Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

More TSOs banning filming, and a passenger written up for using names of body parts

More TSOs banning filming, and a passenger written up for using names of body parts

Old Jul 15, 11, 10:51 am
  #91  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 437
Qik should work over 3G, and my HTC Evo can record at 1280x720. Just tested it earlier today by taking a video and then taking the battery out of it before pushing stop, and it uploaded everything juuuusst fiiiiine.

Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
Many airports have Wi-Fi. An Eye-Fi card can easily be configured to automatically replicate stills and/or video to a remote location.

There are plenty of solutions to that sort of thing... stream the video to a powered-on laptop that is replicating to a remote location via Wi-Fi or via cellular, etc.
--Jon
Affection is offline  
Old Jul 15, 11, 10:51 am
  #92  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by LeapingFrogs View Post
I dunno man, I'm a techno geek, but I'm kinda thinking of going retro...
Bowtie Spy Cam. Oh ya.
And if the actual camera is confiscated as "evidence" by the police, and they turn out to be smarter than the ones who "erased" pmocek's data, you'll have nothing left...
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jul 15, 11, 11:07 am
  #93  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Affection View Post
The difference between Phil and I is that I don't rack up attorney's fees, as I handle the courts myself. Defendants hate me because they can't win by making things take a long time and therefore using up my legal funds.
Although that's true in civil cases, there are many reasons (none of which relate to legal experience) why defending yourself in a criminal case is a very bad idea. As the saying goes "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jul 15, 11, 11:27 am
  #94  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
And if the actual camera is confiscated as "evidence" by the police, and they turn out to be smarter than the ones who "erased" pmocek's data, you'll have nothing left...
LOL, that's ok, I just really want a bowtie camera ... it's so KGB/CIA covert double-agent, international spy; ya know? I'd be known as La Femme Nikita in all the papers when I got caught. LOL
LeapingFrogs is offline  
Old Jul 15, 11, 11:53 am
  #95  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: AA 1MM
Posts: 3,182
Originally Posted by LeapingFrogs View Post
LOL, that's ok, I just really want a bowtie camera ... it's so KGB/CIA covert double-agent, international spy; ya know? I'd be known as La Femme Nikita in all the papers when I got caught. LOL
Might I suggest that a woman walking through the airport wearing a bow time could potentially, in and of itself, arouse suspicion?
JumboD is offline  
Old Jul 15, 11, 1:20 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by JumboD View Post
Might I suggest that a woman walking through the airport wearing a bow time could potentially, in and of itself, arouse suspicion?
Maybe, maybe not, that really depends on where the tie is worn.
jtodd is offline  
Old Jul 15, 11, 3:26 pm
  #97  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Programs: WN A++, Marriott Plat, Avis 1
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by LeapingFrogs View Post
Ya, didn't know what that meant either... all that kept going through my mind was Johnny dipping Sally's braid in the ink well and the teacher telling him "it's going on his permanant record" LOL.
It's been discussed in other threads, but the TSO is most likely writing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). It's to add the name of the person reported into an intelligence database of domestic extremists, terrorists, etc. Software and analysts attempt to correlate different SARs into patterns that might lead to discovery of plots, map out terror cells, that type of thing. The database is a shared anti-terrorism resource between intelligence agencies. A lot of the early opt-out people had their name & ID copied for these reports. The information is submitted via the TSA Operations Center Incident Management System.

It almost seems like a good idea until you realize that idiots like that TSO continually populate the database with false and unsubstantiated (non-suspicious activity) reports -- so in the end it's a massive boondoggle of random, innocent names all ending up on a watchlist - resulting in a colossal waste of resources. Real terrorists sit around counting rocks in a shack somewhere in Yemen while our government runs around persecuting innocent Americans. "See Something Say Something" expands on that idea so *anyone* can report their neighbor or boss. TSOs can put you in the system and you cannot refuse, and they will not make you aware that they're doing it.

In instances where personal information is collected in order to verify identity, the individual is provided an 5 U.S.C. 552(e)(3) notice prior to the collection of information. Where PII is collected as part of a criminal investigation, TSA will not provide notice and has previously published a Final Rule after public comment to exempt TSA from the notice requirement in such circumstances. In instances where TSA receives personal information as part of suspicious activity reports, the individual is unlikely to have knowledge that his/her information has been submitted to the system and there is no opportunity for TSA to provide notice.
VegasCableGuy is offline  
Old Jul 16, 11, 9:34 pm
  #98  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,127
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much View Post
How can anyone in the TSA justify this?

Blogdad Bob, the silence is deafening.

I know...they will be re-trained, right?
At BWI? They just skip the retraining and give a pat on the back.

Thanks for the laugh, Flies, I needed it.

I still haven't heard anything back on my last two complaints filed. One of them conveniently bounced and I sent it directly to the guy who it was supposed to go to. Not a word on that one.

And the TSI who supposedly took my complaint seriously? Haven't heard from him.

Flying out of BWI in a few weeks. I'll have a witness with me this time as I wear the shirt. Should be interesting.
Superguy is offline  
Old Jul 18, 11, 11:17 am
  #99  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by WillCAD View Post
This incident got me fuming, because it was only 2 or 3 weeks ago that I confirmed with MAA (Maryland Aviation Administration, the MD gov't agency that operates BWI and a few other airports) that they do not prohibit photography in the terminal, or in the checkpoints. I sent another email to the person with whom I corresponded a few weeks ago.
Did you receive any reply?

I e-mailed BWI about photography, including at checkpoints, and just received the following reply, I'm assuming from the same woman.

Yes, photography is allowed at BWI Marshall. We do not limit where you may take photos.

Thank you for contacting BWI Marshall.

Lynda Warehime
Manager Passenger Sales
BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport
saulblum is offline  
Old Jul 18, 11, 4:00 pm
  #100  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,108
Originally Posted by saulblum View Post
Did you receive any reply?

I e-mailed BWI about photography, including at checkpoints, and just received the following reply, I'm assuming from the same woman.
Yes, that is the person with whom I corresponded a few weeks ago. It was a pleasant email conversation in which she answered all of my questions with friendly professionalism. I also liked the answers I got.

I have not received any reply to the last email I sent suggesting that the MDTA officers be informed of the actual policies. Because of the inflammatory nature of the subject, I think it's possible that she passed it on up and has not yet received any reply herself.

I hope I get at least some acknowledgment from her, though, even if it's just to tell me that she received my email and will pass it on the proper authorities.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Jul 18, 11, 4:14 pm
  #101  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by WillCAD View Post
Yes, that is the person with whom I corresponded a few weeks ago. It was a pleasant email conversation in which she answered all of my questions with friendly professionalism. I also liked the answers I got.

I have not received any reply to the last email I sent suggesting that the MDTA officers be informed of the actual policies. Because of the inflammatory nature of the subject, I think it's possible that she passed it on up and has not yet received any reply herself.

I hope I get at least some acknowledgment from her, though, even if it's just to tell me that she received my email and will pass it on the proper authorities.
I relayed the message from Lynda to the YouTube poster. I urged him in a private message to pursue this matter with the TSA, and to also bring it to the media's attention. I suggested that instead of focusing on Constitutional issues that some may consider abstract and irrelevant, that he instead concentrate on the fitness of these two TSOs for protecting our airspace. In other words, if they so adamantly do not understand the TSA's photography policy, and are so easily distracted from their duties to spend well over a minute harassing his wife, are they really the best people for entrusting the "last line of defense against terrorism"? If they don't understand the photography policy, what else don't they understand about keeping airspace safe? I feel that would resonate a lot better with many people than claims of "the TSOs violated by First and Fourth Amendment rights".
saulblum is offline  
Old Jul 18, 11, 9:36 pm
  #102  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,108
Originally Posted by saulblum View Post
I relayed the message from Lynda to the YouTube poster. I urged him in a private message to pursue this matter with the TSA, and to also bring it to the media's attention. I suggested that instead of focusing on Constitutional issues that some may consider abstract and irrelevant, that he instead concentrate on the fitness of these two TSOs for protecting our airspace. In other words, if they so adamantly do not understand the TSA's photography policy, and are so easily distracted from their duties to spend well over a minute harassing his wife, are they really the best people for entrusting the "last line of defense against terrorism"? If they don't understand the photography policy, what else don't they understand about keeping airspace safe? I feel that would resonate a lot better with many people than claims of "the TSOs violated by First and Fourth Amendment rights".
That's a legitimate issue, of course.

But when they put Al Capone away for tax evasion, they did a tremendous disservice to the families of all of those people he murdered.

I'd much rather have the entire organization be forced to obey the supreme law of our republic - the Constitution - than to have a couple of TSOs disciplined or fired for stupidity or incompetence. Getting rid of the symptoms will not cure the disease, and the disease in this case is that an agency of the US federal government is flagrantly violating the Constitution and stripping the rights from millions of people on a daily basis as a matter of its official policy.

Two guys out of 65,000 getting canned won't cure that disease.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Jul 18, 11, 9:57 pm
  #103  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
Angry

Originally Posted by WillCAD View Post
Two guys out of 65,000 getting canned won't cure that disease.
I agree with you completely. I was thinking more in terms of the public's reaction, if this story were brought forward to the media. Too many people out there still believe the TSA is doing a great job protecting them, and could not care less about the Fourth Amendment. It is the "If you don't like it, then don't fly" crowd that needs to see the light. So instead of appealing to Constitutional violations, the thinking needs to be simpler:

  • Neither the TSA nor BWI have policies against photographing checkpoints.
  • These two TSOs clearly did not know this, and took themselves away from their duties for several minutes to harass a passenger over a rule they made up. What other policies don't they know about aviation safety?
  • If they are so easily distracted by a passenger who was not violating any policy, what were they missing while other passengers were going through the checkpoints?

Of course, the same "If you don't like it, then don't fly" crowd might just retort that the YouTube poster's wife was asking for trouble by filming and distracting the TSOs, and they she's the one who should be punished, totally glossing over the above.

So maybe it's hopeless after all.
saulblum is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: