Airline "Security Theater"

[pr surfer]

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

Actually... free speech includes that as well Especially since as a place of work the reason that one would photograph a woman's chest, as your post implies, is removed.

Try again.

 

[bicker]

The only intention here was to point out that the employee confronted the pax about the pic and the pax complied with her request.

We don't know if that was all that happened.

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?

That's a good point. In the context described, taking a photograph is arguably confrontational on its own merits. They call it "shooting" pictures, taking "snapshots".

 

[CPT Tripss]

What is it that would make a passenger with no weapons a "security risk" on an airplane with a locked cockpit door?

Defending the airline employee's decision requires some level of evidence.

 

[bicker]

What is it that would make a passenger with no weapons a "security risk" on an airplane with a locked cockpit door?

Really? You cannot imagine scenarios where a passenger can cause a situation just by being unreasonable?

Defending the airline employee's decision requires some level of evidence.

No more than defending a passenger's anger about that decision.

And remember, we're talking about decisions by several airline employees. To believe the photographer, without further information breaking the photographer's way, wouldn't be prudent.

 

[bumbershoot]

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.

That's exactly what stood out to me. She's not identified as a flight attendant at all; does she have rights to get on the plane at all? Especially over a *picture*?

...if US Airways doesn't life the ban on the photographer, that would increase the likelihood that the photographer was in the wrong.

Lift the "ban"?

"she would not be allowed back on the plane"... She coudln't get back on THE plane, the one she just got off. That's not a ban, that's saying "we have to figure this out, but that plane is taking off now".

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.

So she abused her power over a picture?

And remember, we're talking about decisions by several airline employees. To believe the photographer, without further information breaking the photographer's way, wouldn't be prudent.

Decisions made *quickly*, possibly without full information (do we know that the pilot knew this was over a nametag picture?), and with a flight in need of taking off.

 

[bicker]

Decisions need to be made quickly in our mainstream air transportation system. There is no pause button on time. Everyone would be very seriously upset if every time some irate passenger went off on a crew member everyone else had to be delayed while the risks were carefully weighed.

So I don't know what your point is there, except perhaps to try to pass off the message that passengers should be treated as gods and everyone working for airlines should just do whatever any passenger says to do.

Pointing a camera at someone's chest is a very confrontational thing to do, and would get me wondering if the person is or isn't emotionally unstable. It surely smacks of passive-aggressiveness, afaic, but without more information I'm not willing to disparage the passenger by making such a careless accusation, as readily as some seem to be willing to carelessly disparage the gate agent. Better, I think, to realize that there simply isn't enough information to legitimately determine who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Brian Noble]

free speech includes that as well

This is a pet peeve, but "free speech" is only a matter of what the government cannot prevent. It has no standing for the actions of a private company, provided that company isn't violating some other law, such as those forbidding racial discrimination.

An airline, being a private entity, has significant latitude about when and whether it refuses service to a passenger for "speech".

 

[goofy4tink]

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...

I really hate it when you take the words right out of my mouth...so to speak. Seriously...this woman couldn't remember the gate person's name long enough to write it down??? Pulling out a camera, phone or otherwise, and shooting a photo of someone's name tag is somewhat confrontational.
And I do believe gate attendents are allowed on to a plane....or at least those who are working the gates for a particular flight...I've seen them come on and off the planes many times.

BUT....was that woman correct in having the passenger taken off the flight?? Not hardly. I would have had a letter to the powers that be of that airlines so fast your head would spin. I would start off by apologizing for taking the photo in the first place...telling them that after being treatly rudely, I had gotten angry and didn't stop to think first. But, that I had deleted the photo after being chased on to the plane....but was still told to leave the plane after being called a security risk. I can't imagine that any airline wants this kind of publicity....and when I got no satisfaction from the airline, I may very well have gone public...but I would have admitted that I probably shouldn't have taken the photo to begin with and just written down the name.

This is, by the way, an airline issue, not a 'security theater' issue. Poor choice of thread title.

 

[Lewisc]

Sorry but something seems fishy. I tried our friend Google. The only links go back to the blog quoted by the OP. A blogger who was arrested twice for taking pictures of cops.

DeWitt thought the GA was being rude to several passengers. Dewitt then used a cell phone to take a picture so she could file a complaint. Not sure how her complaint would read. I overheard what the GA said to other passengers and it sounded rude to me. Hear part of a conversation and it could have been out of context.

I'm not sure how she went about taking a picture. Did she cut in line, walk in front of other passengers in order to "get a good shot".

Asked to delete the picture DeWitt could have said no problem. Instead she first tried to prove it wasn't a good picture.

I have no idea how confrontational DeWitt was in taking the picture or in response to the GA when asked to delete the picture.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I really hate it when you take the words right out of my mouth...so to speak.

Hey! I may be opinionated, but I'm not lacking in common sense. And despite my seeming critique of technology, I'm no Luddite, either .

 

[CPT Tripss]

Sorry but something seems fishy. I tried our friend Google. The only links go back to the blog quoted by the OP. A blogger who was arrested twice for taking pictures of cops.

DeWitt thought the GA was being rude to several passengers. Dewitt then used a cell phone to take a picture so she could file a complaint. Not sure how her complaint would read. I overheard what the GA said to other passengers and it sounded rude to me. Hear part of a conversation and it could have been out of context.

I'm not sure how she went about taking a picture. Did she cut in line, walk in front of other passengers in order to "get a good shot".

Asked to delete the picture DeWitt could have said no problem. Instead she first tried to prove it wasn't a good picture.

I have no idea how confrontational DeWitt was in taking the picture or in response to the GA when asked to delete the picture.

Fortunately, citizens do video police and other law enforcement personnel, just as police and other law enforcement personnel video (both overtly and covertly). It ddoes help in adjuducating claims of police misconduct and brutality.

 

[CPT Tripss]

We don't know if that was all that happened.

That's a good point. In the context described, taking a photograph is arguably confrontational on its own merits. They call it "shooting" pictures, taking "snapshots".

Guess you never ate shooters or drank shots in a bar

 

[bicker]

I sure did, and I can attest to the fact that they were most aggressively and grievously confrontational to my body.

 

[CPT Tripss]

snip

This is, by the way, an airline issue, not a 'security theater' issue. Poor choice of thread title.

I'll stand by the thread title, "Airline 'Security Theater'". The airline did not allow the woman to fly, calling her a "security risk."

 

[SDSorority]

I like that Southwest got her where she needed to go. LUV SWA and will only fly SWA!


ok so...

On one hand, my FIL was just talking about all of the different things you can do with your IPhone, and how he takes pictures of his white dry erase boards to convert them to PDFs and send them to meeting attendees after board meetings (he's a CEO). So, I understand (sort of) that it was probably easier (in her mind) to try to snap a photo of the namebadge rather than try to find a piece of paper and a pen to use to write down the employee's name. On the other hand, she very well could have typed the employee's name into NOTES on the iphone... seems like it would take longer to try to center the camera on a spot to get a picture (and make a big scene), but maybe that's just me. As far as being a security threat... well... anything and everything you do nowdays is a security threat when you're at the airport. Bottom line- she should have known better.

I bet that the lady who snapped the picture wasn't a 'security threat' as we would think of it (read: trying to take down a plane or something). You just have to be so careful anymore about what you say or what you do. I think most of it is common sense though.... no need to make a big scene (even if you ARE upset) because honestly, what's that going to do (other than get you kicked off of a plane)? What she SHOULD have done is typed the lady's name into her phone, then made a scene (if she INSISTED) to the gate agent AFTER the flight. But that's just me.

 

[pr surfer]

This is a pet peeve, but "free speech" is only a matter of what the government cannot prevent. It has no standing for the actions of a private company, provided that company isn't violating some other law, such as those forbidding racial discrimination.

An airline, being a private entity, has significant latitude about when and whether it refuses service to a passenger for "speech".

I have to agree. If the incident had occurred on a plane, that'd be fine.

However, the incident where the photograph was taken, the free speech in question, happened inside a publicly owned airport terminal- not the airplane.

 

[Brian Noble]

However, the incident where the photograph was taken, the free speech in question, happened inside a publicly owned airport terminal- not the airplane.

But the question was whether or not the passenger could board that particular flight. And, that's entirely at the discretion of the airline---even if the picture was taken in what is nominally a "publicly-owned" place.

 

[robinb]

From the story we know so far, I think the GA abused her power when she declared DeWitt a security risk.

I can understand why DeWitt chose to take a picture of the GA's nametag. First of all, she's a photographer by trade and secondly it's often just easy to take a quick picture rather than writing things down. For instance, I have a dry erase board on my fridge where I write down items that we need to buy at the grocery store. Instead of transcribing everything to a piece of paper, I snap a picture. Once in the grocery store I pull up my shopping list. So ... I might also be inclined to snap a photo of the information v/s writing down information. However, I know that I would have to get pretty darn close to the GA to get her nametag so I would probably not have made that choice myself unless I was feeling particularly confrontational.

In any case, I don't think that DeWitt was restricted from taking a photograph at the gate. In addition, she complied with the GA's request to delete the photo. I agree that GAs have the authority (and in fact, the mandate) to inform the captain if they feel a passenger is a security risk. However, this GA's report to the captain appears to have been done in a retaliatory manner meant to inconvenience and harass DeWitt.

 

[Lewisc]

Fortunately, citizens do video police and other law enforcement personnel, just as police and other law enforcement personnel video (both overtly and covertly). It ddoes help in adjuducating claims of police misconduct and brutality.

The photographer took a picture of a GA, not a cop or TSA official. She took the picture because she thought the GA was being rude to other passengers.

I'm not sure why the person saw the need to complain on behalf of other passengers. I have no idea how confrontational she was in taking the picture or in responding to the request to delete the photo.

It's certainly OK to complain if an employee is rude to you. Gives you bad information. I'm not sure it's appropriate to put your 2 cents in if you overhear a conversation between another passenger and an airline employee.

A person who's drunk or otherwise predisposed to confront employees/other passengers might be a security risk. Not every security issue has to be at the level of a plane hijacking.

I don't always agree with Bicker but his posts are on point. We don't have enough information to make an informed judgement as to what happened.