Brickbats

Brickbat: Caught on Camera

|

Bjorn R. Broms, a Transportation Security Administration supervisor at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, has been charged with violating government data practices for recording video of a child riding a luggage carousel and sending the video to local media. He took the video from closed-circuit images and sent it to Minneapolis Public Radio, which posted it online. During the course of the investigation, airport police found he had also taken 42 photographs of women during pre-flight screenings. The women were all wearing shorts, tank tops, tight pants and similar clothing. Officials say he isn't likely to be charged for those images because of the difficulty in identifying the victims.

NEXT: How Louisiana Perfected the Speed Trap

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He took the video from closed-circuit images and sent it to Minneapolis Public Radio…

    He sent video to the radio? That man is TSA material.

    1. He sent it to kill the radio star.

    2. Fast track him to TSA senior management.

    3. Made me laugh, Fist.

    4. He took the video from closed-circuit images and sent it to Minneapolis Public Radio, which posted it online.

      Hmmm…Hmmm…Hmmm…

  2. If the county only charged this defendant with one charge, the scumbag county prosecutor should not mention any other photos.

    They’re trying to make the guy out to be some kind of creep, instead of just sticking to the one charge they can prove.

    Charlie Oliver helped slander the guy. Nice.

    1. Don’t think they are trying to portray Mr. Broms as a creeper, it seems that he was bjorn that way.

      1. He was just sitting at his security desk pining for the fyords.

    2. Plus… This is a public place. Not sure how there is a right to not be photographed in a crowded airport.

      Fired for doing something his employer does not want him doing…. Sure. But prosecuted? That seems nuts.

      1. This isn’t a private security guard walking around the mall. This is a government agent in a position of power over travelers who is freely demonstrating that he’s willing to violate any policy if only he wants to enough.

    3. Did you read the article.

      They’re not charging him with the other pics *because they can’t identify the women*. He did the thing. But because they can’t identify a ‘victim’ they’re letting it slide.

      Imagine all the other crimes that could be let alone if you made so the cops couldn’t identify the victim.

      Though, honestly, creeping on chicks through the security cameras is creepy – I don’t think it should be a crime on its own.

      1. “He did the thing.”

        Did he? Or is that slander?

        The county prosecutor needs to prove it happened or don’t mention it.

  3. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited is a top chemicals company, known for manufacturing effective polymer additives, refrigerants and much more to enhance the performance of building materials and let processors provide better end products to the customers.
    fire retardant additives

    1. Do they have a robust insurance for PFOS/PFAS? Get the F- out.

  4. Pics or it didn’t happen.

  5. “…because of the difficulty in identifying the victims.”

    If someone takes a picture of a woman in public, in the clothes that she has chosen to wear in public, she is now a “victim”? Does the same apply to male “victims”?

    I understand that there is a VERY SLIGHT aspect of “captive subject” for the picture-taking here, but whoop-de-do! If I as a fellow traveler in line at the time, or off in the distance, took photos of these women (again, in PUBLIC) at this time, would they still be “victims”?

    What about MY rights to capture photons emitted in public?!?

    “Victims” my ass!!!

    1. PS, is the woman in the pic show here in the header, also a “victim”, perhaps?

      1. I’d like to be her American Touriser.

        1. Tourister, that is. Maybe she’d do me like the famous chimp in the commercial. Yowsa!

    2. Yeah… Didn’t we just fight a whole battle over the right to take photos in public? Has Reason completely forgotten their roots?

    3. I understand that there is a VERY SLIGHT aspect of “captive subject” for the picture-taking here, but whoop-de-do!

      The slight aspect should be *THE* aspect. If these were just people in an airport and he were some bored, 70s-era airport security guard sitting on a chair in the corner, no one would give a shit. The fact that both men and women are ‘detained’ by the TSA until cleared is nothing compared to the fact that they effectively snap hundreds of thousands of ‘legitimate’ nudes via microwave scanners.

    4. The difference here is that the dude is not using his camera. He’s violating policy/terms of service by using the security cameras to do so.

      1. He did nothing until it’s proven.

  6. “Officials say he isn’t likely to be charged for those images because of the difficulty in identifying the victims.”

    Wait, what?
    The TSA can’t identify a traveler going through screening?
    How the hell are they supposed to catch the bad guys, if one ever does show up at the airport?
    I know a way the democrats can pay for some of their “infrastructure”.

    1. “identify the victims” has two parts, and you are focusing on the wrong part. They can easily identify the people in the videos, but they are not victims. Government is finally admitting these are victimless non-crimes.

  7. DEFUND THE TSA!

    1. But if you defund the TSA, how will people board airplanes safely?

      1. Uh, the way we used to ? without a dose of radiation

        1. It was sarcasm. As opposed to ‘defund the police’ where the alternative is rather literal pitchfork-weilding mobs.

          1. Rest assured the dems are in a back room drafting common sense pitchfork controls.

            1. Limited to 3 tines, no longer than 6″.

      2. Put the airlines in charge of security

        1. The problem with that is the connecting flights and the terminals.

          There does need to be minimal oversight when some terrorist passes through Airport A, gets on a flight with his bomb, exits, then blows up the Airport B, or gets on the second flight and blows it up.

          Each subsequent step is relying on quality inspection at the previous step. So the first step has to be done right, and some entity needs to be responsible for that.

          Only a massively capitalized airline could afford that liability and responsibility, but we know from past experience that they’ll shirk responsibility at the first opportunity. It’s that shitty private security that allowed past tragedies.

          TSA sucks, but they have deterred major tragedy, so far.

          The only airlines that still handle their own security today are fully subsidized by their governments, including El-Al.

          Where exceptions exist, all transfer passengers get rescreened by some kind of government security screening if they travel further by air.

          1. I… you… the TSA has done what now? What evidence do you have to possibly support that claim? And have you shared it with the TSA, because they would LOVE to be able to show they have had even the slightest positive impact on actual security.

  8. 42 is the answer.

    did he take the one of the chick sitting on the suitcase?

    1. Actually he took excerpts out of the closed-loop security-cameras footage (I had to read the details in the link to get that). A TSA employee whipping out his personal hand-held camera to take juicy shots of sexy babes would raise too many red flags…

      IMHO he was wasting his time (hours paid for by the public most likely) fishing through the (presumably government-owned) footage to find the good-looking babes, and it is also “in bad taste”. A job reprimand is in order. Criminal charges goes too far… Obviously purely a matter of my personal judgment, though; not science or math. I hate to see my taxes going to court time for such trivial things!

      Calling these babes “victims” is bad taste or word-murdering, though, IMHO!

      1. Essentially dubbing the footage for his own jollies sounds pretty pervy to me, and certainly fireable.

        1. “and certainly fireable.”

          What part of government employee do you not understand?

  9. “During the course of the investigation, airport police found he had also taken 42 photographs of women during pre-flight screenings.”

    Nice…

Please to post comments