Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D052; Blazer/4.5) 16;320x320)

...and, don't forget to FOIA the TSA requesting all correspondence dealing with coordinating release of the video with the airport cops. You can send a duplicate FOIA to the cops. Wouldn't it be interesting if the TSA claimed no records existed but the cops sent you copies of everything?

Here's the bizarre thing: they put that whole 'mythbusters' thing up there and then only loaded that one incident. It is so pathetically transparent and stupid.

Is this the ONLY myth ever about TSA?

It just so....pathetic.

You seem to be starting with the presumption that displaying someone's face in a video or picture requires their permission. That is usually not the case.

There are two potential state law doctrines applicable here: right to privacy and right to publicity. The former is not going to apply to folks who simply walk through an airport. They are in a very public place and cannot reasonably expect their presence there to be a private fact.

The right to publicity laws of various states relate to the commercial use of a person's likeness. TSA's use is not commercial, and in any case, the Supremacy Clause and the federal government's inherent sovereign immunity prevent any state right to publicity laws from subjecting the federal government to liability.

^^^

I was thinking more about the TV news channels that broadcast the video in an endless loop, with the same innocent people being shown over and over and over. Isn't that commercial use, since they are doing it only to make money? I guess not, since it happens all the time.

After something gets released by TSA you know it'll be on YouTube forever, even if TSA later decides that it was wrong. That's why TSA should think long and hard about this, even if they are legally free to do what they wish.

Bobster, if memory serves me correctly, you were complaining on the original thread that such videos must exist and should be shown.

It seems to me that it is a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" situation.

Excellent question. See Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977) for when the First Amendment clashes with right to publicity laws. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=433&invol=562

The short answer is that brief, incidental shots of people in public places can be included in news broadcasts without the permission of those filmed.

You memory does not serve you correctly. I posted nothing on the "original thread". Are you confusing me with another "ster"? This was my first post on the subject if my memory serves me correctly.

The TSA would never admit they were wrong because if they're never wrong, they have nothing to apologize for. Convoluted logic, but it works for them.

This is precisely why TSA critics should be celebrating the Emmerson video release. When someone has a legitimate beef over a TSA incident, they can ask for the video. At that point, TSA is on the horns of a dilemma. Produce the video and reveal a TSA agent's misdeeds, or refuse to produce it and make it look like a coverup.

That sounds good in theory, but they'll probably site SSI or other security reasons and not show it. The American people will buy it and all will be forgotten.

Sorry, my fault. Nope, I didn't confuse you with anoher "ster"; I confused you with another "Bob".

That's an interesting question. I can tell you that TSA did send me a CD with an avi file on it, based on my FOIA request, of a screener pushing me at MSY early this year. I haven't been able to actually view it (have tried various programs on Mac OS and Windows).

Frankly, I was shocked that the FOIA request worked.

I'm not surprised. FOIA, and state law versions such as the California Public Records Act, are very powerful tools for citizens to obtain materials from governmental agencies. You sometimes get resistance, but if you're persistent, there's a very good chance you'll get access to everything you're entitled to see.

My strategy is to start with much broader requests than I actually need, and try to reach a bargain with the person in charge of responding to my request. My message is, "I'm very reasonable. If you work with me, you'll be done with me very quickly. If not, you'll be dealing with me for weeks and possibly months if I have to go to court."

As I've said many times, TSA critics should be delighted that TSA put the video of the Emmerson incident on its website. It's a very helpful factual precedent for future FOIA requests regarding passenger complaints. Then, when someone who is not a lying crybaby gets wronged by TSA, everyone will see the footage.

I agree that FOIA is a powerful and useful tool, but remember that TSA is an organization that decided to simply exempt itself from the Privacy Act.

Frankly, very little would surprise me when it comes to obstruction and obfuscation on the part of TSA.