San Diego Airport Says Recording TSA Gropings Is An Arrestible Offense?

from the not-cool dept

Tue, Nov 23rd 2010 10:15am — Mike Masnick

We already covered the guy who was arrested after stripping down for the TSA, highlighting how one of the charges was his failure to complete the security procedure (after stripping down, he pointed out there was no need for a pat down...). However, there was a second charge that was even more troubling that actually deserves a separate post, which is that he was also charged with "illegally recording the San Diego Airport Authority." I was trying to figure out the exact rule (listed as 7.14a), and some of the folks over at Flyertalk have posted the full 7.14 rule (or you can see the full San Diego Airport Authority rules (pdf) if you'd like):

(a) No person shall take still, motion or sound motion pictures or voice recordings on the facilities and airports under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (the "Authority") without written permission from the Authority's Executive Director or his or her designee.

(b) Filming of X-ray equipment located on the facilities and airports under the jurisdiction of the Authority is strictly prohibited. Any person(s) caught filming such X-ray equipment may have their film confiscated.

I'm having trouble seeing how this rule can possibly be legal -- especially with all the stories today of TSA agents abusing (or simply not understanding) the new rules. Recording the interactions with the TSA seems like an essential step in making sure that personal liberties are respected. Making that illegal raises all sorts of questions. And while this is specific to San Diego Airport, it makes me wonder if there are similar restrictions elsewhere.

Just a few months ago, we pointed out how law enforcement and the courts were abusing wiretap laws to find people guilty of wiretapping for recording law enforcement in public places. Thankfully, some courts have pushed back on such cases, and it seems like this is a situation where declaring an outright ban on videotaping within the airport is a restriction that doesn't make any sense at all.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: airports, recording, san diego, security, tsa
Companies: tsa

46 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:21am

Eh?
"...and it seems like this is a situatioin where declaring an outright ban on videotaping within the airport is a restriction that doesn't make any sense at all."
situatioin?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sehlat (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:27am

Sure it makes sense.
John 3:20
New International Version (�1984)
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

Short form: You have no right to know how badly we're screwing up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bwp (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:27am

How can this be "illegal"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:27am

I can quote two things with this
1) Who watches the watchers

2) If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

As much as the second one should apply to the TSA agents in this situation, I still will have to go with the first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:29am

Jeez
Even the TSA, at least officially doesn't go that far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bwp (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:33am

How can this be "illegal"?
Just because an authority has rules doesn't make breaking them ILLEGAL. I don't see how this person can be charged with anything. Who is he being charged by? If it's the Authority then they have no power to charge anyone with anything. If it's the city or county then what law are they using as the basis of the charge?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yaniel (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:36am

this was what jumped out at me as well when I read your last post and put it in the comments. I guess not allowing recording just guarantees that it's their "word" versus ours, and we know who will win that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:37am

Holding tactic
If this is a recent rule. Then it was implemented as a holding tactic to prevent people from filming the screw ups until all the protest about the naked scanners dies down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:37am

These people have an unusual relationship with their X-ray equipment...
Precious, precious X-ray machine, yesss... NO! No pictures! No one takes photos of her! SHE'S MINE, YOU UNDERSTAND?!

ooh yeah, baby, irradiate me again...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
corvettekenny, 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:40am

No charges filed?
I looked at the San Diego county courts page this morning. There's neither a civil case or criminal case listed for Sam Wolanyk, who was arrested yesterday for that very "offense". Did the DA refuse to prosecute?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:43am

Apparently TSA can videotape searches, edit out the parts where they look bad, and then release them to the press. But the public can't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sehlat (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:55am

Re: No charges filed?
If the DA refused to prosecute, he or she is showing a lot more sense than than anybody else involved in the incident.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:56am

Apropos post on this very topic from Boing Boing
Please see: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/23/call-the-tsas-office.html which explains that photography of TSA checkpoints is permitted by explicit TSA policy and gives the phone number to call if one is unlawfully harassed for doing so.
I'm thinking that a lot of us need to have that phone number handy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:57am

What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:58am

Sound
Seems it's perfectly within the rules to make sound only recordings. Not that it makes the restriction any more sane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:04am

Odd
I heard somone on the radio say that this was because they don't want the bad guys to see how they are searching. But If this will keep the sheeple safe, who cares? I would think they would want to see TSA groping 3 year old boys, nuns, and a girl with a fake breast, would that not deter them?

I would be like... "OMG OMAR! They're sticking their hands up a nuns habit!...... DAMN! they made that dude piss himself!... WOW... are they molesting a 3 year old!!!??? These guys aren't playing around!... quick, back to the camel cave to re-thing this!.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Ronas, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:05am

We aren't allowed to photograph TSA molesting others, but they can take nude cancer-inducing photographs of every passenger?

Yeah, that makes sense /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:05am

SDAA may find out they don't have a legal leg to stand on when this gets to court...
if this interesting post turns out to be true, Traveler arrested in San Diego for 'failure to complete security process'...Operation Grab Ass taken from the comment posted by mvoccaus:
Hi, the following is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only.

The TSA is a federal government agency. They do not have any codes or policies regarding audio or video recording so long as such audio or video recording does not interfere with the security screening process.

San Diego International Airport is in the county of San Diego and is subject to the codes and policies of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. That is the agency that is prohibiting recording. The code in question is located at http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Code%207.14%20Filming.pdf

Under that code, no pictures, video, or audio can be taken anywhere at the facility or of the facility. If you sent your friend a picture message from your phone at the airport letting him or her know you arrived safely, you are in violation of the code under the letter of the law. Shit, using your cell phone at the airport is a violation of the code. That's not the spirit (intent) of the law, but that is the letter (literal interpretation) of the law.

However, the United States Constitution does not recognize cities or counties, it only recognizes states. In other words, any municipality or sub-state agency inherits from the state their power and abilities to create laws in their jurisdiction. However, because of this rule of inheritance, and because of the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment of the Constitution, your Bill of Rights applies to every level of government: Federal, State, County, Regional, Municipal, etc.

But that only applies to government agencies. Some airports are privately owned. In which case, they set the rules. They can take away your cameras, prohibit any sort of talking, and require everyone to be naked in the terminal and prohibit clothing altogether. However, San Diego International Airport is publicly owned, so all your Bill of Rights still apply. Therefore, there's a Constitutional conflict of SAN Airport banning the capturing of audio or video if any kind because it is so vaguely written and encroaches on the freedom-of-the-press clause of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. In all likelihood, the law is unenforceable it its current form and could be nullified in a Federal court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MikeC (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:08am

Suprised this took this long to come up...
I can't believe it took this long for someone to bring this up in an official capacity. I am sure filming security checkpoints and procedures would be considered a security violation. It's not surprising someone is intending to try and enforce this for all the wrong reasons.

I does however make sense that you don't want people filming your security process, it makes it easier to try and find a way around them, to study them. Not that they are effective, but it is what it is.

I am sure it's illegal to film many installations for security reasons, this would seem to be a reasonable case and tough to argue against even if the rule is being mis-used as it is in this case.

I would expect this one to be tough one to win in a court case.. but I feel people should continue to do this as a non-violent act of civil disobedience necessary for the preservation of what little individual rights we have left. If everyone films it will be real tough to put them all in jail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:09am

Film?
What's "film"? I'm imagining an awesome loophole exists here. Keep a spare can of 35mm film in your pocket to hand over?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:09am

small typo
a situatioin where

last paragraph.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michial Thompson, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:15am

Legalities
I would kinda wonder what authority that they are trying to arrest him inder as well?

While I am no fan of anyone and everyone pointing a camera at me any time they damn well feel like it, I would think that this the TSA positions would be subject to pretty mych anyone recording them any time, especially if the recording party is the one being harrassed.

I went from 150k miles a year flying to less than 30k miles because of the BS they implemented after 9-11, and with the new stripsearch or molestation policy my flying went to ZERO and now will remain at ZERO until this crap is fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:16am

Re: small typo
way to read that first comment... good hustle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:16am

Re: Eh?
it's their rules not ours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:18am

Re: I can quote two things with this
I've give you 3 more quotes.

An unjust law is no law at all. - Augustine of Hippo

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. - Mahatma Gandhi

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:18am

Re: No charges filed?
Can't they hold you for 72 hours without pressing charges? Perhaps they are still thinking about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Morgan Getham, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:23am

Courts
Actually, in the most high-profile caser on government snooping, Jewel vs. NSA, the good guys are still losing. The case went in favor of the government at the trial court level, and arguments in the appeal have been filed. No word, as far as I know, as to when a decision can be expected. T

This case involves wiretapping without a warrant, by the way, but just represents another government trampling of civil liberties. I voted from Obama thinking he HAD to be better than Bush in this area. WRONG! He has been FAR worse, by orders of magnitude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: I can quote two things with this
I think your third one trumps my first one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Howard the Duck (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:30am

Profile already
The only effective solution. http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/article_1263a1b4-ed0b-5edb-aee3-54e5b001778c.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:33am

Re: SDAA may find out they don't have a legal leg to stand on when this gets to court...
you've hit the nail on the head with this re-post. Even if the San Diego airport were private, the best they could do is escort you out of the airport and charge you with a civil suit. That they are a public entity, they can't just willy nilly make up the rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:37am

"No person shall" is irrelevant without a stated punishment.
City ordinances are full of prohibitions, but unless the words connect to a stated punishment or class of offense, it's all bluff. Also, any time you see "may" in gov't text, it's safe to ignore. To be enforceable (at least in America, that now mythical coountry) laws must be in absolute terms: any wiggle room or lack of punitive measures, and it's just ink on paper. Of course, as I remind you people, the *real* terrorists will just stick a gun in your face and toss you in jail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Kulawiec, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:40am

Re: Suprised this took this long to come up...
I does however make sense that you don't want people filming your security process, it makes it easier to try and find a way around them, to study them. Not that they are effective, but it is what it is.
If one's security processes are so brittle that film study will enable an adversary to defeat them, then the problem is not the film: it's poor process design.
After all, filming is merely a substitute for the imperfect observational and recall powers of most human beings. A suitably-trained and experienced person is quite capable of making the observations first-hand and subsequently documenting them from memory. Or, perhaps, of analyzing the salient details in real time and devising a means to defeat the process.
And even all of this presumes that it's necessary for an attacker to defeat the process. It's often not; it's usually much easier to ignore the process -- or to exploit it. In the case of this particular set of procedures, which are incredibly poor and were clearly designed by crack monkeys, either would suffice.
Robust security measures continue to work even when everyone knows exactly how they work. This is a rudimentary lesson which MANY have failed to learn, including Pistole (see his lame explanation for why he took the futile step of not announcing the current sexual assault practice in advance).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:46am

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Board Members
Who makes these rules? Well, here are the board members of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ( http://www.san.org/sdcraa/leadership/default.aspx )

Laurie Berman
Bruce R. Boland - bboland@san.org
Greg Cox - gcox@san.org
Jim Desmond - jdesmond@san.org
Ramona Finnila - rfinnila@san.org
Robert H. Gleason, board chairman - rgleason@san.org
Jim Panknin - jpanknin@san.org
Colonel Frank A. Richie
Paul Robinson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 11:48am

Re: I can quote two things with this
1) Someone for sure, see Rule 34.

2) Nah, you'd raise holy hell if that argument were used against you. And rightly so.

I agree that the ban against filming anywhere in an airport is absurd but your second argument against it was really terrible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:01pm

Who's rule is this?
I get that it's the San Diego Co Reg. Airport Auth., but are they a city/county municipal authority? Are they a private company with an 'official sounding' name?

Or, as has been illustrated elsewhere in this post, are they someone putting up a smoke-screen rule that would result in a constitutional violation if enforced?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:02pm

Re: Re: I can quote two things with this
That wasn't my second argument. I said it because they said it. I also said it was a bad argument and went with the first one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:05pm

Re: Eh?
situatioin?

Well, you know The Situation from the Jersey Shore trademarked his name... so I was trying to get around that.

Or, I made a typo that we missed in editing. Oops. Fixed. Thanks. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:07pm

Re: San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Board Members
It's ironic that it's san.org. Am I the only one to notice that.

They're all Deep Ones! Get out while you can!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duffy, 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:23pm

Take a picture of a public official committing a crime, and YOU go to jail... when did they switch the real USA with Bizarro USA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:35pm

Re:
"when did they switch the real USA with Bizarro USA?"

9/11/2001
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:50pm

Also in Massachusetts
they've prosecuted people for videotaping the police, citing wiretap laws. And at the same time, they wonder why no one wants to help the police. So you record something that shows someone being mugged and there's a police officer approaching to stop it. Now you have a choice; if you give the recording to the police, are they going to use it to prosecute YOU as well as the mugger? When the police see the citizens as their enemies, why do they expect people to help them?

Rodney King's beaters would have loved these laws; they wouldn't have been prosecuted cause the videos would have been illegal evidence, recorded without a court order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bagheera (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 3:22pm

T 'SS' A
I've been saying all along these people are a gestapo. "Do as we say or we will make you wish you did!" The TSA needs to go. They are nothing but THUGS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 4:59pm

Re: Suprised this took this long to come up...
Security through obscurity is not security at all. This is pretty much the most basic of security design principles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 23 Nov 2010 @ 5:46pm

Re: Re: No charges filed?
Could be that they don't think they can make a case, so they're just gonna hold him for 72 hours and let that be the punishment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just1Marine, 27 Nov 2010 @ 8:05am

Under Who's Authority?
The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority was created on January 1, 2003, as an independent agency to manage the day-to-day operations of San Diego International Airport and address the region�s long-term air transportation needs. As stated on their own website... http://www.san.org/sdcraa/about_us/default.aspx

The legislation that created the Airport Authority mandates three main responsibilities:
1. Operate San Diego International Airport

2. Plan for the future air transportation needs of the region

3. Serve as the region�s Airport Land Use Commission � and ensure the adoption of land use plans that protect public health and safety surrounding all 16 of the county�s airports.

So that being said, Under Who's Authority do THEY MAKE LAWS? Under who's authority do THEY AUTHORIZE CONFISCATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY?
Under who's authority do THEY DETERMINE WHAT IS A FELONY OFFENCE?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2010 @ 10:13pm

Re: Re: SDAA may find out they don't have a legal leg to stand on when this gets to court...
No, but their heads have swollen so much that they think they can. Believe me, I've been around TSA my entire life. They are laughing at us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]