Boggie Dog

Thanks

tkey75

That's a scary document on many levels.

1- Establishing that TSA can tell you to not record video

2- Exposing the government's extreme prejudice towards dissenters.

yandosan

This is more like taunting, and is ridiculous IMO. There's a difference between wanting to photograph/videotape for a reason, and then doing it just to see if you can get a reaction to post to YouTube. No different than walking around calling people jerks to their faces with a video until you can get someone to get mad and punch you.


Really, standing up for your 1st Amendment rights in the face of tyranny
is the same as walking around calling random people jerks? Thanks for the
enlightenment, Slappy. You sound really intelligent.

Eryeal

Just as intelligent as you - "standing up for 1st Amendment rights in the face of tyranny". As if holding a camera up waiting to see if a TSA officer will tell you to stop filming so you can post it on youtube is in any way comparable to those ACTUALLY standing up to real tyranny. That's an insult to those giving their lives actually battling tyranny - my guess is if that's what you really had to do, you'd be the first one running in the opposite direction. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard - a TSA employee telling you to stop filming equates to tyranny.

tkey75

An interesting quote, as you're posting in a thread discussing a court case in which the plaintiff has been denied relief because according to this judge, the TSA can demand you stop filming.

NauticalWheeler

You do realize that you are exposed to many times more radiation on a flight compared to the body scanner, right?

"Most people are unaware about the fact that there is significant radiation exposure associated with air travel because they are well above the Earth's atmosphere," said Robert J. Barish, a radiological and health physicist in New York City. "You'd get as much radiation in a whole-body scanner as you'd get in two minutes at 30,000 feet."

http://news.discovery.com/human/heal...-radiation.htm

Eryeal

Shhhhhh ... don't brings facts into these conversations - that's like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

nachtnebel

Statistically speaking, someone is going to get cancer from those devices. Not many, but someone is.

You do realize that MMW technology does not give off ionized radiation at all, right? So, as a matter of policy, why would you choose a solution that does?

Eryeal

Doesn't make too much sense in the long run - saying that a scanner is going to give you cancer, but being exposed to magnitudes greater of the same radiation right after you go through the scanner and get on your flight .... to say that the scanner is going to do it, rather than the magnitudes of radiation you are going to receive on the flight - is quite a stretch.

Fredd

Yes, the TSA is on record in the New York Times stating "the machines are inspected for problems at least once a year."

As for hospitals...

"A facility where X ray equipment is periodically tested and maintained by qualified staff adds to confidence. Appropriately qualified staff is essential and adds to quality. Radiation safety involves awareness and practice of patient dose management with due regard to image quality. Where available, accreditation of a facility by the appropriate organization or agency is generally recognized as an indication of approval."

Say, once a year is "periodically," isn't it?

And I wish I hadn't read nos. 4 and 5 in that IAEA link.

chollie

Read up on it.

The radiation during flight does not strike the body in the same way.

The scanner radiation is focused directly on the skin - a smaller part of your body receives a much greater targeted dose.

Further, who said this is all about pax? Do you think TSOs don't deserve a safe working environment? If you don't care about their health, do you care as a taxpayer about the long term medical costs that might result?

Even medical machinery fails, or gets calibrated improperly. And medical equipment is available for independent screening.

The EU decided against the machines, in part because the safety is not verified. Ironically, I don't believe they were refused primarily because of safety concerns - the failure rate was so high as to render them useless. There was no point in spending further time and study to prove that they were not only useless, but unsafe.

Without independent testing (like the machines in my hospital and doctor's office), no one really knows how effective the shielding or how accurate the data about exposure is. The TSOs are not allowed to wear dosimeters, nor are they allowed to post a dosimeter on the machine itself. This is not a budget issue - AFGE offered to provide them at no cost to TSA, but TSA refused. Why?

FliesWay2Much

I assume you realize that this is a completely invalid comparison, right? Do some searching here and you will read all sorts of posts from physicists and medical professionals. I am an engineer myself and completely agree with them. For starters, the radiation emitted from a cancer box is highly correlated and is focused on the skin. Random radiation and even a dental x-ray goes completely through the body. Every time you submit to a cancer box, you increase your lifetime does of radiation that targets and remains concentrated on your skin and the region just below your skin.

Oh yeah, there is a distinct risk to your eyes.

Oh yeah, most of the naturally-occurring radiation in the stratosphere is attenuated (big scientific word for "blocked") by the airplane's fuselage and never reaches the passengers inside.

This doctor is embarrassingly simplifying the issue.

Fredd

I've read through it as best as I can. It almost appears as if the act of filming, which was a major factor in your exoneration on the criminal charges (do I have that right?) is making your civil case very problematical.

The judge seems to me to be saying it wasn't unreasonable of the TSA to call the police when you refused to stop filming, because nobody has yet established in a high court that you have a "right" to film there, and because you were "distracting" the TSA.

These words of the judge particularly concern me:

And he then cites a dictionary definition of disturbance: "...defining "disturb" as "to turn or distract (a person) by disturbance..."

Ergo, if the TSA tells you to stand "over there" and you say or do anything that they say "disturbs" them, or, as the judge synonymizes, "distracts" them, they have grounds to call the police, and the police in turn have grounds to suspect you, to demand i.d., and to arrest you.

Ironically, if the judge carries through with this line of reasoning, pax will have to make the utmost of efforts in future not to "distract" the TSA. "You're beginning to distract me" can supplant "Do you want to fly today?"

These are just my layman's observations. Somebody please provide an educated - and hopefully more optimistic - analysis.

It also appears to me to be a quite different view of an individual's rights at the checkpoint than presented here by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling (brought to my attention by Friendly Skies):

WillCAD

Cameras are allowed. Filming is allowed. It's been established time and again, not only by official TSA policy, but in multiple courts around the country. When a government actor or group of such take it upon themselves to violate that legal precept, they're breaking the law and violating peoples' rights. That's tyranny, whether they do it by harassment or by shooting cameramen down on sight.

I tend to seriously doubt the scientific veracity of facts presented by a man who actually thinks that commercial aircraft fly "well above the earth's atmosphere."

Um, Bobby... things that fly above the atmosphere are called "spacecraft", not "aircraft." And as far as I know, none of the air carriers operating in the US today offer extraatmospheric flight options. Though that would be pretty cool. Starflight, anyone?

SDF_Traveler

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...t-chest-trial/

Similar case. Man jailed on disorderly conduct charges. Files federal lawsuit seeking damages for being detained on d/c charge.

It appears the trial court judge ruled against the man, but the Appeals (court) in the 4th circuit ruled 2-1 and reversed a lower court judge.

SDF