In addition to the OP, Post 170 may address some of the other ideas that persons have about what my intentions were. One poster conjectured that seeing the CBS report on SPOT and BDO’s prompted me to push for this encounter. I did not see the report until after the incident. I was made aware of it based on a thread in this forum.

Based on what HPD1 told me, TSO1 lied to me right out of the box. And either HPD1 didn’t know the law or he also lied to me right out of the box. So perhaps a prior poster’s statement that, “Nor should one expect friendly treatment in response to adversarial treatment” is true, but not for the party he intended. How should one deal with persons that you reasonably believe are being untruthful in such a situation?

“Questioning someone engaging in behavior that is irregular for normal people but probably for would-be terrorists” seems to be even more applicable for mileage runners. Do people think that they should be always questioned?

To me, the salient point is that photographing in a public place no more constitutes “reasonable suspicion” than standing in the same place. If the latter is not reasonably suspicious, then neither is the former.

Since the TSA has its puppy post, here is my chipmunk post from my climb/hike on Saturday and the view that chipmunk enjoys. He wanted to do a physical screening of my pack and seemed particularly interested in trying to confiscate my Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups that were contained in my "1 quart-sized, clear, plastic, zip-top bag" on the left.

I do take your posts seriously for the most part, but personally do not need the same editorial comment repeated every time.

We get it. You're a Muslim and, for reasons which everyone recognizes, you are subject to prejudice from time to time.
Disgusting and unfair. Deal with it.

(My last word, mindful of the TOS.)

What did the photographer do that was suspicious?

Taking the stance you seem to be taking would also make any other person minding their own business suspicious.

If I sat outside of a TSA checkpoint and watched the going ons for an extended period of time would that raise the red flag in your opinion?

What is different between the two circumstances?

Fair enough. Sensible suggestion. Question of perspective. We agree to disagree.

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.

My apologies for not doing a proper quote below and for neglecting the name of the poster, but I wanted to read the entire thread (whew!) and did not want to lose my place. I found this on point (emphasis mine):

"Doesn't it strike anyone else as a bit wierd, and a bit disturbing, that all one needs to do in order to distract and tie up a significant part of the security and law enforcement resource at an airport is walk around and snap a few photos? Are these morons really so stupid/naďve as to believe that some terrorists have already figured out that all you need in order to neutralise an airport's entire security resource is 2 - 3 guys with cameras? ..."

I'll buy that for a dollar.

From the current thread on PV:

Great pictures!

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.

So, I ask again: why is taking photos of the security area and TSOs suspicious?

I freely admit that my understanding of exactly how US airports work may not without fault. I would expect the same if the boot was on the other foot. Some UK airports have museums of flight e.g. Manchester but at a remote location, not in the Terminal building and visitors are indeed encoraged but the Terminal building operates outside that scenario. From what I've seen of US landside passenger Terminal concourses I would not want to spend much time there at al anyway.

What I was trying to illustrate was the behavoiral aspect / reason for being at an airport issues perspectives and what concepts are seen as reasonable to enforce. I provided the UK example in order for you to draw perspective as this seems to be devolved from what is considered reasonable behavoir at airports here. The actual laws in UK / US are not the primary point. suspicion is pretty much a universal concept. How the law deals with the outcome is after the fact and will indeed have differences depending where on this Earth we live.

Just because the law appears allow it in isolation does not preclude it from being able to be developed into activity which attracts suspicion. The totality of the activity and circumstances are the issue. This may be too much for you too swallow.

I'm not going to comment on the US examples as I just don't have enough knowledge to do so but as far as the UK examples you have quoted

London - No photo recce would have been required. Trains and Underground run. You buy a ticket and get on. The actual sites were random in that they were simply the next trains that came along apart from one who got on a bus instead, could have been any bus. Dozens of people in close proximity, bad result. Very sad day.

The organisation you mention - False. Suggest you go off and do a bit of research, I'm not keen on educating you in this respect.

What are you talking about? What organization?

I quoted a security expert who raised a very valid point: there were no discussions about the photography of the 9/11 plotters or Timothy McVeigh or others.

So why are photographers getting scrutiny for doing legal things?

What - exactly - is suspicious about taking photos of security areas or security personnel in an airport?

Which organisation?

Very unhelpful to make a blanket dismissal without any specifics

First of all, my apologies for using the term 'utter garbage'. I edited to simply say false. I responded to the UK examples and related organisation you mentioned (within your quote) that apparantley was' not known for photography'.

Why are they getting scrutiny....... I think I have to refer you back to my previous answer. I am not responsible for every developing suspicion relating to this subject, however many there are. My earlier responses addressed the interaction of the OP in this case and my opinion of it. I'm not going to broaden it out more.

My response address PhoenixRevs post #398 where he posted a quote citing some UK examples (amongst others). I was referring to those. When my response quoted his post, his quote was not shown for whatever reason

KSM ran the 9/11 organization and he's been in US custody for years and been interrogated inside and outside of Gitmo, even under torture. He didn't require photos of US airports.

In the "UK examples", what organization? None of the terrorist attacks in the UK during the last ten years required photographs of airports, so who knows what "organization" you have in mind.

Check post PhoenixRev post #398 or am I imagining where in his cited quote it contains refernce to London Transport and later to IRA (that organisation!)

I am not going to address how they went about their skullduggery but before you say they are not current, I am afraid that is not true. The hardliners are still around in the 'Continuity' evolution and doing what they always did i.e killing young men in uniform and making very large bangs (and they look like you and me). Poor lads stepped out from their Guardpost to check a 'Pizza delivery' arriving in a vehicle....end of story, very tragic.
Photos befoerhand of layout and positions of roadside furniture and nearest probable intervention...I'm betting so.

Take (in addition) the case of the attack at GLA. Jeepload of nasty stuff driven at doorway. Now it's a complex approach road layout and small entrance doors. Photos beforehand for familiarisation...I'm betting so!

The 'airliner plot' originating here (2007 I think) would have been catastophic but for intervention. They had a plan to smuggle liquids through the security and then ignite on board causing the machines to drop out of the sky. How did they decide on their method and what made them think they would be succesful at beating the system. Did they check out the operation beforehand. Almost certainly. Photos beforehand. No idea (and neither have you!).

You only hear about the 'successful' attempts and near misses. Do you have all the info. I'm betting not. How many conspiracies are there at any one time? What methods do they use? I think it's safe to say photography is a pre-requisite in many known and also unpublicised cases dependant on circumstance. The fact that those apprehended might not have given information or evidence of how they gathered their information (they may not know) and methods might not have been discovered (or was not publicised) should not be taken to mean that it did not happen. That's my view from the sidelines anyway. Personally, I think those charged with protecting the departure have enough to do without having to contend with those individuals turning up to see just how much they can get away with, for whatever reason. That does not say I would excuse their every action and doubtless, I think they may on occasion be over enthusiastic but the rub goes both ways.

So still there's no evidence presented that any of the terrorist attacks in the UK during the last ten years required photographs of airports. There's plenty of evidence that every terrorist attack in the UK during the last ten years required air, food, drink and money. I guess it's time to interrogate and detain people at UK airports too for breathing, eating, drinking and having money.