Criticize the system and bye-bye permit?

[Al Norris]

Sorry Crosshair. Should I have bolded the code words, Security Theater, for you to see the sarcasm?

Nah, publius caught it!

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Civilians go through the "secure area" all the time. It's anything inside the TSA checkpoints. I have never seen a photography prohibition in a terminal, so I am not so sure about TSA's assertion.

There is no photography or video prohibition near or inside TSA checkpoints. In fact, The SOP specifically allows for photo and video of checkpoints and even screening operations as long as no "sensitive security information" is recorded. Basically, that means you're not allowed to video tape the x-ray system monitors and the output screen of the explosives detectors. Virtually everything else in and around the checkpoint is fair game.

[Skadoosh]

And why go to his bosses? They are in the business of flying folks thru venues they do not have any say in.

If this pilot did not want to go to his superiors, he could easily have lodged a complaint through ALPA, which would have gotten the issue the attention it was due. ALPA has significant pull with the TSA and DHS. It was they who helped push for pilots being deputized and issued handguns and other security measures being installed on airliners.

Again I say that this pilot is on the "front lines" and exposed a security flaw in an irresponsible and foolish way. His lack of judgment, which is so important as a commercial airline pilot and reserve army officer, gives me serious pause as to whether I would fly with him or not.

[MLeake]

Skadoosh,

ALPA has been aware of this since at least 2005. We were complaining about this back then.

PK can probably verify, from the former TSA perspective.

Sorry to disillusion you.

[Skadoosh]

So, because ALPA as you say has been aware of this problem since 2005, are you agreeing that this pilot's exposure of these security shortfalls via Youtube is completely justifiable??

[Shane Tuttle]

So, because ALPA as you say has been aware of this problem since 2005, are you agreeing that this pilot's exposure of these security shortfalls via Youtube is completely justifiable??

If he is found to not be compromising national security, then, YES! How many years are you going to continue to let some agency drag their feet or play politics? NOBODY should trust ANY AGENCY if results don't come in a short fashion in favor of ones' God given rights.

We're all fed up here. The only and best solution is the citizen him/herself to raise cain in whatever legal fashion if said results are not happening. This is how issues get resolved. Here's my example and no need to delve into politics afterwards: You really think the anti-gun politicians in the House of Representatives would still have received their walking papers if the Tea Party movement didn't take place? You think McDonald was wrong in raising a big stink and talking to the media when he went head to head against Chicago? He challenged four major aspects of how Chicago demands gun registration to name one complaint. I don't see anything any different with what the pilot did even though he used Youtube as well...

[MLeake]

Skadoosh, there are a couple different concepts at play, here.

One is Whistleblower Protection. He won't be covered, as he didn't follow the steps.

The other is whether he was wrong, aside from the WP law. Going to his superiors would not help; same with going to TSA. Following protocol in this case goes nowhere.

Bad guys are already exploiting these gaps for drug and weapons smuggling, so he didn't show anything that hasn't been reported. The public chooses not to notice.

There are reasons why the airlines and government don't want to rock the boat. They have to do with keeping schedules and making money. Running ground crew through checks every time they cross the perimeter would cost time, require additional TSA personnel, and possibly delay flights and annoy passengers.

But requiring air crew to visibly go through checks is supposed to somehow reassure passengers, and make them feel better about having to go through the checks themselves. Ground crew are out of sight and out of mind for most passengers.

As others have noted, I as a pilot could have hijacked or destroyed a plane at will, without weapons. Putting me through checks made no real difference.

One other point - I have often won the SSSSS lottery for additional security checks when traveling jumpseat with airline ID or when on Navy Reserve orders, because of two things:

1. The airlines have quotas for additional security referrals for TSA and they want to upset minimal numbers of passengers;

And

2. They assume airline and government employees will play the game, and set happy examples.

Reassuring, no?

Again, just ask PK.

[Al Norris]

You want more security theater?

Woman arrested at ABIA after refusing enhanced pat down

OK. The above is just one of thousands of complaints to what is regarded as security theater. Do all this to only the passengers, but not the rest of the airport. To be sure, random searches do occur. But not anything like the extent done with passengers. That's the theater in a nutshell.

In law enforcement, searches must be reasonable. Yet at airports, the courts have ruled that these are not LE searches. They have made these things a separate category: Administrative Searches; and they do not include any 4A protections.

On Dec 8th, The Atlantic, had an article that detailed an interview with the head of the TSA, John Pistole: TSA Chief: 'We'll Never Eliminate Risk'

Jeffrey Goldberg: Do you agree with the civil libertarian view that airports -- not just because of the TSA -- but airports have become these Fourth Amendment-free zones? This is the fundamental concern, that you're giving up your Fourth Amendment rights when you buy a ticket.

John Pistole: I don't agree with that. But I do agree with the difference between what most people think of in terms of a reasonable search-and-seizure for purposes of law enforcement, versus a public-safety administrative search. I don't know if people are drawing that distinction, either, from a legal standpoint or a practical application. I think people don't look at the public safety aspect. They look at it strictly from -- as I did for almost 27 years (in the FBI) -- a law enforcement search perspective, in which I need probable cause, and I've got to be reasonable in that search.

So these admin searches do not need to be "reasonable" nor do they need probable cause, let alone a warrant. Yet, refuse the search and you are arrested.

You may never actually be charged with a crime, but you will be administratively fined. Time and again, the courts have held this as a valid mechanism of national security. That's the reality of security, in America today.

Add to all of this, that many of the rules and regulations, as they relate to what the TSA can and can't do, are secret. They aren't published and you have no way to know if you have violated any, until you are fined (administratively, so as to protect the secrecy of the rule/regulation).

This, I believe, is what is about to happen to the pilot.

In all of this, there is a point that the government refuses to acknowledge: The Terrorists Have Won.

As for the revoked CCW? Sheriffs in CA have an almost unilateral power to do what they want. Over at Calguns, most seem to think he will have to sue, to get any relief. They would know better than myself.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Technically, you are 100% allowed to refuse to be screened.

1) You may not (of course) progress past, or into, the checkpoint without being screened.

2)You may not WITHDRAW from screening once it has begun.


By the way, everyone with a security badge who enters the secure areas via some route other than the checkpoint is still potentially subject to screening. It doesn't happen at every entrance all the time but it does happen at every entrance at some time. Everyone who goes in there is screened at some point. Maybe not yesterday or tomorrow but maybe today.

What's really ignorant is that no one (few exceptions) can go through the checkpoint itself without being screened. Such as an airline ticket agent. If they want to access the secure area via the checkpoint then they must be screened.... but these same people have 2 or 3 or 10 other doors that their security badges will access which will allow them to get to the gate without screening.

Not enough? How about....

Most airports even screen the screeners at least once per day. If screening pilots and ticket agents isn't asinine enough for you, screening the screeners ought to be.

And yes, the pilots have been, uh, "vigorously" complaining about this issue for years. It's not new by any stretch.

All this stuff is public information and has been for years. Every new policy and procedure produces a media response for a few weeks before the controversy fades.