Amtrak, TSA, Security, Police, Criminal Activity Thread

I may be missing something, but I have mentally gone over many concepts of a terrorist attack against a train and/or railroad, none of which seem to serve any practical purpose, even where passenger service in concerned...

1) You simply can't steer a train into a building;

2) There are no guaranteed results in derailing a train, even with tank cars in the consist; Since they are built with tougher skin than other rolling stock, they hold up much better in the event of a derailment with small chance of rupturing;

3) Even if a terrorist somehow manages to even HIJACK a train, what is he gonna do with it? 90% of America's railroads are CTC controlled from a central dispatching office, which can be anywhere from hundreds to thousands of miles away, meaning the terrorist just can't take the train anywhere he pleases, unless the dispatcher allows it;

4) Even if there were some kind of terror attack against a passenger train, it's a safe bet the casualty rate would be pretty minimal; When was the last time you heard of a passenger train wreck with NO survivors? Amtrak's rolling stock is built pretty sturdy, where the only way one could cause mass carnage would be to nuke every single car on the train!

What we deem not a practical purpose might be something different to a terrorist.
I again mention London and Madrid, and should extend to probably other cases in Egypt, Russia, etc... Terrorists have attacked trains. They have not done so with wayside bombs, but have used bombs inside the passenger areas.

And I think I remember Montreal Central station had a fatal bombing sometime in the 1980's or 90's, perhaps it was http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail ... ng-history

1984 In April, VIA moves its head office to Place Ville Marie in Montréal.

On September 10, VIA welcomes Pope John Paul II aboard the pontifical train. A bomb explosion at Montréal Central Station a week earlier urged VIA Rail Canada to tighten security.

And I again mention that none of this seems to have anything to do with someone blatantly videotaping in a public area.

Greg Moore wrote:Let's be clear. It is NOT illegal to videotape TSA operations in a public area (unless local laws apply, which generally they don't.) Even then, the TSA as I understand it, have no authority to stop you. They must rely on the local LEOs, in this case Amtrak officers.

It's not illegal, but it is a question of ethics. It's generally not ethical to film law enforcement and other security professionals while they are performing their jobs, much like you shouldn't go into an active railroad yard and start filming railroad operations there. On those grounds I would have to side with the officers, who asked not to be filmed. You can glean a lot from the filmography of a security checkpoint, like strengths and weaknesses of security. Just imagine if that information fell into the wrong hands, there would be an uproar.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Going into an active rail yard and filming ops IS ILLEGAL. You are trespassing. Filming TSA is completely different. The videographer was in a public place. Even if he didn't' have a ticket, there are cafeterias around and he could have taken a Metra train where you can buy onboard. He was in a public place and as such can photograph/video record anything.

The only way it gets remotely close is privacy statutes. Some, but not many, states have very strict privacy laws. For example, in Massachusetts, you cannot photograph, videotape, or audio record anyone without their permission or you must expressly state you are doing so prior to turning on of your equipment. How this is in Illinois is anyone's guess. However, if Illinois had strict privacy laws, you bet the officer would have read off that law # rather than yelling and threatening the videographer.

And when you start pulling up the farcical argument of protecting checkpoint techniques, it makes you seem you are being played like a puppet by those in control of those security situations, DHS et al. Ben Franklin famously said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" and it seems everyone has forgotten the important message he attempted to say.

Someone famously said it, at least once, but apparently not famously enough. I've seen print attributions to Thomas Jefferson. But I'm pretty sure he and Ben Franklin probably swapped ideas once in a while.

obienick wrote:You're comparing apples and oranges.

Going into an active rail yard and filming ops IS ILLEGAL. You are trespassing. Filming TSA is completely different. The videographer was in a public place. Even if he didn't' have a ticket, there are cafeterias around and he could have taken a Metra train where you can buy onboard. He was in a public place and as such can photograph/video record anything.

The only way it gets remotely close is privacy statutes. Some, but not many, states have very strict privacy laws. For example, in Massachusetts, you cannot photograph, videotape, or audio record anyone without their permission or you must expressly state you are doing so prior to turning on of your equipment. How this is in Illinois is anyone's guess. However, if Illinois had strict privacy laws, you bet the officer would have read off that law # rather than yelling and threatening the videographer.

And when you start pulling up the farcical argument of protecting checkpoint techniques, it makes you seem you are being played like a puppet by those in control of those security situations, DHS et al. Ben Franklin famously said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" and it seems everyone has forgotten the important message he attempted to say.

According to this press release http://aclum.org/news_release_8.29.11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the US Court of Appeals upheld the right to videotape (record) police in a Massachusetts case. Note that interference with police, such as crossing a police line, to get closeups would likely be viewed differently by the courts. Question, under such states' privacy laws, if a railfan on an excursion videotapes the train on a runby does the fan need the prior consent or need to inform everyone in the camera's view in advance? Such a requirement would render photography all but impossible at public events.

Doesn't it come down to the basic legal concept of "expectation of privacy"? I'm not a lawyer, but I believe as a general rule if you're doing something in full view of the general public you don't have much of a beef if someone takes a picture that includes you. Is it illegal to photograph a window washer working aloft on a scaffold? What about taking a photo of the interior of a lounge car or diner with passengers in it? It's done.

Amazing what passes as "journalism" these days.

I suppose I'm a botanist since I've planted some vegetables in the garden.

ExCon90 wrote:Doesn't it come down to the basic legal concept of "expectation of privacy"? I'm not a lawyer, but I believe as a general rule if you're doing something in full view of the general public you don't have much of a beef if someone takes a picture that includes you. Is it illegal to photograph a window washer working aloft on a scaffold? What about taking a photo of the interior of a lounge car or diner with passengers in it? It's done.

That's true at common law, but in this thread are references to state statutes that specifically change the common law. The question is how far can a state go with proscribing photography in public areas without the subject(s)' consent.

Based on the Massachusetts and a case in Maryland about two years ago, any laws that prevent civilians from videotaping police publicly are on shaky grounds.

The Maryland case involved a motorcyclist who was pulled over by an off-duty police officer who then pulled his off-duty weapon. The motorcyclist videotaped the encounter with his helmet mounted cam. After he uploaded it to Youtube, the police came to his house to seize his computer and other items.

The court in Maryland ruled a police officer performing his duties had no expectation of privacy.

I would be very surprised at this point if the USSC would rule otherwise if such a case to their attention.

Hello all....Sorry (again) I've been aways so long however this story just landed in my lap yesterday and I was enticed to see if it made it to railroad.net which I was sure it would have.

Now frankly this upsets me to no ends that the TSA has the audacity to "set up shop" as seen in the video at railway stations in the USA(Chicago). I do understand that there were bombing overseas on certain railway networks but that has no comparison to how US railway network are viewed, simply until you prove me wrong I'm pretty sure real terrorists don't see any significance to bombing our railway system if so believe me it would have already been done. Common sense should kick in at some point that if terrorists were recording vital info they would not record it in the open with a smartphone or camcorder ( it would be by spycam) or post it on Youtube. The capacity for mass-carnage is just not plausible. Amtrak should IMHO take a hard stand against the TSA at any of there stations. As one of the reasons ( not the biggest but definitely a major contributer) that passenger ridership has gone up is due to citizens not wanting to deal with all the TSA hoopla at the airports, Amtrak was an option to circumnavigating some non law enforcement person rummaging through your unmentionables.

I for one love Amtrak but if this is what it has become I'll just drive, help pollute the environment, and deal with the skyrocketing gas prices ( recently only affecting the midwest) just to preserve my god given rights. Travel by ground differs HIGHLY over air travel the pros in this case do not outweigh the cons with having TSA check points at any railway station. I can only predict the masses ( especially outside of the NEC) will just opt for greyhound and Megabus if this procedure does not stop, I can see the passengers now..."Who cares if there buses are running into concrete pillars every now and again at least I don't have to deal with the TSA!" ( NOT making a spectacle at the recent Megabus crash but yes Im referring to it) Respectively I'm all for increased security and uniformed LEOs at the rail station however the addition of the TSA is crossing the proverbial line. If the TSA wants there mitts on Amtrak then by all means what to stop them from all forms of ground transportation? Want to take a tour train or scenic railway trip TSA is waiting for you to check in, Going on a late night/ midnight boat cruise ( aka: Odyssey in Chicago) boarding only available through the TSA. Want to take greyhound, peter pan, mega bus etc. make sure you hit the TSA checkpoint first. IMHO The TSA is/was a broken organization to begin with, at best there only suited with keeping there mitts on air travel ONLY.

Not really AMTK related however Just for fun, I can see the headline on WGN news .. " TSA sets up checkpoint standing out in the cold with twenty below 0 wind chill one block SOUTH of Chicago Union station waiting for the Megabus ", and in other news, this just in ... "In a strange turn of events Megabus announces as of today all buses will load and unload passengers one block NORTH of Chicago Union station!".

New Jersey Transit has posters on some equipment showing the Madrid bombing as part of its See Something, Say Something program, as well as frequent reminders to the public on what to look for that could be an explosive device, i.e., unattended package. It is definitely of concern to NJT.

Intercity bus operators are included in the TSA program. See for example http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/FY_2011_I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... _Sheet.pdf and this recent testimony of the Chief Operating Officer of Greyhound that appears to be advocating increased TSA activity. http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homelan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... enship.pdf

Are they going to be screening people at parking garages next?

For the attorneys here:

IS a railroad station a "public place" in the eyes of the law?