• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sacramento-area pilot punished for YouTube video

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SACRAMENTO, CA - An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.


The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.

Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.


Sacramento-area pilot punished for YouTube video | News10.net | Sacramento, California | News


Hmmm...Let's see here, Obama's thug Napalintano can search your groin, and the crotch of your 12 year old daughter, but don't blow the whistle on security holes on them....They then "punish" you....Nooooo, we are free here.


In other TSA news....


Claire Hirschkind, 56, who says she is a rape victim and who has a pacemaker-type device implanted in her chest, says her constitutional rights were violated. She says she never broke any laws. But the Transportation Security Administration disagrees.
Hirschkind was hoping to spend Christmas with friends in California, but she never made it past the security checkpoint.
"I can't go through because I have the equivalent of a pacemaker in me," she said.
Hirschkind said because of the device in her body, she was led to a female TSA employee and three Austin police officers. She says she was told she was going to be patted down.
"I turned to the police officer and said, 'I have given no due cause to give up my constitutional rights. You can wand me,'" and they said, 'No, you have to do this,'" she said.
Hirschkind agreed to the pat down, but on one condition.
"I told them, 'No, I'm not going to have my breasts felt,' and she said, 'Yes, you are,'" said Hirschkind.
When Hirschkind refused, she says that "the police actually pushed me to the floor, (and) handcuffed me. I was crying by then. They drug me 25 yards across the floor in front of the whole security."
An ABIA spokesman says it is TSA policy that anyone activating a security alarm has two options. One is to opt out and not fly, and the other option is to subject themselves to an enhanced pat down. Hirschkind refused both and was arrested.

Woman arrested at ABIA after refusing enhanced pat down | kvue.com | Austin, Texas News | KVUE | Austin, TX | Breaking News


This is getting out of control. Shouldn't 'Big Sis' resign? I think she should, and then maybe we can get back to some sense of sanity, and not this authoritarian crack down of US citizens Obama has put in place through his thug in control of HSA.


j-mac
 
He posted videos of supposed security flaws on youtube. You don't think that might raise questions about his clearances and his qualification for them?
 
He posted videos of supposed security flaws on youtube. You don't think that might raise questions about his clearances and his qualification for them?


And did he post anything that any person couldn't see for themselves? No, this is about Napalitano and TSA punishing this guy for making them look incompetent. And they do, and are.


j-mac
 
And did he post anything that any person couldn't see for themselves? No, this is about Napalitano and TSA punishing this guy for making them look incompetent. And they do, and are.


j-mac

Let's see what the article says:

Video shot in the cockpit...

So yes, he did post things that a person could not see for themselves. There is no right to having clearances and "deputation status". He showed poor judgment. Nothing is inappropriate here.
 
Let's see what the article says:



So yes, he did post things that a person could not see for themselves. There is no right to having clearances and "deputation status". He showed poor judgment. Nothing is inappropriate here.


That is an excuse. Look, nothing in that cockpit isn't already out there and public information. Or maybe you know differently? Please let us know.


j-mac
 
So, pointing out security flaws in public so potential terrorists can exploit them is a good thing, and so for the sake of our security we should encourage that?

ummmmmm, o.k........
 
That is an excuse. Look, nothing in that cockpit isn't already out there and public information. Or maybe you know differently? Please let us know.


j-mac

You will see it as you will, but this does not strike me as inappropriate. He used a poor avenue to bring to light security flaws and his poor judgment raises questions about his clearance. I don't see the problem.
 
So, pointing out security flaws in public so potential terrorists can exploit them is a good thing, and so for the sake of our security we should encourage that?

ummmmmm, o.k........

and where is the same comment when the news does the same thing? Are you saying it is wrong for an individual to post what they say are flaws, but is ok for the news media?
I may not agree with what the pilot did, but I have seen worse stories by the news media. Bet you won't find Big Sis going after the news media. I do feel the govt. was way out of line in its approuch.
 
You will see it as you will, but this does not strike me as inappropriate. He used a poor avenue to bring to light security flaws and his poor judgment raises questions about his clearance. I don't see the problem.
From what I understand, he did not approach either his employer or the TSA about perceived deficiencies.

He simply went straight to posting YouTube videos.
 
and where is the same comment when the news does the same thing? Are you saying it is wrong for an individual to post what they say are flaws, but is ok for the news media?
I may not agree with what the pilot did, but I have seen worse stories by the news media. Bet you won't find Big Sis going after the news media. I do feel the govt. was way out of line in its approuch.

I did not comment on news organizations because that was not the topic of this thread.

But thanks for the straw man!
 
There are legitimate and legal means of firing back at unfair practices and for blowing the whistle and such.
When people choose not to follow these legal protections that are already out there - they void my sympathies.
 
From what I understand, he did not approach either his employer or the TSA about perceived deficiencies.

He simply went straight to posting YouTube videos.


Well, that may be assumption, so far all we have is what is reported. For all we know he could have been complaining to his superiors, and alike, and being ignored.


j-mac
 
I did not comment on news organizations because that was not the topic of this thread.

But thanks for the straw man!


I think it is a fair question to ask. what about other like situations? Why is one scenario ok, and another brings wrath?

j-mac
 
There are legitimate and legal means of firing back at unfair practices and for blowing the whistle and such.
When people choose not to follow these legal protections that are already out there - they void my sympathies.

I thought whistleblowing laws were supposed to protect people like this?


j-mac
 
I think it is a fair question to ask. what about other like situations? Why is one scenario ok, and another brings wrath?

j-mac

Because different scenarios are...different? Using youtube to point out your employers security issues is not a good idea.
 
I thought whistleblowing laws were supposed to protect people like this?


j-mac

Whistleblower laws also require you to use certain procedures.
 
He went to You Tube so chances are the leaks will be looked at.

If he went to his boss or the goverment, it might have been swept under the rug.

I can't blame him for shining a light on a huge problem.

On the point of showing this to terrorists, who here thinks this would be news to terrorists? I am sure they know where all the leaks are in the airports.
 
Hmmm...Let's see here, Obama's thug Napalintano can search your groin, and the crotch of your 12 year old daughter, but don't blow the whistle on security holes on them....They then "punish" you....Nooooo, we are free here.


In other TSA news....





This is getting out of control. Shouldn't 'Big Sis' resign? I think she should, and then maybe we can get back to some sense of sanity, and not this authoritarian crack down of US citizens Obama has put in place through his thug in control of HSA.


j-mac

More and more like the KGB over here. I wonder when they'll just shoot people for refusing to be felt up or imaged naked.
 
I think it is a fair question to ask. what about other like situations? Why is one scenario ok, and another brings wrath?

j-mac

Feel free to point out all the times I have done that, J-Mac.
 
I did not comment on news organizations because that was not the topic of this thread.

But thanks for the straw man!

I'll be more clear. I don't agree with with the posting on youtube. I also don't agree with the govt. response. What I was trying to point out is, imo, there is a similarity between the pilots posting of flaws in airport security and news stories that have been aired in the past (trying to sneek fake bombs, showing lack of security to airplane access at small airports, etc). The one difference is he is a pilot and the others were so called reporters. Not to divert the thread, but some have supported wleaks and the posting of classified documents. The pilot posted his opinion, yet the govt. hammers him. Seems a bit over the top.
 
Yes...just like the KGB :roll:

Give me a break. This is getting ridiculous and just highlights, yet again, that all reason, logic, and common sense get thrown out the window because woohoo, we get to ream the TSA.

If a contractor with the Secret Service went onto youtube posting what he believed were security flaws with the capital building, do you think it'd be "KGB"-like to revoke his security clearance?

If a contractor for the military went onto youtube posting what he believed were security flaws at Gitmo, do you think it'd be horribly authoratarian for the government to revoke his security clearance?

All we have to work with is the evidence as is presented at the moment, which is he went to Youtube, not that he reported it to anyone that could actually address or deal with the supposed issues.

Its absolutely ridiculous to suggest that somehow an agency is in the wrong for revoking the persons status for violating the their terms of agreement or their security clearance. For example, FFDO's are expected and agreed to remain anonymous, with their position being something that is not shared with others. This flies in the face of what this man was doing.

Seriously, if this was any other scenario of some law enforcement branch (And by the way your story reads, this is more focused on FAMS then it is on TSA) of government the majority of people screaming about this would be silent or probably defending it. But because its TSA and everyone on all sides loves to demonize and over react with them all realistic observation is thrown out the window.

IF they are real security flaws is it bad and should it be addressed? Absolutely. But there are correct ways to go about submitting and potentially fixing those flaws, and youtube isn't it.
 
Yes...just like the KGB :roll:

Give me a break. This is getting ridiculous and just highlights, yet again, that all reason, logic, and common sense get thrown out the window because woohoo, we get to ream the TSA.

If a contractor with the Secret Service went onto youtube posting what he believed were security flaws with the capital building, do you think it'd be "KGB"-like to revoke his security clearance?

If a contractor for the military went onto youtube posting what he believed were security flaws at Gitmo, do you think it'd be horribly authoratarian for the government to revoke his security clearance?

All we have to work with is the evidence as is presented at the moment, which is he went to Youtube, not that he reported it to anyone that could actually address or deal with the supposed issues.

Its absolutely ridiculous to suggest that somehow an agency is in the wrong for revoking the persons status for violating the their terms of agreement or their security clearance. For example, FFDO's are expected and agreed to remain anonymous, with their position being something that is not shared with others. This flies in the face of what this man was doing.

Seriously, if this was any other scenario of some law enforcement branch (And by the way your story reads, this is more focused on FAMS then it is on TSA) of government the majority of people screaming about this would be silent or probably defending it. But because its TSA and everyone on all sides loves to demonize and over react with them all realistic observation is thrown out the window.

IF they are real security flaws is it bad and should it be addressed? Absolutely. But there are correct ways to go about submitting and potentially fixing those flaws, and youtube isn't it.


Ok, so let's say I grant you that this pilot went straight to youtube without using appropriate channels to remedy this failure on TSA's part. Then I am also sure you wouldn't see the 6 officers, local and Federal that showed up to this mans house to retrieve not only his issued service revolver, but his personal gun, and CC permit as well, as anything over the top? Especially when the pilot and his lawyer were in contact to come to them to hand over the service revolver.

And also, I am positive that this wouldn't have any chilling effect on others that may see holes in TSA operations right?


j-mac
 
Ok, so let's say I grant you that this pilot went straight to youtube without using appropriate channels to remedy this failure on TSA's part. Then I am also sure you wouldn't see the 6 officers, local and Federal that showed up to this mans house to retrieve not only his issued service revolver, but his personal gun, and CC permit as well, as anything over the top? Especially when the pilot and his lawyer were in contact to come to them to hand over the service revolver.

I'll speak to what I'm most familiar with first. I don't see anything "over the top" about the FAMs coming and confiscating his weapon. It was government issued, he's in the midst of an investigation, its in their best interest to remove their property in an expedient fashion. Its not unusual for law enforcement to act in teams, especially with regards to FAMs. Its also not unusual or "chilling" for Federal agents to contact local authorities when going into their jurisdiction to get them to come along.

In regards to the state temporarily revoking his CC permit, I don't know if that's excessive. I don't have much experience with state CC permits, especially in California, so am not aware of what the protocols would be so am not going to try and comment on it.

I also see nothing in your article suggesting that his personal firearms were confiscated. Not sure where you're getting that from. If it was, then yes, I do think that would be excessive.

And also, I am positive that this wouldn't have any chilling effect on others that may see holes in TSA operations right?

I'm sure it would have a "chilling" effect on those that would choose to violate their security clearance, violate the terms of their positions as FFDO's, and violate protocols with regards to "whistleblowing"...which this can barely even be labeled under.

Having a chilling effect on people doing things the right way? No, I don't.

Also...funny bits of info.

Many of the things that this individual focused on are not things that the TSA has the dominion over. Now, I'm sure they COULD have it. But I'm sure it would also cause additional issues with travel which are so roundly and continually ALSO used to complain about the TSA. I've worked at a CAT-X airport, and the security of various doors, the enormous amount of workers, etc, aren't under TSA's umbrella. So while people bitch about the cost of the TSA and the impact it has on slowing down flying, they're also going to bitch about it NOT spending more money and NOT slowing down more traffic by focusing on the portoins that are believed to be most important?

Could it possibly be that there are far, far more intelligent, knowledgable, and experienced individuals that have made assessments on many of the issues this genius believes to be "holes" and came to a different conclussion based on a more full view of the information...but this yahoo thinks he's hot **** by having a smattering of additional information than the average person and thus is some kind of expert that he needs to "expose" it on youtube.

The guy violated his contractual agreements, broke regulations, and basically acted like an attention seeking drama queen for him being punished for doing something he knew was wrong. Sorry if I don't find that "chilling". Sorry if I also think you're entirely dishonest and completely agenda driven in your over reaction to this. Again, if this was the FBI, military, CIA, or any other law enforcement agency other than the FAM service which happens to fall under TSA I have no doubt you'd be sitting there chiding anyone for trying to protect such a slimey, leaking, traitorous anti-american individual who is no doubt a liberal.

Seriously, bring forth legitimate issues and its fine. There's definitely problems with the TSA...its far from a perfect organizations. But so often the desire and lust to just ream them over the coals causes so much exaggeration, overreaction, and hyperbole that its hard to take any of it serious. The issues with sterile area access at airports is not a new one....its something that has been talked about for some time, even amongst employees. I remember working as a baggage guy and wondering the same thing as this guy did. At the same time, it has ALWAYS been told to us that there is a balanced trying to be struck between security and efficiency. The amount of threat mixed with the cost of security and efficiency reduction from those points of "weakness" at the moment is not high enough to warrant additional action taken nor is there adequete reason presented to do so. However, at the same time, that fact doesn't need to be broadcast over the internet.

You can't have it both way. People can't sit here complaining that TSA is too big, too bloated, too costly, too constricting, too time consuming and at the same time demand that it is failing at its job because its not big enough, bloated enough, spending enough, or constricting enough to cover every single solitary potential security issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom