TSA mess and the police

[CathrynRose]

TSA Confiscates Camera of Woman Who Filmed Latest Outrage


http://www.examiner.com/county-poli...a-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again

 

[OceanAnnie]

TSA Confiscates Camera of Woman Who Filmed Latest Outrage


http://www.examiner.com/county-poli...a-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again

I couldn't pull up the link. But, wow. Taking the person's camera?!

 

[C.Ann]

I couldn't pull up the link. But, wow. Taking the person's camera?!

Me either.. I'm not the least bit surprised though.. Acutally, I expected it to happen long before now with all of the bad coverage popping up all over the internet, on the news, etc.. They can't have millions of people witnessing what they're doing, now can they?

So............Everyone ready to turn over their cell phones and cameras now when you enter the airport?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Next thing you know, they will be asking people to go through scanners and stuff.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Me either.. I'm not the least bit surprised though.. Acutally, I expected it to happen long before now with all of the bad coverage popping up all over the internet, on the news, etc.. They can't have millions of people witnessing what they're doing, now can they?

So............Everyone ready to turn over their cell phones and cameras now when you enter the airport?

Nothing like adding fuel to the fire. People are mad enough as it is. If everything was done properly, why take away the camera?

But you're right, C.Ann. Probably more of that to come.

 

[C.Ann]

TSA Confiscates Camera of Woman Who Filmed Latest Outrage


http://www.examiner.com/county-poli...a-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again

I couldn't pull up the link. But, wow. Taking the person's camera?!

Here ya go..

-----------------------------------------------------------

In what can only be described as TSA handlers gone wild, the San Diego Harbor Police arrested an area resident for refusal to complete the screening/security process yesterday. This is the same airport that created the TSA security catch phrase “don’t touch my junk.” John Tyner of San Diego started the airport screening firestorm last week as Americans head into the busiest travel week of the year in the United States.

This time the defendant, Sam Wolanyk says he was asked to pass through the 3-D x-ray machine. When Wolanyk refused, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel told him he would have to be patted down before he could pass through and board his airplane.

Wolanyk said he knew what was coming and took off his pants and shirt, leaving him in Calvin Klein bike undergarments.
“It was obvious that my underwear left nothing to the imagination,” he explained. “But that wasn’t enough for the TSA supervisor who was called to the scene and asked me to put my clothes on so I could be properly patted down.”

It was clear to Wolanyk that TSA only wanted him to submit to a pat-down and if they were interested in ensuring the safety of all passengers they would have rifled through his clothes, carryon baggage and acknowledged that he was not carrying any illegal paraphernalia on his person.

Once Harbor Police arrested Wolanyk, he was handcuffed and paraded through two separate airport terminals in his underwear to the Harbor Police office located inside a different terminal at the airport than Wolanyk had originally gone through during his TSA security process.

The incident was confirmed by Harbor Police Sergeant Rakos who said Wolanyk was arrested on two misdemeanors, “failing to complete the security process; violation code 7.01 and illegally recording the San Diego Airport Authority (they confiscated his iPhone); violation number 7.14 (a).”

Another confirmation came from Ronald Powell, director of communications, who said Wolanyk wasn’t charged with any federal crimes, just the two misdemeanors. “The bottom line is that all our police officers did was enforce the law.”

Powell also stated that there was another arrest of a woman who was allegedly illegally filming the x-ray, and TSA screening process with a video camera. The young woman’s camera was confiscated and she was given a citation and released from Harbor Police custody.

TSA headquarters has told would-be airline travelers who enter an airport checkpoint process and refuse to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA they will not be allowed to fly and can face possible charges for disrupting the airport security process.

Wolanyk will appear in court on January 7, 2011 to dispute the charges with Jason Davis of Davis and Associates of Orange County by his side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

If people really follow through with this "opt out" day, the airports are going to be a nightmare..

And of course I'm sure all cell phones and cameras will be confiscated immediately - "for the safety of the passengers".......................................

 

[JLTraveling]

“It was obvious that my underwear left nothing to the imagination,” he explained. “But that wasn’t enough for the TSA supervisor who was called to the scene and asked me to put my clothes on so I could be properly patted down.”

Okay, the confiscating the camera is bad enough. But this? Really? Pat downs are solely for everyone's safety, so put on your clothes so we can pat you down. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the utter irony in this.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Okay, the confiscating the camera is bad enough. But this? Really? Pat downs are solely for everyone's safety, so put on your clothes so we can pat you down. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the utter irony in this.

Sadly, there is irony in all of it.

 

[PigletsMommy]

I'm sorry I haven't gone thru all 70 pages & don't know if this one has been posted yet. I know I'm late to the party. I just saw this article & it has me very worried.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=77140

This one has me freaking out a little.

I'm all about airline security. Never once given any TSA agent a hard time & I follow all the rules whenever I fly.

Next October we are taking my DD (who will be a few days shy of her 3rd Birthday) and my niece (will be 5) to WDW. I know for a fact that neither one of these girls will stand alone, let alone still, to be scanned.

There is NO WAY I will let a stranger invasively pat down my baby.

Whats my alternative. She hate being in her carseat for more than 45 minutes. With the DVD player I can some times get 3 hours. When we drive "home" to visit family in Michigan, the 8 hour drive is closer to 12-14 hours now.

2 Questions...

1. Can anyone tell me anything that will calm my fears for our trip next year?

2. Doesn't the TSA know that are setting themselves up for molestation accusations here? The reason behind these new scanners & pat downs is because someone hid explosives in their underwear on that flight over Detroit last Christmas, right? And that bombs could be strapped to a child, right? So how long before they are looking in my child's underwear/diapers? How long after that will the child molestation accusations start?

 

[rascalmom]

Nothing like adding fuel to the fire. People are mad enough as it is. If everything was done properly, why take away the camera?

I am guessing that they don't want the "bad guys" to have video documentation of our security procedures.

Think about it, as offensive as the new searches are to some people, do we really want to be in the business of providing terrorists with ideas for ways to prevent detection of explosive or other dangerous contraband?

I will fly on business twice in December - I'll happily go through the scanner. I just don't see the big deal. Sure the screener can see an image of you - but it is all anonymous.

Hopefully the scanning will be enough, but IF I were to be chosen to have a pat down I will comply. I'd rather go through that than find out (too late) that there is an underwear bomber sitting on my plane.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I am guessing that they don't want the "bad guys" to have video documentation of our security procedures.

Think about it, as offensive as the new searches are to some people, do we really want to be in the business of providing terrorists with ideas for ways to prevent detection of explosive or other dangerous contraband?

I will fly on business twice in December - I'll happily go through the scanner. I just don't see the big deal. Sure the screener can see an image of you - but it is all anonymous.

Hopefully the scanning will be enough, but IF I were to be chosen to have a pat down I will comply. I'd rather go through that than find out (too late) that there is an underwear bomber sitting on my plane.

I'm thinking the TSA just doesn't want any more bad press.

Not so sure the screenings are anonymous. They are stored and they probably have personal data stored with them. Why else would they store them if there was no identifying information? There was an article not long ago by Janet Napolotano about storage of the screenings. She went on the record as saying they are stored for 10 years, IIRC.

 

[rascalmom]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tsa-dont-touch-my-junk-crusader-john-tyner-interviewed-on-fox-news/

Here’s the interview, from Fox News Channel’s America Live:


It should be pointed out that the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines don’t actually show a passenger’s “naked body,” but rather, something closer to “simulated” nudity. As Secretary Napolitano notes, the person viewing the scan never sees the person being scanned, nor can they capture, store, or transmit the image.

I'm no more worried about this than a copy of my medical x-rays being stored and/or viewed. I know I am not as modest as some - and for many OTHER reasons, I hate flying. I guess those that don't want to adhere to the rules can choose another means of transportation.

 

[DMRick]

They are stored and they probably have personal data stored with them.

Are we giving our names and address when they take the scan? Boy, that would slow up the line for sure.
I thought these were being viewed at an off site place..so no one would even know whose scans they were looking at, would they?
I've got a couple of flights planned, and will do whatever the procedure is when we fly..beats having to drive (which will be hard over the ocean LOL).

 

[tiggerplus5]

Here ya go..

-----------------------------------------------------------

In what can only be described as TSA handlers gone wild, the San Diego Harbor Police arrested an area resident for refusal to complete the screening/security process yesterday. This is the same airport that created the TSA security catch phrase “don’t touch my junk.” John Tyner of San Diego started the airport screening firestorm last week as Americans head into the busiest travel week of the year in the United States.

This time the defendant, Sam Wolanyk says he was asked to pass through the 3-D x-ray machine. When Wolanyk refused, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel told him he would have to be patted down before he could pass through and board his airplane.

Wolanyk said he knew what was coming and took off his pants and shirt, leaving him in Calvin Klein bike undergarments.
“It was obvious that my underwear left nothing to the imagination,” he explained. “But that wasn’t enough for the TSA supervisor who was called to the scene and asked me to put my clothes on so I could be properly patted down.”

It was clear to Wolanyk that TSA only wanted him to submit to a pat-down and if they were interested in ensuring the safety of all passengers they would have rifled through his clothes, carryon baggage and acknowledged that he was not carrying any illegal paraphernalia on his person.

Once Harbor Police arrested Wolanyk, he was handcuffed and paraded through two separate airport terminals in his underwear to the Harbor Police office located inside a different terminal at the airport than Wolanyk had originally gone through during his TSA security process.

The incident was confirmed by Harbor Police Sergeant Rakos who said Wolanyk was arrested on two misdemeanors, “failing to complete the security process; violation code 7.01 and illegally recording the San Diego Airport Authority (they confiscated his iPhone); violation number 7.14 (a).”

Another confirmation came from Ronald Powell, director of communications, who said Wolanyk wasn’t charged with any federal crimes, just the two misdemeanors. “The bottom line is that all our police officers did was enforce the law.”

Powell also stated that there was another arrest of a woman who was allegedly illegally filming the x-ray, and TSA screening process with a video camera. The young woman’s camera was confiscated and she was given a citation and released from Harbor Police custody.

TSA headquarters has told would-be airline travelers who enter an airport checkpoint process and refuse to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA they will not be allowed to fly and can face possible charges for disrupting the airport security process.

Wolanyk will appear in court on January 7, 2011 to dispute the charges with Jason Davis of Davis and Associates of Orange County by his side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

If people really follow through with this "opt out" day, the airports are going to be a nightmare..

And of course I'm sure all cell phones and cameras will be confiscated immediately - "for the safety of the passengers".......................................

It's alarming to me that I see this story completely differently. I'm hoping that TSA agents treat everyone the same and follow the same procedure making it fair for all. Then there's less chance of the rogue agent treating you badly. That was one of the OP's major concerns.

I read this story and feel for the TSA agents that are just trying to do their job. They are confronted by someone trying to test their reaction by stripping in the middle of the airport. This passenger was fine stripping down to his underwear in a crowd of people but not OK with the private screening with minor radiation. (BTW, I believe the scientific reports that the radiation is equal to 2 minutes in the airplane). So what was he protesting? The negligible radiation or the nekked picture? IRONIC? Absolutely. Or maybe he was just looking for his 15 minutes of fame.

Then we find out that he refused to put his clothes back on and was arrested for being disruptive. Sounds like he was disrupting the process to me. Although I don't know the laws in sunny San Diego, according to the story, there is a law against this. And a law against filming agents. He allegedly broke the law 2x but this is somehow the TSA's fault? Isn't it funny that everyone is up in arms about TSA agents going rogue but when they try to follow procedure, they have "gone wild". Again, IRONIC?

And of course we go directly to scare tactics again. Everyone's cell phone will now be confiscated to protect the public. Sarcasm, right? Would that have been funny on September 12, 2001? It's sooooooo funny that the terrorists filmed the airports and the airplanes to prepare for their attack.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

I also found this quote from Santayana when I was googling. "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."

The hysterical sound bytes by the conservative media really saddens me. Many try to scare the general public with outrageous stories clearly trying to sway the public to their side. I like to make my own decisions based on fact, not on what someone writes with clear bias on the internet.

So who was the "gone wild" TSA agent? Or was it the police that arrested someone for breaking the law. Was it the TSA agent for trying to follow procedures? Or was it the lawmakers that made this an arrestable offense?

You can have your freedom. I want to be on the other plane that has security.

I do feel for passengers with special needs but I also see that looking at an insulin pump on a screen may look suspect. Remember that the TSA agents are putting their lives in jeopardy the same as police officers to some extent. If someone is crazy enough to strap a bomb to their stomach, they are likely to detonate it in a security line if questioned. Don't brush off their concerns either. How do want them to react? Professionally but with care. I'm glad to hear that they are working on procedures for these medical issues. Maybe they could have come up with something before implementing the new security procedures.

There was public outcry after 9/11 that something needed to be done about security. There was more public outcry after the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. How soon we forget. It only matters if it inconveniences us.

 

[skater]

I am guessing that they don't want the "bad guys" to have video documentation of our security procedures.

Think about it, as offensive as the new searches are to some people, do we really want to be in the business of providing terrorists with ideas for ways to prevent detection of explosive or other dangerous contraband?

I will fly on business twice in December - I'll happily go through the scanner. I just don't see the big deal. Sure the screener can see an image of you - but it is all anonymous.

Hopefully the scanning will be enough, but IF I were to be chosen to have a pat down I will comply. I'd rather go through that than find out (too late) that there is an underwear bomber sitting on my plane.

I'm saying this respectfully (its hard to communicate respect on a forum), but what happens if a terrorist brings something on board inside him/her? Would body cavity searches be the only thing that made you feel safe? (I'm not picking on you - just utilizing your post ).

It seems to me that the terrorists have achieved a lot - they've eroded our privacy rights, cost us money, and received lots of attention.

My personal opinion is that I would rather take on a certain amount of risk (I don't think its that high) than give up away my rights as an American citizen to suffer unreasonable searches. I remember learning about the constitution in school and feeling happy that we had that right. I thought it was cool that this was part of our heritage. Its important to me.

I understand that some people have as strong a need to feel safe and that these new procedures make them feel that way. Too bad we can't have those separate options JLtraveling mentioned. I would definately choose the less invasive screening for me and my family.

 

[skater]

I don't know the whole story, but from what I've read I applaud Sam Wolanyk's civil disobedience. This is also what I learned and admired about Americans - the strength to stand up for their rights. It was why I used to be a liberal - I loved learning about the civil rights movement. As a conservative, civil rights are still just as important to me.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I don't know the whole story, but from what I've read I applaud Sam Wolanyk's civil disobedience. This is also what I learned and admired about Americans - the strength to stand up for their rights. It was why I used to be a liberal - I loved learning about the civil rights movement. As a conservative, civil rights are still just as important to me.

Another situation where Gandhi would have been proud

 

[MushyMushy]

Do TSA agents have to have their child abuse clearances?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Not so sure the screenings are anonymous. They are stored and they probably have personal data stored with them.

What personal data? Each person is unique, sure; it's likely nobody else being scanned about the same time as me has a plate and screws in the bone I do and is my height and body mass (which, apparently, is apparent in the scans?). But I won't be holding my identification inside the scanner. I'll have shown that earlier.

Granted, they can approximate - but the ID check is simply a TSA Agent looking at the ID and looking at the passenger and looking at the boarding pass and comparing the three. No storage.

 

[OceanAnnie]

What personal data? Each person is unique, sure; it's likely nobody else being scanned about the same time as me has a plate and screws in the bone I do and is my height and body mass (which, apparently, is apparent in the scans?). But I won't be holding my identification inside the scanner. I'll have shown that earlier.

Granted, they can approximate - but the ID check is simply a TSA Agent looking at the ID and looking at the passenger and looking at the boarding pass and comparing the three. No storage.

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.

This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

These "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. "We think it's significant."

William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that "approximately 35,314 images...have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine" used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.

The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: "The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface."

This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners--and how they're being used in practice--is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else.

A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as "sensitive security information," says that in some modes the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.")

"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg said. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous." EPIC's lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches.

TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz told CNET on Wednesday that the agency's scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. "We're not recording them," she said. "I'm reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport."

The TSA maintains that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html