Airline "Security Theater"

[CPT Tripss]

Anything for "security in a abundance of caution?" It's stupid regardless of who does it.

A Miami photographer was escorted off a US Airways plane and deemed a “security risk” after she snapped a photo of an employee’s nametag at Philadelphia International Airport Friday.

Sandy DeWitt said the employee, whose name was Tonialla G., was being rude to several passengers in the boarding area of the flight to Miami.

So DeWitt snapped a photo of her nametag with her iPhone because she planned to complain about her in a letter to US Airways. But the photo didn’t come out because it was too dark.

However, once DeWitt was settled in her seat, preparing for take-off, Tonialla G. entered the plane and confronted her.

“She told me to delete the photo,” DeWitt said in an interview with Photography is Not a Crime Saturday morning.

DeWitt, who already had her phone turned off in preparation for take-off, turned the phone back on to show her that it didn’t come out, but deleted the photo anyway.

“I complied with her wishes but it’s not something I would normally do,” she said. “It just wasn’t usable.”

But Tonialla G. wouldn’t let the issue go. She then walked into the cockpit to inform the pilot that DeWitt was a “security risk.”

Next thing DeWitt knew, she was being escorted off the plane by two flight attendants. Her husband followed.

“I announced to the other passengers that I was being removed because I took a photo,” she said. “ I announced that photography is not a crime.”

By this time, she had Tonialla G.'s named memorized, so she didn't even need the photo anymore.

Off the plane, she spoke to a Michael Lofton, a US Airways manager at Philadelphia International Airport, who told her she would not be allowed back on the plane because she was a security risk.

But even though she was supposedly a security risk, Lofton directed her to American Airlines where they supposedly had a flight back to Miami leaving soon.

However, that flight had already departed and it was already after 7 p.m., so there were no other flights back to Miami until the following morning.

“We were expecting to spend the night at the airport,” she said.

They eventually boarded a Southwest Airlines flight to Fort Lauderdale at 11 p.m.

They landed at 1:15 a.m. and had to wake up a friend to drive them to Miami International Airport, about a 45 minute drive, where their car was parked.

“Southwest really stepped up to the plate for us,” she said. “I can’t say enough about them.”

DeWitt is a commercial photographer who graduated from the Rhode Island School of Photography.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/woman-escorted-off-us-airways-flight-for-snapping-iphone-photo

 

[RMAMom]

Anything for "security in a abundance of caution?" It's stupid regardless of who does it.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/woman-escorted-off-us-airways-flight-for-snapping-iphone-photo

This was not security, this was an employee with a bad attitude abusing the little bit of power she has in this world. I would love to know the follow up to this, did the photographer approach management about this. Was there any disciplinary action taken? Just curious.

 

[bicker]

Sounds like a self-absorbed photographer decided to whine to an online photo story posting site because she caused herself to miss some important meetings or something.

I love the updates at the end of the blog entry - wow - so surprising that there are possibly other self-absorbed passengers out there who have trouble fitting their huge egos through the door of the nation's cost-cut mass-market transportation system.

 

[pr surfer]

Sorry Tonialla, the photographer's right to free speech- photographing your nametag- trumps you not wanting to have your nametag photograph.

How about you do your job right, and you don't need to worry about that?

Now that she's made her company look like an !!!!!!!! and not just herself, I hope some media outlets decide to share this story, and Tonialla gets in deeper than if she had just merely been reported.

 

[bicker]

There will always be self-absorbed customer who seek to assuage their frustration with not getting their way by trying to make their suppliers look bad, no matter what anyone does.

Note that the right to free speech does not allow you to say or do anything you want in an airport, or really anywhere. The point of the right is to ensure that different perspectives can all be heard in public discourse. As frustrating as a photographer may find it to be, there are limits on everything, including the rights they actually do have.

 

[maxiesmom]

This was not security, this was an employee with a bad attitude abusing the little bit of power she has in this world.

I agree. Some people just like to make themselves feel important and powerful.

I do hope their is some kind of consequence for her little fit. A few weeks off without pay may get her attention.

 

[pr surfer]

There will always be self-absorbed customer who seek to assuage their frustration with not getting their way by trying to make their suppliers look bad, no matter what anyone does.

Note that the right to free speech does not allow you to say or do anything you want in an airport, or really anywhere. The point of the right is to ensure that different perspectives can all be heard in public discourse. As frustrating as a photographer may find it to be, there are limits on everything, including the rights they actually do have.

At the Philadelphia Airport, where the incident occurred, there are no rules prohibiting photography. The only restrictions are the standard ones at the customs/immigrations arrivals hall and at the TSA checkpoint IF interfering with the screening process.

What happened is an employee knew she did wrong, and knew she was going to be reported. If anything, this makes me question how many times she had behave so poorly and been reported, if she was brazen enough to board the plane and force the pax to delete the photo.

 

[bicker]

It looks like the US Airways manager sided with the flight attendant, not the photographer.

I will grant that if the flight attendant eventually receives sanctions, that would increase the likelihood that the flight attendant did something wrong. By the same token, if US Airways doesn't life the ban on the photographer, that would increase the likelihood that the photographer was in the wrong.

 

[bicker]

At the Philadelphia Airport, where the incident occurred, there are no rules prohibiting photography.

There is also no right to take photographs.

What happened is an employee knew she did wrong, and knew she was going to be reported.

Prove it.

In the absence of proof one way or the other, it is equally likely that the photographer is the at-fault party here, and both sides should therefore be equally acknowledged.

 

[pr surfer]

There is also no right to take photographs.

Public space, publicly owned airport. It is indeed a free speech zone (albeit with consequences if you abuse said right). Photography is indeed allowed.

Prove it.

Prove I'm wrong.

In the absence of proof one way or the other, it is equally likely that the photographer is the at-fault party here, and both sides should therefore be equally acknowledged.

So no side is right or wrong. I'll give you that.

But as a frequent traveler, I'll side with the pax.

 

[bicker]

Indeed, neither of us can prove either side, so as I said, each side is equally likely and both sides should therefore be equally acknowledged. That's really the main point: Not the the flight attendant nor the photograph is wrong, but that one or the other, or perhaps both, are, and that no reasonable assumptions can be made beyond that. Readily believing anything negative posted in an online blog, just because the carefully-painted picture makes one side sound sympathetic and the other side sound malevolent is troubling to me. Even actual news articles from reputable news agencies like AP and NYT (which this isn't) should be viewed with similar skepticism.

 

[sam_gordon]

Indeed, neither of us can prove either side, so as I said, each side is equally likely and both sides should therefore be equally acknowledged. That's really the main point: Not the the flight attendant nor the photograph is wrong, but that one or the other, or perhaps both, are, and that no reasonable assumptions can be made beyond that. Readily believing anything negative posted in an online blog, just because the carefully-painted picture makes one side sound sympathetic and the other side sound malevolent is troubling to me. Even actual news articles from reputable news agencies like AP and NYT (which this isn't) should be viewed with similar skepticism.

Photography is allowed in public spaces unless there is a specific prohibition against it (rare). And the burden of proof would be on YOU (or law enforcement or the airline) to show where taking pictures is a violation.
Even IF taking a picture WAS against the "rules" that doesn't mean the photographer is a "security risk" and needed to be kicked off the plane.
If the photographer wanted, she could take US Air, the pilot, and the FA to court.
On the larger subject, the recent bans against photography (generally of law enforcement officers) are a dangerous precedent.

 

[bicker]

Photography is allowed in public spaces unless there is a specific prohibition against it (rare). And the burden of proof would be on YOU (or law enforcement or the airline) to show where taking pictures is a violation.

That's not really the issue, though. Anyone, including an airline, can tell passengers not to take photographs, and can choose not to serve a passenger who takes photographs. Commercial photographers aren't a protected class.

The photographer perhaps may not necessarily be compelled by law to comply, but nothing precludes what happened.

Even IF taking a picture WAS against the "rules" that doesn't mean the photographer is a "security risk" and needed to be kicked off the plane.

That's your opinion. The pilot disagrees. The pilot is authorized to make that determination, not a passenger who wants to do what they want to do. The pilot is sympathetic to the overall safety of the aircraft.

If the photographer wanted, she could take US Air, the pilot, and the FA to court.

And she could lose. That's the point: We don't have enough information to know whether to believe the flight attendant, the photographer, or both are at fault.

On the larger subject, the recent bans against photography (generally of law enforcement officers) are a dangerous precedent.

I don't disagree, but some recent "abuse" (meant in the same erroneous way you used the word) of photography (generally of law enforcement officers) is an equally dangerous precedent. More and more often, we citizens are "abusing" our rights and thereby fostering a less safe environment for all. It all cuts both ways.

 

[Lewisc]

The blog quoted by the OP was written by

Carlos Miller a Miami multimedia journalist who has been arrested twice for taking pictures of cops

Blogs don't pretend to be objective. I have no reason to believe the account presented is either complete or accurate.

I have to give the OP some credit for find these off the wall blogs. Nothing to do with security but it is somewhat entertaining

 

[DenGrampy]

Excuse me for buttting in here, however, I believe some here have missed the bigger picture (pun intended) here. The employee in question was at the gate, not identified as a flight attendant. She boarded the plane to confront the pax who complied with her request to delete the pic. Going into the cockpit and referring to the pax as a "security risk" was way beyond the employee's job description, in my opinion. When the pax complied with the request to delete the pic that should have been the end to the situation.

 

[bicker]

Going into the cockpit and referring to the pax as a "security risk" was way beyond the employee's job description, in my opinion.

Job descriptions aren't a matter of opinion. They're codified in controlled documents. Warning flight crews of suspected security risks is every airline employee's responsibility, and especially that of the employees who have direct contact with a passenger prior to a flight.

 

[DenGrampy]

The only intention here was to point out that the employee confronted the pax about the pic and the pax complied with her request. Since we all take pics with phones these days I don't consider this particular incident a "security risk". How many other probably took a pic with their phone and were not "escorted" off this flight? People take pics at take=off, couldn't this also be considered a "security risk"?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Photography is allowed in public spaces unless there is a specific prohibition against it (rare). And the burden of proof would be on YOU (or law enforcement or the airline) to show where taking pictures is a violation.
Even IF taking a picture WAS against the "rules" that doesn't mean the photographer is a "security risk" and needed to be kicked off the plane.
If the photographer wanted, she could take US Air, the pilot, and the FA to court.
On the larger subject, the recent bans against photography (generally of law enforcement officers) are a dangerous precedent.

Yeap, you got it!

Certainly, an employee of a large corporation working in a public place with a nametag on has no expectation of privacy.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Sheesh. When did we become so tech-dependent? What's wrong with a good, old-fashioned, discreet pen and paper to note the name of a genuinely difficult employee? Or use the phone AS a phone - call yourself and leave a message with the person's name?

Problem solved. Nobody thrown off any flight forced to wake a friend in the middle of the night for a ride, no one-sided blogs, no "security theater" fanatic threads...

 

[kaytieeldr]

Public space, publicly owned airport. It is indeed a free speech zone (albeit with consequences if you abuse said right). Photography is indeed allowed.

I'm pretty sure there's no right to take pictures of some woman's "chestal area".