Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Old Jan 31, 2011, 11:21 am
  #1666  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
That wouldn't be the argument. They would argue that the form -- any variation of it -- is secret (or "sensitive security information") and should not appear on any website, anywhere.

What all these people seem unable to comprehend is that the form may justifiably be secret after it's completed with a passenger's confidential information, but the blank form can hardly be secret. The SSI notation at the bottom of the form undoubtedly refers to after completion, not before.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 12:04 pm
  #1667  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by bdschobel
That wouldn't be the argument. They would argue that the form -- any variation of it -- is secret (or "sensitive security information") and should not appear on any website, anywhere.

What all these people seem unable to comprehend is that the form may justifiably be secret after it's completed with a passenger's confidential information, but the blank form can hardly be secret. The SSI notation at the bottom of the form undoubtedly refers to after completion, not before.

Bruce
You are surely correct but remember TSA employees are not known for fully understanding TSA rules. That is one reason so much variation is seen by people who travel.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 12:28 pm
  #1668  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Originally Posted by danl08
How would the typeface impact someone being able to attack an airplane or not?
That information is SSI.
PhoenixRev is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 1:12 pm
  #1669  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145
Originally Posted by danl08
Were they really trying to say that since the typeface was different it made the form SSI? How would the typeface impact someone being able to attack an airplane or not?
Mr. Breedon repeated twice, perhaps three times, that the form he was being shown by the defense attorneys was not the same form as the SSI form used by the TSA because the font was different and because of some slight difference with the check boxes. The impression I got was that Mr. Breedon was trying to avoid having to admit that he thought Phil was trying to film a document that is so secret that it's widely available on the internet.
TheGolfWidow is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 1:33 pm
  #1670  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Originally Posted by TheGolfWidow
Mr. Breedon repeated twice, perhaps three times, that the form he was being shown by the defense attorneys was not the same form as the SSI form used by the TSA because the font was different and because of some slight difference with the check boxes. The impression I got was that Mr. Breedon was trying to avoid having to admit that he thought Phil was trying to film a document that is so secret that it's widely available on the internet.
That was my impression, as well. Mr. Breedon did not seem to recognize the absurdity of claiming that a form he planned to have me read and sign was so secret that I should be barred from photographing it.

Originally Posted by fishferbrains
Is it possible to determine the time/date when a "file delete" operation occurs on a device? Does it depend on the device?
It would depend on the file system (FAT-16, FAT-32, ext3, XFS, NTFS, UFS, etc). I'm not aware of any file system storing the date/time at which a delete operation occurred.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Feb 3, 2011 at 10:21 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
pmocek is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 2:16 pm
  #1671  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by pmocek
That was my impression, as well. Mr. Breedon did not seem to recognize the absurdity of claiming that a form he planned to have me read and sign was so secret that I should be barred from photographing it.
That's no more absurd than the claim that the order in which the parts of the body are patted down is SSI (and I've heard that claim), but anybody who's patted down or observes a pat-down can clearly see what the order is.

Originally Posted by pmocek
It would depend on the file system (FAT-16, FAT-32, ext3, XFS, NTFS, UFS, etc). I'm not aware of any file system storing the date/time at which a delete operation occurred.
Off topic, but on some file systems, a delete is a modification of the directory above it, so you can tell that way. But this was a formating of the device. There's a possibility that the creation date and time of the directory might point to when it was formatted. Did you make a bit-for-bit copy of the card before running your software?

Originally Posted by TheGolfWidow
Mr. Breedon repeated twice, perhaps three times, that the form he was being shown by the defense attorneys was not the same form as the SSI form used by the TSA because the font was different and because of some slight difference with the check boxes. The impression I got was that Mr. Breedon was trying to avoid having to admit that he thought Phil was trying to film a document that is so secret that it's widely available on the internet.
Partly, but there's also the legal issue of validating the document that was presented by the defense. Were he to say that was the same document, it could have been presented as evidence.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Feb 3, 2011 at 10:21 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 2:33 pm
  #1672  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Off topic, but on some file systems, a delete is a modification of the directory above it, so you can tell that way.
You could tell that something happened, but I suspect not what happened.

Originally Posted by RichardKenner
But this was a formating of the device. There's a possibility that the creation date and time of the directory might point to when it was formatted.
"Formatting" in MS-DOS parlance is what is referred to as "creating a file system" elsewhere. Typically, it destroys/corrupts existing data. I suspect that the operation performed on my camera was "erase all" rather than "format card".

Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Did you make a bit-for-bit copy of the card before running your software?
Yes. I powered the camera on, saw its indication that images and videos were gone, powered off, removed card, mounted the card read-only in my laptop, made a bit-for-bit copy, copied that data to a secure, off-site location, and stored the card somewhere safe.
pmocek is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 2:37 pm
  #1673  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Partly, but there's also the legal issue of validating the document that was presented by the defense. Were he to say that was the same document, it could have been presented as evidence.
I got that there was some legal issue with Mr. Breedon admitting that what he was shown was THE form. But, overall, my impression was that he just didn't want to have to cop to the absurdity of it all.
TheGolfWidow is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 2:57 pm
  #1674  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by TheGolfWidow
...he [Breedon] just didn't want to have to cop to the absurdity of it all.
On the other hand, he had no reluctance about admitting that he has no idea why TSA checks IDs. He did not strike me as the sort of seasoned liar that Dilley clearly is.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 5:36 pm
  #1675  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattExpl.►HiltonGold►ALL Silver
Posts: 21,990
TSA Bob Blog **Updated**

This has been inserted at the top of the blog:
***Update 1/30/2011 I referred to recent media coverage (which was all about Mr. Mocek's acquittal). The purpose of the blog was to focus on TSA checkpoint procedures which have not changed- as some have assumed- and to provide a refresher on TSA procedures.

Mr. Mocek was charged by the Albuquerque Police Department with trespassing, disorderly conduct, refusing to obey an officer, and concealing identity. He was acquitted. In so far as Mr. Mocek wants to fly in the future, like other passengers, he will still need to produce ID or work cooperatively with TSOs to confirm his identity.

TSA verification processes must proceed quickly and without interference. Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs as they try verify identification should not be surprised if asked to step aside so that other passengers in line can be processed expeditiously without further disruption.

TSA's goal is to ensure that all passengers who fly are checked against government watchlists. This can be achieved only if a passenger's identity is confirmed at the checkpoint. ***
It appears that, to date nothing, of the original was changed. I doubt this insertion was done willingly. It took over hundred and fifty words to (not so simply) state "He was acquitted".

Last edited by serfty; Jan 31, 2011 at 5:46 pm
serfty is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 5:39 pm
  #1676  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
cross-reference related post

see also: FlyerTalk: PV speaks out on Phil's case
pmocek is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 7:43 pm
  #1677  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by pmocek
Yes. I powered the camera on, saw its indication that images and videos were gone, powered off, removed card, mounted the card read-only in my laptop, made a bit-for-bit copy, copied that data to a secure, off-site location, and stored the card somewhere safe.
You may want to show that copy to somebody who knows more about directory formats than we do. Many cameras have files in the filesystem that contain information such a next picture number. When the card is erased, that file may be modified or created and there may be a timestamp there.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 8:12 pm
  #1678  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the chances of that are precisely zero. The government would easily argue that these people were misinformed as to the law and rules, are now properly informed, and there's absolutely no reason to think that doing the same thing would produce the same result.
Until it happens, that is...
n4zhg is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 8:13 pm
  #1679  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
You may want to show that copy to somebody who knows more about directory formats than we do. Many cameras have files in the filesystem that contain information such a next picture number. When the card is erased, that file may be modified or created and there may be a timestamp there.
Even if you could show that it was altered, as soon as Phil walked away from the airport police station with his camera, the chain of custody was broken and the police and prosecution would then argue (just as any defense attorney would) that anybody could have made the alteration to the files after it was out of their custody. This assumes that I have understood the chain of events from my reading of this thread. As much as we would like to see justice for attempting to erase the files (tampering with the evidence) the important thing here is that Phil was acquitted ^^^and it is clear to anyone following this (including the prosecution) that the LEO concocted the charges.
flyless is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2011, 11:21 pm
  #1680  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: video reveals criminal complaint riddled with falsehoods

In another thread, Sheneh noted:

Originally Posted by sheneh
my first reaction on hearing about the case only recently was that surely [Phil] must have rude or refused to cooperate. Now having watched the video and read summaries of the testimony I am astounded that he was arrested in the first place.
That was not a unique suspicion. I'm extremely fortunate to have recorded my interaction with TSA and police.

The text of the criminal complaint Officer Dilley signed under penalty of perjury was:

I was on duty in full police uniform displaying my badge of office as a Albuquerque Aviation Police Officer, when I was contacted by an agent with the Transportation Services Administration (T.S.A.) who asked for immediate police assistance at the Ticket / Document Area of the Security checkpoint. Upon my arrival I was met by T.S.A. agents and a T.S.A. Supervisor. I was advised, while the listed defendant was attempting to pass through the security checkpoint, he was asked to present an ID. I was further told informed that he was refusing and began causing a disturbance, by yelling and then proceeded to photograph the surrounding checkpoint area T.S.A. Agents and passengers. I introduced myself to the defendant asked him to please comply with the requests of the T.S.A. agents so that he could proceed through the security checkpoint. He responded by telling me that he knew his rights. I explained to him that the T.S.A. has a procedure that has to be followed for all who enter through the security checkpoint. The T.S.A. supervisor asked the defendant to stop taking photographs of the T.S.A. Agents, passengers and of the Security Checkpoint, pursuant to their policy. The Defendant continued to refuse and had his voice raised at a level that it was now creating a disturbance. I ordered the defendant to lower his voice and stop creating a disturbance or I would have him leave the airport. He continued to refuse (four times), Finally, I issued him a verbal Criminal Trespass Order and ordered him to leave the airport he refused, and told me he knew his rights. At that point I informed him he was now under arrest for Disorderly Conduct and Refusing to Obey a lawful order of a police officer. I next asked the defendant for his name. He refused several times to identify himself saying he wished to remain silent. I informed him if he did not provide his name he would be booked for Concealing Identity also. He acknowledged and told me he was not going to provide me with any identification of himself. His bags were searched pursuant to his arrest and no identification was found. F.B.I. was subsequently contacted.
  • TSA staff did not tell him I yelled.
  • He never introduced himself.
  • He didn't ask me to comply with TSA staff; he told me that if I didn't comply with them, I would be escorted out of the airport.
  • He didn't explain anything about TSA procedure or who must follow it.
  • The TSA supervisor did not say anything about a photography policy (just "Why don't you put it down for now?" "Put it down for now" and "I'm telling you now, put it down for now.")
  • I never raised my voice.
  • He didn't order me to lower my voice (or ask me to do so, or say anything about lowering my voice, or anything about my voice at all).
  • I didn't refuse to stop creating a disturbance four times (or three times or two times or once -- never).
  • He didn't issue me a "verbal Criminal Trespass Order" or order me to leave the airport (he repeatedly told me that I would be escorted out if certain things did or did not happen, then eventually told me that I was being escorted out, at which point, I went with him).
  • I didn't say anything about my rights a second time.
  • He didn't tell me I was under arrest for disorderly conduct or for refusal to obey a lawful order (he said I was being investigated for disturbing the peace).
  • He didn't ask my name.
  • I didn't refuse to identify myself several times, or even once.
  • He did not describe any consequences of neglecting to provide my name, and of course, I did not acknowlege such. (He never said one word about my name prior to my arrest.)
  • I told him that I did not have any identity documents, not that I was not going to provide him with any identification of myself.
pmocek is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.