Originally Posted by
Custardthecat
I'll take a shot but bear in mind the best person to ask is the one with the suspicion but at a guess( having read what appears to have happened) and having to draw on experience in my own country (UK)
Airports here are not public places in the accepted sense. They are restricted places in that entry to Terminal Buildings etc is restricted to passengers (and their friends / family), staff, those with legitimate business as authorised by the airport operator or lawful authority. This restriction is created by civil laws and enforcement is further under Govt legislation. I think persons also have to obey signage (under the bye laws) and instructions from airport officers (whatever that means). Those taking part in nuisance activities and petty crimes are subject to banning orders (I believe)
I am guessing the way airports operate in the US may not a million miles away from these principles
In this case the OP had already finished his legitimate business and did not appear to fall into any category group such as passenger (or friend etc), staff and thererfore stood out as an anomaly. He was therefore challenged by those there employed in the security function. His motivations for his presence and behavoir were unclear and he did not co-operate to enable clearance of any doubt about whether he was an innocent or not. The rest is history. The scenario could have unfolded many ways but he chose his own path in deciding the manner that he would intercat.
I think you are misunderstanding the way that U.S. airports work and how American law affects them.
Most major airports are run by the local municipalities. Therefore, they are public spaces. They have very specific restrictions that mostly affect operations, but, by and large, the American public is free to wander into an airport and shop, grab some food, sit and people watch, take photos, etc. with no expectation that they have to be actually flying or even in possession of a ticket or want to purchase a ticket.
In fact, many airports make big deals about things they have installed at the airport and encourage the public to drop by. PHX has a tiny, but lovely art museum in T4. Several years ago, one of the terminals had a display of Kachinas on loan from the Heard Museum. When T3 was initially opened, it housed an upscale restaurant on the concourse leading to security and the gates, and the City of Phoenix encouraged people to come to eat at the restaurant even if they weren't flying or had any other business at the airport.
Even LAX turned its old Theme Building into a
funky restaurant. (Go for the drinks as the food is marginal at best.)
But our public airports are not regulated by laws or rules stating you have to have business to be there. You go if you want and you leave when you want (subject to closures, etc.).
So, now we get to the part where the OP was taking photos inside the terminal. Again, there is no law stating that you have to have business at an airport in order to be at the airport. Wander around all you wish. There is no law against that.
Additionally, there is no law against taking photographs inside an airport terminal. The U.S. Supreme Court has also said very clearly that the minute you step into a public place, you have given up any expectation of privacy. That is completely logical. You cannot be demanding that people avert their eyes when you enter a public space. People will see you and you made the decision to leave the private confines of some private property. So, the OP taking photos did nothing wrong according to the law.
Now, we turn to the issue of suspicion. I had written a long bit about why we shouldn't be automatically suspicious of photographers taking photos of the security area and TSOs, but then I read a quote on another threat and on the TSA blog and saw a reference to a post made by Bruce Schneier, one of the most knowledgeable individuals on security in the U.S. I will quote part of it here and strongly encourage you to
read the rest.
The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
Because it's a movie-plot threat.
...
The problem with movie-plot security is it only works if we guess the plot correctly. If we spend a zillion dollars defending Wimbledon and terrorists blow up a different sporting event, that's money wasted. If we post guards all over the Underground and terrorists bomb a crowded shopping area, that's also a waste. If we teach everyone to be alert for photographers, and terrorists don't take photographs, we've wasted money and effort, and taught people to fear something they shouldn't.
So, I ask again: why is taking photos of the security area and TSOs suspicious?