Should Graffiti on Air Force One Be Considered Freedom of Expression?

In summary, Marc Ecko, advocate of freedom of expression, displays a video on his website of him graffiting Air Force One by accessing an airbase where this 747 was parked. The video shows how easy it is to defeat airport security by following a step-by-step plan, and raises concerns about the security of Air Force One and other commercial airliners. The authenticity of the video is questioned, but if it is legitimate, it is a shame that security can be breached so easily.
  • #1
z-component
494
2
Marc Ecko, advocate of freedom of expression, displays a video on his website of him graffiting Air Force One by accessing an airbase where this 747 was parked. If the video is legitimate, I think it's shameful that two guys can breach security like that.

http://stillfree.com/

Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Something tells me that he will visited by strangers. :cool: They will not be smiling.
 
  • #3
Here's how easy it is to defeat airport security.

1) Most small uncontrolled airports have flying clubs and schools. People rent small aircraft from these organizations at all hours of the day, including hours when the office (and airport controller) are closed. The keys to these small aircraft are typically stored in a cabinet or locker on the side of a building, protected by nothing but a combination padlock. All you need is a pair of bolt-cutters, and you've got yourself a selection of fully-fueled small aircraft with a range of some 400 miles. (Convention is that tanks are filled immediately after landing.)

2) Since the uncontrolled airport is vacant, you don't have to interact with any controller to take off. Since you're going to be flying VFR, you don't need to file any flight plan, or otherwise interact with anyone. Just take off and head wherever you like.

3) Clear yourself into Class Bravo airspace around any major airport you'd like. Make up a tail number to add some additional anonymity. The ATC center will likely have had you on radar from the beginning of your journey, but they won't be paying any attention to your echo until you clear into controlled airspace, at which time they'll give you identifying transponder numbers and so on.

4) Land at your chosen airport. Request that ground control taxi you to a parking area owned by a club or other organization that's closed for the night. No one will see you taxi to the parking spot, or tie the plane down.

5) Put on a jumpsuit with a Chevron logo other other camoflauge and impersonate a fuel serviceman. Walk across the tarmac to the airport's main terminal (or commandeer an unused fuel vehicle, if you'd prefer).

6) Put your hot little hand on a 747. Or load your bomb into a suitcase waiting on the conveyors. Or whatever else you'd like.

That's all it takes. Really. It's not even hard. Of course, the authorities will piece the whole thing together later, but your "mission" will have already succeeded long before. I'll let you all in on something that no one except pilots ever seems to realize: airport security is make-believe. The airports and airlines construct airport screening flows to produce the appearance of security, so that you will continue to purchase tickets. No one who has any serious intention of blowing up an airliner is going to go through the metal detector. There are easier and more effective ways available.

Now, does this mean flying is not safe? Of course not. Even with the threat of terrorism, flying is still an order of magnitude safer than driving. But, the next time the airport screener makes you take your shoes off so they can be put through the X-ray machine, you might enjoy a laugh at the silliness of it all.

- Warren
 
  • #4
chroot said:
Here's how easy it is to defeat airport security.
Wouldn't you think though that there would be better security for Air Force One?
 
  • #5
If Air Force One is parked at an airport, which seems likely, I'd venture that it's not very secure at all. Sure, you can throw more and more secret servicemen at the problem, but it is a fundamentally unsolvable problem.

- Warren
 
  • #6
chroot said:
If Air Force One is parked at an airport, which seems likely, I'd venture that it's not very secure at all. Sure, you can throw more and more secret servicemen at the problem, but it is a fundamentally unsolvable problem.

- Warren

How is it not very secure (other then the display we just saw haha)? They're lucky they weren't shot dead. Security should have been tighter.

Oh well, guess vandelism is considered free speech as long as Republicans are in office.
 
  • #7
from Wikipedia:

Ecko recently released a fake video depicting himself applying graffiti to the left wing engine of Air Force One [1].
 
  • #8
yomamma said:
from Wikipedia:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I still don't trust things you say though so i want a real person to say so
 
  • #9
z-component said:
Marc Ecko, advocate of freedom of expression, displays a video on his website of him graffiting Air Force One by accessing an airbase where this 747 was parked. If the video is legitimate, I think it's shameful that two guys can breach security like that.

http://stillfree.com/

Thoughts?
Impressive if true, but damn - I've seen the security around Air Force 1 and Marine 1 before 9/11 and it was formidable enough then.

I watched the video and it looks legit, but it can be really hard to tell. It is tough to imagine someone would take such a risk (getting shot) just to spray-paint an airplane.
chroot said:
Here's how easy it is to defeat airport security.
Regardless of where it lands, it isn't ever out of sight of a squad of secret service. None of those six possibilities really applies.
If Air Force One is parked at an airport, which seems likely, I'd venture that it's not very secure at all. Sure, you can throw more and more secret servicemen at the problem, but it is a fundamentally unsolvable problem.
I'm no mathematician, but an object with a finite perimeter to defend definitely seems like a solvable problem to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Here's how easy it is to defeat airport security.

Nice detailed step-by-step plan.

Is there a terrorist manual or something?
 
  • #11
I like Warrens' points and I agree that they can definitely apply to commercial airliners, but I'm a little skeptical on whether the security for AFO is truly that faulty. I know that it's easy to steal a privately owned airplane from an untowered airport, such as my local airport, Brandywine (N99), and takeoff unnoticed if you know what you're doing. [1]

I also don't understand the motive of Ecko in publishing a video online and taking credit for committing a serious crime. But anyway--yomamma, thanks for that information; I didn't bother to debunk this video myself. [1] I read a while ago about a 12 year old boy who drive down to his local airport at night, stole the keys to a Cessna, took off and flew around a bit until he was finished, then landed only to find that everyone during the flight went well and he wasn't caught til after the fact. Maybe too much Flight Simulator (by the way-- I grew up on Flight Simulator 98 through 2004 and it actually did prepare me for real flying lessons).
 
  • #12
I watched the video and it was definitely shot at Andrews AFB (home base of Air Force One), but I'm still not convinced the actual tagging was real.
 
  • #13
The plane looks so lit up... why would that be?
 
  • #14
Maybe so security could see if anyone is near the plane for nighttime "protection." Russ-- so you think the actually did sneak on the airfield but the graffiti could have been put in later? Still, they did break the law.
 
  • #15
OK, I just read that this is in fact a hoax. It was produced to promote his new video game. Now everyone must boycott his game for wasting our time. yomamma must be a soothsayer. ;)
 
  • #16
Do you have a link that says it was a hoax? I'd be interested in reading it...
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Do you have a link that says it was a hoax? I'd be interested in reading it...
If you go to the bottom of http://www.stillfree.com/ .

Marc Ecko Enterprises does not condone illegal activity, acts of vandalism, or the destruction of other people's property. We do, however, advocate freedom of expression, graffiti as a recognized art form and the protection of consumer rights regardless of age, race, religion or political affiliation. Legal Disclaimer

Please read the language set forth herein carefully as it may affect, inhibit, modify or otherwise influence the interests or perceptions of any end user (hereinafter "you" or "end user") viewing the preceeding video (also referred to herein and hereas as "The Still Free Video"). You, the viewer of the preceeding are hereby advised that the video does not depict a real event. It is intended for the sole, limited and express purpose of entertainment and to induce you, the viewer of the video, to think critically about freedom of expression and speech and the government's responses to the same. Therefore, and by reason of the foregoing, the producers, creators and distributors of this video hereby verily certify that the foregoing fictionalization and dramatization was not real. Furthermore, and without limitation now, since the beginning of time and without perpituity, the producers, creators and distributors of this video and anyone else who was involved in the making of this video assume no risks or liabilities stemming from or related to your ("the end user's") viewing of same and assume no liability for any damages that result directly or indirectly from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletions of files, viruses, errors, defects or any failures of performance, communications failures, theft, destruction or unauthorized access. Copying, duplication and distribution of this video is encouraged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
I must say, that video fooled me. It looks very legit.
 
  • #19
cyrusabdollahi said:
I must say, that video fooled me. It looks very legit.
I have a hard time imagining it but they may have gotten permission to actually enter the base and make the film. You never know.
 
  • #20
Then if terrorists would blow up the president's plane in the near future, the government would have to blame Marc Ecko.
 
  • #21
I don't get the message of the video. What does spraying tags/garbage on other people's property have to do with freedom of speech?

"Duuudddeee...man, it's all about the freedom...man..."
 
Last edited:
  • #22
I never had to deal with Air Force 1, but back in '91 I did get to deal directly with #2 when we flew Dan and 'Merle' Quale around eastern europe. I can say that even though we were in the middle of Czechoslovakia, there was no way in hell that anyone was going to get close to that aircraft. Not even military personell could. I can not imagine in today's environment that AF1, at AAFB, would be open enough to let joe scmoe off the street get within 100 feet of any part, let alone an engine nacelle. It aint going to happen.
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
I watched the video and it was definitely shot at Andrews AFB (home base of Air Force One)...
...or maybe not. :redface:
 
  • #25

1. Should graffiti on Air Force One be considered freedom of expression?

This is a complex question with no clear answer. Some argue that graffiti is a form of art and therefore protected under the First Amendment, while others argue that it is a form of vandalism and should not be allowed on government property.

2. Is graffiti on Air Force One a form of protest?

It can be seen as a form of protest, as the act of graffiti itself is a way of expressing disapproval or dissent. However, the intention of the graffiti artist and the message they are trying to convey should also be taken into consideration.

3. What are the potential consequences for graffiti on Air Force One?

If caught, the individual responsible for the graffiti could face legal consequences such as fines or even jail time for vandalism. Additionally, the graffiti would have to be removed at the expense of the government, which could be costly.

4. Is there a difference between graffiti on public property and government property?

Legally, there is no difference between graffiti on public property and government property. Both are considered acts of vandalism and are subject to the same consequences. However, the location and context of the graffiti may be taken into consideration when determining the severity of the punishment.

5. Can graffiti on Air Force One be seen as a threat to national security?

This would depend on the content of the graffiti. If the message is threatening or incites violence, it could potentially be seen as a threat to national security. However, if the graffiti is simply a form of expression, it would not likely be considered a threat.

Similar threads

Air force one free speech webmaster = liar
    • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
    • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Things I Learned from Movies
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON
    • General Discussion
4
Replies
109
Views
54K
News I am with Terrorism
    • General Discussion
3
Replies
89
Views
12K
Iraq War: Cold cut argument.
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top