adequate, pre-board security, it is not safe to fly. He says that, if it is not safe to fly…well, you get the picture.
Ultimately, according to FAR 91.3, the pilot in command is finally responsible for the safety of the flight.
If I were pilot in command, and I felt that the safety of the flight is compromised, the flight would not leave.
Anonymous says:
And your [sic] saying that the TSA is going to turn all of them into no-fly zones?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Apparently, if we are to believe US attorney in Texas, that would be the scenario everywhere. Safety first. The critics wanna compromise safety for comfort and convenience. The terrorists are enjoying this.
Anonymous says:
First, the legislation moving through the various states says you can't do a certain level of pat-downs, certain areas are simply off limits to the hands of your Agents.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The terrorists agree that certain areas of the body should be off-limits to pat downs.
Anonymous says:
Second, you claim repeatedly that your agents don't touch those parts the bills say you can't touch.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Uhhhh, no I don't say that.
Anonymous says:
So.... why would you shut down air travel out of those states for passing laws that, by your own admission you won't be violating.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Cuz, naturally, just as with police pat downs, the hand is gonna brush up against somebody's "whatevers." In fact, police searches are more what YOU call "intrusive," in that they use the open, palm of the hand.
Anonymous says:
If your [sic] not doing what those bills say you can't how can the level of security the TSA be affected in any way?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA is not committing fondlements, nor fondilations, of "whatevers." Fondlement, or fondilation, typically, would involve the open hand. TSOs, typically, use the back of the hand, near the "whatevers," when searching the areas NEAR the "whatevers."
But critics claim that the TSOs are grabbing the "whatevers" with the palm hand. They are not.
Anonymous says:
And then, under what authority would you, the TSA, be able to close an airport?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Under the authority of any safety/security laws.
Saul said "So instead of trying to bash my hypothetical situations, please say why I should have to obey a TSO's order which is not Constitutional."
So what court said it is unconstitutional? Or do you think you are above the courts, better than the courts? Do you want to overturn our entire democratic system just for your convenience?
Hopefully a change in adminstrations will result in the TSA being desolved and it's dictatorial and abusive acts being criminalized.
"Our goal is to protect passenger’s rights, while safeguarding the integrity of the security process."
--------------------------------
If TSA really wanted to safeguard the integrity of the security process, they would hold TSO who do not follow "current policy" accountable and not publicly say they "acted properly"
"Our goal is to protect passenger’s rights."
Bob, check your use of apostrophes. I assume you mean "passengers' rights." Unless you plan to protect the rights of just one passenger.
sauronsfinger said...
"So what court said it is unconstitutional? Or do you think you are above the courts, better than the courts? Do you want to overturn our entire democratic system just for your convenience?"
It's called freedom of the press. Look it up some time.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
Why the heck the TSA is looking for people carrying money is beyond me. Money can't bring down a plane. Money can't endanger anyone.
They aren't looking for money The problem is that their fancy expensive scanner machines don't actually detect explosives, the only detect shapes.
And bombs look like bills??
Blogger Bob,
The TSA does NOT protect passenger rights. Passenger dignity and self-respect are completely stripped each time we pass through a TSA checkpoint. The TSA is a sad and pathetic reminder of how a country let's out-of-control disconnected bureaucrats take away liberties while our elected leaders stand idle and silent.
Yes. Consumate professionals. Keenly honed instincts. They are keeping us secure... from severely mentally challenged adults wielding dangerous plastic toddler instruments.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/taryn_asher/dad-special-needs-son-harassed-by-tsa-at-detroit-metropolitan-airport-20110608-wpms
"we know what we are doing"
Incidents like these really prove the truth about Janet Napolitano's position on targeted searches. Imagine the damage that could occur if this man had been set loose with his toy.
Way to go TSA. Way. to. go.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
"Then, no one will fly in Utah, until the Department of Transportation, through TSA, can provide security for ALL passengers and visitors to the airports."
We'll see, Bob, we'll see. My guess is that an accomodation will be made in record time.
Blogger Bob said:
"...so I wanted to clarify things a bit. We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity unless it interferes with the screening process at our checkpoints"
This illustrates the problem. A Constitutionally protected activity is a Constitutionally protected activity. The TSA can not decide to remove Constitutional protections.
Where do we get these people?
Anonymous said:
"Uh huh. And you know this how? please state the facts concerning any cases of which you have first hand knowledge. Otherwise, I'm still counting crickets."
Feel free to do whatever you like; we're not your librarians. If you can't google something this obvious, you're probably better off counting crickets.
Anonymous said:
"At what point do we as a people actually stand up for the rights and freedoms that were granted to us by our forefathers?"
Our rights are granted by our Creator. Our forefathers merely enumerated them. The TSA has violated them.
Bob [not the Blogger] says: "Fondlement, or fondilation, typically, would involve the open hand."
Again, please proceed to provide citations from the relevant statutes that limit fondling to the open hand.
Alternatively, you can provide references to Court cases, where the issue has been adjudged to where an a charge was dismissed because the defendant used the back of his hand instead of the front.
I bet that, like before, you will amaze us with your understanding of "perps" by explaining how perps typically fondle that way, and not with the back of the hand.
Of course, even if that were the case, it wouldn't prove the sexual molestation or fondling is not possible with the back of the hand.
This isn't meant to suggest that the pat-down performed by TSOs constitutes sexual molestation or a fondling. It's a touchy (pardon the pun) subject, and reasonable people can differ; as for me, as uncomfortable as the patdown may be, and as objectionable as I find it, I don't think it rises to the status of sexual molestation, although the issue becomes a lot more difficult when dealing with younger children.
Bob:
I hope TSA's "guidance" makes sure that "interfering with the screening process" is interpreted narrowly.
What I fear is that a TSO will interpret photography at a checkpoint --- in particular, photography of TSOs --- as an inherently aggressive act which "interferes" with the screening process, making any claims of protection of passenger rights moot.
And seriously ... if TSA is so concerned about passengers photographing sensitive information, shouldn't that information be kept out of public sight in the first place? After all ... with technology these days, you can't always tell when you're being photographed ...
Anonymous wrote: However conceling over 10,000$ is acceptible suspicion for criminal activity for the police and the feds so TSA would be required by good samaritan law to report it =D
Please provide a CFR reference or other statutory nomenclature for such a law.
(Hint: it doesn't exist.)
It makes sense that people shouldn't be allowed to film security checkpoints. I mean come on guys they censor the pat downs and stuff on those ccv tapes. They are performing procedures that are considered SSI which means if you are filming a checkpoint you are now creating films of sensitive security procedures without clearance which is technically I believe a felony.....so yeah I won't be video taping any time soon near a checkpoint.
anon is right, all you guys are whining about constitution and laws and you aren't even thinking of why it would be bad to film a checkpoint. Well lets see, TSA has a thing called SSI which was created back in the 70s to protect certain information, its kind of like top secret only not nearly as cool. If any of you have ever been to most federal facilities you will see a sign that says no filming under penalty of law, military bases for example. The reason for this is.....the filming of things that are protected by security clearances is illegal without the proper clearance and approval and I belive through CFR and freedom of information act is actually a felony. Ever wonder why videos the TSA puts out has them censoring the portions where pat downs are occuring? Its because that is an SSI procedure and they can't release that video without censoring it. You guys should be thankful they just say you can't film us here rather then calling the police and having you arrested for espionage or whatever they call stealing sensitve security information.
The TSA should be shut down! They are criminals and think they are above the law. I hope someone sues you guys and you all get thrown in jail!
What I would like to know is....if the son was familiar with airport security protocol and his mother had never traveled before, why didn't he explain to her what the procedures were going to be before they even got to the airport? I tell my parents (and other people whom I know that don't fly often) about the procedures to expect and rules to follow before they go on a trip to make their journey less stressful and so they are prepared. The son has clearly flown before - if this wasn't just a setup for filming purposes, why didn't he give his own mother the courtesy of explaining what happens when you opt out of screening and what kind of pat down that entails. If she wasn't willing to complete that type of screening, they could have sought other means of transportation. If my mother was distraught in any situation, I would not be smiling and videotaping her, I would be over there with her trying to calm her. Obviously he can't interfere in the screening process, but he could have done a lot to prepare her in advance.
Just seems too suspicious to me.
Sauronsfinger: "Do you want to overturn our entire democratic system just for your convenience?"
Exaggerate much?
are the recordings of the checkpoints done by tsa or local port authority? its the port authority's property thats being viewed.
To the Anon who posted at the times stated below.
June 10, 2011 10:53 AM
June 10, 2011 11:10 AM
SSI material is not classified. A person not working for TSA has not obligation to protect anything TSA has designated SSI.
Filming the checkpoint and visible procedures is not a felony and is perfectly legal.
Read up on what SSI is and isn't.
Anonymous wrote: "However conceling over 10,000$ is acceptible suspicion for criminal activity for the police and the feds so TSA would be required by good samaritan law to report it =D"
First of all there's no such thing as "acceptable suspicion" in law. If you're going to play lawyer on the Internet at least try to get the terminology right.
Now, the amount of money you can travel with is, for all intents and purposes unlimited (modulo weight and volume); by itself the amount of money one would have to travel with to give rise to reasonable suspicion for any kind of further inquiry would have to be a lot.
Remember, that the TSO is not a LEO and (per the TSAs own admission) has no authority to detain people for anything that isn't directly related to aviation security. A TSO can inform local law enforcement authorities if they come across evidence of criminal activity, but Courts have consistently ruled that cash, by itself, usually does not rise to that level.
Now the fact is that when traveling purely inside the United States, you can travel with a backpack stuffed with a (queue Dr. Evil voice) MILLION dollars. There are no requirements to declare it or tell anyone you're traveling with it.
If you are going in or coming out of the country you can still travel with your cool million in cash, but, now you are required to declare the amount (since it's over $10,000), but you do NOT declare it to the TSA.
Anonymous wrote:
"Ever wonder why videos the TSA puts out has them censoring the portions where pat downs are occuring? Its because that is an SSI procedure and they can't release that video without censoring it."
I've got news for you: once the first "pat down" was accomplished, the procedure was no longer SSI. Your reasoning is faulty.
Saul said…
It's called freedom of the press. Look it up some time.
-------------------------
Actually Saul, it’s not. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision has spoken about who is and who is not a member of the “press”, and if bloggers do not have that protection I doubt that a “YouTube”er will.
Another anonymous person wrote:
"Uh huh. And you know this how? please state the facts concerning any cases of which you have first hand knowledge. Otherwise, I'm still counting crickets."
I might suggest that you search the Travel Safety/Security forum at FlyerTalk for a thread that contains the words:
definitive
tsa
lawsuits
If you do that, you will see that there are now at least 7 cases making their way through the court system.
An 8th case was recently settled, with the plaintiff prevailing against the TSA for humiliating her at a checkpoint.
Screenshot made.
Saul said "It's called freedom of the press. Look it up some time."
So you think the press has the freedom to overturn TSA regulations? I taught history in a public school for 30 years and I never found that in the constitution.
TSORon writes: A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision has spoken about who is and who is not a member of the “press”, and if bloggers do not have that protection I doubt that a “YouTube”er will.
And a NJ court decision is binding upon the rest of us ... how, exactly?
TSORon said...
Actually Saul, it’s not. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision has spoken about who is and who is not a member of the “press”, and if bloggers do not have that protection I doubt that a “YouTube”er will.
-----
Ron, here's the referenced case --
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/06/new-jersey-supremes-take-narrow-view-defining-journalists-online161.html
While the case may have implications in future cases as to what constitutes the press, this case was about whether someone posting on a web forum is shielded from revealing her sources. It did not say that an average Joe with a camera has fewer rights than Katie Couric with the same camera.
TSORon wrote: "A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision has spoken about who is and who is not a member of the “press”, and if bloggers do not have that protection I doubt that a “YouTube”er will."
The case you reference was about invoking New Jersey's "shield law" which is a very different beast than the question of who is and who is not a member of the press.
The law in question specifically limits the types of entities against which it applies, and the only question at hand was whether a blogger was covered under the law. The Court said that they do not find that "[...] online message boards are similar to the types of news entities listed in the statute." So the decision in question said nothing about who qualifies as the Press in general.
That's not to say that other Courts haven't.
In Lovell v. City of Griffin (303 U.S. 444, 1938) Chief Justice Hughes, in his opinion for the 8-0 majority (one Justice did not participate) wrote that the press is "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."
Ron, I'm sure trying to pretend to be a lawyer on the Internet is fun but don't quit your day job.
Bob (the increasingly incoherent poster) said:
"This is one of the parts that is suspicious. It leads one to believe that it was a set up – that is, it was more important to capture the scene for YouTube viewers, and not the whole scene at that."
Newsflash: The activity is protected even if it's a "set up."
there goes our first amendment.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Apparently, if we are to believe US attorney in Texas, that would be the scenario everywhere. Safety first. The critics wanna compromise safety for comfort and convenience. The terrorists are enjoying this.
Bob [not the blogger], you are wrong the terrorist are enjoying the existence of TSA.
If such organisation as TSA still exists they have definitely won the war.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
...The critics wanna compromise safety for comfort and convenience. The terrorists are enjoying this.
And then Bob [not the blogger] says:
The terrorists agree that certain areas of the body should be off-limits to pat downs.
Ladies and Gentleman reading this blog, you have just witnessed two things.
First, Goodwin's Law has just been enacted. A slightly modified version of Goodwin's Law, certainly, but the reduction of an argument to you support me or your evil is effectively the same.
Second, Bob Not the Blogger has just self-identified as what is commonly referred to as an Internet Troll.
Basic internet rules now apply.... don't feed the trolls.
sauronsfinger said...
So you think the press has the freedom to overturn TSA regulations? I taught history in a public school for 30 years and I never found that in the constitution.
-----
No more than the TSA has the freedom to stomp on our Constitutionally-protected rights.
"If you don't want to be scanned or pat down, don't fly. No one is forcing you to fly, and there are plenty of other forms of transportation out there that will get you from point A to point B."
I get so tired of hearing this tripe. I live in Anchorage, Alaska. The company I work for does business in Bethel, Alaska, 500 miles away...with mountains and swamp in between. There are no roads and no railways between Anchorage and Bethel. How exactly do you propose I get there, if not by air? Furthermore, with TSA's VIPR activities in railways, taking a train - when possible - may not prevent one from being molested by Blogger Bob's peers, either.
No, avoiding TSA isn't the answer. Demanding that Congress disband - or at the very least, severely reign in - this out-of-control bureaucracy that violates the very principles upon which this nation was founded is the only acceptable answer.
Anonymous says:
A Constitutionally protected activity is a Constitutionally protected activity.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Except that there are exceptions.
On my property, I'm not required to protect your constitutional Rights. I can kick you off my property for saying something I don't like, or taking my picture.
However, if you take my picture from a public sidewalk, and I left my drapes open and you take a picture of me, my privacy is not protected cuz I ELECTED to go public.
Likewise, at the airport, you elected to go public, and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
Couple that with implying your consent to a search and restrictions on taking pictures of equipment/images on that equipment and procedures sensitive to national security concerns.
Maybe they CAN tweak and adjust and still not compromise the national security interest.
Bob said: "Likewise, at the airport, you elected to go public, and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public."
That exemption is not absolute. You can't look under my clothing. You can't pat me down in public. You can't go thru my stuff simply because I go out in public.
Airport searches are still limited in scope - at least in theory anyway. Judges have already smacked down TSA and suppressed evidence found by TSA for exceeding the scope of the search (see Fofana, for example). "Consent" isn't a carte blanche to do whatever you want.
[[Except that there are exceptions.]]
Bob, what you understand of Constitutional Principle could fit in a gnat's navel and still have room for your bloated ego.
The Constitution applies to THE GOVERNMENT. Not individual citizens.
Of course you don't have a duty to respect anyone's privacy on your property. The government has the duty and obligation and requirement to follow the rules, as defined, regarding their treatment of everyone they run across - regardless of circumstance.
Note, bub: "as defined". There is no Constitutional definition of "implied consent". If you wish to quibble this, please find it in the Constitution. IN. The Constitution.
[[at the airport, you elected to go public]]
I'm more than a little tired of your disingenuity.
We are not talking about Private Joe taking your photo here; we are talking about the government paranoiacally declaring each and everyone as likely a source for terrorist activity as a 20 y.o. Yemeni with a hinky passport, no luggage, and recent travel to Somalia and Abattabad Pakistan to his name ... and nud-o-scanning and groping us because of it. Not even the densest police-statist would suggest that to be rational, yet it's what we're doing.
And what's more, it's what the Constitution was written to safeguard us from.
You and I both know that.
There are right ways and wrong ways for the limited government of a Free People [sic] to legitimately expand its power. Declaring its power expanded is not among them. And if what you want done is the smart thing to do, then following the rules to do it is necessary. If the smart thing to do cannot be accomplished by following the rules ... then the principles upon which our nation was founded would suggest that it is not actually necessary.
Bob (not the blogger and not by any means a Constitutional scholar) said:
"On my property, I'm not required to protect your constitutional Rights. I can kick you off my property for saying something I don't like, or taking my picture.
[and some other laughable "examples"]"
Sorry, Bob, but you're not the government. That you can do (some) of the things that you said are entirely meaningless to the conduct of the government in a free society. But you knew that, didn't you?
Anonymous said:
"The reason for this is.....the filming of things that are protected by security clearances is illegal without the proper clearance and approval and I belive through CFR and freedom of information act is actually a felony."
"things" aren't protected by security clearances. People have clearances that, when combined with a need to know, can result in access. As to the rest of the sentence: Huh?
TSOs do not have security clearances. Want to re-think your comments?
"Ever wonder why videos the TSA puts out has them censoring the portions where pat downs are occuring? Its because that is an SSI procedure and they can't release that video without censoring it. "
Then I recently saw a TSO commit a felony. He was patting down a foreign national who was paying close attention. By your reasoning, the TSO was improperly transmitting classified information to a non-cleared individual. Should I report this?
I fear for the future of our Nation.
Anonymous said:
"However conceling over 10,000$ is acceptible suspicion for criminal activity for the police and the feds so TSA would be required by good samaritan law to report it =D"
Please cite that "good samaritan" law and its relevance to criminal procedure. Good luck.
From today's headlines:
"Transportation Security Administration employees told KITV 4 News an unsafe situation persisted at Honolulu International Airport for months because screeners were worried they'll get in trouble for reporting problems.
___________________
Transportation security officers -- known as TSOs -- said they face a Catch-22 at the TSA, because they are required to report any security violations or improper behavior by co-workers -- but said they face retaliation if they do."
_____________
Another TSA screener said, "This whole place is about intimidation."
Read more: http://www.kitv.com/news/28241415/detail.html#ixzz1PMhKEXr3
TSA, GIVE US OUR TAX MONEY BACK. YOU HAVE DONE A HORRIBLE JOB ACROSS THE BOARD. THIS IS A BLOATED GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY RIFE WITH PROBLEMS.
Bob (not the blogger and not by any means a Constitutional scholar) said:
"On my property, I'm not required to protect your constitutional Rights. I can kick you off my property for saying something I don't like, or taking my picture.
And maybe, Bob, you could explain what would happen if you own a hotel and refused to rent a room based on race or sex. It's your property, isn't it? So you can do that, correct?
(Hint - you can't)
@Anon: "anon is right, all you guys are whining about constitution and laws and you aren't even thinking of why it would be bad to film a checkpoint. Well lets see, TSA has a thing called SSI which was created back in the 70s to protect certain information, its kind of like top secret only not nearly as cool. If any of you have ever been to most federal facilities you will see a sign that says no filming under penalty of law, military bases for example. The reason for this is.....the filming of things that are protected by security clearances is illegal without the proper clearance and approval and I belive through CFR and freedom of information act is actually a felony. Ever wonder why videos the TSA puts out has them censoring the portions where pat downs are occuring? Its because that is an SSI procedure and they can't release that video without censoring it. You guys should be thankful they just say you can't film us here rather then calling the police and having you arrested for espionage or whatever they call stealing sensitve security information."
You clearly have no clue about how classified information works. Geez Bob, where do you get these people?
First of all, SSI isn't classified. It's not even close to top secret. Or secret. It doesn't even breach the realm of confidential. It's not even "cool." It falls under the "sensitive but unclassified" caveat.
Secondly, the felony for dissemination only applies to those who have been read on and have signed an NDA promising not to disclose that information. A person who hasn't done either of those cannot be prosecuted. Why do you think journalists aren't prosecuted for distributing classified information online? Because they haven't signed an NDA and been thru the proper indoctrinations.
If I have a clearance and I disseminate classified information, I can be arrested and tried. If you, as a TSA screener, disseminate SSI, you can be prosecuted. The average person can't.
If the patdowns, etc, are really that classified, you wouldn't be doing them in public, or subjecting the public to them. I don't have to film a patdown to know what it's about - I can experience it at the airport and report on it. There's not a darn thing TSA can do about that.
I'd like to see TSA try to have someone arrested for "espionage" or stealing SSI that doesn't work for TSA.
Earl
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." Seems to reflect how the TSA operates -- the American people are the enemy.
[[Uhhhh, safety of all.]]
That was pretty much the reason FDR sent all those dangerous Japanese into detention camps in '42.
"Safety" which violates the rules in acquiring and, in both this case as well as the Japanese Interment case, which has just about bupkus evidence for efficacy should be revisited and dismantled post-haste; that would be the responsible thing to do. Better yet would have been to not do it in the first place, but no one yet has a Way Back Machine to accomplish that. So we're left with the "what do we do now" question.
[[THAT's a key phrasing. To YOU.]]
Just as all of your self-righteous pronouncements are based upon your own subjective desires and biases. Pot-kettling is boring.
[[The law tells us the difference.]]
The law doesn't allow TSA actions; TSA regulations do. If you don't know the difference between law and regulatory allowance, take two steps backwards.
If the TSA agent were to attempt TSA tactics anywhere else in this country, it would be a crime. Sexual molestation. That cannot be reasonably argued ... which suggests that you will do so.
If anyone else were to attempt TSA tactics anywhere else for TSA's motivation, "safety", it would still be considered a criminal assault.
TSA is the lone standout here in a nation having an otherwise unblemished track-record of "Keep your hands off me". It is hardly preposterous to question the whys and wherefores of that one exception to the rule; in fact, it is more outlandish to not question it.
[[Except that there are exceptions.]]
Bob, what you understand of Constitutional Principle could fit in a gnat's navel and still have room for your bloated ego.
The Constitution applies to THE GOVERNMENT. Not individual citizens.
Of course you don't have a duty to respect anyone's privacy on your property. The government has the duty and obligation and requirement to follow the rules, as defined, regarding their treatment of everyone they run across - regardless of circumstance.
Note, bub: "as defined". There is no Constitutional definition of "implied consent". If you wish to quibble this, please find it in the Constitution. IN. The Constitution.
[[at the airport, you elected to go public]]
I'm more than a little tired of your disingenuity.
We are not talking about Private Joe taking your photo here; we are talking about the government paranoiacally declaring each and everyone as likely a source for terrorist activity as a 20 y.o. Yemeni with a hinky passport, no luggage, and recent travel to Somalia and Abattabad Pakistan to his name ... and nud-o-scanning and groping us because of it. Not even the densest police-statist would suggest that to be rational, yet it's what we're doing.
And what's more, it's what the Constitution was written to safeguard us from.
You and I both know that.
There are right ways and wrong ways for the limited government of a Free People [sic] to legitimately expand its power. Declaring its power expanded is not among them. And if what you want done is the smart thing to do, then following the rules to do it is necessary. If the smart thing to do cannot be accomplished by following the rules ... then the principles upon which our nation was founded would suggest that it is not actually necessary.
Bob,
TSOs on another forum are telling me that TSA's Standard Operating Procedure requires them to inform a supervisor when they observe passengers performing photography at a checkpoint.
If photography is a constitutionally protected activity at TSA checkpoints, why are TSOs required to report it?
For all those that say to "abolish the TSA" or any other such phrase, what would you recommend? no screening at all? profiling? only screen certain people (excluding certain groups?) ok, lets exclude kids, pregnant women, nuns, priests. How long will it take for a terrorist to go out and buy a nun or priest outfit? The 2 planes that were blown up over russia a few years ago were accomplished by 2 women posing to be pregnant and wearing fake bellies which were loaded with explosives.
The day that TSA or any such screening agency goes away will be the last day that I and many more people will ever fly. Those of you that called for TSA to go away can start paying all the unemployment, welfare, etc...of all the airline workers that will be out of jobs.
Thank you very much you ignorant people
Anonymous asks: For all those that say to "abolish the TSA" or any other such phrase, what would you recommend?
Very few people here are advocating for no screening at all ... and I'm certainly not. If you read this blog for awhile, you'll see no shortage of suggestions for alternatives to TSA-style screening.
[[The search is not unreasonable]]
So you're actually admitting to not being able to read.
Good to know.
[[It is not unreasonable if there is implied consent ]]
"Implied consent" is another improper "interpretation" of the Constitution made necessary because the government didn't want to have to do things the right way when the easy way was so much ... easier.
[[There is no need for a warrant where there is consent to the search]]
I give no consent.
You and other police-statists may choose to invent "implied" consent, but that is your doing, not mine - or others'.
[[HUH???]]
You doubt me? Not wise, but okay.
If you wish to prove me wrong, then find it. In the Constitution, not in someone's rendering of the Constitution.
Otherwise you will have to content yourself with being a power-grasping police statist who got caught rationalizing.
[[Not necessary]]
Yes, it is.
The Constitution defines the power limits of our government. It is not the starting point of our government's power. If you think otherwise then you need to hie your butt back to civics class and get yourself a refresher.
Now, son, you and I can have a nice theoretical discussion on what is wise and prudent, or we can have a discussion on what the defined limitations of our government allow. If you want the theoretical discussion, you may very well find that I agree with you on most matters, and very closely to your position.
If, however, you wish to have a discussion on the defined limitations of our government and their policy implementations, then you will find that I am correct, that you are NOT correct, and you'll be left blustering profusely and sanctimoniously as you've been doing.
Anonymous said...
The day that TSA or any such screening agency goes away will be the last day that I and many more people will ever fly. Those of you that called for TSA to go away can start paying all the unemployment, welfare, etc...of all the airline workers that will be out of jobs.
Since lots of people are avoiding flying now because of the TSA, it isn't obvious that removing the TSA would result in less passengers.
If you think the TSA is actually making you any safer you are just fooling yourself. Terrorists aren't required to be on airplanes to kill people. The TSA security line make a great target. Lots of people packed together in a small area.
Anonymous said... "For all those that say to "abolish the TSA" or any other such phrase, what would you recommend? no screening at all?"
No, that is not a viable alternative. And to suggest it is the only alternative to the TSA is disingenuous at best, outright foolish at worst. This is not an either-or debate and to frame it in such laughably simple terms outs you as a TSA employee who is commenting here simply to try and alter the ratio of negative posts.
What I suggest the best option is Post-TSA would be to return to Pre-September 11 security methods. Professional, safe, non-intrusive, and they did not run rough-shod over our Constitutional Rights.
Nothing the TSA does now would have prevented the September 11 disaster. Reinforcing and securing the Aircraft's cockpit, and Airlines changing the policy of yielding to terrorists have done more, and will continue to do more for Aviation security than the TSA could ever provide.
And, lets not forget we are talking about the *Transportation* Security Administration who's very mission is to secure all forms of transportation. Once the majority of the travelling public has given up on Air Travel, the TSA will then begin their tactics on the Buses, Trains, Boats, Subways, etc... until they can guarantee Terrorist Free travel in all forms of Transportation.
And if any of you are so afraid of terrorist on airplanes, why don't *you* quit flying because it will be safer for you to stay home or take some other method of travel. If you don't like the risk of flying why do you have to fly? Why should I have to suffer your fears and insecurities because your too afraid to fly because their might, I repeat might, be an incredibly small chance that your sitting next to a terrorist. *You* stay home and leave the flying to those of us that are accepting of the personal risks and personal responsibilities involved in the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Justice.
ak-vstrom said:
""If you don't want to be scanned or pat down, don't fly. No one is forcing you to fly, and there are plenty of other forms of transportation out there that will get you from point A to point B."
I get so tired of hearing this tripe. I live in Anchorage, Alaska. The company I work for does business in Bethel, Alaska, 500 miles away...with mountains and swamp in between. There are no roads and no railways between Anchorage and Bethel. How exactly do you propose I get there, if not by air? Furthermore, with TSA's VIPR activities in railways, taking a train - when possible - may not prevent one from being molested by Blogger Bob's peers, either.
No, avoiding TSA isn't the answer. Demanding that Congress disband - or at the very least, severely reign in - this out-of-control bureaucracy that violates the very principles upon which this nation was founded is the only acceptable answer."
well based on the logic of this blog, if you dont like it then you will have to quit your job. its your job that is casusing the problem. its not your right to have a job. its the same logic that used on a tsa person who is simply doing their job and people feel its wrong therefore they should quit and do the "right" thing. God Bless America and this blog!
Anonymous wrote: The day that TSA or any such screening agency goes away will be the last day that I and many more people will ever fly.
Given that you are almost infinitely more likely to be killed by a drunk driver on your way to the airport than to suffer any impact at all from "terrorism," it's a wonder you ever leave your house.
The TSA isn't protecting you from anything but your own fear - and many of us don't think it's appropriate for your paranoia to take precedence over our rights.
Why oh why would so many people be concerned with intensified screening? It's not like a mass plot for TSA officials to get easy feel ups all day long. Did everyone forget what happened 10 years ago already? Personally, we are safer than before, and I have nothing to hide, only those that do have something to hide should be freaked by this. Get over it already. I would suggest there probably isn't many TSA officers any more pleased about having to perform these types of searches, than there is travelers pleased about receiving them. I'm perfectly fine with them. No different than going to the Doctor. Big deal.
I once got a chance to spend a couple hours at a border crossing (while clearing up some improper paperwork on a load I was hauling), and I got to witness first hand what people try to get away with. Was I shocked at the end of those two hours. I wound up thanking the Officers when I was leaving for what they do! We NEED stronger enforcement, and the officers need the tools to do the job that PROTECTS us all. And NO ONE can argue that it doesn't protect us all, despite being slightly inconvenienced and uncomfortable.
So get over yourselves, no one really wants to fondle you. They just want what you are hiding. And I just want to get there, safely. You don’t like it? Then don’t fly
I went through a similar "it's against the law" conversation at Tampa Airport last year. Officer helping with the conveyor belt said no problem to taking pics, just do it out of the way so you do not impede the flow of traffic or take any of the monitor. TSA guy comes off his raised platform and tells me I can't do it blah blah. As I walked away I could see the manager talking with 4 or 5 blue shirts. They followed me around the concourse until I was approached by 2 Homeland Security Agents in suits who flipped their badges (like the movies) and claimed I was breaking the law and demanded I show ID. I tried to show them the print out I carry straight from TSA.gov that photo/video is legal and they could have cared less. Said I wouldn't be flying if I did not identify myself. I showed my passport, which my info was copied down and then one agent started asking questions like: "have you been to Yemen or Somalia?" I just stood there quietly and waited from him to get tired of asking questions and off I went. It was an eye opener though. I did get a call from the airport manager about 3 weeks later and he apologized for the misundertanding.
Questions for blogger Bob:
Can passengers be required to show ID after they have passed into the sterile area of the airport? I'm sure they can refuse and be escorted out, but can they still fly if they refuse another ID check. I know bags are sometimes searched again at the gate!
Post a Comment