You forgot the third alternative: you have security that actually works. Other countries manage it. Why is the US incapable of getting it right? The threat is certainly lower than in many other countries.

Yes but only with due process. DUI person is arrested and charged for a violation of the law. Second issue, the person is the operator of the motor vehicle, not a passenger.

If this evidence is not public then it doesn't exist as far as I am concerned.

The Constitution does not lay out rights. It lays out the framework of government and also the restrictions on government.

hmmm
 

I had to ponder this from my standpoint. The only reason the TSO alledgedly said that was because the filming could reveal shortcuts that he may have taken if he was not being filmed. Since he was being recorded, he went by the book or he could have been subject to discipline. There was no retaliation in his actions, after all it is on tape. It is the duty of the supervisor to not allow the release of any identication of any officers conducting screening. That is why he attempted to direct the camera away from the items mentioned.

If taking video is allowed, which it is per TSA, except for xray screens then how are peoples faces, name tags and such not expected to be recorded? Bigger question, why are so many TSA employees reluctant to be recorded? Ashamed of what you do?

Unless OP was physically violent - and there's no indication of that - there is no other side. The screener was wrong. The End. Doesn't matter how rude OP was. Doesn't matter how aggravating he was. The very instant that screener allowed himself to be drawn into game playing (because that's what that screener was doing), that screener made himself wrong. It. Is. The. Screeners. JOB. to deal with those sorts of behaviors without responding in kind. Why? Because the very instant that screener began game playing, that screener took his eye off his supposed primary mission. What greater failure is there? And he compounded his failure by an order of magnitude the instant he decided to use a 16-yr-old child as a pawn in his little game of one–upmanship.


Yes, it is really that much of an invasion. As administrative search is required to use the least intrusive method possible, not a method "a less intrusive than it possibly could be".


I personally believe you can't know and it doesn't matter what OP's intentions were. I personally believe any attempt to excuse that screener's massive failures is pretty sad....


~~ Irish

If that were so, then the screener would not have uttered the words he did to the father at the end of the screening.

Wow. I'm pretty dizzy from that spin.

A solid A+ for a TSA answer, though. You should write for the blog!

STRAW MAN ALERT! STRAW MAN ALERT! WHOOP! WHOOP! This one seems to be everywhere.

OPERATING a motor vehicle requires a license, just like OPERATING an aircraft. One must demonstrate competence to maintain the license.

However, there is no license required to be a PASSENGER in ANY form of transportation - horses, bikes, cars, buses, trains, planes, sleighs, gliders, parachutes (NOTE: the tandem kind, pax require no licensing)...

It is my considered opinion that you are lying. There is no such evidence. You are saying there is, but it's secret. Does that mean you have a government clearance and can access the information? Are you Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret cleared?

You do realize that even by saying such information exists, you'd be in violation of the rules you agreed to when you were cleared, which include never confirming or denying the existence of classified information to non-cleared persons? So, if you are telling the truth, and you do know for sure that such evidence exists because you are cleared and have access to it, you just committed a felony by confirming its existence in a public forum.

Or, as I said before, you're just pulling this unprovable and absurd assertion out of a random orifice to bolster a position which has no merit whatsoever.

FALSE ASSERTION ALERT! FALSE ASSERTION ALERT! Here we go again; someone always pulls this ridiculous assertion out when they're debating the government's violation of peoples' rights. Well, you're wrong, just wrong.

The Constitution does not give, grant, or create rights. The Bill of Rights lists some of the most important rights that all people are born with, and prohibits the government from denying or infringing upon them. However, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are NOT the only rights that the people have. It says so in so many words, in the Ninth Amendment:

In point of fact, the Constitution does not give, grant, or create ANYTHING for the people; it grants the government a limited license of authority over the people, and imposes deliberate, heavy restrictions on that authority, for the specific purpose of preventing government overreach and abuse. In fact, it says so, in so many words, in the Tenth Amendment:

So, basically, the 9th and 10th Amendments work together for a specific purpose. They mean that, A) EVERYTHING is a right (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, like murder, theft, etc), and the government MAY NOT infringe upon any of them unless it is granted explicit authority to do so by the Constitution, and B) unless a power to do something is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, the government does not have that power and is prohibited from doing that thing.

Flying is a RIGHT. Until the Constitution is amended to grant the government limited authority to deny the freedom of movement, flying is absolutely a RIGHT and anyone who says different is woefully ignorant of both the most basic ideals upon which the United States was founded and woefully ignorant of the historical examples of what happens when government is thought of as an entity with rights which override the rights of the people it governs.

Nonsense. This is in the SOP? Screeners are allowed to put their badge in their pocket? Tape over their name? Wear stocking masks to disguise who they are?

I claim if it can be seen in public with an eyeball, it can be filmed. With the monitor exceptions already mentioned on the web site. It's the same doctrine that allows filming of LEOs doing their duty. A public servant acting in public can have no expectation of privacy.

It goes with the job. If the staff isn't trained in this at indoctrination, then that's yet another management failure.

If this is true, then there is a greater problem: this particular TSO is only performing his duties according to the relevant regulations when he is being directly observed.

He said it to my son, not to me (pointing or nodding over to me). It was to "teach my son a lesson" that if you don't respect their authority, you get groped longer, even if you are a child.

If that's true, then this is a TSO who routinely puts pax (and co-workers) at risk by taking 'shortcuts' that are not by the book.

What you should have done it not stopped recording.

You missed the retaliatory patdown.

Retaliatory patdowns should be treated at a minimum as assault and battery under color of authority and if there is any genital contact that should be elevated to sexual assault.


You just want us to act as sheep and forget about our rights.

Have you tried a FOIA request?