IMO, picture taking always interferes with the screening process. If a passenger wants a picture after the process has been completed, fine. But not during. At my CP, there is no such thing as an unobstructed position. People are always in the way. If you are cleared, and you have no other reason to be standing around, you need to move.

It always interferes.

Personally, as someone who has worn a badge for the past 14 years of my life, as a member of a fire/rescue department, I find this statement a vast over-generalization, overly simplistic and highly offensive.

There are many people that carry/wear badges for a variety of reasons. Not all of us take this level of attitude. Many of us, I would posit to state MOST of us, realize that a badge is nothing more than a piece of the uniform, a symbol of our involvement as front-line, public-facing members of our departments. It is designed, and was first introduced, as a means of providing the public with a readily identifiable means of proving valid membership within the authorized public safety department that issued the badge. In earlier times, uniforms were not always standardized - one wore what one had while working. The badge(s) for a particular department/agency is(are) distinctive, unique and matching for all personnel (within type of personnel - in my department, for example, officers badges contain their rank identifiers (bars or bugles), while non-officers just contain either the Star of Life [EMS-only personnel] or the Ladder/Helmet/Hose/Bugle/Axe/Pike symbol [Fire/Rescue personnel]).

If it always interferes, then the SOP should state that no pictures are permitted at the screening checkpoint instead of allowing discretion, which you don't believe exists. The SOP, however, doesn't say that. So your blanket statement that it always interferes is unreasonable.

Does your checkpoint have security cameras? Any problems with those?

Doesn't matter. Interfering with the screening process is a Federal Offence (look it up), without any definition of what constitutes interference.

So who decides what interference is ? Why our Cee and colleagues do of course. You wanna fight it in court ? Thought not.

Tyranny of the clerks.

Acknowledged.

And that may be. But enough power-hungry folks have transformed it into a "symbol of power". That is, IMHO, why TSA is providing the front-liners with badges.

I outright observed one day as a Federal investigator (non-LE) was being given his badge - the presenter/supervisor made a point of saying "This is your badge. It is a symbol of your power, and it should be shown any time you need to command respect from the public and the people you visit. You may use that power to demand responses that might not otherwise be given."

And that's how the concept of badge=power is propagated. It's also a prime example of why some badge-toters are held in disrespect.

Sure, who needs rights anyway? Just comply with whatever you're told and everything will be fine . . .

You are incorrect.

MNAA operates as a public corporation. We operate without local tax dollars, are self-financing within an annual, balanced budget, and have a bonding authority.

The board of commissioners sets policy. The President and staff recommend implement policy, develop administrative procedures and operate, maintain, plan & develop the Airports

The Authority collects fees, rentals, rates and other charges from airport users.

Since we service commerical air carriers we are obviously bound by Federal regulations through the FAA & TSA.

For those persons who cause a problem at the facility, but nothing severe enough to be criminal, we tell them to leave or they risk being arrested for trespassing. It has been that way since our airport's existence. Our property, our rules. Just because it is open to the public, does not mean that it is there at your expense to do whatever you want.

Aside from the main airport terminal, we also own commercial buildings, roads, and residential housing. ;)

Yes, but, those rules must be reasonable and not impede on the constitutional rights of the public. See, for example, the fact that distribution of religious and political material generally can't be prohibited (but can be restricted to certain places/times/locations).

Government, and "public" companies derive their power from.... the public... and generally are still subject to the constitution, where private companies have a much lower burden.

FWIW, there was a big ruckus and lawsuit in a "town center" area in Maryland where the County Council had contracted/leased/handed over the area to developers, who proceeded to have a photographer evicted for merely taking pictures in the area. They claimed "security". The county & state moved swiftly to make sure that photography is allowed as opposed to facing the lawsuit.

This is amusing - I just drove through that very area this morning on the way to my current customer site...I still laugh when I think about that one. One of my rescue squad members used to work for the security company there.

Cee,

I'm a journalist; my beat, at the moment, is not aviation. But if it were and I were working on a story about this my editor might decide a photograph would be needed to illustrate the story. That could be done with a long lens from outside the checkpoint. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I am curious how that would interfere?

OK! Getting back to the issue at hand, here. :)

First, I'd like to address the assumption that if you only need your shoes swabbed (didn't ring the mag) the physical search TSO is out of line, or has violated procedure, if he/she also hand-wands you and pats you down in addition to swabbing your shoes.

In actuality, the SOP allows the PS-TSO to skip those steps if the WTMD-TSO has communicated the need for a "swab only." But if the WTMD-TSO is busy with another PAX, or perhaps rotated to another position and didn't communicate that information to the person who replaced him/her, the searcher is well within bounds to carry out the additional procedures. I think this is a case of the "powers that be" deciding that in the event of a lack of communication, TOO MUCH screening (so to speak) is safer than too little.

It's not like we should be asking the passenger, "Hey, you didn't alarm the Mag, did you?" and taking their word for it ... LOL :)

Now, as to the question of whether you have a right to keep your shoes on no matter what: TSA policy appears to conflict here, depending upon which chapter or verse you consult. (Which is probably why I wasn't certain earlier, and needed to look it up.)

My interpretation of the rules is that if your shoe does not have signs of tampering, and does not alarm the ETD (swab), you should be able to keep it on. However, if you alarm the ETD, you will not be allowed into the sterile area unless the alarm has been cleared, which may mean the shoe will need to come off for inspection/X-ray examination.

Fortunately, ETD alarms on shoes are extremely rare! I've seen them a few times on golf shoes due to fertilizer residue, but that's about it, so I wouldn't worry too much if I were youse guys. :)

I agree and the rules/regulations at our facility are very reasonable. We do not kick out photographers just for taking photos. I expect passengers to take photos, but not of the screening process or anything else that could possibly lead me to believe they are doing something else (i.e. surveillance). Everything is taken into context based on each incident in front of me. Media and/or professional photography must get clearance from our public relations folks to do what they do on airport property.

You need to make very certain that what you post is correct BEFORE you write anything here. Otherwise, you come off looking just like all those other screeners who make up the rules as they go along.

So - does TSA require that those with prosthetic limbs remove those devices so they can be put through the Xray if they alarm the WTMD/HHMD and/or ETD? Most prosthetics have extensive metals in them, along with a cavity at the end that attaches to the body.

You know, our SOP is probably 100+ pages, and addresses many obscure situations that seldom are encountered in real life. (I have yet to be asked to screen a service monkey. :) ) (You really don't want to know everything that entails! :mad: ) (Fellow TSOs will know what I'm talking about here. ;) )

Forgive for having a momentary mental lapse, on one of my days off! I believe I said at the time I wasn't sure, but would check and get back to ya'll on this, which I did. :)

No. We have procedures for screening them that do not involve removal. For more information:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...rial_1370.shtm