Selfish *promote.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 1:01pm PST - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Buhahaha the ending story is pretty darned funny.

You know what I think....it IS spicy and good~!

[Redacted]

What happens if they see my comments and suddenly think I'm a ....

Think about it. What's next?

God, what a bunch of idiots.

When you are tailing someone you do not let them see you.

Wow i have to admit, some of those questions the TSA lady was asking at the chicken booth would have trapped me into saying something she wanted to hear, i don't really agree with his stance that he wasn't asking the lady security questions, but the way he avoided landing himself in any of the traps was quite masterful.

Kudo's and great vid's.

Didn't anyone ever tell this moron that it's not smart to tease wild animals? What he's done here is essentially equivalent. Bait them until they do something he can get attention with...

I fail to see the value in his moronic attempts to (at best) waste people's time.

The point is what is the point of security. Wasting time on someone who is a jerk, but no threat is just that, a waste. So however silly all the antics he put them through were, it actually makes it even more clear how useless it all was. What made me LOL is when the guy searched his bags, he missed the boarding pass, way to go there security boy...guess the dog can't sniff that out for him.

So the main point here is that the government run security is a joke, a 50 billion dollar joke. A joke that gets better with the knowledge that if you don't submit to their every demand, you can go to be harassed, detained, and perhaps imprisoned.

Even if a private security organization were to in some ways resemble the failings of the TSA agents, it wouldn't be tax payer supported, and you wouldn't have the threat of jail time for not complying or just being a jerk.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Didn't anyone ever tell this moron that it's not smart to tease wild animals? What he's done here is essentially equivalent. Bait them until they do something he can get attention with...
I fail to see the value in his moronic attempts to (at best) waste people's time.


You fail to see the problem? Along with all others who are morosely inept at seeing systemic failure and a growing problem.

The problem is that the TSA is not primed with the peoples best interest, they are primed with their best interest. To capture and detain terrorists. In which they can do what ever they like. Detain you for however long they like, with out a warrant and without legal precedent.

The whole point of this was for the man to make a scene to reinforce his point. His point was that the TSA does not have the Peoples', or in this case prospective passengers best interests at hand. He also calls them into focus for the fact that all it takes to become a "person of interest" is knowing your rights. Specifically, in this case the right to videotape them.

They sent a behaviorist to talk to him? She failed on a massive scale and then she failed again thinking he was a security risk. When in fact she should have recognized him as a person who was out to make a scene. They played perfectly into his hands. That shows their gross incompetence in successfully judging based on evidence whether a person is or is not a security risk.

They will run rampant until the people put them in their place, or the people stop flying and the Plutocracy puts them in their place.

The point is, stormsinger, they are there to serve us, the People. If they cannot, then it is the Peoples' job to sort them out. To use the analogy that he is baiting wild animals could very well prove your lack of understanding as to how a supposed democracy is supposed to work. You call it baiting, I call it dissidence.

A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy, or institution. When dissidents unite for a common cause they often effect a dissident movement.

The noun was first used in the political sense in 1940, with the rise of such totalitarian systems as the Soviet Union.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident

>> ^Stormsinger:
Didn't anyone ever tell this moron that it's not smart to tease wild animals? What he's done here is essentially equivalent. Bait them until they do something he can get attention with...
I fail to see the value in his moronic attempts to (at best) waste people's time.


When Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger, she was baiting a response. She was wasting government resources. From the perspective of the bus driver trying to enforce the rules, and any law enforcement people that got involved later, I'm sure she was taking "moronic" actions that willfully disregarded the status quo. She was an instigator, a trouble maker, a rabble-rouser.

And I'd suggest that her actions were worthy of the utmost respect.

Comparing this dude to Rosa Parks is perhaps overstating his case, but I think that civil disobedience of this sort that brings attention to the utterly pointless waste of ...everything that is the TSA does actually serve a worthy purpose.

Challenge authority. Challenge authority.

Good one Blanky!

>> ^MilkmanDan:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Didn't anyone ever tell this moron that it's not smart to tease wild animals? What he's done here is essentially equivalent. Bait them until they do something he can get attention with...
I fail to see the value in his moronic attempts to (at best) waste people's time.

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger, she was baiting a response. She was wasting government resources. From the perspective of the bus driver trying to enforce the rules, and any law enforcement people that got involved later, I'm sure she was taking "moronic" actions that willfully disregarded the status quo. She was an instigator, a trouble maker, a rabble-rouser.
And I'd suggest that her actions were worthy of the utmost respect.
Comparing this dude to Rosa Parks is perhaps overstating his case, but I think that civil disobedience of this sort that brings attention to the utterly pointless waste of ...everything that is the TSA does actually serve a worthy purpose.

Said everything I think needed to be said. Good one, milkman. I cannot see how using a personal camera is equivalent to teasing and baiting wild animals and how standing up for your rights once challenged can be considered by some to be a waste of people's time. Some, I suppose, like to apologize for the atrocities of bad policy and bad departments.

dissent is like videosift. If nobody understands it or is inspired to copy it, it doesn't get upvotes!

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by schmawy.

Somebody filming, and inquiring about security procedures in the secure portion of an airport is a person of interest. He should be detained and searched. IMO, the TSA did their job.

The only waste, as was pointed out by the officers, was on his part.

Also, the whole child pornography angle is a little weird. It's sort of like saying giving handcuffs to cops is just inviting bondage fetishists to the profession. It's just a cost benefit analysis. If something inappropriate happens, deal with it properly.

You make 3 points. One, someone filming in a PUBLIC area is not only NOT suspect of wrong doing, it should be expected...even mores o in this day and age of gadgets. Furthermore, their own policy states that filming them is not warrant of any internal scrutiny.

Secondly, he did no inquiring about their procedures, THEY approached HIM and attempted to trap HIM into answering questions that would MAKE him appear suspect of wrong doing. He was a dude, a dude with a camera, a dude with a camera filming the goings on at an airport...that should of been the end of it.

The waste is on the TSA officials which blew a completely harmless situation WAY out of proportion. What he didn't do, which you seem to try and frame it like, is to go around filming sensitive security information that isn't in view of the public eye. Going around opening up closed doors and prying up the innards of some scanning machine to surrender its mysteries! He filmed people doing stuff in hallways, doing their normal thing. This is about as much of a security risk as a dude doing the same thing with his eye balls and a note pad...or just his eyeballs and a good memory.

While I think his child pron angle isn't completely on base, it isn't completely off base either. A person, of which has done nothing wrong being subjected to a violation of their personal body for nothing other than the chance they might catch someone trying to bring contraband on a plane is lunacy. I made a joke earlier this month about what we "really need" too keep us safe is to be strip searched as we leave our house...this is just one step closer to that Orwellian state. There is no such thing as perfect safety. The more control you give the government the less safe you are. Because not only are you being sold the illusion of safety, you also now must endure the oppression of the state. You are less safe from the police then you are a terrorist; what I mean is you are more likely going to get in trouble with the police far sooner than get blown up by a terrorist, and this should alarm you.

Love the punchline.

First of all, it is legal for them to ban filming in the screening area, which he is guilt of. They were well within their rights to at least confront him, and ensure that he is part of the press, and has cleared the filming of the screening area with TSA’s Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs. This law falls under a similar exception to the "right to film in public areas" as the pentagon, court houses, or any other sensitive area.

Second, he specifically asked about procedures regarding blankets covering laps. That's a specific question about a specific security procedure asked of a known TSA agent. That is suspicious pure and simple. It doesn't matter that she was sent to collect information, or "trap" him. He still posed a direct question about security procedures.

Third, "THEY DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S HARMLESS!" That's why they needed to check him out, search his bag, etc. Frankly, they could have strip searched him, but didn't. The issue was blown out of proportion by the videographer, and quite intentionally so. If he hadn't actively harassed the TSA officials, and actively attempted to prompt a response, nothing would have happened. His film would receive no coverage, and would have been a failure. The sad part is, the only way he was able to get the film he wanted was to prompt a WARRANTED response. To me, that says more about him than the TSA. He was seeking CONFIRMATION of his hypothesis, rather than TESTING his hypothesis. I've since read multiple forum and blog posts talking about people filming in airports without incident, so clearly this sort of confrontation isn't an epidemic. The long and the short of it is if you harass the TSA, they'll harass you back.

It is obvious that if you go to a public official and effectively spit in his face while calling his work worthless s/he is going to respond as aggressively as they can. They are just people, and that's how people respond to verbal abuse. Frankly, if anything, I was impressed by the restraint they showed. Especially the african american he was effectively accusing of supporting slavery, that was just plain rich. I put this film in the same category as the guy flashing his rifle up in Obama's grill. Yea, you might be able to make some constitutional case (which is probably full of holes), but you're still an ass.

Ok, I think I know the problem now. We aren't talking about the same thing. Your are talking about legalism, I am talking about a moral argument. I am talking about how WRONG what they are doing is, not about how against the law what they are doing is. I approach the law as a means of maximizing freedoms and minimizing evils. So the problem I have here is with the very laws you seem to defend.

The very existence of the TSA is bad. The government has no place hijacking the security of airports. While their may be a case for the existence of federal police in airport just as their would local cops and emergency workers, to say they should OWN security of airports if wrong. I don't care if it was ratified by congress and signed by the president, it's wrong. It would be akin to them taking over security at the movies, or at your local shopping mart. Lets look at the case of Best buy. I can't walk out of best buy without getting checked out by security, however at target, I get no such harassment, and as a result I typically choose to go places I don't get haggled with. You pay a higher price, but it is worth it to me. Now, if they government took over all security in all retail stores in America, that choice would be eliminated. I would have to put up with the same old nonsense everywhere I went, my freedom, my choice would be gone.

The same could be true of airlines. One airline might adopt an anal probe philosophy and people whom generally like to be alive and are afraid of terrorists could pay the extra buck or 100 to go on such airlines. Me, I don't care, let me fly cheap, I don't care if I die...F it. With the TSA, I get no such choice. The government has hijacked my ability to make my own choices on how I want to spend my dollar. And it isn't just a few dollars, it is billions...and I don't even fly that often anymore but yet still I pay.

I think that also falls into your first point a bit. An airport is NOTHING like the Pentagon. An airport is completely private in nature. Everything they do is for customers. It is NOT a government institution in anyway...at all. So, this "screening area" idea to me is incompatible with that. Plus, do you only get the freedom to film if you have a press badge, is that your idea of freedom? Papers please? Really? Come on, freedom of speech is way more than a press badge. Plus, you are watching his video on the Internets...sounds like a member of the press to me...whatever member of the press means.

Secondly, I can't honestly believe you think talking about how dumb not allowing blankets on a plane is as some kind of security risk. I talk about how dumb it is they don't allow water on planes. Should that warrant some kind of investigation of my loyalty? Should I be searched and striped naked because I question the value of a rule? This seems more like your are grasping at straws here. Seriously whining about how dumb not letting blanks on a plane is, is about as dangerous as complaining about traffic. If not, then every child in an airport is a threat, they do nothing but moan about every procedure...those damn terrorist children (sorry for the demagogy).

Your third point I think is the weakest of them all. There is a difference between someone who is a threat and someone who is being petulant. This is the main difference between security and a bouncer. A bouncer deals with people who are jerks and causing trouble, security is for those people that might bring harm to those around him. The TSA is supposed to be security. After 3 different conversions, one of whom is their job to directly gauge the threat level of someone, failed to properly gauge him. What really happened here is TSA got but hurt and went after this guy with no remorse. They used many of their powers on a non-threat. They improperly assessed the situation, continued to do so to the violation of this innocent, if not slightly jerky, man. Let us get that point very clear. This man is guilty of no crime. He was doing what normal people do in a normal space.

Your last point is completely erroneous. At first, we was fairly respectful. The lady approached him and asked if he was a member of the press. Once they started following him and hounding him, he responded in kind. I don't know if you ever had any run ins with the police, it doesn't sound like it. It is a very threatening situation. More over, from the get go they were yanking him around by the arm and being very authoritative, ordering him around like they owned him...he responded in kind. They tried to trap him into saying something damning, he responded by saying things damning of their very institution. This is MUCH different than the gun stunt...which was exactly that, a stunt. This was a display of the system in action. It would be more akin to getting pulled over and getting searched anally just because you mouthed off. There again is the main difference between what you and I see as the role of government and laws.

Like many other people on the sift have said that are smarter and more well spoken than I, the police should fear the people. They work for us, to protect us. The shoe has gotten on the other foot now. Now they are above us, protecting themselves against us. I have known many wonderful policemen in my day. I have also known people like these officers who forget what their job is. For these tragic people, their job isn't to help us...their job is us. We are the thing that has to be dealt with, not the people they are helping dealing with things. The difference in mind set is ever so slight but o so important.

GSF, man, I don't even know where to begin. Here it is from the top I guess.

"I approach the law as a means of maximizing freedoms and minimizing evils."

I approach the law similarly. The question is always in the details. The disagreement is always on where exactly the minimum lies. You clearly think we are way past it. Frankly, while I agree in some instances, in many I feel we haven't gone far enough. Financial regulation, for instance, would be one of those areas. As for airport security specifically, I think we are about right on. In the end, we probably both have reverence for the wisdom of our forefathers in creating a mechanism for the resolution of grievances we may have about specifics. In this particular case, the kid broke the agreed upon rules.

"It would be akin to them taking over security at the movies, or at your local shopping mart."

No, it would be more akin to them taking over security on interstate highways, or on our border. Airports are interstate commerce at its purest, and the constitution gives the federal government clear authority to regulate it.

"And it isn't just a few dollars, it is billions...and I don't even fly that often anymore but yet still I pay. "

I think you mean billions between all of us, as you don't have billions of dollars. In which case, yes it is a few dollars. It isn't like the government has nationalized the airlines (yet... I wish they would provide a public option at least).

"An airport is NOTHING like the Pentagon."
In a way you're right. It isn't really like the Pentagon. It isn't really classified to the same degree. It is, however, like a border or an interstate highway. While it generally is okay to film in these sorts of places (like it is generally okay in an airport). It is not okay however, to have people systematically casing the security detail. Especially not while broadcasting it to unknown or otherwise undisclosed recipients. It's not rocket science. It's common sense. If he busted out his camera and took a picture of his family getting on the plane, he would not have been hassled.

"An airport is completely private in nature."
If you want to argue instead that airports are private, go right ahead. The only problem is, then your right to film and distribute without express permission goes out the window.

"Secondly, I can't honestly believe you think talking about how dumb not allowing blankets on a plane is as some kind of security risk."
He didn't talk about it, he asked her if the policy existed. That was exactly the kind of behavior she was told to look out for. That, combined with systematic filming of the security detail, suggests that he was investigating the viability of some sort of plot. Given the grave cost of a security breach, and the relatively minor inconvenience he experienced, I think the search was warranted.

"There is a difference between someone who is a threat and someone who is being petulant."
He certainly was being petulant. That doesn't mean he wasn't a threat. The quick search (not even any rubber gloves!) verified that he was not in fact a threat. Then they let him go, and let him be as petulant as he wanted, while taking the necessary precautions in case they are wrong.

"I don't know if you ever had any run ins with the police, it doesn't sound like it."
I used to run with a bunch of anarchists when the Iraq war broke out. We had our own special investigator. We would do things like lead thousands of people onto main street at rush hour every week, shutting it down every friday for months leading up to the war in a fair sized city. We, as the handful of organizers, would stand on the perimeter of the mass facing the police so that we would be first arrested. The cops are just people man. With a little social decency you can avoid getting hassled. This kid brought it upon himself.

"I have also known people like these officers who forget what their job is."
And those officers themselves should be dealt with. They don't necessarily reflect policing in general.

If you don't have anything to hide, why do you mind being searched? If you don't have anything to hide, why do you mind being videoed?

The world around us is seriously fucked up. I want out.