Just for clarification, my original thread title was "DL BOS Baggage Agent Calls Police on Customer for Recording Exchange." Somebody at FT changed it to its current title.

This is clear in the video. I don't know why the employee didn't just page or call the manager again and ask if she could give the woman his name. He probably would have said yes. She was just tired of dealing with her, evidently.

She probably had a better job lined up.

I dont think it's fair to make such a broad assumption. My personal experience is the opposite. Out of all the baggage CS employees I have dealt with only 2 in my history with DL are or have been rude. Last time I had to go to the baggage office was during some ATL summer weather melt down at 12:30 AM. Everybody in the line ahead of me were outright rude, mean, and condescending to the baggage office staff. The folks directly in front of me were yelling left and right about how evil DL is I guess trying to get people to get riled up with them. Honestly I kind of wish DL would record video/audio of everyone who enters baggage offices because people would be VERY embarrassed (I hope) to see how they act. That is a TOUGH job because 9.9/10 people who walk in the office are already pissed off and ready to jump, I think DL puts their best staff their honestly.

When it was my turn I got everything I needed and more from the young lady working. I handed her a starbucks gift card and said please enjoy some coffee on me after your shift you deserve it. It is amazing what honey will get over vinegar......

Airports are in general considered to be public spaces and as such there is no expectation of privacy. What you are referencing applies when one is in a private space where there is an expectation of privacy. One could try to argue the baggage office is a private space but that would probably be an uphill battle given the greater context of it being part of the public baggage claim area.

That's not what the statute says, and not how it applies in other jurisdictions. I think you are mixing up Fourth Amendment law with statutory law here.

There could be an issue recording "in secret." This wasn't in secret.

If you're openly recording someone, unless they explicitly tell you they don't want to be recorded, I can't see how any laws limiting recording could be cited.

It doesn't matter what the other person wants. If you are making recording openly, you can record as much as you want - even if the other person doesn't want you to. It's their choice to stop engaging with you if they don't want to be recorded.

I said this. My point being I bet there is more to this story but the video only starts when things have escalated 9 times out of 10.

Sorry wasn't calling you out or anything.

Horse petunias. The statute you cite has been modified/overturned by case and the Mass. Supreme Court; you're providing misinformation. It's really more than annoying when people who simply have no F-C-ing idea how common law systems work, feel entitled to offer their worthless "opinions" on such matters, and cite statue as if it was prevailing law, and force others to wade through their meaningless, ignorant drivel.

!!!

Currently on the 3rd page of the DL forum is this post:



which redirects into this thread, so I'm guessing that what happened is that there was a duplicate post and when the threads were merged the one thread title was kept in favor of the other just by how the merge occurred.

From the NY Post:

"The agent who phoned police is still employed and may have to undergo training, pending the outcome of an investigation, the airline said."
https://nypost.com/2018/09/20/delta-...-to-a-manager/

Such a response from DL PR makes it sound like there's no management interest in actual disciplinary action against the employee post-investigation.

A shame because this behavior is so egregious, timely and visible (if only internally) disciplinary action would send the right message to those few bad apples within DL's front lines.

The statute has not been "overturned". The application of statutes is obviously continuously modified by court rulings. A major ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that public officials in the performance of their duties may be recorded by private individuals in addition to journalists. The statute still applies to individuals recording each other secretly. A specific case, of course depends on many factors, and may be affected by case law specific to the factors in each case. My point was just in general, one does need to be careful about secretly recording another individual in two-party states. One could be found in violation and one can also be sued in civil court for damages, especially if the recordings are publicly posted. I am sorry that you were more than annoyed by being "forced" to read what you consider meaningless drivel. Of course, no one is forced to read anything. Having to put up with opinions or statements that are "worthless" to you is one of the unfortunate problems of living in a free society. Have a nice day. And try some laxatives.