Exclusive Coverage
By Carlos Miller
The video that JetBlue flight attendants feared would go on Youtube has finally been posted on Youtube.
And only because JetBlue executives have shown a complete disregard towards Marilyn Parver, the passenger whom flight attendants had escorted off the plane in handcuffs after she refused to delete a video of an altercation between two passengers.
The incident occurred on a flight from New York City to Las Vegas on July 26th. The altercation was between the mother of an unruly child and a man who had lost his temper over the child kicking the back of his seat.
Parver, a 56-year-old grandmother from Arizona, was sitting two rows behind the mother and child, using her camera to photograph clouds out the window when she switched to video mode and started filming the altercation.
Flight attendants ordered her to delete the video, accusing her of planning to post the video on Youtube to embarrass JetBlue. As if they have not done enough to embarrass themselves.
Parver says she had no intention of posting it on Youtube. As she stated in her complaint to JetBlue’s top executives, she merely wanted to use the video to show her daughter an example of bad parenting.
I am a grandmother who only wanted to show my daughter that uncontrolled kids really do irritate other people.
But Parver sent the video to Photography is Not a Crime after JetBlue sent her a scathing response to her complaint, accusing her of being “argumentative, condescending and belligerent” towards flight attendants. I, in turn, posted it to my Youtube account, marking the first time the much talked about video made it online.
She has yet to receive a response from the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration, both who also received her complaint.
“I have no attorney but wish I did,” she said. “I have not found anyone willing to take it on contingency and that is my only option.”
The video proves that Parver had not stepped out of her seat as she filmed the altercation, which is pivotal considering JetBlue had first accused her of interferance with a flight crew member, a federal crime that carries a maximum penalty of 25 years.
The four-page response from JetBlue is signed by Joanna L. Geraghty, Vice President and Associate General Counsel. In other words, JetBlue’s in-house attorney. Parver calls it a “letter of lies” and asked that it not get published with this article because of its defamatory nature.
One of the main lies, she says, is how Geraghty accuses her of lying about having been lead off the plane in handcuffs.
“The entire plane saw this happen,” Parver says.
The Las Vegas Police Department claims they do not have a record of the incident because they ended up not arresting her.
The letter also claims that Parver continued taking photos of the flight attendants after her initial exchange with them to “antagonize the crew”, which Parver also denies.
But the most dubious claim is that flight attendants told her that photography in an aircraft is forbidden as stated in the Flight Attendant Manual.
“Due to both privacy and security concerns, the F1 (lead flight attendant) asked you to delete the photos and the movie. The F1 also advised you that the Flight Attendant Manual did not permit the taking of photos. However, you refused to delete the photographs.
At this point, the F1 called the Captain who suggested that she show you the relevant section of the manual. The F1 brought the manual to your row. You refused to look at the manual and again refused to delete the photographs.”
“I was never offered any manual,” Parver says. “If there is something in a manual about taking photos inflight…why not put it in the seat pocket?”
The truth is, you will never find the Flight Attendant Manual in the seat pocket because it is not meant to be shown to passengers. In fact, flight attendants are specifically warned against showing the manual to passengers as a security precaution.
Peter Dooling, a Miami-based photographer who spent several years as a flight attendant for United Airlines, says the Flight Attendant Manual is a highly sensitive book that contains all the Federal Aviation Administration regulations, security codes from airports around the world, specific information about every commercial airplane as well as specific company policies.
“It’s something that we always had to keep under lock and key,” he says. “We were not allowed to show it to the passengers for security reasons.”
This is also confirmed by flight attendant Mary Jo Manzanares, who maintains the blog, Fly Away Cafe.
The Flight Attendant Manual (FAM) is our “bible” containing information regarding the various aircraft we work on, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR’s), company policies, first aid information, service guidelines and policies, emergency procedures, and a variety of other things that vary from airline to airline.
The FAM is our reference guide. The place we go to look up something that we don’t remember, or to double check on a policy or procedure. It’s big because there’s so much in it.
By the way, the FAM is a private and secured document, so it is not something that is shown to passengers or anyone who hasn’t been qualified to see it. When customers say “show me the rule that says that” we are not going to dig out the FAM to show them.
So if it is true that the lead JetBlue flight attendant attempted to show Parver the Flight Attendant Manual, she was committing an actual security breach.
The JetBlue letter also states that:
“JetBlue’s policy above 10,000 feet is to request passengers discontinue videotaping or photographing, particularly photographing the cockpit area or inflight procedures.”
So does this mean that JetBlue passengers are allowed to videotape and photograph below 10,000 feet? If that’s the case, then JetBlue is at odds with every other airline in the world which only forbid you to use electronic devices upon landing and departure, not during cruising altitude.
“Maybe things have changed after 9/11, but when I was a flight attendant, photography was not a big deal,” says Dooling, who worked from 1997 to 2001. “It happened all the time. Tourists always carry cameras.”
But if airline policies regarding photography have changed since 9/11, then somebody did not inform the members of the Flickr group Inside the Plane, which states that “any shots inside the plane will work. Cockpits, johns, seats, meals and crew. If it’s inside the plane (on the ground or in the air) - it works!”
More than 500 Flickr members have joined the group since 2007, posting more than 3,000 photos, so it doesn’t seem like there is much of an anti-photography policy inside commercial airlines But granted, none of these photos show two passengers arguing.
However, one photo shows two JetBlue flight attendants posturing for the camera during a flight, specifically a flight attendant named Judy wiping her fellow flight attendant with a maxipad. No, I’m not kidding.
Also, as Photography is Not a Crime reader Dave points out in the comments section, there was the JetBlue Point of View photo contest, which encouraged passengers to take photos outside the window at cruising altitudes. More than 1,700 entries were submitted to the contest last year.
So it’s really difficult to believe the claims outlined in the JetBlue letter.
Logic tells us that the flight attendant never showed Parver the Flight Attendant Manual. Just as the video shows us that Parver never interfered with a crew member. Just as the above photo and photo contest shows us there really is no JetBlue policy forbidding photography in flight.
Logic tells us that this predictament is a result of a flight attendant trying to prevent a video from appearing on Youtube.
You have to love the irony.
Popularity: 23% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a
73 responses so far ↓
1 Frequent Flier // Sep 30, 2008 at 11:19 am
Marilyn Parver should have deleted the video when they asked her to because once you are in the air, you have to do as they say.
We might not like it, but it’s for our safety. I wouldn’t want somebody filming me on a plane because they might use that video to plan terrorist acts.
2 WTF? // Sep 30, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Frequent Flier, are you smoking crack?
3 Frequent Flier // Sep 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I’m not smoking crack. On the contrary.
I fly at least twice a month and it’s really scary when passengers don’t cooperate with flight attendants.
You might not agree with what they have to say, but they are there to protect us.
4 Tere // Sep 30, 2008 at 1:47 pm
But it’s not illegal to take pictures or film on a plane. So they have no right to do that.
5 Hootie // Sep 30, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Frequent Flier,
1) Using the logic that the photo would be used for terrorism, then all photography should be outlawed. Take a picture at the baseball stadium =Terrorist, at Disney = Terrorist, of a scenic bridge = Terrorist.
2) What do you suggest is an acceptable level of authority to grant the air crew? We only need to comply with reasonable and lawful directions from the crew. I cant see how taking video from your seat could possibly be disruptive to crew or passenger safety. I know this is an extreme example but would you allow yourself to be strip searched by the crew? Of course you wouldn’t because it is an unreasonable request and outside of their authority.
6 Don Smith // Sep 30, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Further proof, as though any were needed, that flying has become something to be endured, rather than enjoyed.
Jet Blue’s allegations, excuses, and inconsistencies suggest that their after-the-fact justifications are as lame and suspect as their ad hoc “rules” cited during the incident.
But we all know what power is said to do; even such pathetic “power” as is vested in Jet Blue’s airborne ersatz gestapo.
7 Frequent Flier // Sep 30, 2008 at 2:31 pm
T,
How do you know it is not illegal? Have you read the flight attendant manual?
H,
I would allow myself to be strip searched if they suspected me of being a terrorist because I have nothing to hide.
8 Leslie // Sep 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I agree with frequent flier. If we don’t have rules in the air, then the terrorists will continue to strike.
9 Dude // Sep 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm
The FAM is not an authority on the legality of an act. It may (indeed I cannot claim to know if it does) cite law within its pages, but it cannot define what is legal or not.
Enjoy your strip search.
10 sandy // Sep 30, 2008 at 4:41 pm
bottom line is that Marilyn Parver did nothing wrong. She didn’t like or deserve the verble abuse from the flight crew, so when it got escalated to that level she asked to speak to the capt. and would delete it at his request. ABUSE OF POWER AND UNJUST TREATMENT.
QUESTION: WHAT ARE OUR RIGHTS ONCE IN THE AIR?
11 Leslie // Sep 30, 2008 at 5:21 pm
But once we’re in the air, flight attendants have authority over us. If not, then everybody would be walking around doing as they please.
12 tazkcmo // Sep 30, 2008 at 6:01 pm
How readily folks are to capitulate their rights. Scary and very weak. Yes, we need rules but even rules must have limits. Our country was not founded on fear but bravery. Remember, “Give me liberty or give me death.”? A terrorist campaign is meant to cow the leadership and people, causing them to modify their behavior out of fear. Folks, you cross the street every day even though your chances of getting hit by a car are astranomicly higher than being a victim of a terrorist attack. At some point in your lives you need to stand up to tyranny or it will be too late.
13 jn // Sep 30, 2008 at 6:06 pm
LOL… Frequent Flier must be a troll because the argument is too dumb. S/he thinks it’s OK to enforce “secret laws”!!! And we should just do what people say because they know laws we don’t?
Well maybe I know laws the flight attendants don’t know. In fact, I say those flight attendants committed serious felonies and should be shipped off to Guantanamo.
And Leslie… oh Leslie… stop talking while you’re behind. The terrorists have already beaten you if you believe taking a photo in a plane will cause another strike. What might cause another strike are having idiots at the helm of the country (Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc.) and our love of killing people in their own countries.
14 jn // Sep 30, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Wait, on second thought, according to Frequent Flier and Leslie, we already live in Guantanamo.
15 Scott // Sep 30, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I totally agree with you tazkcmo. You know I don’t see why any terrorist would have to take pictures of the inside of a plane anyway. It’s not like there aren’t any pictures of them on the internet. Now if you are flying over American soil you are subject to American laws, not the make-believe laws of flight attendants who think that all power resides with them. If there should be a rule to protect peoples safety, it is probably already a federal law.
16 Vinnie From Indy // Sep 30, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Good for Parvis! She shouldn’t take any crap from a glorified waitress in the sky. She should have told the flight attendant to go count her swizzle sticks. Screw Jet Blue as well! If this happened to me, I would sue the airline, the little kid kicking the chair, his mother, the flight attendant, the police department and maybe a few other folks just for the hell of it. ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA!
17 Carlos Miller // Sep 30, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Leslie and Frequent Flier,
Do you guys work at JetBlue? Seriously.
18 Dave // Sep 30, 2008 at 7:53 pm
JetBlue has nothing against taking photos from within the plane. One has to look no further than their Google Photo Contest.
19 Dave // Sep 30, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Here’s the press release.
20 Carlos Miller // Sep 30, 2008 at 8:09 pm
That was a great find, Dave. Thanks for the heads up on those links.
I just included them in the story right beneath the bottom picture.
21 Frequent Flier // Sep 30, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Carlos,
I do not work for Jet Blue nor do I know Leslie.
jn,
I am not a troll. I am a frequent flier who believes we all must do our part to ensure a safe flight.
By refusing to delete the video, Marilyn Parver put all the passengers at risk.
22 jn // Sep 30, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Frequent Flier, perhaps you don’t work for Jet Blue, but maybe you are a Republican talking point writer? Because what you just said makes NO SENSE. How, pray tell, does that video endanger anyone? Now that it’s up on the Internet, are you saying the next terrorist attack will be directly related to that video?
Did you see the Jet Blue photo contest link above? Does this mean Jet Blue is a terrorist company?
I think your real problem is that you, like so many Republicans, think that you can scrub history by removing evidence. But this does not work.
23 Frequent Flier // Sep 30, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I am a republican but what does that have to do with anything?
Obviously, the video does not contain anything that could help the terrorists, but how were the flight attendants supposed to know that at the time?
By refusing to delete the video, she forced the flight attendants to deal with her and possibly neglect an actual terrorist act in another part of the plane.
I wouldn’t put it past the terrorists to start using video cameras as a way to distract the flight attendants so other terrorists can make their way into the cockpit.
And if they get this idea from Marilyn Parver, then she will be directly responsible for this.
24 jn // Sep 30, 2008 at 10:20 pm
It’s obvious that you’re a Republican because of the extreme fear that you exhibit because you’ve been told to, not because there is any reason for it. You are far more likely to die from what you eat or the polluted environment (thank you again, Republicans) than a terrorist attack.
I suggest you tell the airlines to stop serving food and drinks. After all, a terrorist might take advantage of that time that flight attendants are occupied doing something else and stage an attack! And what about when they have to watch unattended children? Maybe having children should be outlawed. Or maybe it is, but the flight attendants haven’t shown us the Secret Book of Laws so we just don’t know it yet.
One terrorist already tried to use SHOES to attack a plane. Whoever invented shoes must be held accountable ASAP according to your logic.
And if you now admit “Obviously, the video does not contain anything that could help the terrorists”, why did you say “I wouldn’t want somebody filming me on a plane because they might use that video to plan terrorist acts.” above? And once again, did you see the airline’s own photo contest? Clearly they don’t agree with you on this point at all. And the flight attendants would KNOW the video contained nothing because it was a video of what was going on in the plane, which about a hundred other people witnessed. Maybe those people should submit to lobotomies so that their memories could not be used by terrorists.
Your arguments make no sense at all. They just display a level of fear that this government has instilled in you. You probably think toothpaste is an explosive and they are right to limit us to a few ounces of the stuff. Did you ever ask yourself why other nations are allowed to fly with toothpaste?
25 Ricky Rodriguez // Oct 1, 2008 at 12:27 am
Keep up the good work Carlos!
To those debating above…wow…
Freedom and loss of civil liberties are attacked by both Republicans AND Democrats… all you have to do is look at the record of casted votes on endless legistlation…
Unfortunately Frequent Flyer’s philosophy is very dangerous and is
what has continued America down the slippery slope toward fascism…
Let me just remind you all of this relevant quote from the people who founded our Republic:
“He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither.”
– Benjamin Franklin
I think that quote is very powerful and answers a lot…
In Liberty,
Ricky Rodriguez
Miami
26 PDBreske // Oct 1, 2008 at 7:10 am
Hey, Frequent Flier. Explain the JetBlue-sponsored photo contest. Just tell us why the company that doesn’t want people taking pictures in their planes would ask people to take pictures in their planes.
27 bad_robbie // Oct 1, 2008 at 8:41 am
Frequent Flier and Leslie aren’t trolls or JetBlue employees, and they probably don’t know each other. They are just both examples of the Authoritarian Personality Type. They enjoy obeying orders and especially enjoy telling others what to do. To them, lack of order is the most frightening proposition. They function best and are happiest in a strongly hierarchical system, whether as a lowly corporal or as the supreme leader.
28 Charlie // Oct 1, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Frequent Flier if a terrorist wanted to take video or photographs of the inside of a plane, they can easily pick up equipment that would allow them to do so without anyone noticing. Are arguments completely ring hallow, and I suggest you get some counseling from a mental health specialist for your paranoia.
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” - Benjamin Franklin
^ - A Real Republican, as in Goldwater, not a Neo-Con.
29 USArtboy // Oct 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Hey jn… lay off the politics. I’m a Right Wing Christian Conservative Republican (your polar opposite it would seem) and I totally disagree with Frequent Flier and Leslie. The far, far left end of the political spectrum is Communism, which is total government control over every individual. I want fewer people telling me what I can and can’t do, not more. Besides, politics has nothing to do with this particular instance.
If the Jet Blue staff had any sense, they would have used the video as a way to resolve the dispute. Having their lawyer intimidate the witness by bullying shows how out of touch they are.
30 Li // Oct 1, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The lawyer who wrote the letter is an idiot. He claims that the airline commited a MAJOR breach of security in an attempt to enforce a “secret regulation”? Give me a break.
And I’m sure Frequent Flier and Leslie will be cheering when the government wants to implant all citizens with GPS tracking chips, enforces a 7PM curfew, and detains anyone with a tan on the grounds they “look middle eastern.” All in the name of protecting us of course.
31 jn // Oct 1, 2008 at 1:08 pm
USArtboy, you are correct that not all Republicans have fallen for this BS, but I do believe politics has a lot to do with this instance because it was the Republican party that led the charge to take away our rights, resulting in people like Leslie and Frequent Flier.
It was the Republican president (installed by Republican judges) and his Republican cabinet who ignored the warnings for 911 and allowed the worst terrorist attack in our history to happen on their watch, which scared people into the state you see the above posters in.
And BTW, it would seem the far, far right end of the spectrum is also complete control of every individual, an agenda which has been advanced significantly over the past 8 years.
32 Matthew // Oct 1, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Welcome to the 21st Century. In the USA in the 21st Century, probably 80% of people carry a camera at all times (in their cell phone) and when travelling on vacation make that close to 100%. Not only that, with the proliferation of reality TV, CNN’s iReporters and the like we tend to photograph and video lots of things. Thank goodness we do, it can save you a butt load of hassle if you’re involved in a car crash and you have a camera handy to record the scene of the crash. Consequently, I think it’s safe to assume that in any public space or quasi-public space (such as an airliner) there is a pretty good chance that someone is recording the situation for posterity, usually innocently. Therefore, if JetBlue really does have a no-photography policy, this should be announced at the beginning of the flight, e.g. “Welcome aboard JetBlue, we value your privacy as passengers, we therefore advise that JetBlue does not permit the use of photographic equipment, including cameras, camcorders, cell phone cameras or any other video or audio recording device in flight. Thank you for your cooperation.” I’ve never flown JetBlue so I don’t know if they actually do this or not, but I couldn’t find anything in the conditions of carriage contract that restricts the use of photographic equipment inflight.
JetBlue overreacted by a long shot. If its flight attendants had not been so snippy, this whole incident would be long forgotten. Instead, its still getting bad publicity on the blogs.
33 CC // Oct 1, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I can just imagine you, Frequent Flyer, during the McCarthy Era. Probably would’ve turned in your own mother on the slightest suspicion of Communism! (Or maybe if you were just angry at her.) It’s your kind of philosophy that will quicken our descent into becoming the U.S…..S.R.
34 Dan // Oct 1, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Despite “Frequent Flier’s” argument, there is simply no general duty of obedience to any and all instructions issued by a flight crew member. If a flight attendant orders a passenger to “Hop on one foot…. Bark like a dog… Shine my shoes… or Give me $10 from your wallet,” there is simply no legal requirement to obey.
The legal issue here derives from Federal Aviation Regulation 121.580 and Section 46504 of Title 49 the United States Code (49 USC VII A(iv)465, § 46504), which prohibits any action which “… interferes with the performance of the duties of the [crew] member or [flight] attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties…” But that rule does not create a generalized duty of obedience to any and all instructions which might conceivably be given by a flight attendant. So no, Ms Flight Attendant, I will NOT bark like a dog, or shine your shoes, or delete my CF card.
35 Frequent Flier // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It’s obvious that most people here have forgotten about 9/11.
36 Seth // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Frequent Flier, have you ever heard of some quaint old-fashioned concepts known as “freedom” and “liberty”? Or don’t they have them in troll-land?
There’s nothing dangerous about photography in the passenger cabin of an aircraft when it’s allowed to use electronic devices. It’s too bad she didn’t also record the flight attendants lying to her when attempting to steal her property (the recording is her property).
37 to Frequent Flier // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Its obvious you should be hidding under your bed in case terrorists come and get you. If you’re still terrified by 9/11 and still attach so much importance to it to completely disrupt your life, then they’ve won.
38 DDayDawg // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:41 pm
@Frequent Flier
We haven’t forgotten 9/11 but you seem quite willing to throw the entire Bill of Rights and your God given freedoms out the window at any moment. People like you make me sick, and they would definitely make the founding fathers of our country want to puke. These people fought a WAR, and not a nice easy war where you drop bombs from a plane, no a war where they had to stab people with bayonets. These people fought for our freedoms and you are almost giddy to throw that all away because some “mile-high” waitress wants to go on a power trip.
Shame on you. People like you deserve everything you get. I for one will fight for my rights no matter how many perky stewardesses it pisses off. If I’m not mistaken 9/11 happened because guys with knives took over planes and rammed them into buildings. I have yet to hear of a terrorist act caused by someone taking cell phone video. So sad…
39 Asudo Nimh // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Frequent Flier scrawled: “It’s obvious that most people here have forgotten about 9/11.”
I totally disagree. It’s just that most of the people here have not let 9/11 dictate a life of fear to them, despite the best efforts of our so-called ‘leaders’.
If you’re living your life in fear due to the events of 9/11, then you should seek professional help, because you’re being robbed of your life, liberty and happiness.
As many have stated, the chances of dying in a terror event are far slimmer than virtually any other means you can imagine, especially everyday activities like driving, walking stairs, or using an electric appliance.
Frequent Flier, imagine the fear you would live in if you were an Iraqi citizen, and you’ve had more than five years of America trying to shove a ‘free and democratic Iraq’ down your throat with cluster bombs?
So, get off your attitude and get counseling (and maybe some meds) to help you regain some semblance of control over your life. You’ll be much happier, I guarantee it.
40 Matt // Oct 1, 2008 at 4:00 pm
You talk about security breaches and crap Frequent Flier, but did you know that what you’re doing is a violation of the patriot act?
Specifically “Domestic Terrorism”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States
Yes it’s wikipedia, but it quotes the ptriot act’s definiton. Pay particular attention to “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.”
How do those oh so wonderful security policies appeal to you now?
41 Scott // Oct 1, 2008 at 4:08 pm
First of all, Matt LOL.
Second I remember 9/11 quite clearly thank you very much, and I don’t recall any mention EVER of any of the hijackers using cameras to take over planes.
For that matter I don’t recall any mention of any terrorists using cameras EVER in any of their attacks across the globe.
42 Fred // Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 pm
If a legitimate law enforcement officer doesn’t have the right to force you to see or delete your photos without a court order, then how the hell can a non-law enforcement officer such as a flight attendant have the right to do so? They don’t. End of discussion on that aspect of this matter.
43 Law and Order // Oct 1, 2008 at 5:26 pm
i cant believe you people are all falling for this. cant you see the owner of this blog is a trublemaker? he does nothing but stir the pot and thumb his nose at authority.
44 Tere // Oct 1, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Frequent Flier, to answer the question you asked me: if taking pictures in planes was illegal, there’d be signs posted everywhere, at the very least.
When there is a law that applies to the public as something like this would, there is always an inclusion in that law that it must be publicly posted somewhere where everyone can see it.
So at the very least - have you seen a sign on any plane or terminal prohibiting taking pictures/video?
And Leslie, flight attendants have no authority over anyone. That’s just silly. They may be able to act with authority when someone is unruly or putting other passengers in danger, but that’s not at all the same as them having authority over us. They’re not law enforcement.
45 jn // Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Law and Order - You seem to have forgotten that the law officers work for US. That’s US as in you and me, not the U.S. of A.
Therefore, it is our duty to supervise law officers, and sometimes that means photographing them at work. This helps prevent a police state, which most of us answering here do not want. Maybe you do.
46 Scott // Oct 1, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Hey Law and Order, I think that people who follow unjust laws are the real troublemaker’s. No government is going to tell me how to live my life.
47 Carlos Miller // Oct 1, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Law and Order,
What are people “falling for”? Everything in this story is true.
I have a copy of Jet Blue’s letter, complete with signature and letterhead, so if I was making that part up, I would be setting myself up for a libel lawsuit against a huge company.
And that is something not even a “trublemaker” like myself would do.
And the video speaks for itself. It’s obvious it was shot from a seated passenger who was nowhere close to interfering with a flight crew member.
And the rest of the story? Well, I haven’t seen anything yet that states it is unlawful or against the rules to use a camera during flight. On the contrary.
48 Robert Pounds (da law) Jones (I made that jones part up) // Oct 1, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Really sad to see people through away there civil liberties because a “flight attendant” told me too.
Honestly I’m proud grandma willing to stand up and say “No I will not go delete my card because your afraid to see your face on youtube”
Attendant shoulda shut there mouth and just done her job.
The whole entire deal isn’t about terrorist, or secret planning or what not, its about a flight attendant not wanting to see his/her face on the interwebs and get emberresed by it so she/he uses her position to try to get the lady to remove the movie.
I can’t wait to get home and watch it, then I’ll post a link to my friends.
49 Travis // Oct 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Parver in no way endangered her fellow passengers. If anything the crew endangered safety by violating Parver’s First Amendment rights; they’re lucky they didn’t incite a mutiny in their attempt to unlawfully impose their will.
Frequent Flyer: It’s obvious that most people here have forgotten about 9/11. It is also obvious that even more people have forgotten the Constitution.
50 Carlos Miller // Oct 1, 2008 at 8:42 pm
It is also obvious that even more people have forgotten the Constitution.
Good one, Travis.
51 MN F/a // Oct 1, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Here’s the law–known as the Meeker law. “One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member’s duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975).”
If it is the policy of the company not to have cabin videotaping, then the passenger should have complied. They are agreeing to fly on the that particular airline and follow their rules.
Videotaping of the flight attendants is in my view intimidation, as you don’t know where the video is going–if it’s going to be used against the flight attendants, airline, or passengers in question. That would cause harm to the passengers who were in the altercation.
Interference with a crewmembers’ duties would occur, if the flight attendants requested deletion.
After conferring with the flight deck, if the passenger in question was creating a disturbance after the reasonable request by the flight attendants, I would certainly have had security meet the flight.
52 Fred // Oct 2, 2008 at 12:40 am
MN F/a: “Interference with a crewmembers’ duties would occur, if the flight attendants requested deletion.”
WTF does that mean in English? It’s time for you, and every other flight attendant reading this, to get it into your heads that you do NOT have the right to see the images or order their deletion. If a legitimate law enforcement officer can not demand to see or have images deleted without a court order, then how in the hell do you think an ordinary flight attendant, who is not even a law enforcement officer, can see or order the deletion of images?
An order by a flight attendant to either see or delete images is an illegal order and no one needs to comply with an illegal order. You can claim interference all you want but no one will back you up if the passenger ignores you, stays in their seat and doesn’t kick your ass inflight. Plus you will probably get your ass sued good so you can work for the rest of your life supporting the photographer in his/her judgment against you for falsely claiming interference with your job duties when there was no interference. There are consequences for being so stupid.
As I recall, in the original story a couple of weeks ago, the passenger was asked by the flight attendant to see the images and the passenger willingly did so in the back of the aircraft. At that point the flight attendant illegally asked the passenger to delete the images and the passenger refused, which was entirely their right to do.
One more thing: as a long-time JetBlue stockholder I am amazed that they have what I think is an idiot general counsel. I have never heard of an airline rule prohibiting photography above 10,000 feet but I have heard of airlines discouraging photography under 10,000 feet due to so-called “electronic interference” problems, similar to Walkmans, Ipods, whatever.
53 Fooker // Oct 2, 2008 at 5:59 am
Frequent Flier: Are you smoking crack. A person who gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Why don’t you goto a country like cuba where there are no freedoms, you’ll feel more safe there.
54 A pilot // Oct 2, 2008 at 9:58 am
Hey, FF, what if they told you that they were pulling away from the gate but would not depart for 16 hours because, well, they wanted to save a few bucks. Think you might not accept that as an excuse where you just ‘do what they say?’
The whole idea that ‘filming is intimidation’ is a joke. It is only intimidation if you feel intimidated. Thius F/A was not intimidated, merely pissed off that she was not kowtowed to. If you are doing what you are supposed to be doing then you have nothing to worry about. Isn’t that the excuse we get for why it is ok to search us? If we are law abiding citizens we have nothing to fear?
You know what scares me in this one folks? That after hearing the facts, law enforcement let witnesses leave the area, did not get their names, and then arrested Ms. Parver on the say so of a couple of JB employees given these facts.
Police officers take an oath to uphold the law and a not so insignificant oath to defend the Constitution. They did neither when they arrested Ms. Parver. That’s ok though, because the oath to defend the constitution always ius trumped by doing what you are told. While this does not rise to the level of a comparison to Nuremburg, it is the same type of argument. If enough of people refuse to accept that liberty trumps security then there is no point to even having the rights protected.
55 Tog // Oct 2, 2008 at 12:03 pm
There are a couple of elements here which seem to be missing from the conversation.
To my understanding, an individual’s right to film and photograph, unless otherwise addressed by statute, remains unabridged and intact while on public property.
An airline’s aircraft is not public property. It is private property, owned by the company operating it. If they ban photography, they ban photography. If they change their minds on the spot, they change their minds on the spot. If they choose not to serve peanuts, they choose not to serve peanuts.
As an illustration, I recently had my DSLR on my shoulder while meeting a friend who was shopping. She wanted a quick photo of a store mannequin’s outfit to reference because she liked the ‘look’. I took the photo and was immediately approached by a clerk and asked not to snap any more shots. The store is private property and that is their policy. If they would have asked me to delete the photo, I would have. Why? Because I didn’t obtain a location release prior to shooting.
My second observation: Individuals have a reasonable expectation of and right to privacy. If I ask you not to photograph me while on private property and you persist, you may be violating my right to privacy. Generally, as mentioned above, photos taken on public property preclude an individuals right to privacy - but the situation changes on private property.
Any thoughts on these points?
56 Li // Oct 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm
To Tog:
>>To my understanding, an individual’s right to film and photograph, unless otherwise addressed by statute, remains unabridged and intact while on public property.<<
You are correct on this point but incorrect on your assessment of JetBlue’s plane as private property. JetBlue operates as a Common Carrier, which means that it is licenced to transport people comemrcially and is overseen by a government regulatory committee.
Ergo, JetBlue’s planes by definition are considered a public space and you retain all rights. Since the FAA does not restrict the usage of cameras in aircrafts, in order for photography/video to be restricted in Ms. Parver’s case, the restriction would have to be clearly spelled out in the airline’s Contract of Carriage (which its not).
Also, your example of take the photo of the manniquin is also somewhat flawed. Unless you intended to use the photo of the mannequin for commercial purposes, snapping a picture of it is not an infringement of copyright or artistic license, though it is polite to stop once requested. In addition, once a photo/video is taken, no one can force the the destruction of a recording without a court order. Hence why it is often so difficult for people to get embarassing pics of the internet. Once agin, the polite thing to do would be to delete the photo, but nothing requires you to.
57 Ken // Oct 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm
response to Tog,
“If they change their minds on the spot, they change their minds on the spot. ”
JetBlue obviously allows photography on their planes as shown by the contest they held. (earlier comment.) That policy is not set “on the ground”, but at corporate level. So your argument that the flight attendant “change(d) their minds on the spot” has no bearing in this particular situation.
“Individuals have a reasonable expectation of and right to privacy.” (on private property.)
I agree, but I disagree that you can use that that argument here. It is one thing to make that argument if those people were on private property that they own, but they were not. They were on someone else’s private property (who again, obviously allows photography as shown by the contest.) I wouldn’t expect to go the mall, which is private property, and then demand that all people taking a picture or a video who, inadvertantly or on purpose, caught me in the picture or video to delete it. Doesn’t pass the test of reason, right?
58 Li // Oct 2, 2008 at 12:52 pm
BAH! I need more coffee
Correction:
“Hence why it is often so difficult for people to get embarassing pics OFF of the internet.”
59 Carlos Miller // Oct 2, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Tog,
It is not illegal to photograph on private property that is open to the public, such as a shopping mall. That is a misconception.
The clerk cannot order you to delete your photos.
As Fred mentioned in two of his comments, if a legitimate police officer requires a court order to view your photos, then how in the hell would a flight attendant or a store clerk have the authority to do so?
60 Carlos Miller // Oct 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Individuals have a reasonable expectation of and right to privacy. If I ask you not to photograph me while on private property and you persist, you may be violating my right to privacy.
Tog,
Legally speaking, “a reasonable expectation of privacy” does not mean sitting in the cabin of a crowded commercial airline.
Although it would mean sitting on the toilet inside the bathroom of a crowded commercial airline.
See the difference?
61 Seth // Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Tog, on private property they can tell you not to take photographs. Since it’s private property, they can kick you out for taking photographs. That’s all.
The uses you’re allowed to make of the photographs you legally took (and refused to delete) may be limited, by various laws (copyright, model, trademark, etc.)
I hope Marilyn Parver ends up owning Jet Blue, at least enough to fire their incompetent counsel.
62 Sakkano // Oct 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Leslie:
Terrorists don’t obey laws, so making laws to stop them really doesn’t do anything much other than offer a security blanket to the paranoid people.
63 Fred // Oct 2, 2008 at 3:50 pm
And three cheers for Carlos for hosting this site, posting this article and standing up for our rights as photographers.
Keep up the great work Carlos and don’t let the freedom giver uppers and their comments get you down.
64 Peter Keating // Oct 2, 2008 at 10:59 pm
While I agree that she should not have been taken into custody of police, would this news article still exist if she were kicked off of the plane and given a refund? Would this news article still exist if she violently resisted confiscation of her goods? Would this news article still exist if part of the terms of service that people agree to when they buy the ticket were that they could take you away in handcuffs for not following the flight attendant?
I hate to be a devil’s advocate here but what happened to the right to privacy? Why shouldn’t she have to respect other people’s rights? I mean, she has rights doesn’t she? What’s wrong with making rights something to which people are mutually obliged?
65 Scott // Oct 2, 2008 at 11:46 pm
The point is that none of those things you have said in your first paragraph are true.
There is not really any right to privacy when you are in a crowded public place, like an airplane.
66 Li // Oct 3, 2008 at 9:30 am
>>I hate to be a devil’s advocate here but what happened to the right to privacy?<<
There is no right to privacy in a public venue. The plane is a public venue.
Just something to chew on…if Ms. Parver had accidently captured people planning a murder or a terrorist act by accident while she was filming…would you be so quick to scream that she should have followed the FA’s orders?
67 Nate // Oct 4, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Some of the so-called flight attendants have bad attitudes against passengers, even before passengers board an aircraft. When I first started flying on commerical aircraft in the 1960’s, passengers were treated like royalty. Today, they are treated worse than dogs. The first time that I flew on Jet Blue, from Columbus, OH to JFK, the idiotic pilot was flying too close (at less than 2,000 feet of altitude) to another jet’s wake turbulence, on the approach to JFK. As a result, our plane made a violent dip to the right. I thought that we were going to crash! I was not impressed with that airline, and aside from my round trip flight, never flew with them again!
68 JC // Oct 7, 2008 at 1:06 am
I know Marilyn Parver and she’s a good person, hardly a “trouble maker” of any kind. I hope this incident with Jet Blue will raise some awareness and perhaps prevent something like this in the future.
69 Seth // Oct 7, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Peter Keating, how would you propose she could have been kicked off the plane? I think the flight attendants murdering her would have gotten even more publicity.
70 Former Queen of Sky // Oct 9, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Wow. I was a flight attendant for 8 years and would NEVER have asked a passenger to delete a photo or video. That’s ridiculous! And if it was JetBlue’s policy, I’d wanna see it in writing, too!
-Ellen
71 Carlos Miller // Oct 9, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Hi Ellen,
Thanks for writing. I also want to see the policy in writing. I really doubt it exists because if it did, the attorney would have cited it in her letter to Marilyn Parver, which she did not do.
For those of you who don’t know Ellen, she is a former flight attendant who was fired a few years ago for blogging about her job.
I wrote about her a few months ago.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/01/29/dooces-are-wild-and-so-are-these-blogging-babes/
She also wrote a very entertaining book.
http://www.amazon.com/Diary-Dysfunctional-Flight-Attendant-Queen/dp/0977483800/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223605974&sr=8-1
72 jeff // Oct 14, 2008 at 12:14 am
for all you lawyer wannabes out there, an airliner is not considered a ‘public’ space. A store or shopping mall is not a ‘public’ place. If you are taking photos/video and are asked to stop, you must or you can be considered trespassing. Once you have the images, you cannot be legally required to delete them. Your usage of said images is controlled by many laws but the images themselves are yours.
As for carlos being worried about a libel suit from jetblue….if you don’t have any money, a libel suit would be no threat at all.
73 Scott // Oct 14, 2008 at 12:06 pm
An air plane might not be public property, but the point is that nobody can expect a right to privacy outside of the cockpit or bathroom.
Leave a Comment