PV speaks out on Phil's case
Feb 4, 2011, 11:58 pm
#151
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Doha, Qatar
Programs: Air Canada Aeroplan, Lufthansa Miles & More, Flying Blue, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 1,894
He was arrested for engaging in a lawful activity. Ms. Parks was arrested and convicted for breaking a law that existed at the time.
False. Ms. Parks could have done as she was told (no disrespect).
And Rosa Parks could have ridden the bus if she had changed seats. Her restriction was also self-imposed.
Look, I don't think that anyone is saying that Phil's arrest will have the historical significance as Rosa Parks. But it does follow a long tradition in this country for standing up against government incursions on our liberties.
Phil's arrest didn't stem from his failure to show ID (as far as I know). It stemmed from him lawfully recording actions by government employees that were inappropriate.
False. Ms. Parks could have done as she was told (no disrespect).
And Rosa Parks could have ridden the bus if she had changed seats. Her restriction was also self-imposed.
Look, I don't think that anyone is saying that Phil's arrest will have the historical significance as Rosa Parks. But it does follow a long tradition in this country for standing up against government incursions on our liberties.
Phil's arrest didn't stem from his failure to show ID (as far as I know). It stemmed from him lawfully recording actions by government employees that were inappropriate.
thanks for having the patience to explain what should have required no explanation.
Feb 5, 2011, 3:46 am
#152
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 90
At no point did the LEO have just reason to believe that Phil was doing something illegal. The jury agrees with this based on their decision.
Says who? Do folks not realize that the TSA blog is the mouthpiece of the TSA, its management, and it furthers the goals and agenda of it? If you go to the Packers blog do you think they are going to give "equal time" to the Steelers? 
There are plenty of disclaimers all around the blogosphere. Blogs are not policy, per se, just a public/customer relations management tool, no matter how poorly it may used.
There are plenty of disclaimers all around the blogosphere. Blogs are not policy, per se, just a public/customer relations management tool, no matter how poorly it may used.
Premeditation in this case is irrelevant because Phil didn't break any laws or rules. I travel a lot and am normally in a hurry. I would have gladly been inconvenienced by what he did (not that I believe he inconvenienced anyone).
Last edited by essxjay; Feb 6, 2011 at 4:13 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Feb 5, 2011, 5:38 am
#153
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Of all the arguments the wisest of TS/S attempt, this appears to be the silliest of comparisons.
Rosa Parks was discriminated against because she was African American, Phil was not discriminated against. He refused (sorry phil, I haven't found the right word yet) because he didn't show an ID. Rosa Parks didn't have an option, Phil did. I have no clue phil's race, gender, creed or origin....but I have yet to read where any of them were called in to question on that day in question? His "restriction" (loosely used) was self imposed, he could have flown if he had an ID (generally speaking).
I hope that this is quickly squelched by even the most reverent of supporters of phil, it is a stretch for the average joe to swallow.
Rosa Parks was discriminated against because she was African American, Phil was not discriminated against. He refused (sorry phil, I haven't found the right word yet) because he didn't show an ID. Rosa Parks didn't have an option, Phil did. I have no clue phil's race, gender, creed or origin....but I have yet to read where any of them were called in to question on that day in question? His "restriction" (loosely used) was self imposed, he could have flown if he had an ID (generally speaking).
I hope that this is quickly squelched by even the most reverent of supporters of phil, it is a stretch for the average joe to swallow.
I suspect what you meant to say that I refused by way of not voluntarily presenting documentation of my identity.
I do not want to get into comparing myself to Rosa Parks. I'm a guy who is late for a party and sitting at his computer chuckling at the idea that anyone would make that comparison. Nonetheless, Rosa Parks did have an option. She could have done as she was told, she could have avoided the bus by walking, or she could have remained wherever she was. She should have had the option to sit wherever she wanted on the bus, but the unjust laws barred her from doing so, and she did so anyway. Among many other differences: I didn't violate any laws. And as far as we can tell, given TSA's refusal to publish the rules we're required to follow, I didn't break any rules.
I do not want to get into comparing myself to Rosa Parks. I'm a guy who is late for a party and sitting at his computer chuckling at the idea that anyone would make that comparison. Nonetheless, Rosa Parks did have an option. She could have done as she was told, she could have avoided the bus by walking, or she could have remained wherever she was. She should have had the option to sit wherever she wanted on the bus, but the unjust laws barred her from doing so, and she did so anyway. Among many other differences: I didn't violate any laws. And as far as we can tell, given TSA's refusal to publish the rules we're required to follow, I didn't break any rules.
Phil, you and I disagree on a number of things, including your work with CDC, but I must support your liberty to do that work and to further your cause by free association and travel. There are some in this country who would have the government force me to do work I find morally reprehensible to keep my professional licenses. If I fail to support you traveling in furtherance of a cause I find politically and professionally unpalatable, then who will support me when my cause becomes at odds with an increasingly powerful and oppressive government?
Fine synopsis. Not anti-government. The government has an enormously useful role in promoting an orderly and efficient society and providing a stable infrastructure in which free individuals can go about their business and further their goals. I am against a government that ignores its limits and breaks its own laws, whatever its altruistic motives may be.
Last edited by greentips; Feb 5, 2011 at 6:51 am Reason: spelling
Feb 5, 2011, 6:17 am
#154
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,083
Got it. Acknowledge. Roger. You win on those points. Now please give me mine.
Play nice. Carry an ID card. The Golden Rule isn't too hard to follow. Pay attention to your kindergarten rules. Be a bit more like the other 99.9% (see above)? Travel normal-like, you will get through. If you want my sympathy and Dan_E on your team, then turn off the darn camera and quit trying to be the poster child. Fight your fight, but don't pimp yourself in the meantime.
But those are my personal values, blame my parents. And the man.
Play nice. Carry an ID card. The Golden Rule isn't too hard to follow. Pay attention to your kindergarten rules. Be a bit more like the other 99.9% (see above)? Travel normal-like, you will get through. If you want my sympathy and Dan_E on your team, then turn off the darn camera and quit trying to be the poster child. Fight your fight, but don't pimp yourself in the meantime.
But those are my personal values, blame my parents. And the man.
Right.
Feb 5, 2011, 6:47 am
#155
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Doha, Qatar
Programs: Air Canada Aeroplan, Lufthansa Miles & More, Flying Blue, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 1,894
Dan E, it almost looks like you went to some clever propoganda school, where you learned how to drop loaded words into discussions in order to create almost subconscious negative thoughts about your target. But in fact, your efforts are a bit clumsy and transparent.
Feb 5, 2011, 7:06 am
#156
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
I've always believed in looking behind the curtain, questioning authority. TSA combines some outright bumbling and some nearly psychopathic solutions to resolve a very low risk situation. Combine this with the "soft on terrorism" mantra, and toss in some personnel with generally limited social skills, and it is a recipe for..... well, what we have now. 
Feb 5, 2011, 7:55 am
#158
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
The frightening part is that they think they are productive members of society.
Last edited by n4zhg; Feb 5, 2011 at 8:03 am
Feb 5, 2011, 8:18 am
#159
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
.......So, you are now a subject matter expert on TSA’s SSI program? The form itself is SSI, and part of the procedure is that the passenger must sign it. Therefore it is an authorized release of SSI to someone who has a “Need to Know”. Looking at it is far different from photographing it.......
Yes, you are 100% correct that the procedure itself is SSI and rightly so. The form itself otoh, "flies" both ways.....
Blank form: If given to a pax to complete is not and cannot be considered SSI as the form not only is blank and contains no information but once a document which is considered (n.b. considered) SSI is given to someone without the proper clearance, SSI for lack of a better term, flies out the window,
Completed form: While still in the possession of the pax, the form is not considered SSI as the sensitive security information (in this case the personal information of the pax) is still in the possession of the pax. Once the completed form has either been turned over to a TSO or sent directly to the TSA, it is then considered SSI as the TSA is duty bound by regulations to protect the information contained on the form. This is no different than a bank employee handing you a blank signature card to be completed in order to open an account. The signature card, like "the form" is part of a confidential bank process to open an account (where the bank must comply with all applicable federal regulations in order to open the account [credit checks, background checks and etc]) but the blank signature card itself is not confidential as it is given to the customer to complete just like "the form". Once the customer returns the completed signature card to the bank, the bank, just like the TSA, is duty bound by regulations to protect the privacy (and dare I say secrecy) of the information.
Feb 5, 2011, 8:23 am
#160
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OOL/DOH
Programs: QF LTS WP, Avis Pres Club, HH Diam.
Posts: 3,192
Hare splitting time....
Yes, you are 100% correct that the procedure itself is SSI and rightly so. The form itself otoh, "flies" both ways.....
Blank form: If given to a pax to complete is not and cannot be considered SSI as the form not only is blank and contains no information but once a document which is considered (n.b. considered) SSI is given to someone without the proper clearance, SSI for lack of a better term, flies out the window,
Completed form: While still in the possession of the pax, the form is not considered SSI as the sensitive security information (in this case the personal information of the pax) is still in the possession of the pax. Once the completed form has either been turned over to a TSO or sent directly to the TSA, it is then considered SSI as the TSA is duty bound by regulations to protect the information contained on the form. This is no different than a bank employee handing you a blank signature card to be completed in order to open an account. The signature card, like "the form" is part of a confidential bank process to open an account (where the bank must comply with all applicable federal regulations in order to open the account [credit checks, background checks and etc]) but the blank signature card itself is not confidential as it is given to the customer to complete just like "the form". Once the customer returns the completed signature card to the bank, the bank, just like the TSA, is duty bound by regulations to protect the privacy (and dare I say secrecy) of the information.
Yes, you are 100% correct that the procedure itself is SSI and rightly so. The form itself otoh, "flies" both ways.....
Blank form: If given to a pax to complete is not and cannot be considered SSI as the form not only is blank and contains no information but once a document which is considered (n.b. considered) SSI is given to someone without the proper clearance, SSI for lack of a better term, flies out the window,
Completed form: While still in the possession of the pax, the form is not considered SSI as the sensitive security information (in this case the personal information of the pax) is still in the possession of the pax. Once the completed form has either been turned over to a TSO or sent directly to the TSA, it is then considered SSI as the TSA is duty bound by regulations to protect the information contained on the form. This is no different than a bank employee handing you a blank signature card to be completed in order to open an account. The signature card, like "the form" is part of a confidential bank process to open an account (where the bank must comply with all applicable federal regulations in order to open the account [credit checks, background checks and etc]) but the blank signature card itself is not confidential as it is given to the customer to complete just like "the form". Once the customer returns the completed signature card to the bank, the bank, just like the TSA, is duty bound by regulations to protect the privacy (and dare I say secrecy) of the information.
Feb 5, 2011, 8:59 am
#164
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Hare splitting time....
Yes, you are 100% correct that the procedure itself is SSI and rightly so. The form itself otoh, "flies" both ways.....
Blank form: If given to a pax to complete is not and cannot be considered SSI as the form not only is blank and contains no information but once a document which is considered (n.b. considered) SSI is given to someone without the proper clearance, SSI for lack of a better term, flies out the window,
Completed form: While still in the possession of the pax, the form is not considered SSI as the sensitive security information (in this case the personal information of the pax) is still in the possession of the pax. Once the completed form has either been turned over to a TSO or sent directly to the TSA, it is then considered SSI as the TSA is duty bound by regulations to protect the information contained on the form. This is no different than a bank employee handing you a blank signature card to be completed in order to open an account. The signature card, like "the form" is part of a confidential bank process to open an account (where the bank must comply with all applicable federal regulations in order to open the account [credit checks, background checks and etc]) but the blank signature card itself is not confidential as it is given to the customer to complete just like "the form". Once the customer returns the completed signature card to the bank, the bank, just like the TSA, is duty bound by regulations to protect the privacy (and dare I say secrecy) of the information.
Yes, you are 100% correct that the procedure itself is SSI and rightly so. The form itself otoh, "flies" both ways.....
Blank form: If given to a pax to complete is not and cannot be considered SSI as the form not only is blank and contains no information but once a document which is considered (n.b. considered) SSI is given to someone without the proper clearance, SSI for lack of a better term, flies out the window,
Completed form: While still in the possession of the pax, the form is not considered SSI as the sensitive security information (in this case the personal information of the pax) is still in the possession of the pax. Once the completed form has either been turned over to a TSO or sent directly to the TSA, it is then considered SSI as the TSA is duty bound by regulations to protect the information contained on the form. This is no different than a bank employee handing you a blank signature card to be completed in order to open an account. The signature card, like "the form" is part of a confidential bank process to open an account (where the bank must comply with all applicable federal regulations in order to open the account [credit checks, background checks and etc]) but the blank signature card itself is not confidential as it is given to the customer to complete just like "the form". Once the customer returns the completed signature card to the bank, the bank, just like the TSA, is duty bound by regulations to protect the privacy (and dare I say secrecy) of the information.
Feb 5, 2011, 9:02 am
#165
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
"Phil, while travelling without ID, was completely cooperative in following the TSA policy and procedure for travellers without ID. He was complying with that procedure, and the direction of the TSA employee, in all aspects. The procedure was halted (or 'paused') solely by the TSA employee. The TSA employee chose to halt the procedure when he became aware that Phil was using a camera, itself an activity that TSA claims to be permitted." [ref. testimony by Mr. Breeden]
I can understand why the word "refused" doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps the phrase, "did absolutely nothing wrong" might work better.