|
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
(Post 14618390)
Nonsense.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and at the time of Rosa Parks, most of the country did not anticipate that her actions would ignite such a huge push for civil rights legislation. Most people were content to say that she should have just sat at the back of the bus and stop inconveniencing all the other passengers who wanted to get where they were going. Whether or not the actions of a photographer at a TSA security area will catapult some similar legislation is pure speculation one way or another. In the meantime, however, I am content to follow the law and the U.S. Supreme Court which says that any person in a public space - like an airport - has absolutely no expectation of privacy. If TSOs are so unnerved by someone taking their photo as they stand in a public venue, they need to seek immediate reassignment to a windowless basement job. Perhaps a more knowlegeable poster than me could illuminate as to whether there is legislation in place at US airports that prohibits photography of sensitive sites such as security ops. It would seem reasonable to me that there would be. I'm not convinced that it's a simple as being a ' Public place'
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 14618396)
Why should a perfectly legal activity be a case of "red rag to a bull"? Unless, of course, the TSA personnel involved have been given instructions (explicit or implicit) to harass adults engaged in perfectly legal activities?
Again: this is what civil disobedience is about. If you engage in a morally or legally permissible activity and are harassed for it, history usually says that the harassers are the guilty parties, not the person who allegedly "provokes" the confrontation by exerting their rights. Is my Rosa Parks analogy over-the-top? Perhaps. But the principle is valid. Complaining that folks who assert their legal rights are somehow provoking problems is just plain stupid, IMHO. |
cross-reference related threads
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14618450)
Perhaps a more knowlegeable poster than me could illuminate as to whether there is legislation in place at US airports that prohibits photography of sensitive sites such as security ops.
See also: On the advice of TSA's Curtis "Blogger Bob" Burns, in March of 2009, I contacted 50 U.S. airports to inquire about local policies regarding photography in airports. I thoroughly documented my findings here on FlyerTalk. See my index, "causes for concern", and wrap-up posts. In November, 2009, I was arrested at Albuquerque International and jailed for a day and a half after being informed by TSA staff and airport police that, contrary to information I received from the TSA representative in the aforementioned post, the photography I performed there was not allowed. A lengthy discussion of the incident continues to this day on FlyerTalk. |
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14618450)
Perhaps a more knowlegeable poster than me could illuminate as to whether there is legislation in place at US airports that prohibits photography of sensitive sites such as security ops. It would seem reasonable to me that there would be. I'm not convinced that it's a simple as being a ' Public place'
Even the TSA can't stop you from taking photos according to this post on the TSA Blog: We don’t prohibit public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations. You can take pictures at our checkpoints as long as you’re not interfering with the screening process or slowing things down. We also ask that you do not film or take pictures of our monitors. |
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14618490)
If somebody is standing outside my front window taking a series of stills of my house for no apparent reason,
There is neither a law, nor a legal precedent, against the OP doing what was described. Period. Nada. End of story. There is, however, a legal precedent that indeed explicitly allows the OP to do exactly what was described. The Constitution, among other things, allows Americans the right to peaceably assemble. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the OP was indeed trying to provoke a response. The right to peaceably assemble, as guaranteed in the First Ammendment, allows Americans the right, and therefore the responsibility, to express support or opposition to public policy. You can do neither sitting on your keister. The OP did not interfere with the screening process in any way. The OP did not damage property. The OP did not infringe on the rights of others. The OP did not cause a public disruption of any kind. (disclaimer: two sides to every story, so this information is speculation based on the OP's report of the events in question). The argument that you present of someone taking pictures of your house is a fundamentally different situation. Your house is your private property, and is again explicitly protected under the laws, customs, and traditions of American law. You therefore have the absolute right to make such a request, and expect it to be fulfilled. The airport, a public space, is another matter entirely. As to the Rosa Parks analogy, it isn't entirely accurate in this scenario because she actually broke the law. And she is an American Hero for doing so. |
Originally Posted by barbell
(Post 14618616)
The argument that you present of someone taking pictures of your house is a fundamentally different situation. Your house is your private property, and is again explicitly protected under the laws, customs, and traditions of American law. You therefore have the absolute right to make such a request, and expect it to be fulfilled. The airport, a public space, is another matter entirely.
If the photographer is standing on a public street taking photos of your house, there is no law prohibiting him or her from doing so. That is why - much to the dismay of many - Google was able to slowly drive around your neighborhood and take photos of every house and building to populate the "street view" section of their Google maps. |
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
(Post 14618632)
Just one clarifying point here....
Based on the posts here, I understand Custardthecat to be a friend not intimately familiar with our customs. I was oversimplifying the example to explain the difference. There are, of course, nuances in these scenarios. I glossed over them to help make the point more readily understandable. |
Originally Posted by barbell
(Post 14618644)
Understood.
Based on the posts here, I understand Custardthecat to be a friend not intimately familiar with our customs. I was oversimplifying the example to explain the difference. There are, of course, nuances in these scenarios. I glossed over them to help make the point more readily understandable. All is well. :) |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 14618564)
What do you mean by "sensitive sites"? Please explain how a site which is available for anyone who purchases an airline ticket to enter, look at, remember, take notes about, and even photograph (legally, though in practice it's heavily discouraged) can be considered "sensitive".
I have opted for that phrase myself. Your assertion that there you were detained for doing it and that there is a contentious debate only serves to lend weight to my theory that there are those who will go equipped to put it to the test. Well, everyones got to have a hobby, I suppose. See also: On the advice of TSA's Curtis "Blogger Bob" Burns, in March of 2009, I contacted 50 U.S. airports to inquire about local policies regarding photography in airports. I thoroughly documented my findings here on FlyerTalk. See my index, "causes for concern", and wrap-up posts. In November, 2009, I was arrested at Albuquerque International and jailed for a day and a half after being informed by TSA staff and airport police that, contrary to information I received from the TSA representative in the aforementioned post, the photography I performed there was not allowed. A lengthy discussion of the incident continues to this day on FlyerTalk. |
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14618450)
Well maybe so Phoenix Rev but going off the current tack i.e. did the OP seek to provoke the encounter with his own agenda in mind. I understand that there is not a lot of sympathy for the TSA and like I say, I've seen them in action and not been impressed but does that justify setting out to develop a confrontation with them?
Perhaps a more knowlegeable poster than me could illuminate as to whether there is legislation in place at US airports that prohibits photography of sensitive sites such as security ops. It would seem reasonable to me that there would be. I'm not convinced that it's a simple as being a ' Public place' People are free to take photos in a public place. LEO's are free to ask questions concerning that activity. People are free to not answer those questions. LEO's are free to gage peoples reactions to their questions. Based on those observations, training and experience LEO's are allowed to develop reasonable suspicion or not. If the officer develops reasonable suspicion the officer can detain the individual while he investigates the source generating his suspicion. The LEO is not obligated to inform you what that reasonable suspicion is nor will he in most cases. As long as the LEO is actively and constructively furthering that investigation the individual can be detain for a reasonable amount of time. The courts have not defined what is reasonable. The common sense comes in that if you are taking photos for a fill in the blank legal reason (hobby, work related, article, school project) what ever just tell the officer what the reason is and everyone goes on with their day no fuss no muss. You don't have to do that of course and the officer has the added responsibility to figure out if you are flexing your rights or are you up to other nefarious activities. Depending upon your demeanor and a dozen other factors that build the totality of the circumstances the officer will use the tools that the legislature and the courts have given him to figure that out. Sometimes he will be successful sometimes he won't It is the LEO's job, sometimes it can be easy and sometimes in can be very difficult. The individual can add to the ease in which this is done or the individual can add to the difficulty. Personally, I don't care either way. I get paid to do the job regardless of how the individual acts. I and the vast majority LEO's know exactly what they can and cannot do. Are there exceptions to that? Yes, there are but they are not as prevalent as those here would like you to believe. When there is controversy concerning an LEO's action, you, the public, usually only hear one side of the story. The LEO or government actor is 99% of the time restricted from publicly commenting. This is similar to a private corporation as well as the private corporation will be given advise from legal counsel to not comment. You can see that even in this forum as Pmocek will only comment in a limited manner concerning his arrest in ABQ. Yet, people in the forum expect the LEO and government to comment concerning every detail in every matter. It is just not going to happen nor should it. FB |
OK, I understand that your constitutional rights are important to you all.
I am afraid I just don't have the detailed arguments at my fingertips to enagage the minutae of every argument So lets see. When engaged in everyday activities and interacting with the lawful authorities you are either the compliant sort or the other sort. There are also those who feel that they need to engage directly where they have no cause to interact at all. The result can be escalation and yes there are two sides of the resultant fall out. I have painted where I am on this side of the argument. Just because there might be an aspect of law that allows me, apparently, to engage in an activity, I don't expect I would feel the overwhelming desire to engage in it, without good reason especially if I suspected that it might precipitate some unpleasantness. I cannot see what use, myself, any of the photographs were to the OP in a practical sense so I draw the conclusion that something else is behind it. Like I say, I am where I am and some of you are where you are on it. |
Originally Posted by barbell
(Post 14618616)
With all due respect, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the American culture, customs, and laws.
There is neither a law, nor a legal precedent, against the OP doing what was described. Period. Nada. End of story. There is, however, a legal precedent that indeed explicitly allows the OP to do exactly what was described. The Constitution, among other things, allows Americans the right to peaceably assemble. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the OP was indeed trying to provoke a response. The right to peaceably assemble, as guaranteed in the First Ammendment, allows Americans the right, and therefore the responsibility, to express support or opposition to public policy. You can do neither sitting on your keister. The OP did not interfere with the screening process in any way. The OP did not damage property. The OP did not infringe on the rights of others. The OP did not cause a public disruption of any kind. (disclaimer: two sides to every story, so this information is speculation based on the OP's report of the events in question). The argument that you present of someone taking pictures of your house is a fundamentally different situation. Your house is your private property, and is again explicitly protected under the laws, customs, and traditions of American law. You therefore have the absolute right to make such a request, and expect it to be fulfilled. The airport, a public space, is another matter entirely. As to the Rosa Parks analogy, it isn't entirely accurate in this scenario because she actually broke the law. And she is an American Hero for doing so. Actually, the argument he presented of someone taking pictures of your house is not a different situation at all. I can stand on the public portion of your street and take pictures of your house all day. You can come out and ask me why. However, you CAN"T expect it to be fulfilled. You can call law enforcement. Law enforcement can ask me the same questions and I don't have to answer. The concept and the rights involved are not different. The difference is I know law enforcement will not just shrug their shoulders, throw their hands up in the air and leave shaking there heads thinking nothing I can do about this nor do I expect them too. They will use the tools at their disposal to figure out what is truly taking place. They do this to protect you, your home and your property. FB
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14618794)
OK, I understand that your constitutional rights are important to you all.
I am afraid I just don't have the detailed arguments at my fingertips to enagage the minutae of every argument So lets see. When engaged in everyday activities and interacting with the lawful authorities you are either the compliant sort or the other sort. There are also those who feel that they need to engage directly where they have no cause to interact at all. The result can be escalation and yes there are two sides of the resultant fall out. I have painted where I am on this side of the argument. Just because there might be an aspect of law that allows me, apparently, to engage in an activity, I don't expect I would feel the overwhelming desire to engage in it, without good reason especially if I suspected that it might precipitate some unpleasantness. I cannot see what use, myself, any of the photographs were to the OP in a practical sense so I draw the conclusion that something else is behind it. Like I say, I am where I am and some of you are where you are on it. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 14618757)
In most cases it is as simple as being in a public place. That being said a little bit of common sense needs to be used. Many poster here will say that TSA, LEO's and the government need to use more common sense. In some cases that is true. However, there also is very little common sense used on the opposite side of the argument in this forum. Photography is a legal activity. Photography can also be used in preparation for illegal activity as well and it doesn't matter how many images are found in the public domain someone who is planning a serious crime especially if it is an organized group does their own surveillance. This is has been found to be true in the past criminal cases and terrorist events.
People are free to take photos in a public place. LEO's are free to ask questions concerning that activity. People are free to not answer those questions. LEO's are free to gage peoples reactions to their questions. Based on those observations, training and experience LEO's are allowed to develop reasonable suspicion or not. If the officer develops reasonable suspicion the officer can detain the individual while he investigates the source generating his suspicion. The LEO is not obligated to inform you what that reasonable suspicion is nor will he in most cases. As long as the LEO is actively and constructively furthering that investigation the individual can be detain for a reasonable amount of time. The courts have not defined what is reasonable. The common sense comes in that if you are taking photos for a fill in the blank legal reason (hobby, work related, article, school project) what ever just tell the officer what the reason is and everyone goes on with their day no fuss no muss. You don't have to do that of course and the officer has the added responsibility to figure out if you are flexing your rights or are you up to other nefarious activities. Depending upon your demeanor and a dozen other factors that build the totality of the circumstances the officer will use the tools that the legislature and the courts have given him to figure that out. Sometimes he will be successful sometimes he won't It is the LEO's job, sometimes it can be easy and sometimes in can be very difficult. The individual can add to the ease in which this is done or the individual can add to the difficulty. Personally, I don't care either way. I get paid to do the job regardless of how the individual acts. I and the vast majority LEO's know exactly what they can and cannot do. Are there exceptions to that? Yes, there are but they are not as prevalent as those here would like you to believe. When there is controversy concerning an LEO's action, you, the public, usually only hear one side of the story. The LEO or government actor is 99% of the time restricted from publicly commenting. This is similar to a private corporation as well as the private corporation will be given advise from legal counsel to not comment. You can see that even in this forum as Pmocek will only comment in a limited manner concerning his arrest in ABQ. Yet, people in the forum expect the LEO and government to comment concerning every detail in every matter. It is just not going to happen nor should it. FB Thanks for that, read and inwardly digested. Pause for a moments reflection I think
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 14618813)
My opinion is that you have a very good grasp on what the situation actually is.
FB |
|
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 14618757)
Photography can also be used in preparation for illegal activity as well and it doesn't matter how many images are found in the public domain someone who is planning a serious crime especially if it is an organized group does their own surveillance. This is has been found to be true in the past criminal cases and terrorist events.
If we could stick to terrorism (the airport scenario) and not go off on a tangent of other criminal activities, so much the better. Of course it's all secret, and I don't need know :cool: . |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 14618381)
A bull is not required to operate within the law. We do not hire bulls for airport security guard jobs. We expect more from government employees. It is their duty to ignore people waving red flags.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:59 pm. |
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.