Nobody should have any qualms about being screened at an airport as part of the boarding process,...
I'm pretty sure I already covered this in an earlier comment. Lemme check... yep on page 2. 'The Court has ruled there has to be legitimate
reasons to implement such controls and they need to be reasonable
. Employee convenience, personal dislike of being recorded, etc are not sufficient enough reasons. (BTW, I'm fine with many of these controls.) Further, airlines are privately owned, which adds a wrinkle to the mix. What we see is public-private coordination. Technically, TSA employees screen a person and their carry-on luggage for the traveller to gain access to the secured area of the airport terminal. This area is quarantined. Only those with boarding passes and who have passed some security checks are admitted. There are no other ways of uncontrolled entrance/exit (of course emergency exits exist). The knock-on effect of controlled access to the publicly owned boarding terminal is that access to privately owned aeroplanes is also controlled.'
In case that wasn't clear, I'll say so again to make it extra special clear. It is reasonable to screen passengers for weapons to enter a secured area. Just as some areas of city hall and police station are restricted, so too may be areas of a public airport.
I don't know Anselmo Ant and his objection. I did view Sean's video at an airport, and since I know that event the following words are of that incident.
Apparently some people in the publicly accessible area outside the TSA screening area were concerned by Sean's filming also outside the outside the TSA screening area. They voiced these concerns to a state trooper who decided to 'investigate'. Some members of the public possess incomplete and inaccurate knowledge of the law - they are not subject matter experts. Police officers (hopefully) have better knowledge. They may not be as well as informed as a judge or lawyer, but to perform their duties they should posses much greater knowledge than the general public and also be willing and able to check out the law when encountering uncertainty.
A police officer assigned to patrol the airport ought to know what rules specific to that area apply. 'Officer, I saw someone filming the TSA area.' Some random person has made an allegation. Is it valid? The presumption of innocence applies.
The police officer has a few options here. He can further question the suspicious person to determine whether Sean why trying to bypass security controls, trying to impede TSA officials from performing their duties, etc. If it's nothing other than filming, then the trooper may inform the person that filming is permissible. He may walk over to ask the TSA agents something like, 'Is that fella there with the camera interfering with your operations?' and 'Is he violating TSA regulations?' The trooper may even decide to observe Sean, which I think is the most prudent action. Turn on the body camera as well to capture evidence of wrongdoing, if it happens.
Though an uninformed person may decide to over react and deem an activity suspicious, it may not be. Filming the TSA is not a crime. Because it's not a crime the trooper needs to proceed cautiously. 'Hey you! Doing something lawful. You are suspicious. I will now question you and demand answers. If you refuse to comply, you will be detained.' It doesn't work this way.
Police need to use their expertise and powers to discern lawful activity from unlawful activity. 'Show me your ID' as the first act is lazy. Not only is it lazy, it doesn't determine whether or not a person committed the unlawful act some random person alleges. It's a fishing expedition.
Rather than use his authority prudently, the trooper decided to escalate to a confrontational approach.
Further, prudence enhances
security. If I were a genuine wrongdoer, I'd have someone in my cohort go walk around with a camera. Suddenly several police officers (often 4 and up to 8) have rushed off to confront him, which establishes gaps and seams in security elsewhere - resources are finite, after all. Perhaps those manning the CCTV ops centre are moving cameras to better record what's going on too - their attention has been drawn to the event, which is natural. I have created a distraction away from my target. Police have fallen victim to a feint. Will I succeed? Who knows? But 4 to 8 cops feasting on the big nothin' burger I served them elsewhere works to my advantage and aids my malevolent acts.