Publically Requesting to be Recorded
 

The ORD grope video, coupled with all the other instances of TSA making a stink about videotaping (or videoNANDflashstoragedevicing) at checkpoints got me thinking - assuming that one is at an airport without statutory prohibitions against recording/photography, what could one expect if one requested out loud that someone else at the checkpoint record their gropedown?

I'm making a few assumptions in this case that I'm hoping shouldn't matter too much, but I'll state them to be sure:
-Assume the pax is traveling alone or with a companion who does not have a recording device.
-Assume the pax does not have his/her own recording device to lend to another pax
-Assume the pax has not been bullied into a private room(1)
-Assume that baggage X-ray and/or cancertron screens are not within view
-Assume the pax has a reasonable amount of time to catch his/her flight and is not skin-of-teething their trip through Checkpoint Charlie.

The reason I ask is that I've heard TSOs say that they forbid videography (even though TSA officially does doesn't does doesn't does doesn't...) because they're protecting the privacy of the groping victim. "You can't videotape without the consent of the person being screened." By publically announcing your desire to be recorded (and, if you can work it in, requesting people who have Qik/Ustream accounts) that pretty much blows that argument out of the water.

I can think of a few issues that would likely come up and I'm hoping we can get some clarification on what to expect:

-TSOs lie, we know this. It's reasonable to expect that they'd claim their monitors are being recorded (even when they plainly aren't) and that people must therefore cease recording immediately. How do we counter this? If it's 25 people all recording at once, sheer numbers make it more or less a moot point. If it's just one or two, it may be trickier to get the TSO to back down.

-Other pax, be they kettles or just people who are mistaken about photography and its legal status, may interfere and say that recording isn't allowed. Same mentality as the guy who said "You're supposed to freeze" during Code Bravo Freeze Tag. How would one get around this? Reasonably we could just ignore those people but if they're AFSers who freak easily, they may call the police. This would be another case where strength in numbers would be useful but it'd still be potentially problematic, especially if the LEO is a rookie and/or sides with TSA.

Questions, answers, and any other thoughts/ideas on this are welcome.

(1) Has it been established that recording is permitted in the private room, or am I mistaken about that?

I'd estimate your chances of getting a complete stranger to participate in your interaction with the TSA workers to be roughly zero.

Unless it's a FT campaigner like <name redacted> ;) .

I suspect plenty of people on here would point a camera so long as they had the time and the equipment.

Statutory prohibitions against videotaping in public places are unconstitutional.

Do you mean practically, or as a matter of law?

That is contrary to law. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and of of the justifications for the 4th Amendment exception to the airport administrative search is that it be performed publicly.

There are no legal arguments in support of prohibiting videotaping.

By calmly explaining that the TSO is mistaken as to the law, and then ignoring him.


If it's 25 people all recording at once, sheer numbers make it more or less a moot point. If it's just one or two, it may be trickier to get the TSO to back down.

-Other pax, be they kettles or just people who are mistaken about photography and its legal status, may interfere and say that recording isn't allowed. Same mentality as the guy who said "You're supposed to freeze" during Code Bravo Freeze Tag. How would one get around this? Reasonably we could just ignore those people but if they're AFSers who freak easily, they may call the police. This would be another case where strength in numbers would be useful but it'd still be potentially problematic, especially if the LEO is a rookie and/or sides with TSA.[/quote]If the LEO sides with TSA, they are not following the law. Explain to them calmly that the law permits videotaping in public.

Don't go to the private room. Period.

Count me in! ^

I probably wouldn't scream out "Could someone please record this with their cell phone??" But, since my phone is running the whole time I am there, I would happily pick it up when it's accessible and aim it at someone else's grope if they called out for that kind of help.

I would also voluntarily record a grope without someone calling for it, and of course I would offer to give it to them. I wouldn't post it or share it without their consent, but that's just me.

Tell that to MA where it's illegal without consent from all parties.

No, seriously. Tell them.

Have you a cite to the statute?

I'd like to see that too. Do all of the Red Sox and Pats fans on their way to and from the stadium sign waivers? I see them on TV all the time.

Yep, I would be happy to assist.

I have put FT tags on my carry on. If you see me, just ask.

At one point in time, yes. TSA released instruction about that sometime between yesterday and last sunday, which I just learned about today.

My interpretation of it, and the Bald Guy in the Suit's interpretation of it as well, has been put down.

It is now generally not permitted.

Hi, HSVTSO Dean,

Can you tell me (assuming it's not SSI -- I don't want you to risk your job), what happens when someone refuses to go to a private room? I've never had to have a resolution pat down, but I am convinced of the unconstitutionality of requiring I go to a private room and have no intention of doing so.

Oh, I couldn't imagine it being SSI.

If a particular screening process requires a private screening, and the passenger out-and-out refuses to do it, then it qualifies as their refusing to undergo the screening process. It doesn't matter that they would agree to do it so long as it's done in the public area -- the procedure of the particular process requires a private screening.

If the screening process can't be completed, then the passenger can't be allowed entrance into the sterile area.

There is something absolutely wrong with this, being forced to go into a private room just to be able to travel. What about a witness? Fellow traveller? LEO? Why can't I videotape, or have videotaped, the process? What does TSA have to hide?

No way in Hades would I ever go into a private room with these people, especially with no recourse to protecting myself. Don't want to fly? Fine, I'll get to the gate another way. Don't think I can? You'll see.

You *&$^ with people long enough, and you'll have a revolution on your hands.

If you want. You do have the right to a witness of your choosing to accompany you.* It even says so right on the sign at the entrance to the private screening room.

* - Assuming they want to. If you just pick some random person and they don't want to do it, we can't force them to be a witness for you.

Hi Dean,

Thanks for discussing this with us. I'm wondering if you can explain why I'm seeing more and more accounts of people not allowed to have their witness, even if they ask for it. The most notable one is the infamous old gal wearing an adult diaper. From everything I could tell, her daughter just had to wait outside the door for her. I think Chaffetz' minor daughter was also separated from her mother to a private room.

I don't know the details or veracity of all the accounts I've seen, but they are numerous enough to make me believe it happens (between 5 and 10 instances since I started paying attention last winter). Sometimes the witness is denied, sometimes a witness isn't explicitly offered.

Thanks again.

No, I can't. I can only talk about what's officially supposed to happen, or what I personally see. The only time that anyone who's ever required a private screening with me requested a witness, I said...

"Sure, not a problem."

And then we all crammed into the room (the passenger, their witness, me, another TSO [who acts as our witness]) and proceeded with the screening.

Just an aside: I got hugged today. By a passenger. I'll tell that story later.

So since really any TSO want to answer this question maybe you can.

I dont want to be touched by a stranger at all. I was raped as a young girl.If I have to choose to be screnned or not to fly. I have to be choose the screnning since it would be a flight to my birth country and I cant miss that.

However if that comes up I would strip off all my clothes. What would happened?

You would be arrested.

I hate the fact that this is right, but it is right.

Tanja, what you have to understand is that TSA is NOT a reasonable, sensible or logical institution. It's the government-agency equivalent of a spoiled 3-year-old throwing tantrums and wanting everything MINE MINE MINE MINE NOW NOW NOW NOW NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!

TSA wants to see you naked, but they insist that it's on their terms. One of those terms is that we don't force them to confront the truth of what they're doing. If you were to strip your clothes off, it would force them to admit that "yeah, that's what we wanted." So they insist on using hazardous radiation to see you almost-basically-but-not-quite-really naked. That way they can lie, to the public and to themselves, about what's really happening and still secretly get off on seeing you naked. The fact that the machines line their buddies' pockets is just icing on the cake and convenient political motivation to feed their egos.

If you refuse that, they don't consider it a reasonable exercise of your rights, but rather an insult to their authority. Authority, mind you, that they don't really have, but they think they have it and are willing to get their knickers in a twist over it. So they punish people for refusing by molesting them physically. Again, they refuse to confront the truth of what they're doing and so they use words like "resistance" and get really really defensive if people try to point out the anatomical terms that "resistance" really applies to. They're rapists but they don't want to feel like rapists.

As a rape victim yourself (an injustice for which, by the way, you have my deepest sympathy and compassion) I'm sure you've heard the explanation that rape is about power and control. That mentality is what makes TSOs rapists - they draw their amusement from exerting power and control over the bodies of travelers. Young and old, men and women, all classes and all races and all walks of life, they'll molest and abuse them all the same because none of those criteria matter - they're just little details to a TSO. TSOs care about exerting power and feeling powerful, so they'll molest anyone they can get their blue nitrile gloves on.

You taking your clothes off is an expression of your own control over your situation. THAT's what they hate, THAT's why they'll flip out and scream "indecent exposure" even though they're seeing more or less the same damn thing on their screens. They want what they want, but they want to get it THEIR WAY and not yours.

Hmm.

It's an interesting question, actually. There are situations in the screening process that allows for visual inspection in lieu of physical inspection (a la undergarment body piercings in sensitive areas of the body). Logically, this would seem like just an extension of that, and would even seem to be appropriate given the extenuating circumstances surrounding your past. It satisfies the screening requirements as I understand them to be, and is tailored to your own personal needs, which is something we're supposed to try to do.

I don't personally see how this would be a problem, and I could see it going like this:

1. It would be in a private screening area.
2. There would be two TSOs present - and, given the sensitivity of the issue, one of those present would likely end up being an LTSO or an STSO. Like any other private screening, you could obviously have a witness in there yourself, if you so choose.
3. The clothing would need to be physically inspected after the disrobing, prior to you putting it back on.

Note, however, that this is conjecture and logical deduction. If I were in charge, that's how I would do it (or, more specifically, how I would direct it to be done. Obviously, I wouldn't be one of the two in the room with you, given as how I'm not a female).

Does this work?
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/massachusetts.html

These statutes don't apply to public videotaping, but to taping conversations without consent.

Would not the verbal interaction between a TSA worker and a passenger constitute a conversation ?

I don't know Massachusetts law. In most states, these are privacy statutes that apply to conversations for which there is an expectation of privacy.

IANAL, so can you help me understand how videotaping a conversation and audiotaping a conversation are viewed differently in the eyes of the law?

Gray area in Illinois.

See above.

Thank you for answering her question and the compassion that you showed in doing so. These answers, as I understand you, are not SOP, but how you would handle the situation. My next questions may or may not be able to be answered without revealing SSI, but here goes.

2. Would the LTSO or STSO that are required to be present also be required to be of the same sex? Would both TSOs have to observe the removal of the clothes? Would the person be allowed keep their underwear on, or to wear a drape or cover to cover up sensitive naked areas (breasts, buttox, genitals) like they do in a doctors office until the actual moment of examination?
3. Would the clothing have to be taken out of the private room to be examined, say to be tested for explosive residue?

I suspect the strip search is always a comprehensive strip, ie, if there's an anomaly in the chest region, the 'crotchal' area will still have to be 'cleared' even if there was no apparent anomaly.

This is how I understand it after asking questions about it for some time.

If you disrobe down to your undies, you will be asked to put on a drape but you will still have a pat down. If you have any kind of clothes on you , you will get one.

I am talking about all the clothes nothing on you.
To me it doesnt make any kind of sence to leave my undies on cause I will still get a grope.
The point and/or reason to me to do it my way is so I dont get touched period.

Hopefully this will never happen to me. But who knows since all my flights are to Europe.

Thank you for answering me.

About a witness. Not in my case. I dont think my grown up son would like to see his mother without clothes. And my partner would be pissed off that some one is looking at me.

Bolding mine...
HSVDean,
Is this true? If so, why on God's green earth would a person that has stripped down to their undies not be able to be cleared visually?
Please give us a straight-forward, truthful answer, unless your job is in jeopardy if you do.

Sounds true.

There have been instances at various checkpoints where someone was told to cover-up for the patdown. You have to wonder...if it's about security, why have TSOs objected to folks going through checkpoints without shirts, in bikinis, in spandex body suits...One would think that the less flesh that a groper has to grope, the better for the groper and the pax, but they sure don't seem to see it that way. You want to get TSOs riled at a checkpoint, line up and take your shirt off and watch the reaction.

And please, we don't need TSOs telling us "think of the children" like that jerk that got upset when someone used the word 'penis' before the grope. Hello? He's worried some little kid might hear the word 'penis', but he's not worried that same little kid (possibly of opposite gender) will watch him grope that same penis and wonder what's going on?

(I'm thinking of that iconic picture of the middle-aged male screener down on his knees with his hand in the older gentleman's business. Kids will find that image less unsettling than hearing the word 'penis' or seeing someone without a shirt or in a bikini going through the checkpoint?)

They clearly have issues with visual screening. They really really want hands-on. I suspect you would have to strip naked, put on a drape, get groped through the drape, have your clothes inspected and swabbed. And I'm confident that no matter where the anomaly is, you will not leave without a full-body grope.

@:-) Hmm... Anyone have any old wrestling singlets from high school that you barely fit into? How about wearing them to the checkpoint, just to see what reaction you get. That certainly can't be considered indecent... after all, it was OK for minor children to been seen wearing it in public.

I may have a flight coming up shortly. Perhaps I'll try this at IAD and see what their reaction is. Again, it can't be considered "indecent" as people stand in public every day without wearing shirts.

My response would be: "But I *am* thinking of the children. I'm acting in this manner to show just how ridiculous your policies are, in hope that they will cease. I'm sure I'm just as upset about you fondling little boys' penises and little girls' breasts as you are about actually doing it.

The next time I fly, I'm going to consider playing a little 'game' with the TSO. As he tells me exactly what he's going to do in the pat-down, I'm going to tell him what my reaction will be - to loudly call out the name of the body part being touched.There's nothing that precludes people from engaging in that type of conduct during a TSA frisking. You're not shouting anything obscene, and not preventing the TSO from doing his frisk - hence not 'interfering' with the screening process.

People just need to figure out 'cute' ways of harassing TSOs while not interfering with the screening process - today's version of a peaceful demonstration. Think about this...

If enough people were to take a minute or two to figure out their names when asking to recite them, this could cause a back-up.

And then if those same folks insisted upon a TSA frisk instead of going through the cancer machine, this creates another problem as folks begin to line up perhaps a dozen or so deep.

Another problem can be created by feigning a hearing problem when the TSOs make requests, causing them to repeat themselves a few times before action is taken.

Another problem can be created by intentionally carrying a couple bottles of water in your bag while going through the checkpoint. If the bottles aren't discovered, then quickly "discover" them yourself just before leaving the checkpoint. Hold them up and make a big deal out of it, acting like you are surprised about them, and apologizing profusely for forgetting about them. Make TSA look like fools in the process.

Another situation can be created to draw TSO attention elsewhere by whipping out your cell phone and starting to record video - or at least making it look like you are. I'm sure that will attract the attention of at least 1 or 2 people.

Overwhelm them. If that isn't enough, cause them stress. Push them to the edge. They're only human, so it's only a matter of time before they can't take the pressure and wind up cracking. And then, if they crack on you, be ready to file a lawsuit - not necessarily against TSA, but against them personally. Show them how society can intentionally stack the deck of cards against them, simply because of the job they do and the employer they have.

Drape is a word I have never heard until this forum.
Most foreigners will not understand to put on a drape. since they have no clue what it is.

So what are they going to do then? Arrest every person who dont put on the drape and walks out to them butt naked?

Also after what I have read about women who wears skirts and have to put on a drape. They get groped under the drape til "resistance" is met. Being naked under the drape that means touching bare skin.

Just please don't do it with a "Borat Slingshot."

Seriously. Please. Don't.

Oh, dear Lord! If I saw someone do that, I think I'd be laughing hard enough that I might actually need to change my underwear. :) :D

That would be priceless.

Oh, yes. Please. Seriously. :D

And post when/where ahead of time. Well, no, circulate the info via PM.