|
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 14547512)
Answer: From the OP:
Although using jargon like BDO is guaranteed to raise eyebrows, this was the precise moment when it became clear to all except some readers of this forum that the OP intended to stir up trouble. All the TSOs wanted was a reasonable explanation of the OP's actions, but he refused to give it. Note well that I'm not saying that the TSOs were entitled to see the ID or that the OP was not on solid legal ground. I'm only saying that the OP intended to provoke a reaction and succeeded. I don't see how anyone reading the OP could conclude otherwise.
|
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 14538909)
(In the e-mail to which this was responding to, he said if I had a specific specific complaint based on a specific event, he would pass that along the channels for review and mentioned the Office of Civil Liberties in Washington.)
From what I understand, HPD's is an information report and, as such, I am not able to have access to it under the current circumstances. I feel like there's a puzzle with a piece missing in the middle. Is it that you just don't want to go "on the record" with a complaint against both of those agencies? I read your comments about your civil liberties being violated, but I'm just confused why you would not complain if you feel that way. I can't tell if your exchange of e-mails with the TSA about wanting to meet with them really constitutes an official complaint. What am I missing? |
Let's focus on the problem, not whether someone's exposure of it was intentional
Greg0ire, there was trouble, and there continues to be trouble. I don't care if ND Sol was "looking for trouble" or not. The trouble existed before he arrived.
Many people won't face this fact. Some just don't know. Many people don't believe that airport security guards in the United States have the power to cause someone to be detained, questioned, and have his property destroyed (images deleted, film confiscated, etc.) and liberty restricted, simply because that person was going about his lawful business and annoyed those security guards in the process. ND Sol has demonstrated that this is, in fact, the case. We have a serious problem, and no one who is aware of what happened to ND Sol can reasonably claim that this problem is simply theoretical. He did nothing wrong, and regardless of whether the outcome was to be expected or not, he was punished by agents of our government as a direct result of his Constitutionally-protected activity. People should be outraged that their government operates in such a manner. Now, instead of doing something about this trouble, some people here accuse the victim of causing trouble. That's pretty sad. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 14547512)
Although using jargon like BDO is guaranteed to raise eyebrows, this was the precise moment when it became clear to all except some readers of this forum that the OP intended to stir up trouble. All the TSOs wanted was a reasonable explanation of the OP's actions, but he refused to give it.
Note well that I'm not saying that the TSOs were entitled to see the ID or that the OP was not on solid legal ground. I'm only saying that the OP intended to provoke a reaction and succeeded. I don't see how anyone reading the OP could conclude otherwise. The incident could just as easily occurred to a photographer who was not an attorney and happened to not be carrying any ID, since there is no legal requirement to carry ID while landside at airport. Such a victim could have been steamrolled even worse than the OP was by the HPD with an arrest, illegal confiscation of more property, etc. The OP did us and future potential victims of this experience a favor by going through it and documenting it. BTW, based on stories about how TSA behaves in these situations, I find it highly unlikely that simply handing his ID to TSO1 would have ended the encounter. More likely is that TSO1 would have taken his ID, possibly called TSA's terrorist-screening-center to check the blacklists (and possibly add the OP to the list), and used possession of the ID as a de-facto detention technique while waiting for a LEO to call in an arrest-warrant check. So if you want to accuse the OP of "provoking" a reaction, you should argue that the act of taking photographs was provocation. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 14546846)
... in a successful attempt to bait the TSOs into harassing me when they could not understand my bizarre behavior. FTFY.
Look, I have no love for the TSA and like everyone else I know that current "security" procedures are largely useless. But what the OP describes is simply a game. Like the cop who sets up a speed trap at the bottom of a hill next to the sign that announces a suddenly lower speed limit, the OP used his superior knowledge of the law to ensnare his adversaries. TSA policies will only change through the political process, and stunts like this will not change public opinion in the direction that the OP desires. Therefore I assert that the only value of this incident was entertainment for the OP and readers here.
Originally Posted by MAYNARDS99
(Post 14547055)
The OP and their actions at IAH are why people do not have respect for lawyers. Maybe their time would have been better spent assisting newbie travelers at the airport, or providing legal assistance to travelers with actual problems.
What a tool.
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 14547512)
Although using jargon like BDO is guaranteed to raise eyebrows, this was the precise moment when it became clear to all except some readers of this forum that the OP intended to stir up trouble. All the TSOs wanted was a reasonable explanation of the OP's actions, but he refused to give it.
Note well that I'm not saying that the TSOs were entitled to see the ID or that the OP was not on solid legal ground. I'm only saying that the OP intended to provoke a reaction and succeeded. I don't see how anyone reading the OP could conclude otherwise. Perhaps “why people do not have respect for lawyers” is the perception (which perception becomes reality for some) that lawyers sue anyone and everyone at the drop of a hat. If that was my intent, why would I have tried to engage the TSA before posting here? Perhaps I was naïve to think there might be an opportunity for a productive discussion. Only after “radio silence” did I post here. But why should I have done that? Shouldn’t I have just filed a lawsuit and collected my payday? :rolleyes: My intent was not “for entertainment for the OP and readers here.” It was to provide additional data with respect to our interactions at the airport and facilitate a dialogue for everyone that has concerns in this arena. Let me add another data point to my “bizarre behavior.” I have been interested in photography since high school. I spent quite a bit of time in the darkroom during my b&w film days and have shot on the sidelines at my college alma mater and other Divison 1-A football games. Just a couple of weeks ago I lugged my DSLR on my climb of several 14ers in Colorado. I also belong to a photography club and currently work for a media company. I am strictly an amateur that likes to integrate photography with my other interests. Heck, I just posted some photos earlier today on the Travel Photography forum, which illustrate that dovetail. I thought honing my photography skills (such as they are) might be more productive than sitting in an airport bar waiting for my relative’s flight to depart. Locally, the airport is one of the few places that have a combination of large, open, indoor public places with plenty of people and interesting light that doesn’t require a flash. I am unsure how you think you are able to attribute motives to me, but believe me, this incident was not a “game” on my part nor “intended to provoke a reaction.” This was not something that I wanted (much less intended) to occur. Now you are also able to ascertain the motives of the TSO’s: “All the TSOs wanted was a reasonable explanation of the OP's actions . . . .” Why should they believe my “reasonable explanation”? If I had nefarious intent, wouldn’t I have a good story too? If the BDO’s were skilled in their craft, shouldn’t they have realized that I was not a threat? It would appear that some persons believe that knowing and exercising one’s rights equates to reasonable suspicion. Some commenters on a site that picked up the story off this thread (and linked to by another poster on this thread) have chastised me for answering any questions. While I may not agree with many TSA rules, I follow them and expect the same in return. I am not expecting policies to be changed, only followed. (Perhaps you missed it, but I did provide assistance to a traveler during my detention. ;))
Originally Posted by greg0ire
(Post 14547624)
I'm sure he had a feeling what would occur after each step and still wanted to see what would happen. I'm sure the OP could have rectified the situation many times, but decided to dig further like an investigative reporter hired by nobody.
Thank you for the fun story. I am sure, however, that you knew what you were doing and had a feeling what the outcome might be. Why would I want for this to occur? Do you think I was seeking some perverse pleasure in thinking I was going to be arrested and then having my camera confiscated? I don’t wish that to happen to anyone who is doing nothing wrong. |
Originally Posted by greg0ire
(Post 14547624)
I'm sure the OP could have rectified the situation many times, but decided to dig further like an investigative reporter hired by nobody.
I still think that confrontational techniques are unlikely to favorably influence public opinion on TSA questions. This is not the 60's with civil rights protesters being beaten by police on TV. If you figure out a way to get the TSA to fire water cannons at you and beat you up, then maybe it would work. Otherwise this is a poor tactic if the objective is other than entertainment. |
Originally Posted by greg0ire
(Post 14547624)
While I have no particular love for the TSA nor see the value in their process, I have to agree w/ nsx as I was thinking the same thing while reading the post. It sounds like the OP was looking for trouble. Granted he found obvious flaws and holes in the system and we all get to discuss them now. I'm sure he had a feeling what would occur after each step and still wanted to see what would happen. I'm sure the OP could have rectified the situation many times, but decided to dig further like an investigative reporter hired by nobody.
Thank you for the fun story. I am sure, however, that you knew what you were doing and had a feeling what the outcome might be. That leads me to ask this question in that context: So what? Everyone keeps dancing around the question of what exactly is the threat or issue with taking photos of a TSO, at an airport, standing in public. I have seen nothing to suggest that there is a security threat or violation of the law of any kind. If there is no threat or crime, then we are simply talking about people who are uncomfortable having their photos taken in public and are using their status as government actors to try and intimidate citizens who are exercising their rights as granted by the Constitutions and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact that any TSO would use his or her position in such a manner should be the focus of everyone's outrage, not the fact that some citizen was taking photos in a public space and possibly "looking for trouble." |
Originally Posted by tom911
(Post 14547815)
So in the three months since this incident has occurred, you're still waiting for someone to contact you? Was there a commitment that anyone was going to call you back with the results of an investigation?
And no formal complaint to internal affairs at Houston PD? I feel like there's a puzzle with a piece missing in the middle. Is it that you just don't want to go "on the record" with a complaint against both of those agencies? I read your comments about your civil liberties being violated, but I'm just confused why you would not complain if you feel that way. I can't tell if your exchange of e-mails with the TSA about wanting to meet with them really constitutes an official complaint. What am I missing? |
"Sir, this here is federal. You can't film those beatings here."
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 14548080)
This is not the 60's with civil rights protesters being beaten by police on TV.
Note that when I contacted IAH last year, upon the advice of TSA's Curtis "Blogger Bob" Burns, to ask about any local regulations affecting the ability of people to photograph publicly-accessible areas of the airport, but they never responded. |
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 14548110)
Would you like to take the time to put it together for me based on what I have posted? :)
|
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 14548080)
Yes, that's a much better way of stating what I meant. Your version does not convey a negative value judgment that I didn't intend to include but definitely did. At least I didn't call it a stunt, which would have unfairly implied pre-planning of the entire scenario. This situation began innocuously, then the OP decided to test the TSO's for educational purposes.
I still think that confrontational techniques are unlikely to favorably influence public opinion on TSA questions. This is not the 60's with civil rights protesters being beaten by police on TV. If you figure out a way to get the TSA to fire water cannons at you and beat you up, then maybe it would work. Otherwise this is a poor tactic if the objective is other than entertainment. What expectation should a TSA employee have to interrogate a person who is not trying to clear a checkpoint? I suggest none. TSA employees are the ones who caused the problem and I see them as being at fault. |
Originally Posted by TedL
(Post 14547575)
Having been in the news business and had a variety of interactions with LEO's and security people, I can appreciate the OP's experience.
Flying through MDW recently I was waiting in one of the Southwest concourses for my plane, laptopping in one of the comfortable chairs with power outlets. I don't know how long they'd been there before I arrived... but in the next row of chairs over, two middle-age guys with binoculars and a scanner on the windowsill were looking out the window and checking out the planes as they came in. Might have had a small camera or two... can't remember. I didn't see anything suspicious. Thought to myself, "Oh, the airplane equivalent of railfans." About about five or ten minutes after I sat down, what appeared to be a non-sworn security officer (middle-aged female) came over and began questioning them... apparently about what they were doing. There was some discussion about "you can't do that," if what I recall hearing snippets of is still correct in my mind. Over the course of 20 minutes to half an hour, the gentlemen were "required" to leave their seats, gather their stuff (baggage, too) and follow the lady over to where eventually four or so other security officer types, and what appeared to be an airline person had gathered. They were asked to submit the scanner for inspection, I think there was an iPod that got similar treatment. It seemed as if a lot of "consultation" was going on. The two guys seemed to be keeping their cool. I thought about pulling my Nikon out and taking pictures... perhaps inquiring or attempting to "assist"... but resisted the urge since I wanted to make my flight to the next stop on my way home. Eventually the two men were allowed to return to where they had been seated, and they resumed what they were doing. During this, I was concerned that they'd be A: Detained and miss their flight, causing an un-needed hassle for them and B: That someone would take their seats in the crowded waiting area. Others were sitting on the floor. The situation got my blood pressure up... but I ended up not getting involved out of my own self interests, something that bothers me today. I also like to take pictures of planes out the concourse windows while waiting. Haven't had problems doing so. Haven't had the OP's problem in unsecured areas. My experiences with TSA people have been OK... even with huge crushes of people at screening... and with laptop, laptop bag, carry-on w/camera gear, wires and stuff that's sometimes hard to see well in the X-ray and gets hand-checked. I'm pleasant with them, and they've been pleasant with me. I know that they're there to do a job that involves interaction with hurried people who are sometimes running late—I confess to being one. Yes, one will find some folks who have ego problems in "authority positions." Had one security screener in SFO, back in the 80's tell me I couldn't take a carryon with tape recording equipment and mike cables aboard my SFO-SMF flight "because you might use them to strangle someone." This same bag had been SMF-SFO and then SFO-HON and then HON-SFO on this trip without that ever being suggested. I didn't want to risk my bag ending up in Podunk, IA (although this was a prop flight directly to SMF) and went looking for a San Francisco Police Officer to assist in getting my back into the cabin. I was told, essentially, "Her word is it." So my bag went into checked baggage. The bag never showed up that evening... and American had to deliver it the next day. Couldn't explain what happened, either. I've not flown American since, and likely won't again. ... and there are 50,000 more of them at an airport near you. |
Originally Posted by zombietooth
(Post 14547432)
The real risk from terrorism is exceptionally small. You have a much better chance of dying in a car accident, being murdered by another American, falling, committing suicide, getting killed as a pedestrian, or even getting hit by lightning!
In 2008 (the latest year for which I could get NHTSA satistics) there were 37,261 traffic related fatalities in the United States, which works out to 3105 people per month dying in traffic accidents. This was the lowest number for the years 1994 through 2008, and the only year in which the number was fewer than 40,000. That means that in every single month in 2008 there were more people killed in automobile accidents than died in every notable terrorist attack in the United States for the past 100 years combined. |
Originally Posted by studentff
(Post 14530824)
This kind of BS is why I detest law enforcement. HPD1 will with almost total certainty suffer no consequences for these incorrect actions, and his supervisors, unions, and cop buddies all over the country will defend him endlessly.
What do you think would have happened if you had just said no to the state-ID or SSN request? Isn't it illegal under some federal law for them to ask for your SSN without just cause? Did anything bad happen to her or her flight? This is info I'm not sure I would have been comfortable giving, as it involved her in your exercise (which I appreciate) without her consent (unless she and you had an understanding). Is this legal? If not, why are you not going after HPD for this? Is this legal at all? All of the advice I have seen to photographers is to NEVER let them confiscate you equipment and especially film or flash cards. If not, why are you not going after them for it? Thank you for doing what you did. The only way to stop this BS is to document it, determine what occurs, and then push back when it is realistic to do so. As much as I hate TSA, it doesn't seem that they did anything blatantly illegal as they are as welcome to follow you around in the airport as you are them. But the LEOs were pigs (and I use that term intentionally and specifically to refer to those LEOs that did this) who should be terminated, stripped of their pensions, sued for everything they are worth, they and their families through out on the street, and they and their families socially branded and ostracized so badly that decent people refuse to interact with them. That would deter this sort of behavior from piggish jack-booted goons like these HPD. |
Originally Posted by ryan182
(Post 14547250)
So if someone who is not a lawyer but just like aviation and photography did the same thing they'd be ??? The OP being a lawyer has nothing to do with what happened here and trust me I despise lawyers they have caused me to consume quite a bit of scotch over the years but I don't see the connection in this case (still they do suck and we'd be better if they all fell in a pit:p).
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:49 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.