fs2k2isfun

I can't say this would surprise me, but I do find it despicable if true:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/tsa-con...of-checkpoints

eturowski

Yet another example that proves the TSA considers themselves to be above the law.

divemistressofthedark

And they're going to enforce this, how?

Sheez.

(Just bought a Veho MUVI video camera that's smaller than my thumb. Literally....

saulblum

A quick note that the linked post is not a journalistic "article": it is just an interpretation of Blogger Bob's comments, that have already been discussed here.

dlflyer2

What law? Do ya wanna fly today?

tev9999

I would rather see all TSOs miked and recorded like cops and dashboard (or lapel) cameras. Stream the video/audio live to the internet while also recording it. That might start to keep TSOs (and passengers) honest.

VelvetJones

100% agree, but it will never happen. Increasingly governments around the world are demanding that citizens be under near constant surveillance, but never does that apply to themselves. Cops have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent citizens from photographing/recording their misdeeds and the TSA will be no different. If it wasn't for cell phone videos there wouldn't nearly be as much controversy regarding the NOS and 'enhanced' pat-downs. The TSA knows this and that is why they want to put a stop to it. It will be your word against theirs, and they know theirs will always win.

bocastephen

TSA has no jurisdiction on photography if you're outside their leased checkpoint space.

Unfortunately, the checkpoint space (from the ID checker stand to the space beyond the secondary screening/lace-up area) is theirs under lease and they can ban or restrict whatever they want unless the ban conflicts with the Constitution or existing statute.

Just like the owners of Rockefeller Center could ban photography inside the lobby of 30 Rockefeller Plaze, but they have no control over you taking a picture from the sidewalk - meaning, you could stand outside the TSA's leased space, with a zoom lens if needed, and shoot to your heart's content and there is nothing they can do (legally) to stop you.

Legally, their ban on photography "at the checkpoint" would only include a photographer taking pictures while physically standing inside their leased space unless an actual federal statute was passed that banned the photography **of** of the checkpoint itself.

Obviously these people are growing tired of being humiliated (weekly) in public

ND Sol

Mickey H. Osterreicher, the General Counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, Inc., has written a letter to Napolitano against any restrictions:

gsoltso

That is a pretty good idea, I would be for it, but one problem with streaming direct to the internet, anytime the SOP review (say if there is a question about something in the SOP and it requires consultation of the SOP) came into play, there would have to be some way to not transmit that info out, as it is SSI (I know, I know, and I agree that some of the stuff listed as SSI should be public domain info, I've been through that here several times). Other than that, I have no problem with this other than funding, find the funding for it and I am in like Flynn. ^

FliesWay2Much

I wrote in a similar thread that Pissy would have to justify this based on a security reason, because the CFR states that any security screening procedure must be tied to a threat. Since there currently is no ban except for the x-ray screen, he would have to explain what has suddenly changed that just happened to coincide with the now-famous checkpoint video. He can't because there is no security reason. So, he can do one of three things:

1. Ban photography anyway and make the courts rule the ban to be unconstitutional; or,

2. Invent a threat that emerged in the last couple of weeks that can only be mitigated by a photography ban; or,.

3. Avoid the Constitutional issue by declaring that excessive filming of a checkpoint is and element of "interfering with the screening process."

#1 is really a low-risk option, because it would take years to bring a court case. He will be long-gone by the time this ever happens.

#2 wouldn't pass the giggle test, but, he has no shame, personally or organizationally, so, there's nothing to lose, either.

For #3, he could do that combined with making an example of the first few people who filmed following his decree by fining them the full $11K. He would have to risk the possibility of having to explain why it wasn't interference until a couple of weeks ago. But, based on #2, that wouldn't bother him one bit to invent something.

Chaffetz, Wyden, and others are going to have to take action. This is actually not a threat to them, either, because they would be passing legislation to ban something the TSA hasn't done yet.

N965VJ

I think Curtis "Blogger Bob" Burns may have misspoke when when he said the topic of checkpoint photography is "under review".



I don't think that's necessary; first of all the checkpoint is not a dynamic environment like what an LEO works in, and there is already surveillance equipment in place. What needs to be done is ensure that it is in working order, and available for public scrutiny when the need arises such as when there is a conflict between TSA employees and PAX.

The exception may be instances like gate gropes, since I don't know the extent of surveillance capabilities in all airport areas.

ND Sol

Just to be clear, there is no CFR that says the x-ray screens must not be photographed. The screens when operating are SSI, so it is the responsibility of "covered persons" to protect their view from non-covered persons, which includes almost all passengers. Protection of that view is not by requiring someone to stop filming. That is why TSA can only request that they not be filmed; they cannot require it.

TheOneTheOnly

Except the difference is that the Rockefeller Center owners are private entities, the tsa is a quasi-governmental agency (do we honestly still believe the govt. holds complete control over them anymore?) that is more government than even Amtrak which must allow certain 1st amendment activities. That'd be like the national archives banning photogra...oh wait, they did, lump those jerks with the tsa as well...

MrAndy1369

Looks like they updated the blog again...

TSA Blog