IslandBased

Even more effective is photo-shopping the photograph so that it includes historical religious figures transiting the check point in casual dress and then posting it on the internet. Think messiahs in mumus. Its bound to make terrorist's blood boil.

bdschobel

We could have a picture of the prophet willingly undergoing a search by the TSA. That would show everyone that they aren't too good to be searched -- and safe! Thank you, TSA.

Bruce

IslandBased

It would be a new chapter in the sacred texts...

ND Sol

I had many e-mail exchanges with the TSA at ISP and then out of the blue the TSA attorney called me and had to agree with the plain reading of the words. 1520 only applies to "covered persons" and passengers are not "covered persons." End of story.

That is permissible for a private entity. We have this thing called the First Amendment in the United States. As such, the Government is very limited (and should be) in what restrictions can be implemented on photography where the public is permitted (i.e., no special security clearance). So in this case the blame is squarely placed on the Government for placing signs against doing something that is perfectly legal. If the US citizens don't like it, then get the First Amendment changed (hasn't happened in over 200 years, even the try for a flag burning amendment).

ISP said that TSA wanted the signs up and TSA said the signs were up before they were there and it was solely up to ISP to make the decision about the signs. When no legal support was found to exist, ISP made a good decision in removing the signs.

Why is this relevant to the conversation? That is not the question to be asked. The question to be asked is what law prohibits the taking of photographs at screening checkpoints.

Perhaps we should review the saying that many relate to First Amendment issues: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Evelyn Beatrice Hall, under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre in her 1906 Voltaire biography "The Friends of Voltaire".

yyzvoyageur

Yawn. You're right—it's not relevant. I just can't bring myself to care about this topic. Banning photography in that specific area doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

bdschobel

Why can't you see that this so-called "First Amendment" thing is just another tool that the terrorists are using against us? Don't you want to be safe? What's wrong with you people?

Bruce

bdschobel

I agree with you. The holy book says nothing about photography. I say ban it everywhere, not just at security checkpoints, where the reasons should be obvious to anybody. Why don't people appreciate what the TSA is doing to keep us safe? I just don't get it.

Bruce

PhoenixRev

What is reasonable to you may be unreasonable to someone else. That is why we have the rule of law. If the law says I cannot take a photo of the security checkpoint, I will follow the law (although I may see about having that law repealed).

However, that being said, there is no federal law that bars photographing a TSA checkpoint in an airport. See this post on PV.

Now, if the local laws have that ban, then post signs with the statute citation and be done with it.

N965VJ

I hope the tewwowists don’t know about Google image search!

Search term: airport checkpoint, results 193,000 images.

bdschobel

Just another tool to help the terrorists, like that "First Amendment" thing.

Bruce

pmocek

Given that, along with the tiny size of some modern digital cameras, and the fact that some people just remember what they've seen really well, I'd think you'd pretty much assume that if people can see it once, people will see it again, and get over the ridiculous notion that banning photography of something in a public place will keep information about the appearance of that thing out of the hands of the people whom you'd prefer not receive that information.

bdschobel

Well, it's obvious to me that anyone who remembers things that well has undergone terrorist training, probably in Iraq, which we all know attacked us on 9/11/01. You probably support that First Amendment thing, too. Isn't safety more important?

Bruce

pmocek

see also:

• 2009-11-28: "TSA Agent order me to stop filming"
• 2009-11-16: "Flyer `Processed' (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID" (reportedly, that flyer was also photographing and/or video-recording at the TSA checkpoint prior to the arrest)

pmocek

see also:

• 2010-01-21: "Blogger films TSA Gate Gropers in DTW, they followed he filmed encounters"

N1Hawk

Phil,

I was looking through the list of airports and I did not see Cleveland Hopkins on the list. I'm flying out of there in 34 days and was wondering as a tourist am I allowed to take pictures out of that airport?

Thanks

N1Hawk