While some would say that this guy is a jerk who needs a new hobby, I also kind of appreciate this, especially in an airport context… I think?
In this post:
TSA agents & airline employees don’t understand rules
Long Island Audit Inc. produces videos that are posted to Facebook and YouTube, with the intent of doing “First Amendment Audits.” This seems to typically involve the police, but a recent video had an interesting angle, as it took place at an airport.
Specifically, the person behind this went to Newark Airport for an “audit,” which involved filming the TSA checkpoint to see what kind of a reaction he’d get. Well, both TSA agents and United Airlines employees (and contract workers) fail his “test” pretty horribly.
In the nearly 20 minute video posted online:
- The guy gets told by a TSA agent that he can’t record at TSA checkpoints
- The police are called, and an officer tells him that he can’t film, and demands to see his press credentials
- The guy points out that filming at TSA checkpoints is permitted, and this is even explicitly stated on the TSA’s website
- The officer then says he just can’t film in a way that “makes people feel uncomfortable,” and the guy then asks to see the law that says that
- A sergeant is then called, and he states that filming is allowed, and that he can continue
- He then goes to another part of the terminal and is approached by United Airlines employees, as several people tell him he can’t film
- A United Airlines supervisor is then called, and he has an attitude and calls the police
- The police officer shows up and tells the United employees that “what you want and what can be done are not the same thing”
If you like this kind of stuff, the video is definitely worth a watch, and you can find it below.
By the way, in this politically polarized climate, I can’t quite figure out if the angle here is ultra-liberal, ultra-conservative, or… neither? Strange times!
Why I appreciate this guy’s work
Obviously this guy is going to the extreme, and was unarguably looking for trouble. Usually I’d be skeptical of that, but personally I quite appreciate this. The reality is that a vast majority of airline and airport workers in the United States don’t understand rules around pictures and filming:
- Legally you can take pictures and film anywhere in an airport, with the exception of immigration facilities; yes, this includes being allowed to take pictures and film at TSA checkpoints (generally with the exception of screens)
- Legally, you can also take pictures and film airline passengers and agents, since you don’t have a reasonable right to privacy at an airport
- That being said, airlines can have policies against filming employees, and they can have you removed from their flight if you do so; you’re not breaking the law, you’re just breaking the carrier’s policy, which you agree to when you book a ticket
- However, in this case the guy didn’t have an airline ticket, so there’s nothing a United Airlines employee can do, since he had no contract with the airline
I obviously take a lot of pictures at airports for this blog, and every so often I’ll run into issues where someone tells me I’m not allowed to take pictures (and I go great lengths to try to respect peoples’ privacy). For example, I once took a picture of a really long security line at Miami Airport, and one of the contract workers told me to delete that picture. Ummm, no…
So sometimes it’s nice to see someone putting in the effort and taking the heat for something like this, especially when so many people he interacted with were dead wrong.
While this is a totally different topic, I also sometimes have issues with taking pictures either at hotels or airport lounges. Ironically the issue most often occurs not when people are in the pictures, but rather when I take pictures of buffets. Some people just decide they don’t want buffets photographed.
Of course that’s different — those are private establishments, and they’re allowed to make their own rules. However, in most cases these aren’t actually policies from the companies, but rather it’s just one employee who decides to make their own rule. Kind of like what the TSA and United employees were doing here.
Bottom line
As someone who takes lots of pictures at airports, the topic of airport employees not understanding rules around that is near and dear to my heart. In this case someone went to Newark Airport to film, and to essentially see what kind of a response he’d get.
Unfortunately the TSA, United employees, and (to some extent) the police got the laws totally wrong. Fortunately when it was escalated, the police correctly understood the rules, and you’ve gotta love when the police officer tells the United supervisor “what you want and what can be done are not the same thing.”
What do you make of this Newark filming incident?
(Tip of the hat to View from the Wing)
LIA is an Amazing auditor! Always calm, never aggressive! To the guy who said he was interrupting daily airport activities, it’s only true until it happens to you! People should hold out government officials accountable. If not this would be another Venezuela!
Sean Paul does not film for the purpose of "looking for trouble". He is exercising his first amendment right to film anything from public, and does so respectfully and peacefully. It's the reaction from airport officials, TSA, law enforcement and the general public who doesn't understand his constitutionally protected activity that is usually negative. It's also about education, and if people are uneducated in legally and lawful activity just because it is deemed suspicious then...
Sean Paul does not film for the purpose of "looking for trouble". He is exercising his first amendment right to film anything from public, and does so respectfully and peacefully. It's the reaction from airport officials, TSA, law enforcement and the general public who doesn't understand his constitutionally protected activity that is usually negative. It's also about education, and if people are uneducated in legally and lawful activity just because it is deemed suspicious then he is more than happy to educate them. Most of the half-wits who are uneducated tell him they don't want to be filmed, or they didn't give their permission (you don't need permission in public), or they make up some bullshit that filming people is illegal without their consent. There is no such thing as an expectation of privacy in public. Sean Paul does what he does to stand up for the rights of every American.
I was wondering, being from Europe, is there a right in the USA (State or Federal) that forbids someone from using your image for personal commercial gains without your permission? So they can film you, but they are not allowed to publish that video to make money without your consent. Are there equivalents of this 'right to portrait/publish'?
This has been done at the sidewalk in front of our synagogue - with the sole purpose of intimidating people.
Generally when I see these "audit" type videos in many of them they are being really disruptive, but I also see some where thy are just walking around and filming, and it only escalate because there is someone that doesn't want to be filmed (in public space), and or someone know it all "manager". This was one of those latter type. I don't t see them being disruptive, until TSA and United employees started telling...
Generally when I see these "audit" type videos in many of them they are being really disruptive, but I also see some where thy are just walking around and filming, and it only escalate because there is someone that doesn't want to be filmed (in public space), and or someone know it all "manager". This was one of those latter type. I don't t see them being disruptive, until TSA and United employees started telling them they cannot record, and escalate by calling the police. This is like one of those video of Karens calling the police on someone for not doing anything illegal.
Here's the situation at a US airport located in a homeless friendly city:
"Entry to LAX is only allowed for airline passengers and persons meeting, accompanying or assisting them, and airport personnel whose employment requires their presence. LAX is closed to the general public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."
So someone just going to the airport for filming purposes would be trespassing. However, if they buy a Spirit ticket and then go...
Here's the situation at a US airport located in a homeless friendly city:
"Entry to LAX is only allowed for airline passengers and persons meeting, accompanying or assisting them, and airport personnel whose employment requires their presence. LAX is closed to the general public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."
So someone just going to the airport for filming purposes would be trespassing. However, if they buy a Spirit ticket and then go film United agents, then I guess it should be OK.
Can we all agree that just because someone has a right to do something does not mean they are not a douchebag for doing it.
These guys are douchebags who go to places with the sole intent of getting a reaction and then pretend when they get the reaction "oh why won't you just leave us alone".
So legal yes, but they are douchebags.
I will agree though that it is good when employees...
Can we all agree that just because someone has a right to do something does not mean they are not a douchebag for doing it.
These guys are douchebags who go to places with the sole intent of getting a reaction and then pretend when they get the reaction "oh why won't you just leave us alone".
So legal yes, but they are douchebags.
I will agree though that it is good when employees on power trips are called out for making up rules e.g. "you're not allowed to film here".
Was coming to make substantially the same point.
Not every right needs to be exercised.
The issue is, is he doing it with the "sole intent of getting a reaction" or just trying to educate?
i.e. if all the staff did the right thing, would he do anything further to "get a reaction"? If not, then that's not what he's doing. Of course if he would I would agree with you.
The real problem is so many staff aren't doing the right thing, which causes a reaction. As such, his work is justified imo.
If LIA, a calm, respectful and law abiding citizen, gets harassed when he merely takes video of unimportant moments, how will people who try to record important events be left alone? When you need the right, it won’t be recognized.
It's probably his main source of income.
He can say he's doing it as a public service or call out bad management or 1st amendment blah blah blah. But it's a source of income the same way a lot of YouTube videos with headlines like "this is the worst airline" out don't go to this hotel because you may die etc. It's in the same vein as sensational headlines. Look at all the comments generated just here. It has achieved its purpose.
Good for him!!! He is totally protected by the Constitution. Airport is a public place and you have no privacy in public.
These are public places. People in public places have no expectation of privacy. He was not filming at a secure military installation, where there are specific laws against filming. Next question.
Why does it need to have a political undertone?? Can’t someone just be out there holding TSA and Airline Employees accountable for the crap they make us all go through.
White privilege at its height. Can you imagine if the person filming were a brown man? Hello, Guantanamo...
The guy is not white. Nice try. Time to stop parroting what the MSM tells you to
Next
Unfortunately we can only see one of the two cameraman…but the one we see is not white….
Some of these auditors make a fortune, this guy “Long Island audit” according to social blade makes £125k per year just on his YouTube account. The U.K. audit scene is growing but a number have been arrested, put on trial and some imprisoned for filming prisons etc.
Politically, this is conservative, not liberal. Liberal points of view is fundamental rights and freedoms are for disadvantaged and marginalized groups. Conservative point of view is fundamental rights and freedoms are for everyone.
Hahahaha! Gottem!!!!
Yep. The conservative view is that women get to make their own choices about reproductive freedom. The conservative view is that everyone deserves the right to marry the person they love. While the liberal view is those rights apply only to disadvantage and marginalized groups.
Full disclosure my response is satire and sarcasm. Forgive me if I failed to recognize echino's post as sarcasm.
Gboac sweet take... now do "vaccines."
Politically, this is liberal, not conservative. Conservative point of view is fundamental rights and freedoms are for everyone. Liberal points of view is fundamental rights and freedoms are for disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
Now in this scenario, isn't the people without the uniform (aka general public) the disadvantaged and marginalized groups because we don't wear uniforms are entrusted with authority to exercise (or abuse) it?
@echino
P.S. You are part of what is wrong...
Politically, this is liberal, not conservative. Conservative point of view is fundamental rights and freedoms are for everyone. Liberal points of view is fundamental rights and freedoms are for disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
Now in this scenario, isn't the people without the uniform (aka general public) the disadvantaged and marginalized groups because we don't wear uniforms are entrusted with authority to exercise (or abuse) it?
@echino
P.S. You are part of what is wrong with America. Trying to put stuff into one of two buckets base on your personal beliefs. Your "exact" quote can be viewed differently. Americans need to learn to understand that. Not just "my way" of the constitution.
@Eskimo
Yes this is liberal behavior.
You got the headline wrong, I’ll fix it.
“Asshole wastrel needs a job or a hobby, or else a friend to explain to him that he’s embarrassing himself.”
Longtime reader, first time headline writer, thank you, don’t forget to tip your waitress!
thank you :)
He most likely will make more on this video than most of you in a month of labor. So no he probably won't adopt a different hobby or job.
How do you make money with these kind of videos? Do you get money from ads?
@Bruce who declares "You can tell it’s ultra-conservative since the video has ‘first amendment’ in its title." Let me assure you that there are many of us who are not ultra-conservative who photograph transportation activities (trains, planes, buses) from public areas and have been told that we can't do so for a whole host of reasons. -- I can't tell you the number of times I've been told that such photography has been outlawed because...
@Bruce who declares "You can tell it’s ultra-conservative since the video has ‘first amendment’ in its title." Let me assure you that there are many of us who are not ultra-conservative who photograph transportation activities (trains, planes, buses) from public areas and have been told that we can't do so for a whole host of reasons. -- I can't tell you the number of times I've been told that such photography has been outlawed because of 9/11. I don't know whether this is really a first amendment issue but the fact is there are many people out there who want to show they are in control by telling you you can't take photographs in public areas. And that needs to be pushed back whenever it occurs.
Kind of mixed feelings regarding these guys. While they claim to not have any ill will, I feel that they are intentionally creating uncomfortable situations. Yes - the constitution defends their right, but if I were a passenger, I wouldn’t want to be in a video without my consent. However, I suppose the argument could be made that if everyone knows the law, none of these situations would be created in the first place.
@Emily
Even if everyone knows the law, you still wouldn’t want to be in a video without your consent.
So are you uncomfortable of the person recording, the law for allowing that, or the misinformed authorities?
@Eskimo - unfortunately it is not so simple or reductive. The problem is really with the interpretation of the constitution and legal "rights." I don't think the law allows the usage of film of photograph without expressed consent by the subjects where the individuals can be clearly identified. However, these guys claim that they have full privilege to film. Clearly there is a misinterpretation on someone or everyone's part. I fall into the category that...
@Eskimo - unfortunately it is not so simple or reductive. The problem is really with the interpretation of the constitution and legal "rights." I don't think the law allows the usage of film of photograph without expressed consent by the subjects where the individuals can be clearly identified. However, these guys claim that they have full privilege to film. Clearly there is a misinterpretation on someone or everyone's part. I fall into the category that I would avoid or request that I not be identifiable in third party images or footage. However, what legal precedence would I have except for the filming party's good will?
Emily - you have zero expectation of privacy in public. ZERO
Please go back and retake high school level classes where this is taught.
@Emily:
Are you in the habit of debating yourself?
I guess you win either way!
@grammarcop
I'm in the habit of laying down an argument and seeing an incident from both sides. What exactly is your habit? Posting comments which add little value to anyone?
As the airport is private property isn't it down to the airport's owners on what they want regarding the taking of photos and videos?
"Private property"?
Who do you think paid for the airports, Microsoft and Apple?? Airports are 100% built and operated by cities and local governments...and the money comes from taxpayers. The airlines pay "rent" for the gates and jetways.
There are some airports that are actually private entities, such as Heathrow.
Heathrow is in the UK, isn`t it? So first amendment shouldn`t be applicable there.
So not sure if there are privately owned airports in the US that also have TSA checkpoints...
Airports are not privately owned in the US because the property taxes alone would make them uneconomical to run.
In the US there is only one privately owned and operated airport with scheduled commercial service: Branson, MO
Most commercial airports in the US are publicly owned properties and paid for by the tax payers, unlike in some other countries.
However, even in countries where the airport is a public property, many airports clearly state that filming or photographing airport personnel and security is prohibited and could result in penal action. I know for one that in airports in Asia, one does not want to photograph airport security.
I wonder how recently the video was filmed. With all the problems with commercial air travel that exist now, is this type of blog video helpful? I believe in freedom of the press and am fully aware that EWR is public property. But is filming a TSA checkpoint without giving TSA, the Port Authority a heads-up a cool thing to do? TSA, airline, security, airport staff and passengers are all under so much pressure these...
I wonder how recently the video was filmed. With all the problems with commercial air travel that exist now, is this type of blog video helpful? I believe in freedom of the press and am fully aware that EWR is public property. But is filming a TSA checkpoint without giving TSA, the Port Authority a heads-up a cool thing to do? TSA, airline, security, airport staff and passengers are all under so much pressure these days, why make it worse? And filming / photographing a security checkpoint at EWR, post 9-11, so close to the WTC site, you're just asking for an encounter. Did the blogger consider that one of those airport staffers, TSA or PA PD officers could have lost a friend or family member on 9-11? Want to film a TSA checkpoint? Be a professional journalist/blogger: give TSA a heads-up, identify yourself, call TSA / PA public affairs and I'm pretty sure they will accommodate you. Same for filming Airline employees.
so you only want people to to take footage if its been pre-approved by the TSA? That sounds like an amazing idea and would literally be a (voluntary) government minder like you have to deal with in places like the PRC or other places without press freedom. Whilst this dude seems like a really annoying person to have to deal with, exercising your rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of government employees. What you...
so you only want people to to take footage if its been pre-approved by the TSA? That sounds like an amazing idea and would literally be a (voluntary) government minder like you have to deal with in places like the PRC or other places without press freedom. Whilst this dude seems like a really annoying person to have to deal with, exercising your rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of government employees. What you are advocating is (voluntary) censorship. Also: Not everything is about 9/11.
I completely agree that he should have the right to film. However, everyone complains about delays and safety. That includes feeling safe. His video is long. If he just filmed the area for a few minutes to gain the information he needed, nothing would have happened. This was not “filming”. This was instigating. Two men with full head masks on video taping the security of an airport that is clearly within the metropolitan area of...
I completely agree that he should have the right to film. However, everyone complains about delays and safety. That includes feeling safe. His video is long. If he just filmed the area for a few minutes to gain the information he needed, nothing would have happened. This was not “filming”. This was instigating. Two men with full head masks on video taping the security of an airport that is clearly within the metropolitan area of the worst terrorist attack on US land. I am sure the terrorists needed surveillance video to plan their crimes. They even use the example of cameras with a famous person. In this instance, they are not auditing. They stay until they get a reaction. Every part of their adventure was intended to cause harm to some one else. During the video, the antagonize a private citizen that must go through security and can not avoid them. The go out of their way to embarrass the TSA employees as well as the police. They expect the world to treat them with respect and at the same time they claim that they have the right to disrupt every one’s lives and activities under the pretext of an audit. With the exception of a couple of responses from those being harassed, the title of this article should indicate that TSA and Airport employees tolerate 20 minutes of harassment without over reacting.
This video was filmed 9 months ago and as the self-proclaimed journalist says himself during the video, the whole point is to provoke these situations as a lesson to teach about the first amendment right.
Back in August 2016, when connecting through Newark, I pulled out my DSLR camera to take a photo of the interior architecture. Literally within 5 minutes two airport cops showed up and demanded that I stop taking photos. I refused. They called a supervisor who wasn’t as informed as the sergeant here. After taking extra photos while they stood around me, I finally left. It was just absurd. Does anyone actually think a terrorist is...
Back in August 2016, when connecting through Newark, I pulled out my DSLR camera to take a photo of the interior architecture. Literally within 5 minutes two airport cops showed up and demanded that I stop taking photos. I refused. They called a supervisor who wasn’t as informed as the sergeant here. After taking extra photos while they stood around me, I finally left. It was just absurd. Does anyone actually think a terrorist is going to use a professional DSLR camera? If you’re doing recon of a target you’re using something much smaller and more discreet
I am like that, too. I want to take a grand tour of the US and take photos of JFK, IAD, ATL, OMA, PIT, LGA, MIA, DCA, STL, ORD, MSP, IAH, DEN, CVG. MKE, etc. All of these have something worth photographing, in my opinion.
@derek You had me until you named LGA. Then I realized you must be joking.
@reddargon
You probably never been to LGA.
Among the dozen airports from @derek list, Marine Air Terminal is definitely in the top 5.
The problem for many is the massive swing in our society in what is done with these photographs and videos. While at times they become a check and balance to the many idiots out there who abuse others (i.e. hitting airline employees, throwing things, or police abuse etc), the reality is that too many are taking photos of strangers who are completely minding their own business and posting them on sites where they live forever...
The problem for many is the massive swing in our society in what is done with these photographs and videos. While at times they become a check and balance to the many idiots out there who abuse others (i.e. hitting airline employees, throwing things, or police abuse etc), the reality is that too many are taking photos of strangers who are completely minding their own business and posting them on sites where they live forever and potentially become the next meme or Tik Tok post. No one is "safe" from this anymore. It seems so innocent to take photos, and it once was, but now people take pictures in the pool with you happenstance standing to the side, post them on instagram of Facebook, and you potentially get strangers mocking you, someone recognizing you and reposting it somewhere else with, "OMG, I know this guy and he was vacationing in Bali? Must be nice!" Further, where do we draw the line? One blog two years ago had a photo of a man with his face in full view and his feet up on a table in a lounge. Sure, disgusting, but worth humiliating this man with this image appearing on the Internet forever and calling him a pig? That blogger has since stopped showing faces, which is good, but many continue with the practice.
Points Bloggers should especially know better. They never post anything about trips they are on while actually on flights or at resorts/hotels. Rightfully so you want privacy. Which is why I imagine the same bloggers would be a bit nervous should they be photographed getting into a Aman branded car at the airport, have it posted to Instagram by someone, and within seconds your readers know where you are before you even get there. Especially concerning if you have haters, as everyone does.
I have no clue what the solution is. And people have no sense or decorum anymore.
You say “ you potentially get strangers mocking you, someone recognizing you and reposting it somewhere else with, "OMG, I know this guy and he was vacationing in Bali? Must be nice!"
Why do you care? I’m honestly curious why anyone would care about what some strangers think/say about you
First, not all might be strangers. Second, some like a certain level of privacy....or at least the ability to choose when and how they appear to the world on the Internet. Third, for anyone with a profile (not celebrity or anyone deemed a public servant - that's different), which is everyone, one photo that gets misinterpreted or used to mock in some form can affect them for the rest of their lives. It could impede...
First, not all might be strangers. Second, some like a certain level of privacy....or at least the ability to choose when and how they appear to the world on the Internet. Third, for anyone with a profile (not celebrity or anyone deemed a public servant - that's different), which is everyone, one photo that gets misinterpreted or used to mock in some form can affect them for the rest of their lives. It could impede work, relationships, or local standing. Finally, if someone does make one minor mistake (don't we all?) and it somehow gets photographed or appears in video online, should that one mistake have to follow that person forever? You might say, "well, who cares what people think?" The problem with that is mob mentality and the ease with which a photo or video can be distorted and lead to group thought. The "election was stolen" is a perfect example of how easily people are swayed in this world today. Recall some of the photos used to attack simple volunteers in Georgia whose lives were ruined as the mob distorted completely what they were doing?
There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
However, one would expect common courtesy. This is where it all gets muddled. I agree with you in theory @echino. However, society has shown us in modern times that bloggers, influencers, social media platform users, everyone now...that the idea of common courtesy and respecting others is lost. Where do we draw the line if people are not educated enough to respect other's privacy in public places? I am not talking about when they are throwing...
However, one would expect common courtesy. This is where it all gets muddled. I agree with you in theory @echino. However, society has shown us in modern times that bloggers, influencers, social media platform users, everyone now...that the idea of common courtesy and respecting others is lost. Where do we draw the line if people are not educated enough to respect other's privacy in public places? I am not talking about when they are throwing chairs at a gate agent. Just the basics. As well, how one person's opinion about a person in a photo loaded on TikTok becomes group thought, even if benign and nothing. While taking pictures of a buffet at a lounge is perfectly acceptable in a public place (citing the post), taking pictures that include others at the buffet is not. Especially if one of those people, without the photographer even realizing it is piling his plate high and suddenly becomes fodder on the Internet as being a pig at a trough. Just an example. Lastly, do you really feel in this day and age that filming TSA agents is a good idea? Faces, identity, etc are revealed to those who are supposed to be protecting the general public. Do we really need the right to show them all at work when they are simply doing their jobs?
I get it that many of the newer generations actually love the attention. But I imagine this will wear thin in time. As a Gen X'r I can assure you that most of us do not appreciate being photographed randomly by people and potentially subject to god knows what. I respect your rights. But please respect me as a fellow member of society in that I do not want to be your next post on TikTok.
I have mixed feelings here. This guy is certainly capitalizing on some people's obsession with a constitutional amendment that they (typically) don't understand fully. They think that they can hide behind the first amendment while they do, say & wear anything they want... In private spaces such as airplanes. Anything that helps these sad folks better understand law in any way is a net positive. This is in spite of this guy's good or bad...
I have mixed feelings here. This guy is certainly capitalizing on some people's obsession with a constitutional amendment that they (typically) don't understand fully. They think that they can hide behind the first amendment while they do, say & wear anything they want... In private spaces such as airplanes. Anything that helps these sad folks better understand law in any way is a net positive. This is in spite of this guy's good or bad intentions.
But yeah... He's definitely not "pro police" since he's generally being a nuisance a burden.
The government must be kept in check by any means necessary.
OK, so let me get this right...
A random dude goes to a busy airport and "audits", and by that I mean he interrupts airport employees, when he actually has no business being in the airport at all. He literally went looking for trouble and it sounds like he created it.
Airport employees are busy trying to get folks through security, get their bags checked, issue boarding passes, etc.
Shame on this guy going...
OK, so let me get this right...
A random dude goes to a busy airport and "audits", and by that I mean he interrupts airport employees, when he actually has no business being in the airport at all. He literally went looking for trouble and it sounds like he created it.
Airport employees are busy trying to get folks through security, get their bags checked, issue boarding passes, etc.
Shame on this guy going into an airport looking for trouble. He is not part of the solution, he is the problem.
If no one stopped working to hassle with the guy these people would stop doing it. The employees/police are the one creating a scene. Just let them film and leave them alone and there will be no content to post. No one is going to post a 20 minute video filming no one trying to stop them.
Good point Chris, i have to think he does this a lot and wouldnt be surprised if he filmed on 5 differnt days before he finally got the "response" he wanted. I bet he did this and nothing happened as employees just let him film and each time this guy got more and more aggressive until he got the reaction he wanted to and therefor clicks on his video.
The employees "interrupted" themselves by taking the time to harass him. They literally get paid to learn and enforce rules/laws. They should all be retrained off the clock since they didn't learn correctly the first time. Regardless of this guy, TSA agents always take their sweet time, going on ALL their breaks and switches of posts, and BS with passengers 24/7 ANYWAYS. They get paid the big bucks now. So act like it and don't...
The employees "interrupted" themselves by taking the time to harass him. They literally get paid to learn and enforce rules/laws. They should all be retrained off the clock since they didn't learn correctly the first time. Regardless of this guy, TSA agents always take their sweet time, going on ALL their breaks and switches of posts, and BS with passengers 24/7 ANYWAYS. They get paid the big bucks now. So act like it and don't get distracted by some fool with a GoPro: look for weapons and important stuff or go back to being a cashier at a big box store (that seems to be their comfort level anyways).
Who's looking for trouble? The one doing something perfectly legal, or the employees who clearly don't know the law or their own job? Instead of things that ARE in their job description, they choose to waste time enforcing self-made rules that have no legal basis.
Maybe if enough of these TSA employees get educated, they would have more times getting folks through security etc.
Ben - your second bullet point has a typo. You wrote "police is called," rather than "police are called."
@ David -- Fixed, thanks!
Pershing a constitutionally protective activity isn’t asking for trouble. This is (or should be) non-political.
@ Mark -- I think you can be looking for trouble and not doing anything illegal or wrong at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.
But I think there's no denying that what this guy wants is a confrontation (otherwise he has nothing to publish online, which is his business). He got what he want, and (in a way) he performed a public service.
Many Americans don’t understand the concept of privacy and believe they have the right to stick cameras in peoples faces, because they can do. It’s ignorant and rude. If you are at an airport, no Tom, dick, Harry or Karen, has the right to film you.
Then they go overseas where in many countries, such as France, it’s like illegal.
@ Icarus -- Well whether right or wrong, you *do* have the right to do that in the United States, at least in airports. So the people who "don't understand" here are those telling the guy he can't film. I totally get laws are very different in other parts of the world.
But I also think it's important to remember that typically when airport employees go on power trips about photography or filming, it's...
@ Icarus -- Well whether right or wrong, you *do* have the right to do that in the United States, at least in airports. So the people who "don't understand" here are those telling the guy he can't film. I totally get laws are very different in other parts of the world.
But I also think it's important to remember that typically when airport employees go on power trips about photography or filming, it's not because a camera is being stuck in someone's face. I've taken pictures at US airports without people in them, and have been told that's not allowed.
Why’s he filming ?
He simply went there with the intent on causing trouble.
The staff weren’t rude. I’ve seen similar videos of people going up to employees and filming them because they think they have the right to do so. The staff were just walking and the response was he could do because it’s he right and they have no privacy. This includes minors.
There’s a guy called Tony Vera on you tube. Beyond irritating. Nothing better to do. Sad.
They do have the right to do that. LOL. Including minors.
To me this is not ultimately about what is "legal" or what are technically someone's rights. And more about decent, considerate behaviour.
I would always feel uncomfortable if someone pointed a camera or other recording device at me, no matter what I was doing at the time. It just seems plain rude and invasive.
Obviously this is much more of an issue now that everyone has a phone. And I accept that I probably appear...
To me this is not ultimately about what is "legal" or what are technically someone's rights. And more about decent, considerate behaviour.
I would always feel uncomfortable if someone pointed a camera or other recording device at me, no matter what I was doing at the time. It just seems plain rude and invasive.
Obviously this is much more of an issue now that everyone has a phone. And I accept that I probably appear in the background of someone's picture many times a day. But if I am specifically the object of the recording then I have a problem with that. How I would react would depend on the circumstances.
Every right to film you or I in public places!
You can tell it’s ultra-conservative since the video has ‘first amendment’ in its title. I mean, the obsession with the constitution is part of most Americans’ interpretation of politics, but even more so of the conservatives in the US. There’s a point to be made about video restriction yes but not everything needs to be about the constitution and the identity of the country. Hence the polarisation. But again, this is a very uniquely American...
You can tell it’s ultra-conservative since the video has ‘first amendment’ in its title. I mean, the obsession with the constitution is part of most Americans’ interpretation of politics, but even more so of the conservatives in the US. There’s a point to be made about video restriction yes but not everything needs to be about the constitution and the identity of the country. Hence the polarisation. But again, this is a very uniquely American (read: ‘stupid’) problem. Yes, there are problems with videoing everywhere. But nobody throws a hissy fit about the constitution of a country when this happens. We just state the law and go from there.
It seems you are the United Supervisor "James" in the video.
@Bruce
Trademark liberal antifa behavior and appearance. They are only making a mockery of the first amendment for the sake of pestering authorities.
Next time there are riots in Seattle and Portland notice most trouble makers are wearing all black and face coverings. Then the democrat run media will give zero coverage.
I do think they have militarized airports and airlines until the experience is horrible. Pay big bucks and be a sheep. It’s good they are shown that they are not dictators for all things in the airport.