ND Sol

Here's one "from INSIDE the checkpoint" at IAH:

InkUnderNails

Not at all. Sorry, it must be me.

I will try one more time before giving up. I really do not have the inclination to play these games today.

Answer this question if you can. If you can not or do not know, simply say that, it is not a problem to me if you do not have permission to answer or do not know the answer.

Bart

It's you.

I'm tired of repeating myself. I don't know why you can't accept what I've posted and move on.

InkUnderNails

It is not that I do not accept it I do not understand it. I gave you an opportunity for a one letter answer and you write three sentences.

Yeah, I'm done too.

TSORon

You are correct, a link such as you say you would like in this post does not exist, but then again that was not the link I was offering now was it.

You are making some invalid assumptions here. I do not need “suspicion” to report such activity, I have a directive that requires me to do so. “Right”, “wrong”, or otherwise is not my place to determine, the directive says to report it to my supervisor and you can bet your very last dollar that I will.

See above. Tee up the “BS” meter, and then tee up the part of the law that say that as long as I am performing my duties as directed and within the law that I have “qualified immunity”. Bivens can have that party all by himself, since no one will be attending.

So, you are claiming that you know what our procedures are? If such were the case then you would not have made that statement. And as for hiding these things, were we doing that then your comment could not have been made as the information would not have been available to you. TSA tends to air its dirty laundry in public, or haven’t you noticed?

I’m not Bart, ask him why he thinks the way he does. What I do know is that he and I will both report it, and have said so quite clearly, because we are required to do so. The legality or illegality of the reported action is of no concern to us, not in this context. We have no choice, our duties require that we report it.

Maybe you should go back and look at the context of the statements before commenting. It would be the “wise” thing to do.

Wimpie

TSA Watch: Take a picture of a checkpoint, go to jail?

http://www.elliott.org/blog/tsa-watc...nt-go-to-jail/

Scare Tactics it seems.

Ellie M

So it is in writing....

A directive is not law. Performing your duties as directed does not give you immunity from a Bivens action. If you are violating the law, it doesn't matter that you were told by your supervisor, or even Pistole, to violate it.

TSORon

Please read what I wrote. You missed something. @:-)

Ellie M

I did read what you wrote. Why don't you just tell me what I "missed" instead of being cryptic?

TSORon

OK. Hope this helps.

(Emphasis added)

Ellie M

Thank you.

A government employee reporting people for taking photographs, a legal activity that is protected by the First Amendment, is not acting within the law. Regardless of whether you have a directive telling you to do so.

JoeBas

Of course it is.

There's no law preventing any non-LEO individual from telling Law Enforcement authorities about legal actions. You're free to go into your local police department and complain about people doing the speed limit down your street to your heart's content.

The trick is, if you make a habit of that, the Police will start treating you accordingly.

It's far past time the REAL, SWORN LEO's who these 2 year olds run to and tattle about perfectly legal things start telling them, point blank, to get their heads dislodged from their rectums and quit wasting their valuable time.

Ellie M

If you purposefully report something that you know is legal to the police that could constitute making a false police report. Regardless of whether that constitutes making a false police report, if a government agent in the course of his duties acts to chill free speech, for example by reporting it, that would constitute a First Amendment violation.

WillCAD

Ah, so now we're getting somewhere - there actually IS a TSA directive to report photography at the checkpoint to a TSA supervisor (or is it only photograph of the x-ray monitors? Please clarify.)

My question was, FROM WHOM did that directive come? Was it a memo? Was it verbal? Is it printed in some manual or pamphlet? WHO TOLD YOU that it is a job requirement of TSOs to report imaging of the x-ray scanner screens to your supervisor or to LEOs?

But, Ron, it is our position that said duties are NOT within the law. You see, calling LEOs to report someone doing something that is perfectly legal and permissible is actually NOT allowed; it's called making a false report. If it is an official policy of a federal agency, then it must be a pattern of behavior, and a consistent pattern of such behavior, which has the potential to cause serious difficulties, delays, or baseless increased screening of the photographer, would fit the legal definition of harassment. PTravel, am I in the ballpark here with my legal suppositions?

Basically, Ron, your agency is requiring you to violate the law. "It's my job! I am only following orders!" didn't excuse the guys at Nuremberg, and it doesn't excuse TSOs who engage in such harassing behavior to cover what is really their OWN ineptitude - because those who configured those x-ray monitors, the contents of which are SSI, in such a manner as to be plainly visible to the public, are violating TSA's SSI rules, as they have been explained here on FT (i.e., it's not illegal for the public to possess or disseminate SSI, but it is against agency policy for any TSA employee to disseminate SSI to a non-covered person).

Would you post an SSI document on a wall in the terminal where everyone could see it? No? Then those monitors, if they are indeed SSI, should also be protected from prying eyes.

And even if they're not SSI, or secret, or restricted, and the only consideration here was passenger privacy, it's still harassment for TSA to "report" people for taking photos of them, when TSA is the one who PUT THEM OUT THERE WHERE EVERYONE CAN SEE THEM in the first place.

Bad form, old bean. Bad form, indeed.

I know what John Pistole has said several times, both in interviews and in sworn testimony before Congress - children under 12 are not to be patted down, and AIT/pat-downs are NOT to be used as primary screening methods.

So, is that NOT the policy? Is Pistole lying? Or is he simply unaware of the actual policies of the agency he heads? Or is it that these ARE the policies, and TSA is continuing to flagrantly violate them on a regular basis by patting down children under 12 and by using the AIT/pat-down regimen as a primary method?

As for the dirty laundry carp, TSA tends to lose video of incidents, except those incidents where the complainant was obviously off their rocker, such as the crazy woman who claimed that TSOs took her child away from her during screening, but the video showed clearly that her child was with her the entire time.

And TSOs tend to try to cover up their dirty laundry on site, by blocking legal, permissible photography and videography of the screening process with their bodies and bins, or with threats and coercion.

sbrower

I am afraid that you are mistaken. The First Amendment doesn't protect all speech, or all photography in public, etc. If you want to have a legal discussion you need to think about the actual application of the law. If a government agent (i.e. - a LEO) sees you taking photographs of children in a public park (clearly a public location), and if you have been there for three days in a row, and if you have been taking the pictures from about three feet away, even if you have been kind and clean and nice, they are likely to ask you for your name, some identification, your purpose, etc. And if the Park Ranger (a government employee) reported you for the exact same conduct it would not be unlawful, especially if the report was truthful.