"Security" Has Become The Excuse For Everything
A Miami woman named Sandy DeWitt was escorted off a U.S. Airways flight for snapping a photo of a U.S. Airways employee (likely a gate attendant) in the boarding area who she found rude. DeWitt said the employee's name was Tonialla G. Carlos Miller blogs at pixiq.com:
DeWitt snapped a photo of her nametag 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."
There's a smart comment beneath the blog item from somebody named Ezra Ekman:
The flight attendant made a knowingly false statement about the security status of a passenger, with the intent to punish that passenger for behavior that is not only legal but, so far as we are aware as yet, does not even violate that airline's policy or posted rules. It's one thing for a flight representative to tell someone to stop and then punish them for not following your directives. That, at least, is (somewhat) supported by the FAA, assuming that the flight attendant's directive is legally supported. (We'll ignore that aspect for now.) But to claim that someone is a security risk (again, ignoring the reason why for the moment), *after they've already complied with your order* is a flat-out lie.Airports have signs posted that "security is not a laughing matter". I can only assume that this means they take this sort of thing seriously. So how will they handle an issue in which a passenger exhibited *no* risky behavior (who did something that, while the flight attendant may not have liked, was still legal), and the flight attendant lied to the pilot and to other flight attendants, thereby causing them to make a security decision they may not have otherwise if made aware of the facts, resulting in punitive action against and cost to the passenger (in adjustments to their schedule, possible missed connections and car/hotel reservations, as well as a possible hotel cost that night), as well as additional cost to the airline itself due to a delay in the airline's schedule, two (her plus husband) lost seat revenue, and the cost of obtaining two seats on another airline - in this case, Southwest.
While this may just be a case of a flight attendant having a bad day or disliking having their picture taken, the fact remains that the flight attendant is in a position of power (that of being able to accuse a passenger of being a security risk and removing that passenger from the plane on such grounds), and this flight attendant seems to have clearly abused that power. In my mind, termination should be a given. What is questionable is whether or not there are grounds for legal charges stemming from making a false report. What happened here is just wrong, and that flight attendant has no business being in charge of passengers.
For what it's worth, the passenger broke no laws, unless there is some kind of local statute against photography on planes, which would surprise me. Taking a photograph in airports (including screening areas, so long as it is not of the X-ray machine screens themselves) is not against TSA regulations. Just google "tsa photography section 2.7" (without the quotes), and you'll find everything you need to know. Now, taking a photo on private property (I suppose a US Airways plan could be considered their private property) is subject to restrictions if signs were posted, but it doesn't sound like any were. Once the passenger is notified of a no-photography policy, they must stop or could be subject to trespassing charges, but the passenger did stop. And, prior to being asked to stop, any photographs taken are the private property of the photographer. Any request to delete them has no legal grounds, and being forced to do so could constitute destruction of property.
Know your rights, kids. ;-)
Surely if she had actually been a security risk, she would not have been able to fly at all. She was not detained, just sent to get on another plane? This is beyond ridiculous.
Melody at July 3, 2011 2:02 PM
Normally I despise what a litigious society we have become but in this instance I hope this woman sues the ass off of the airline and makes an example of them. Flight attendants as well as ramp agents don't always have it easy and maybe the picture taker was a huge bitch (I don't know this, but its possible) but this was taken way too far. Isn't there a union for this worker though? I wonder how successful an attempt to fire her would be.
Kristenw at July 3, 2011 3:04 PM
I think the airlines actually like all this extra security crap because they can basically do anything they want to us in the name of security.
In have gotten one response from the 8 airlines I contacted so far. I was actually surprised given that it wasn't a time-sensitive issue and it is a holiday weekend. AirTran earns one point.
Dwatney at July 3, 2011 6:06 PM
Funny you'd posted this because I'd spoken to friends last night who'd just flown in from CA who were talking about the same thing. They'd heard flight attendants, on two separate occasions, claim that totally innocuous behavior was a 'security violation'. One involved a bag that was too large in the overhead, and another was about someone wanting to move to a row of empty seats. Neither could be construed as security related, but the FA's know that people are too afraid to call them on it because they could end up in federal prison with their lives ruined. So now everything that they want you to do is framed as risking a 'security violation'. Time for a lawsuit I think.
jj at July 3, 2011 6:10 PM
BOTU, come on. Step up and defend this action. The agent was just doing a job, right?
Radwaste at July 3, 2011 6:16 PM
No doubt, some TSA agents push people around. The TSA agent in question (if this story is accurate) should be terminated. I hope she has not yet qualified for a fancy federal pension, paid for by taxpayers, like most uniformed US employees.
Still, it is an anecdote. Should we also examine My Lai as an example of what US troops do overseas?
How about the recent example of a NATO helicopter gunning down nine children who were sheepherding? Did you know that US Marines sometimes guard poppy fields of warlords loyal to Karzai?
Highlighting anecdotes is rinky-dink. You can highlight anecdotes in service of any argument.
As I have said, I am happy to abolish the TSA, privatize the VA, and cut the military by three-quarters.
Put heavily bolted doors on the captain's cabin of commercial airliners, and give pilots shotguns with friable bullets, and I am fine with it.
If-- and only if--we steadily run into bombs on planes, then maybe go back to the scanners.
Rad: A reasonable question: If people bring bombs onto airplanes, how do you propose to stop them?
BOTU at July 3, 2011 8:06 PM
This was not a TSA employee. Tonialla G. was a US Airways employee who abused her position (if this story is accurate).
Fortunately, there are legal remedies for this kind of behavior.
And the bad publicity from this should be a warning for US Airways, already one of the most hated companies in America (6th on a list by Business Insider) and under censure by the DOT.
On a recent trip, my wife and I flew US Airways (a joint flight with United) and I won't fly them again. The employees were surly and they charged fees for everything (even pillows).
Conan the Grammarian at July 3, 2011 8:44 PM
Par for the course for U.S. Airways. I don't know how the hell they stay in business. It's like the '80s version of Eastern Airlines all over again.
Cousin Dave at July 3, 2011 8:50 PM
I think that staffer should be in jail, as well as terminated. Isn't falsely reporting a passenger as a security risk a violation of Federal law?
mpetrie98 at July 3, 2011 10:27 PM
"Par for the course for U.S. Airways. I don't know how the hell they stay in business."
They don't. US Airways has declared bankruptcy twice, and only managed to continue operating, because the government handed them a huge, government-guaranteed "loan".
a_random_guy at July 3, 2011 10:36 PM
"Put heavily bolted doors on the captain's cabin of commercial airliners, and give pilots shotguns with friable bullets, and I am fine with it.
If-- and only if--we steadily run into bombs on planes, then maybe go back to the scanners.
Rad: A reasonable question: If people bring bombs onto airplanes, how do you propose to stop them?"
Geez, when will the nitwittery end?
Doors? DONE. What a surprise - you didn't know.
Shotguns? Once again, a display of near-total ignorance of the situation. Not only has not one commercial airliner been downed by small-arms fire to the airframe in the history of commercial aviation, professional instructors only address the use of shotguns where the denial of territory is undertaken without consideration of hostage survival. They call for rifles first, then pistols. You might want to look that up - as well as what ammunition is available for shotguns. You're inventing some things there.
Bombs? Apparently, you have not only noticed that TSA agents not only have missed bombs , they do not search ANY of the myriad of OTHER people handing the plane - so, you have missed Patrick Smith's numerous articles about this.
What this last means is that the measures you applaud and other endure today do not actually do what you think - however badly you want to believe it.
When TSA doesn't find a terrorist, it means that a) another agency has done that, or b) the enemy does not exist.
Oh, wait. I guess that missing bombs in carry-on luggage might be "anecdotal" again. We don't want to imply that TSA agents would actually miss bombs because they have missed a few individual simulated bombs, would we? After all, just because a few agents might miss them doesn't mean you can say that all TSA agents are that way...
-----
But dogs and baggage scanning are smarter than the current setup. I think Hey Skipper said that, and he's a pilot.
Radwaste at July 3, 2011 11:49 PM
Someone will get through again. They'll do it in some way we've thought of, or in some way we haven't. In either case, it will not matter to the wretches of the TSA and Homeland Security. No matter how the successful attack is delivered, monsters in government will use it as an excuse to increase their budgets and intrude ever-more deeply into our privacy and free movement. No matter how much blood's been spilled, shitheels like Napolitano will describe resistance to their (failed) searches and seizures as un-American.
These government servants are trash... There's no need to be cute about it.
But in the hours after that attack, every law enforcement agency in the country, and no small number of private parties, will scour the internet and every corner of public and private commerce to find out who's responsible and where they came from. And this information will be found, there's no doubt. That's how this will go, no matter what the trash servants do before or afterwards.
So why is BOTU being pissy?
There used to be an SNL skit for a fake TV commercial: It's dessert topping and a floor wax! (Link is sponsored: sorry.)
Perhaps BOTU doesn't fly, or perhaps he's kind of guy who doesn't feel a whole lot of dignity in the way he moves through the world. Or maybe he's just been so fat and comfortable in his life that he just can't believe a tiny little force like the United States Government could ever make things uncomfortable for him on a personal level.
So until it does, he's going to trade this misconduct from our government —and it is misconduct— for other rhetorical points, completely unrelated ones. Lefties and children do this all the time.
"Oh yeah? Well maybe the space program does provide essential data about the formation of our solar system... But it does nothing for our inner city schools!"
"Oh yeah? Well maybe these new environmental regulations could restore the ecosystems of Lake Erie, but they won't do anything to reduce transmission of AIDS in our overcrowded prisons!"
I'm not sure BOTU's even all that cranked about military spending... Mostly he wants to be consulted about everything. What he's offering isn't rhetoric, it's just his own presence.
Crid at July 4, 2011 3:10 AM
And see Claire.
Crid at July 4, 2011 3:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/03/security_has_be.html#comment-2326749">comment from CridParticularly, this, from Claire's piece:
Amy Alkon
at July 4, 2011 6:27 AM
butthead is an idiot and hates the military. Hell if i remember correctly, he doesn't even live in the US but loves to denegrate it
ron at July 4, 2011 7:00 AM
I think there may be a basis for the intentional tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Since it is an intentional tort you can seek punitive damages. The problem with the airline industry is the federal government for decades have generally granted them immunity from most common law remedies. Breach of contract for overbooking your seat. Nope. Damages for loss of personal property that you pay them a fee to handle. Nope. False imprisonment for locking on a play for hours and refusing to allow you off. Nope. Many of the problems with airlines would quickly disappear if they were subject to the common law like the rest of us.
Rick at July 4, 2011 7:16 AM
Meanwhile:
Mexico gangs threaten to behead DEA agents
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/01/ap/latinamerica/main20076278.shtml
biff at July 4, 2011 7:25 AM
> Hell if i remember correctly, he
> doesn't even live in the US
Kentucky, if I remember correctly. So most of us would agree that he resides in the United States, though we wouldn't call it "living".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 4, 2011 1:01 PM
A couple notes:
Upon re-reading, evidently we are arguing about what a private-sector employee did, not a TSA agent. It was still a reprehensible action, if accurately described. Still, somehow this is getting conflated with an anti-TSA anecdote.
I live bi-continentally, Thailand and USA. Actually, the weather is nicer in the USA, but opportunities are better in Thailand.
As for "hating" the military, I prefer to put it I dislike an oppressively heavy level of federal taxes, and the ossified lard and coprolite that today is our federal civilian and military agencies.
BTW, this is employment by agency:
Department of Defense 3,000,000
Veterans Affairs 275,000
Homeland Security 250,000
Treasury 115,000
Justice 112,000
Energy 109,000
USDA 109,000
Interior 71,000
Labor 17,000
HUD 10,000
Education 4,487
Okay, how do you ramp down federal employment?
I am talking about cutting employment by half.
Open for suggestions.
BOTU at July 4, 2011 1:32 PM
The larger question on the minds of commenters is the offense suffered by a typical air traveler. (Commenters can think or talk about whatever they want. You don't get to decide that for them. You can offer suggestions, but if they don't work, you're screwed, and it's probably your own fault for being clumsy, or insufficiently novel, or monomaniacal.) And it's more likely that airlines have cranked up their arrogance towards passengers in response to the TSA, rather than that the TSA has learned to give offense at the knee of the airlines.
All you want to talk about is military budgets... You're incapable of distinguishing the topic from any other, or presenting it as a relative consideration.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. ––Winston Churchill
Crid at July 4, 2011 2:38 PM
Ron tried last year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw&feature=related
Melody at July 4, 2011 8:54 PM
"I live bi-continentally, Thailand and USA. Actually, the weather is nicer in the USA, but opportunities are better in Thailand."
I hope you use protection!
Radwaste at July 5, 2011 4:44 PM
"Still, somehow this is getting conflated with an anti-TSA anecdote."
Somehow, this is being conflated with measures to reduce Federal employment.
Oh. It's because you got strip-searched trying to pass TSA off as just doing a job!
Radwaste at July 5, 2011 4:58 PM
Leave a comment