TSA Punishes Pilot For Videotaping Security Problems At Airports
from the brushing-problems-under-the-rug dept
BackPackAdam alerts us to the news that a pilot in California is being disciplined by the TSA because he dared to film a video highlighting problems with security at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The pilot himself was a Flight Deck Officer (FDO) and authorized to carry a gun on board of flights... but within days of him posting the videos to YouTube, he was met by four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies at his house, who ordered him to hand over his gun and to hand over his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon. He has since been informed that the TSA is reviewing his situation for possible disciplinary measures.
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: discipline, pilot, security, tsa
Companies: tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Interesting
Problem solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rate Your Patdown
http://www.rateyourpatdown.com/
If TSA at SFO has begun punishing pilots, it's no wonder why so few people are talking about their SFO flight experience!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rate Your Patdown
Also when I went through that time they weren't doing random backscatter scans...if you happened to be in a specific line (we were directed to lines based on our flight) you were scanned but at least 2 or 3 other lines had nobody going through the body scan. Kind of defeats the purpose of random screenings if someone can just pick the line with just the metal detector.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Punishes Pilot For Videotaping Security Problems At Airports
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The System Works
So when you call out the performers in this TSA lack of safety theater your are the one who gets the G-Man stiff arm.
We need to take our Government back, away from these fools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The System Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The System Works
The underwear bomber boarded a plane outside the US and was caught by passengers on the plane when his pants bomb failed to ignite. Security was an utter failure, and would have failed just as horribly had the bomber attempted to board from within the US. In no way, shape, or form did the "system" work. That's why she was justly bashed for that statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The System Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The System Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The System Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The System Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If not, why spend so many dollars?.
So... the answer its inform the public to twist they arm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because of this I deem your opinion here to be worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're the pot calling the kettle black.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This kinda BS
My biggest beef is that they routinely act (as a group) in ways that seem unconstitutional, far above the law and responsibility.
The whole thing is like a huge power trip gone bad. Does your job suck? then get out. If you hate your job, only do it for the retirement, and want to take it out on other people, then be a prison guard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This kinda BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This kinda BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This kinda BS
Unfortunately, California is a "may issue" state. As a result, the Sheriff can take away a CCW for any reason, including no reason. Thank the bleeding hearts who rather Californians are victims of crime and not able to fight back (because the criminals have rights too...?!?!) Every time they've tried to force "shall issue" through the law, the bleeding hearts shut them down. If it was up to them, the only people in California with guns would be the criminals.
For the most part, in California, when it comes to CCWs, the Sheriff can make up whatever rules they want, and fairly often a new Sheriff will come in and revoke CCWs issued by past Sheriff's with no rhyme or reason. Often it is done as a political tool, so this isn't far from the norm.
The sad thing is that this does nothing to help security when grannies accidentally shut down airports at random because no one thought to detain her at the checkpoint until the results of a scan were communicated back to them (despite the fact that no grannie in the history of the universe, at least the history we are aware of, has ever had ill-will towards an airplane and would want to destroy it.) What kills me, is the last time I flew, a grannie walked on the plane carrying an oxygen bottle!!! If that grannie had ill-will towards the plane, she could have easily destroyed it with the 5lbs of pure oxygen she had in that bottle. Security Theater, just like California's "may issue" laws, designed to infuriate the general public while the criminals and terrorists laugh (since they likely know all this stuff already, without posting it up to youtube.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leadership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Gary - What happen(sic) to the whistle blower act...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sensitive security info?
I thought the tarmac was supposed to be a secure area. Do the workers not go through any security screening at all??
In any case, it is obvious that TSA is just for show. We can assume that there will be no more successful hijackings for kamikaze purposes, because passengers will suspect it, and no longer be passive captives. All that TSA can prevent is the bombing of a single plane, which is less effective than bombing a movie theater, where there is no security screening.
The sad part is that there are so many naive Americans that are fooled by the TSA show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still Not Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still Not Legal
This and this are what TSA says about the matter. These statemenst seem to contradict you, although they may not as clear cut as one would like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still Not Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still Not Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still Not Legal
BLaneville might or might not have an understanding of the internet, but so what ??
He was not talking about the internet, and unlike you he does not think an understanding of the internet has anything at all to do with what he was saying.
What he was saying is correct, not only in America, but world wide, there are building, places, area's where it is ILLEGAL to photograph, or video..
We have TV add's here in Australia, that explain the laws and rules of countries in this regard.
For example, one is a add, that show's three scenes, a couple kissing, a busker playing a guitar and singing and a couple getting their photo taken in front of a Government building.
They ask, which one of these is an illegal act and could result in your being imprisoned ?
can you guess ?
Thats right, it was the young couple getting their photo taken infront of a government building.
Its a travel warning add, and it explains that in other countries, (and our's) there are places where you cannot photograph or film.. without at least gaining specific permission..
And if you are not aware of that, then it may be a good thing you have decided never to fly again.
You may not do so well in another country.. or even your own.
the Australian parliment his broadcast on the tv and radio nation wide, and live, that if you are are visitor to parliment house, you are forbidden from taking anyone kind of camera, or recording device with you..
ive had to work at places where they would not even grant you access to the place if you carried a pen and paper with you..
you had to only take what you were waring, in and out of the place.
if you turned up with a camera, you would be told to leave.. after handing in the camera..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Still Not Legal
And...is it really illegal to take a photo of certain buildings in Australia? It is not in the US. If you can see it from a public place, you can photograph it here. Once you move onto private property, there are rules. Once you move onto a government-owned facility, there are rules. However, freedom of the press prevents the US government from making a law that prevents photography (arguably without sound) from any public location.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still Not Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still Not Legal
> are not legal, with a few exceptions, of airports security zones.
That's absolute nonsense. He didn't show anything in that video that any other member of the public can see themselves. And people are constantly taking photos and videos of themselves in airports in the exact same places that this guy was filming.
The only place in an airport that has an enforceable legal prohibition against filming and cell phone use is the Customs checkpoint in the international terminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still Not Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still Not Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still Not Legal
Please provide direct citations to any California Penal Code which covers the law you believe to be broken here.
I am very familiar with CA laws, and there is no such law (it is not clear because it doesn't exist.) There is no penal code in California to cover taking pictures at an airport, and the only code which could possibly be used here would be city municipal code for producing a motion picture for sale without a permit, and that would be a stretch.
Filming or taking pictures in an airport in CA is not prohibited by CA law, except where Federal laws prohibit it, such as in the Customs and Immigration area in the International Terminal. And even then, it is only really enforced at the incoming lanes at the customs stations, as I've seen tourists taking pictures at the baggage areas with no problems at all...they only really seem to care when you take pictures around the customs officials themselves, or around the places where they are examining your documentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still Not Legal
> multiple times, what a person sees cannot not be
> reviewed accurately multiple times.
None of which changes the fact that taking pictures and video in the public areas of an airport is NOT AGAINST THE LAW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Essentially, to be a whistleblower, he has to accept the consequences of doing so. Right or wrong, he violated the rules of the program and was removed from it. There are plenty of other ways (internally, and even externally) where he could have been a whistleblower without making the information widely available to the public (and for that matter to potential terrorists).
He did it the wrong way, he will cost the system plenty of money (as they will be forced to change systems only to make what he showed no longer valid, not to "fix" what he thinks are problems), and he will find himself on the outside looking in.
I would say that he is a well intentioned fool, who threw himself on the sword. Too bad that it will be meaningless, because the story is no longer about security, but about how much of a dough head he was for posting it on youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And how far do you really think that would’ve gotten? People have been complaining about this stuff in public for years and what’s happened! With this level of bureaucratic incompetence it’s likely that public outrage is the only way things will get changed.
“He did it the wrong way, he will cost the system plenty of money (as they will be forced to change systems only to make what he showed no longer valid, not to "fix" what he thinks are problems)...”
Let’s say they do actually make some changes (doubtful). They’ll either make things worse (based on history, more inconvenient but almost certainly not more secure), in which case the ridiculousness of the system will be further highlighted and you should be appalled. Or, the changes will make things better (more secure!) and the pilot’s efforts will have been successful!
“I would say that he is a well intentioned fool, who threw himself on the sword. Too bad that it will be meaningless, because the story is no longer about security, but about how much of a dough head he was for posting it on youtube.”
Maybe to you, but to any right-minded person the story is absolutely about the security flaws and the government's knee-jerk response to their exposure. As with Wikileaks, so many want to shoot the messenger while ignoring the terrible message. That’s just plain nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully members of military aviation units will shun his lead.
There are ways to effectively raise issues such as these, but uploading to the internet is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> uploading to the internet is not one of them.
Apparently not. Pilots and airport staff have been pointing out these flaws in security to the authorities for years and nothing has been done. Maybe being publicly embarrassed is the only way to light a fire under them and get them to do something about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parallels the tech industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parallels the tech industry
What about a hack for a 2650, running mickbug, or pipbug ?
What about a hack for a VMS operating system on a mainframe.
Do you have a hack for a DECnet system ?
What about for the Symax PLC protocol ?
what about for the DNP PLC protocol ? (hardly obscure).
What hacks do you have for the AmegaOS ?
Encryption is a very very affective form of security by Obscurity, and it DOES work, and is used everywhere.
If you do not think security by obcurity does not work, that simply means you do not understand the term, or understand what security is! one or the other.. either way its a lack of understanding on your part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parallels the tech industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parallels the tech industry
(it actually applies to the security industry, first word being "security").
But how is the TSA doing anything you would consider "obscure"... explain yourself, so at least we know you are not talking through your A$$..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parallels the tech industry
you can easily find hacks for common systems like windows ect, there are alot of people using it and testing it's security.
Try to find some hacks for the VMS operating system, it has been around longer than windows. But its far more obscure.
What is more obscure than a message, that has a key, and is encoded.. or encrypted. when only one person has to key to unlock that message?
That is "security by obsecrity".
And would you like to explain what the TSA does that is "obscurity", or obscure??
They are obscure because they do what ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parallels the tech industry
I don't know why I am feeding Darryl...but here it goes.
Darryl, security solely through obscurity doesn't work, not even in encryption. Encryption is a form of security through obscurity, only in the fact that the key and the message are secret, but the encryption routine and the cypher-text are not secret (in a matter of fact, they can be freely transmitted anywhere.) As someone who has researched encryption methods in the past, let me assure you that any encryption routine which is secret should never be trusted, under any circumstances. Sure, the key and message must remain secret, but this isn't security solely through obscurity at all...the encryption routine likely protects the message and key from exposure through the cypher-text because it relies on information which is extremely difficult to guess or brute-force, such as extremely large prime numbers or elliptical curves. You have access to most of them with a computer, but it would take you a really long time to try them all. Math is what secures encryption, not the algorithm.
As for VMS hacks, just because you aren't aware of any, doesn't mean that they don't exist. And if you believe that running VMS will save you from all attacks, feel free to publicize your DECnet address and we'll see how secure your system really is (hint: it isn't.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Parallels the tech industry
IF as you have said you have researched encryption systems, then you would be aware that MOST encryption systems ARE NOT FREELY TRANSMITTED EVERYWHERE..
And the specific keymat, for that encryption key is also not freely available.
It's very hard to decrypt a signal, if you do not even know the method of encryption.
If as you claim, you have researched encryption systems, you will not about things like Token chains, and how they are variable bit lengths, certainly not freely available, in fact its the MOST secret information there IS !!!..
As you well know, if something is "traffic flow secure" that you encryption machine spits out data all the time, continuous flow of data, if you look at that data, you can not tell if the data is false, or random information for if the data is a signal, or message. and therefore you cannot tell the start or finish of that message. (that is security by obscurity at its ultimate)..
So you cannot brute force the 'encoded' message, because you simply cannot tell what is message, and what is random code, decrypt the entire stream, a massive amount of data, and that would be impossible..
As well as all that, the very important messages will be multiple encrypted, first by the creator of the message, on a desktop message encryption machine, he will then send that to the signal's room, who will encrypt the allready encrypted message with a non trafic flow secure encryption, and that allready twice encrypted message, will enter the que to be fed into the main signal trunk, that is fully traffic flow secure, and the key mats chanaged VERY regularly..
Far too often for any supercomputer to work out what the keymat is before it is changed..
So again, you are simply wrong if you think it is not security by obscurity..
As for VMS, I asked you to find a hack, and you're reply is "if it was less obscure, it would be able to work something out !!!! ".
In otherwords, yes, security by obscurity does work, and the only way you can show that it does not, it by making it NOT obscure !!!.. nice one..
You shoot down your own argument, I love it when that happens.
I bet if you had 1000 years, and a VMS system all to yourself, you would not be able to gain supervisor rights to the system through some hack.. and even if you did, you are the ruler of your own world.. VMS stands for virtual memory system.. That means you are ON YOUR OWN, when you log onto a VMS system.
And as far as you are concerned you have 100% system resources. but only what you are allowed to have.. you have 100% of your own world.. and zero of anyone elses.
But if you think you are a master hacker, I invite you to show me that you are not talking bullshit.. At least explain a little about the VMS OS, so we know you are not talking out your ass :)..
And perhaps you need to do a little bit more than read a popular science article on encryption, and call yourself an expert.. because it does not make you an expert...
Even try to explain what RED and BLACK mean in the encryption world ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Parallels the tech industry
Sure, traditionally, red means plain-text and black means cypher-text in encryption networks, but red and black are also used in almost all models for security devices, where red is the area inside of control and black is the area outside of control of a security system. If you really don't understand the concept and are looking for help, the nice folks at Wikipedia have a nice discussion of it. Now, to your drivel...
Most encryption systems ARE transmitted freely everywhere, you are mistaken in your belief that they aren't. Sure, there is an occasional idiot that creates a super-secret encryption routine but those are usually easily broken. And even your beloved one-time symmetric key encryption is freely available (hint: everyone knows how to perform XOR cyphers...you aren't fooling anyone.) The keymat, may or may not be freely transmitted (there is a whole realm of encryption where part of it is transmitted freely,) and usually in the case of it being transmitted, it is encrypted itself.
As for VMS, it has a ton of meanings. VMS is traditionally used in the computer world when discussion Digital Equipment Corporations VAX/VMS operating system, which does mean Virtual Memory System, but just because it means that doesn't mean that DEC wrote their operating system to perform that way. If I can hack supervisor on your VMS system, I have control of your system and can do whatever I want on your system.
However, since in your rants you do not seem to ever explain anything yourself beyond your popular science/people article reading of anything, I fail to see how anything you say is more than just pot calling kettle black. I choose not to post my credentials here, and as far as I've seen, you haven't either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and all of their stupid and useless scans and patdowns are totally devoid of value and meaning.
I have simply stopped flying entirely, and while it limits my range, I have a peace of mind and sense of security that they will never, ever provide
That is sort of funny and very sad at the same time, so you hate security at airports, you state that its ineffective, and bad.
Then you claim you will never fly again, (that will get them!!)).
So what effect has it had of you personally, your freedoms, your ability to travel.
So you are willing to severly restrict your lifestype, and rights, and your freedoms.. In a silent protect about the TSA. The group you complain are too intruesive, and at the same time, not effective.
They must be effective you wont even fly without carrying a bomb..
So what would you think now days, if you had to fly and take a bomb with you ?
So by your own admission the system is working very well.
Its stopped you flying and you are not doing anything wrong, because the searches are too much for you.
So if you were trying to carry a bomb, then you would be even more scared.
So saying they are ineffective, and at the same time, saying the effect of you is that you have stopped flying alltogether.
Not because of terrorist attacks, or the risk of them,, but because you do not like the people who are trying to stop those attacks from occuring.
Seems you are somewhat confused...
What is sounds like is that you are just rattling off opinions are statements that you really do not yourself understand, trying to string them together, to form something coherent.. But it did not work out.
its clear you do not really understand the statement you make, nor can you see the contradiction between them..
So if this guy worked at a bank as a security officer, and he recorded the manager opening the safe, and showing the safes conbination, what that be whisstle blowing, or would it be a criminal act..
Its a criminal act, he job is to maintain security, and report security issues to his bosses.
He did not carry out his job, a job of great responsibility.
So he should be fired, and imprisioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's funny, cause that's the impression I get when I read your own posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: - another confused person
for example..
Anyone who actually believes that the TSA prevents terror attacks should be in long-term care for delusional behavior. They have not, and never will stop a determined terror attack, and all of their stupid and useless scans and patdowns are totally devoid of value and meaning
And your classic is this:
Even though you hate the searches patdowns, and x rays, and as you are saying that is **TOO MUCH** you then come out with this classic line !!! :)
One day, horribly enough, their total inadequacy will become all to painfully apparent to the nation, but unfortunately it will once again be too little, too late...
Do you see how you are somewhat confused ?.
Which is it, too much, or too little too late ?.
I wonder who the fool is here.. ???
so these stupid and useless scanns and patdown are totally doviod of value and meaning.. yes that is true, they are not supposed to be of value or meaning, they are intended to try to find people who are taking object's onto aircraft that are illegal.
If you like, the 'value' is **IF** they find a bomb, the value is the saving of lives and assets.
The "meaning", what do you think to meaning of trying to find people taking illegal things onboard aircraft is ?
You do not understand what that "means" ??? really !!!!!
So you complain loudly about they they are doing too much, and being too strict.
then you make this statement !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What OTHER kind of terror attacks ARE there TDC ?
undetermined terror attack ?
random terror attack ?
I would say EVERY terror attack plot or attempt that has been stopped, was condusted by someone who was determined to make an attack.
so once again, how does that statement make any sense at all ? to you, or to anyone else..
then you say its valueless and meaning less, but its value to you is that it has stopped you flying, and im sure the same effect would apply to people who were going to try and fly while taking a bomb with them.
Do you not see that logic ? or is that beyond you.
You wont fly even if you are doing nothing wrong, so why would someone fly knowing they ARE doing something wrong ??
Again, your logic is highly flawed.
Many places, and businesses, have specific conditions of entry, if you go to your local supermarket (here in Australia), a condition of entry is that if asked you must show the contents of your bags.
A condition of entry to a jet aircraft is that you prove to TSA's satisfaction that you are not taking onboard anything illegal.
Its as simple as that, and its value is in the fact that if it is enough to stop you from flying, when you do nothing wrong, it will probably stop someone from trying to take a bomb with them, or to do something illegal..
Again, you rant is full of contradictions, you constantly shoot down your own argument.
You whine about how its TOO MUCH, then state its TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE !!!!!..
at the same time !!!!! :) at least its amusing.. thanks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CCW
I'd be real interested to know what legal justification that county sheriff had for revoking the pilot's state CCW permit. And also what legal grounds he had to confiscate the pilot's firearm. The fact that he no longer had a license to carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean he's prohibited from owning and possessing a firearm in his own home.
I bet you, if pressed, the sheriff will just say, "The feds told me to." As if that somehow makes it legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom isn't Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom isn't Free
You are obviously one of the hopelessly deluded who believes that there actually are legitimate and working avenues for resolving painfully obvious problems in government agencies, and either never worked in government yourself, or you're just another TSA shill, which is more likely. Here's a clue - in government agencies of all types in this country, the bearers of negative facts are invariably punished for that. "Ignore that man behind the curtain! The great and powerful Oz will protect us all!"
In terms of idiocy, I think you surpass this pilot, as well as most people, in every respect. You're the one who should be feeling shame, but I gather you have no shame at all. Merry Christmas, fool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom isn't Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Freedom isn't Free
Your "real world" doubtless involves tinfoil hats, one-world government conspiracies, and boogeymen under everyones' beds, which DOD, DHS and TSA will surely protect us from, if we only consent to be stripped of our privacy and dignity every time we wish to travel. Oh, and if they want to intercept our mail and telecommunications, that's probably OK with you too. I'm sure you're also in favor of full-cavity searches and water-boarding all passengers until they confess to anything you want them to.
Listen up, fascist-boy (hey, if you can call me anarchist, I can respond in kind), I and many others don't agree with your paranoid delusions, and that doesn't make us anarchists, communists, socialists or pinkos of one stripe or another. Expressing whatever other political beliefs that disagree with yours is the thing that seems to put you into your typical ranting tailspin. Now scurry off to your bomb shelter and light your aluminum tree while trying to enjoy the holiday despite the fact that many people think you're full of it. And try not to grind your teeth too hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom isn't Free.. you pay a high price for freedom
Shame on you that defend this idiot!
Mike's main concern is that his should have a right to post anything he likes on the internet, and once you do post it on the internet. That information should be in the public domain, and free for all to see and use as they with.
So, if you are a terrorist, and you can find some information from that Youtube clip, that might make you're next terror attack plan a little easier. (even just finding out what clothes the ground crew are wearing etc).
You, Mike have NO way to determine the consequences of such information being EASILY available.
You say its a public area, sure that is right, IF you happen to BE THERE, what if you are in the middle east, and want to 'case' the joint for security issues ?
How do you know what could come out of this type of information, it is the same with wikileaks, you have no idea of the possible consequences that information might provide, especially in aggregate, spies gather information from as many sources as possible, and from that information, some of which may be meaingless by itself, once they have enough information..
It allows them to 'build a picture' of what is probably happending..
In world war 2 german spies would go around london and see if the lights were on late at night in the defense ministry buildings.
From that information, they could help build a picture of a possible invasion being planned.
You have no idea, what value that information could have in the right (wrong) hands.
But because he posted it on yourtube, you are willing to go to bad for him (Mike), make him out as a hero. when in fact he is a fool..
And anyone who things he is an honest 'whistleblower' is equally a food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom isn't Free.. you pay a high price for freedom
On second though, never mind. Most twelve year olds are a great deal more mature than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom isn't Free.. you pay a high price for freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
says
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I, for one, would welcome that. If it gets me to think about my own security, then good. The problem is that most people around here would just go through my stuff or steal my car (which is a painful, and far less desirable, but still a very effective way to get me to think about my own security.) At least with the sign I might see it and do something about it before someone else did. I wouldn't, however, ask the police to arrest the person who writes the sign, but hell, if you feel it is better to shoot the messenger for your mistake, knock yourself out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should be FIRED, and never be able to work in the security industry again.
It is also clear that he is in NO WAY a whistleblower, he did not 'see' something wrong, and immediately report it to the authorities.
He saw something wrong, and made that information to anyone who might be willing to exploit that wrong thing.
He posted it on freaking youtube, he did not walk over to the airport security office, and report what he has seen.
And by all accounts of what he does for a job, it is his responsibility to report security issues.
Did he do that ???
NO WAY.. he did not..
He did not do his job, he video's it, took it home, and put it on Youtube..
He did that for his own gains, he did not do it to improve airport security..
As it is clear that if he was interested in doing his job, he would have reported it immediately.
Instead he made the security system flaw, public knowledge..
The police, and court and the authorities, would have had no choice but to remove him from his job, take away any responsibilities in that area away from him..
And quite possibly put him in prison..
What he did not reject his job, and his responsibilities, he did not report a security breach, at all.
He just illegally recorded it (there is a good reason why you cant record are airports).
But HE DID NOT DO HIS JOB, his job is to watch for security issues, and report them.. not to freaking Youtube, but to his bosses.
They did not right thing,
Take away his job
take away his gun
take away his responsibility
take away his freedom..
It does not matter that he video'd it, what is more important is that his job was to report such activities to his bosses..
He did not do his job, he wanted to big note himself, so he took it upon himself to break the law, and to break the condition of his employment.
as I said,
Im sure there are alot more people in the USA right now that would take on that job and do it responsibility.
The TSA does not need to continue to hire someone who does not, or is not willing to do the job they are assigned too.
And if they did fire him,, GOOD,, as that is exactly what should of happend..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He should be FIRED, and never be able to work in the security industry again.
> viedo recording in an airport...
Cite it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He should be FIRED, and never be able to work in the security industry again.
> have had no choice but to remove him from his job,
> take away any responsibilities in that area away
> from him. And quite possibly put him in prison.
And yet none of that has happened, has it? He's still employed, he's still flying planes every day. No one has even fired him, let alone arrested him and charged him with anything.
Why?
Because what he did isn't illegal. Thankfully we haven't reached the point in the US (yet) where one can be imprisoned merely for embarrassing government officials.
> He just illegally recorded it (there is a good
> reason why you cant record are airports).
You keep saying this but there is no law against taking photographs or video in US airports. Hundreds of thousands of people do it every day.
> The TSA does not need to continue to hire someone
He's a pilot, dummy. He doesn't work for TSA. He works for the airline whose planes he flies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its common knowledge anyway..
It would be stupid to do otherwise, once they are checked into that secure area, they are no longer subject to checks.
And there is high security for ground crew, and luggage staff, they are security background checked, they have a low level security clearance, and they are vetted and checked daily..
Just like the pilot, once he goes through checking, and boards the plane, which is a secure area, there is no requirement for him to be searched again..
Just like the ground crew,
there has been issues in the past there ground crews have been found guilty of smuggling items, or drugs, and as a result security has been increased. It's an identified problem..
But filming people working at the airport apron is **NOT** whistleblowing.. as its common knowledge.
Its also stupid to expect every time groundcrew move from one place in a secure area to another place in that secure area, that they need to be rechecked !!..
Stupid is a harsh word, but what would you call it ?
You just cannot 'whistleblow' on something that was a big public issue, and a very high profile news and media item and it was over 5 years ago !!!..
The only thing he has done is show the world is own stupidity, and lack of understanding of security, no wonder they fired him and took his gun away..
Its not the right line of work for someone like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Darryl: please try spell check sometime. Too bad that won't help much!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Darryl: please try spell check sometime. Too bad that won't help much!
But nice troll, or attempt at least.. and of course when you have nothing left to say, you just rant..
But nice attempt at good old reliable ad hominen comebacks, the last resort of a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Darryl: please try spell check sometime. Too bad that won't help much!
My thoughts exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many companies are Proud of how they operate and would have no issues with full disclosure to the public.
Obviously; this is NOT the case with the publicly FUNDED TSA.
Just one more reason to not fly is all.
And I think it's funny all of you going on about 'security' and how they need to be 'careful' of the information. Don't you think the REAL terrorists, have people on the inside and have long since known this all? And while we worry about air travel, they are - no doubt - doing something much different. Why would they bother with where the government is expecting it and obviously going overboard on 'security'.
They would want to concentrate on areas you don't hear about on a friggin' DAILY basis... simple logic. Too bad government has no concept of such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It says they have specific rules regarding photographs and video's of what they consider sensitive area's. Its a common practice world wide. They are not hiding anything, they are enforcing the rules. The rules that guy was employed to obey.
Many companies are Proud of how they operate and would have no issues with full disclosure to the public
Ok, Name some, name some companies that make public their day to day operational details ?
I think you will struggle to think of a single one.
Obviously; this is NOT the case with the publicly FUNDED TSA.
Just one more reason to not fly is all.
We'll the airport is publicly funded, the airlines are publicly funded, all the shop's at the airport, or the travel agents and booking agents are all publicly funded.
Ie, but public funds them, by paying those companies, I think what you might of been thinking about is Government funded.
That is totally different to public funded, and if you think your tax many is funding much of anything in the USA these days, then you are sadly mistaken.
You might as well say it funded from loans off China, that our children will have to pay back..
Its funded by the $30,000 plus debt that every US citizen owes to china..
Don't you think the REAL terrorists, have people on the inside and have long since known this all?
We'll no, the 'real' terrorists most probably DO NOT have people on the inside, they may not even have people at that location, so if they can download that off the internet, all the better.
Don't you think the REAL terrorists, have people on the inside and have long since known this all?
Oh, ok, so then you might as well not do anything at all to try to protect your country.
After all, if you try to fix up one area, they are just going to attack you in another area. So by that logic you might as well open all your borders, to anyone, let anyone purchase explosives, and just sit back and wait for the end to come.
So if you cant stop ALL attacks, you might as well not bother trying to catch any.. After all it's costing your money !!!!... great logic.. :)
They would want to concentrate on areas you don't hear about on a friggin' DAILY basis... simple logic. Too bad government has no concept of such things.
LOL,, good idea, love that logic, spend all your efforts in the area's where the security issue is not an issue, where the terrorists DO NOT operate..
that will be SO MUCH more effective !!!
Im sure the Government understands it far better than you, and that is exactly why they are not putting all their effort into icecream stand bombers..
So instead of making flying a bit safer, they should be spending billions of dollars in deep background checks on all icecream stand vendors, employing icecream stand marshalls, x-ray scanners for the icecream, pat down's and chemical analysis !!!..
Sorry get a grip will you !!!..
Maybe you can suggest what area's they should be working on that you do not hear about on a daily basis ? the icecream stands ? for example... name some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This seems like jackbooting thug behavior from the TSA, which they need to be stomped on for... SEVERELY! With suspensions, dismissals of the agents, and perhaps criminal charges against the agents for abuse of police power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. Video of sensitive material is taken every day, there are more than 3 billion cell phones in this world and many of them have cameras, the fact that he posted on you tube tell me that he is definitely NOT working for a foreign power or terrorist organization.
3. The TSA sucks at life, every week there is a new debacle. While they are strip searching grannies in the terminal, someone in coveralls and a name tag could hop the fence and load whatever the hell he wanted onto the plane.
Bottom line. This video makes the government look like idiots, because in real life that's how they act. If the public learns how inept the people in charge of their safety really are they would get upset and demand "change" Of course no one has the faintest idea of what sort of "change" would help so they avoid it at all costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl is the worst troll ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thankyou, you are right, I am not a very good troll, that is why I do not engage in that activity.
A troll is someone who makes a post, but does not address anything that was stated.. you know like what you just did.
So I might be the worst troll ever, but you are THE BEST troll EVER.. you've clearly been doing it for quite some time.
You're trolling has reached new levels, You really do deserve that T-shirt, that say's "Worlds BEST TROLL".
But if you upset you that much then my work here is done.
And if I made you think for a second that would have been nice too.. cant expect too much thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would not matter for you, would it ?? you have at least ONE in your town. There are probably several, but you cant count that high,, ie 2..
But really wolfy, is that the best you can come up with ??
You've had a bit of time to think about it, and that is all you can give me ? kinda sucks ?
If you are going to try to insult me, you could have done a much better job.. or maybe you are what you talk off.
Maybe your total range is the ability to call people village idiots, and the other person can only call people troll. (at the same time you are both trolls).
But again, is that the best response you can come up with, I guess once you have run out of any form of logic and reasoning, you have no choice but to resort to. comments..
What would you call them ?? stupid comments, troll comments, pointless comments.
Comments that show off you're (lack of) level of understanding. and it shows you lack depth, so if you cant think of anything intelligent to say, you will just say whatever comes into your head..
Which is usually nothing more complex than a simple, purile little whine.
And all that achieves is that it makes you look like shallow, uninformed trolls, and whiners with little to add but some stupid, and purile comment...
Get a clue people, really the likes of Wolfy needs to go back to school for awile and move out of mum's basement..
But please do SOMETHING, to get a clue..otherwise it might be better for you just to keep you mouth shut, rather than opening it and showing everyone little depth you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security? What's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There seems to be a lot of security "experts" here
Two things jump out at me from this video that should be apparent to anyone with a similar background:
1 - Complacency Kills. That is point number one of the counter-terrorism training I received in the military and it seems to be the primary point of this video.
2 - There should be concentric rings of security, which get more difficult to clear, as you get closer to the area you wish to secure. In this video, it is obvious that rather than making the tarmac more restrictive, it is actually one of the easiest areas to get to. At my home town airport, the terminal Burger King employees have access to the tarmac to take out the trash. Now tell me how is it that this is suppose to be a highly restricted area when you have the kid taking your burger order walking out where the planes and luggage are right there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]