gglave

"There doesn't appear to be a K-9 on duty today, so you're OK with the drugs."

"I see ten security cameras, all of them on the west side of the hall, looking east."

etc.

oboshoe

Which they can still do 5 minutes after the leave customs.

Even if those were good reasons, it doesn't establish the authority to do so.

GUWonder

All those are excuses -- communicating such messages don't require a cell phone.

ESpen36

....Because most CBP inspectors are just ordinary working people like the rest of us. They are not high-profile officials, and do not get paid enough to deal with the nonsense of having a high profile. Unfortunately, one possible downside of their job is that they might have to deal with uncooperative/unpleasant travelers. What I'm saying is that they should not be exposed to public scrutiny in the course of doing their job. They're just worker bees. If there is a problem with inspection procedures, it should be taken up with the appropriate figurehead/boss who IS the "public face" and gets paid to take the heat if/when something goes wrong or if a traveler is unhappy.


Example:

Let's say a traveler is selected for a random secondary search. He is a bit peeved when the officer is rifling through his sex toys, so he pulls out his camera phone and takes a bunch of photos and videos of the officer inspecting his bag. He then makes a video and uploads it to YouTube.

Several days later, the video has "gone viral" and cable news pundits are screaming about abuses by CBP, etc. News trucks are camped out at the officer's house because some enterprising technician at a news station zoomed in on one of the videos and got a screen capture of the officer's name on her ID badge. From there it was easy to track down her home address. Later that day, some wacko at a convenience store recognizes the photo, drives over to the officer's home, and vandalizes it on live national TV.


This crime and general invasion of privacy could have been prevented if the officer involved in the search had remained anonymous from the general public. My opinion is that regardless of how egregious a potential violation of procedure might be, it should be an issue to be discussed between the officer and the supervisor (and the complaintant, if appropriate). Given today's information age, technology has the potential to create huge, huge problems by escalating issues to a public forum that could be dealt with on a much smaller scale.

So, that's a very long way of saying that I believe that the privacy/identity of NON-management customs inspectors is worth protecting.


(FWIW, we do the same thing here on FT--we do not post the full names of non-management industry employees, in order to protect their privacy. If you are a VP or CEO or something, tough luck--you CHOSE to be a public figurehead by virtue of your job, and part of your job is to take the heat. But if you're a working schmuck like most of us, I don't it's fair for a stranger to expose your identity to the entire online world while you were just trying to do your job.)

GUWonder

Government employees should be -- and should expect to be -- exposed to public scrutiny in the course of doing their job.

"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants": The late US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. So "Lights. Camera. Action." when it comes to government employees on the job, high and low.

http://www.law.louisville.edu/librar...ndeis/node/196

Those who are on the government's employment rolls should expect "a further call upon publicity for service".

exerda

Arrive at IAD during the bank of European arrivals...

Typically the line at Immigration is the longer of the two, but every time through IAD in the past year, there has then again been a line at Customs. Problem is typically there are far fewer agents working the latter (as few as three IME).

yyzvoyageur

Of course the customs officer may choose to conduct an intensive examination of that camera, inspecting it thoroughly from the beginning to the end of your interaction with him.

studentff

What most people here are complaining about is the prohibition on using phones/cameras in the (sometimes lengthy) queue, *not* prohibitions on using phones during interaction with CBP at the kiosk let along secondary screening.

Using the camera during interaction is a totally separate issue. Personally I think government employees should have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public encounters, particularly non-consensual encounters. And I think it should be a felony for law enforcement to attempt to suppress photography/filming/recording of their activities by anyone in a public place or by the owner of private property on which the officer is present. There are *way* too many cases of LEOs illegally demanding people turn off cameras, confiscating cameras, or using their bodies to block the view of their questionable activities.

GUWonder

That's old hack for the immigration/customs clerks, and it's not like those government employees are even aware of all the recording devices to which they have been subjected.

yyzvoyageur

I hate to be a pedant (well, honestly I revel in it), but you should consult the OED because you're misusing the work "clerk".

GUWonder

After giving a lie, at least we have a partial honest admission, albeit the above post ends in a lie (or, perhaps, a fundamental misunderstanding/ignorance of relevant definitions the word).

Here's another honest admission: the use of the word "clerk" remains entirely appropriate in my posts, including in alignment with dictionary definitions of such.

Better luck, next time.

elusive1

I always thought ist was odd as I can use my cell in the airplane after landing, but not once we get off.

yyzvoyageur

You didn't prove me wrong.

GUWonder

That was for you to do, yet you didn't -- it wasn't for me to do.

Government employees fulfilling administrative roles without policy-making positions: clerks. Immigration/customs clerks at US POEs.

yyzvoyageur

I'm sure CBP does employ clerks, but they're not the ones checking travel documents, examining luggage and enforcing laws.