New ID Requirements Begin Tomorrow
If you're flying tomorrow, or anytime in the near future, you may want to make a note that tomorrow is the day the TSA enhances its ID requirements. There have been many misconceptions of the new requirements and I just wanted to attempt to clear things up a little bit.We've all been there. You've got a million things to do before you fly. Pay bills, pack, get the kids ready, get your clothes from the dry cleaner, you name it. Whatever it is you have to do, it's inevitable that you'll forget at least one of them from time to time. (Hopefully not the kids) I usually forget my toothbrush.
What if you forget your ID? Is your vacation ruined? Are you going to miss your meeting? Are you going to miss the Elvis Costello show this weekend at the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall? Not at all… If you simply state you forgot your ID, we will work with you to verify your ID, you may undergo some additional screening and will be permitted to fly.
On the other hand, if you do not cooperate and state that you're not willing to show us your ID, you will not be permitted to fly.
You show your ID to test drive a car, view an apartment, buy a house, cash a check, buy cigarettes or alcohol, rent videos and so forth. The list could go on and in some of these circumstances; they hold onto your card or make a copy. We're just asking for a few moments of your time to ensure your name matches the name on your ticket.
Is this about control? No. It's about knowing who is getting on the plane. It's about shifting our focus towards people instead of items on a list. You know as well as we do that you can make a weapon out of anything. The naked human body of someone skilled in martial arts is far more dangerous than most people with a weapon. We know that and we're shifting towards that line of thought. It is going to be a huge change in our culture, but I and others firmly believe this is the proper evolution path for security.
If our goal is to keep bad people off of planes, and our law enforcement and intelligence partners have gone to the lengths of creating watch lists of known terrorists to keep them off said planes, we have to know for sure that each person who goes through matches the name on their boarding pass and is who they say they are. Most people are not a threat, but we know there are people out there that could pose a threat. Letting anyone go through who says "I don't want to show my ID" is not good security. It's not a poke in the eye to certain folks – it's about security for everyone and we view verifying identity as importantly as we view having passengers pass through metal detectors.
Make sure you also check out Christopher's blog post on IDs.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
5:47 PM
Subscribe in a reader
166 Comments:
LOLZ!
This is Friday's joke post...
...yes?
,>)
June 20, 2008 6:38 PM
What sort of methods will you be using to verify my identity if I forget my ID?
I realize there are a lot of resources out there in the public domain such as family trees that have been used to verify ID by credit companies. Is that one of your approaches?
June 20, 2008 6:46 PM
!!! ??? !!!
You really are serious about the nonsense we are reading!
This is not Friday's funny post!
8>(
You are doing that tired old nonsense, aren't you?
Yes, you are!
You are actually doing that unimaginative old nonsense of posting some really smelly piece of your doings at the end of the business day on Friday!
Sigh.
Well, I guess we can take some small joy in the fact that our money bought us someone who at least knew the tired, lame old ploy.
Gosh, wouldn't it have been nice if our money had bought us someone who could have figured out how to pull this off in an open, engaging fashion that swayed us to their view?
,>)
June 20, 2008 7:05 PM
Bob, you've still never said how demanding that people show their papers will make any of us safer.
Nor have you explained why you have a list of people who should either be barred from flying or should only be allowed to fly after additional hassle, but are not considered dangerous enough to go arrest and put in front of a judge.
You say this is not about control, but it clearly is. Tomorrow, your agency will begin stopping people from traveling simply because they assert their right to do so without first identifying themselves at a government checkpoint. The same people will be allowed to travel if they simply keep their mouths shut about their rights and tell you that they forgot their credentials at home.
Anyone with sufficient determination will acquire a fake ID or steal someone else's identity and get a real ID with that person's identity and his own photograph. In fact, your system will allow a criminal organization to probe your system by sending people on innocent trips, noting which ones are flagged for additional screening, then send the other people on a real mission later.
It's interesting to note that most of the instances of passengers being caught with falsified ID cards and passports that are described on TSA's "Travel Document Checker (TDC)" Web page (under "Travel Document Checking Success Stories") were arrested on charges of immigrations violations, possession of illegal drugs, or credit card theft. None of them is described as having been found to be carrying anything that, had he brought it onto his flight, would have put other passengers or crew at risk.
June 20, 2008 7:08 PM
You show your ID to test drive a car, view an apartment, buy a house, cash a check, buy cigarettes or alcohol, rent videos and so forth.
I don't know about you, but I've never had to show an ID when looking at an apartment, I was able to buy alcohol at 16 without showing ID, and so forth. Bad examples.
June 20, 2008 7:25 PM
Bob wrote:
"You show your ID to test drive a car, view an apartment, buy a house, cash a check, buy cigarettes or alcohol, rent videos and so forth."
All of those involve interaction between two private parties. Any identification performed is completely consensual and completely optional.
And note that for purchases of controlled substances, the identification is irrelevant; it's a side-effect of the purchaser convincing the seller that he is of sufficient age.
A government checkpoint at which people are required to present credentials if they wish to pass is a completely different situation.
See also: "What's Wrong with Showing ID? at The Identity Project
June 20, 2008 7:41 PM
I don't know about you, but I've never had to show an ID when looking at an apartment, I was able to buy alcohol at 16 without showing ID, and so forth. Bad examples.
Anon: In Washington state (and I imagine many other locations) it is required to check ID before renting to someone. There's also no municipality in the US where you can legally buy alcohol at that age, so not having to show ID was a failure on the seller's part and in most places is subject to harsh penalties to the employee and their store.
June 20, 2008 7:52 PM
Having traveled through TSA security theatre quite a few times in the past, i have never seen one check an ID against the sworn enemies of the state database that they tout so much. Usually it is a cursory glance at the ID and checking that the picture sort of matches the person presenting it, and that the ID is of a quality to not be a forgery or fake. nothing more is done by the TSA at the check point that I ever see.
Now the person at the counter may be a savant, and have the entire no fly list memorized, but i doubt it. I also doubt that they are able to correctly identify that the ID is a valid ID, since even police forces have to refer to a large book of IDs to make sure of this at times.
So I need to show my papers at the checkpoint. yes, I do. I need to go places faster than I can drive. Do I care for it? not really. Is it any different than before the security lockdowns this decade? not really. it is just the attitude that the TSA has towards travellers, and the beauracracy that it as become.
June 20, 2008 8:10 PM
This sounds to me like the USSR and East Germany before the wall came down.
June 20, 2008 8:23 PM
TSA's job is to ensure transportation safety, not to catch criminals. Setting up a checkpoint at airports to stop everyone just to find the few criminals is un-American, and probably unconstitutional.
Our courts have established that people in this country have the right to travel and associate without being monitored or stopped by the government unless they have been convicted of committing a crime or are suspected -- with good reason -- of having committed a crime. They have ruled that we cannot set up roadblocks and checkpoints to stop everyone who passes just to catch the few who have done something wrong, or to find the few who are suspected of intending to do something wrong.
This is really simple: If someone is so dangerous that he shouldn't be allowed to travel within the country, we should send the police to arrest that person and get him in front of a judge -- not wait for him to show up at an airport, then hassle him or turn him away. If he's not believed to be of sufficient danger to have him arrested, then we should let him go about his business.
It is not the duty of the TSA or any other part of the Executive Branch to judge guilt and impose punishment. Those are reserved for the Judicial Branch. However, that is precisely what the TSA is doing. Those people whose names are on government blacklists are punished without ever having a trial, without any chance to face their accuser, and with no chance defend themselves.
Paraphrasing words of The Identity Project: No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
Patriotic Americans should resist this un-American practice.
June 20, 2008 8:24 PM
On the other hand, if you do not cooperate and state that you’re not willing to show us your ID, you will not be permitted to fly.
I would like Francine or Kip himself to explain your justification in doing this when a Federal district court stated that you did not need to show an ID to fly?
If you're simply blowing off the third branch of government, just do us a favor and be honest for once, OK?
FYI, one of these days, we are going to decide to take our country back. Kip, I would call in sick if I were you.
June 20, 2008 8:49 PM
"It is going to be a huge change in our culture, but I and others firmly believe this is the proper evolution path for security."
In other words, you want to recreate the Soviet Police State so that your pathetic little fears don't scare you any more, and you think I should want you to too.
Guess again. And go back to Russia or China or someplace where you belong.
June 20, 2008 9:06 PM
Bob,
I'm sure others will say this much more loudly and obnoxiously, but let me try to do this more objectively:
If our goal is to keep bad people off of planes, and our law enforcement and intelligence partners have gone to the lengths of creating watch lists of known terrorists to keep them off said planes, we have to know for sure that each person who goes through matches the name on their boarding pass and is who they say they are.
You mention the watch lists as justification for the ID check ... but unless I'm missing something here, the ID check has nothing to do with the watch list. The TSO who examines passenger IDs and boarding passes doesn't have access to the watch list. All the TSO can do is make a judgment that the ID present is genuine, and that the ID, boarding pass, and passenger all bear the same name. So how does the watch list enter into this argument?
June 20, 2008 9:48 PM
wow what a bunch of lies and spin to tell a distorted reality as this is all about controlling people.
So Bob please tell me why you are checking DLs when they are not for identification but are rather proof that someone is allowed by the state to operate a motor vehicle. Then also why is that a ID issued by a government entity (City of Dallas in Texas) that is required of me work as a paramedic with in city Dallas and Dallas county as well as drive a ambulance when not working in the back. This ID entails more paperwork then a DL and having a 5yr CBC to the point where former employers have been called is not acceptable ID to go through a CP so i can express my right to travel without being questioned like a criminal? The reason have ranged from well because it doesnt have "security features" ie doesnt glow under the black light to show holograms. To it looks homemade, but ironically this ID is harder to get then a DL, and takes much longer to get done. all of this is BS because it falls in the range of GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID and is valid but TSA seems to make up the rules on the fly 99.99% in my experience
Then the same goes for that national and state agencies that over see license/certification as a paramedic that entail the same CBC as my Dallas city permit. All of this is real hard to fake on ones own, because faking these IDs are not only state but federal felonies with very stiff penalties and are all stacked on my work ID badge.
Then again none of the 9/11 hijackers had a fake ID so how does checking IDs add to security when they are not checked against any list at all. Oh i forgot the no fly list but then as has been pointed out if they are so dangerous as to not be allowed on planes then why havent they been arrested yet. Then again it is also reported that there are names that are excluded from the list as well... which makes the point why have a list i the first place. how does this new violation of the constitution even fly. I see another court case coming in the near future. Mr. gilmore where are you ???????
Then why is that TSO through supervisors seem that they have the right to tell me and my partner (in full uniform) what gear(IE oxygen, heart monitor, IV pump, medications, and such) we can take through the CP (they didnt bother to check ID, but wanted a level of info that would be a HIPPA violation) when we are meeting a patients commercial flight to take them to the hospital? I could do like all the cargo that goes unscreened in the belly of the aircraft and take the ambulance onto the ramp unscreened (you know theres nothing sinister about a ambulance right?) and get the patient that way, but I didnt have the time to do all of that because the patients condition was to questionable to go through all of that, so i parked the ambulance in front of the terminal entrance and walked in with the stretcher and bags, only to be treated like a criminal by TSA till a airline rep and a real LEO stepped in and top the charade that was going on. I wont repeat the comment i heard from a person standing in line because it wont make there the censor but basically it was along the lines of I hope no one from TSA ever calls 911 and needs EMS. Thank goodness the patient was not in as bad shape as my information said because it would have been a mess any other way, with massive repercussions.
Then beyond that why is that almost 2 years later that screeners still are barring people from carrying and stealing containers they plan to fill up after the CP because of the war on water, obviously not when i witnessed not one but 3 TSOs bringing large starbucks (>3oz) through the CP, but i cant have a empty gatorade bottle? seriously DFW needs to get its act together because its down right wrong and there are problems on so many levels.
This and many other questions havent been answered by TSA and its getting old. a little bit of telling the truth goes along way to getting any decency from the traveling public. Remember respect is earned not demanded with the threat(terroristic) of DYWTFT that is all to common out of screeners mouths.
Signed.
Paramedic from Dallas whose sick and tired of TSA interfering with the duties of a civil servant and practicing medicine without a license while they try to save someones life.
June 20, 2008 9:50 PM
OK, as an old veteran who fought to protect our rights, this actually does bother me, Bob.
It is not that I have a problem identifying myself, and even showing identification for a reasonable purpose, it's that the convoluted and warped logic being used just doesn't hold together.
Please allow me to provide to scenarios: One where a person has valid ID but objects to a demand of "Papers please." The other being a person with no ID who claims the dog ate it.
You will do some 'validations' on the 'no ID' person, and possibly subject them to some extra scrutiny, and if nothing further bothers the TSOs, it's "have a nice flight!"
With the person saying "I'd rather not" when asked for their ID, what is the first thing you will probably find if you were to subject them to extra security checks? Right! Their ID! Duh!
So, why not just accept the idea that not all people are sheep, and that some of us actually believe in, and risked our lives to protect, our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
If someone tells you they would rather not show you ID because they feel you have approximately zero right to demand it, treat them exactly the same as someone who said their dog ate their ID: Question them to verify identity, validate what they say, and go through what they are carrying on-board - which likely includes their ID.
I totally fail to understand the TSA's insistence on treating those WITH good ID who object to the «Papiere, bitte!» scenario worse than those who simply pack their forged IDs, or mail them ahead, and claim they don't have any.
Treat both the same. There is NO advantage to denying boarding to someone who objects to having their papers demanded to travel other than to cow the general populace and to accustom them to following any demand from anyone in uniform without thinking and without questioning.
This is NOT the United States of America I fought so long ago to protect.
Those young men under me who did not return would not believe what this once fine country has turned into.
Tom
June 20, 2008 10:10 PM
I'm sorry Blogger Bob, but this time you are not just spinning the TSA party line, your are blatantly lying.
I don't say that lightly but consider this: Scenario 1) I arrive at the airport without my ID and tell you that I mistakenly left it at home. According to your post you will question me and give me a secondary screening and let me fly. Scenario 2) I arrive at the airport without my ID and tell you that I deliberately left it at home. According to your post you will not let me fly. In both scenarios the passenger is the same; the lack of ID is the same. The only difference is whether or not I acknowledge your right to demand my ID or assert my right to refuse to show it.
Secondly, you claim that this policy is intended to keep dangerous people off airplanes; however, the ID checker has no list to compare against. All the checker has is an ID and a boarding pass. Anyone with a PC and Photoshop can produce a valid boarding pass with anyone's name one it and the ID checker will be none the wiser.
There is absolutely no way this is about anything but TSA exerting control. To say otherwise is an insult to our intelligence.
T-the-B at FlyerTalk
June 20, 2008 10:14 PM
This post shows that some people will complain about anything. If you let people fly who said "Hey, I don't want to show my ID," these same people would be freaking out. If you didn't screen people who forgot them a little more carefully, they'd be saying "You're letting illegal immigrants through." But since you ask questions and do some additional screening, people freak out on here because they need to. All I can gather is that they think no one should show ID to fly. Either they're out of touch or they're just being silly.
June 20, 2008 10:58 PM
Hey Kip, you know what? Every one of your document checker screeners I encounter will be required to change their gloves before they touch my precious ID. You can take your ID retaliation harassment and -- do you know what -- with respect to my Irish posterior.
I encourage ALL flyers to require (They can't refuse!) screeners to change gloves -- even at the document/"Papers Please" checkpoints.
June 20, 2008 11:29 PM
Bob, I know TSA doesn't pay you enough to tell the lies you do on this blog. You say Letting anyone go through who says “I don’t want to show my ID” is not good security, but that's not true; there's no greater threat from a person who doesn't want to show ID than there is from someone who left their ID at home, or got mugged on vacation. Simply screen them both and be done with it. The new policy is simply petulant and pathetic and does nothing to enhance security of any flight (just as the 3.4-1-1 policy does not enhance security and mandatory shoe removal does not enhance security).
And when you say "we view verifying identity as importantly as we view having passengers pass through metal detectors", you're simply making known how completely wrongheaded TSA's approach to security is. No one objects to metal detectors in and of themselves, just as no one objects to putting baggage through an X-ray machine, because these are measures that are sensible and do not have to make the screening process excruciatingly stupid and lengthy. What we object to is being lied to about ID checks making us safer, as they patently don't, as evinced by your utter failure to present a single justification beyond Kip Hawley's whim. And we object to your pretending that any identity verification is happening in screening. No one who checks an ID at an airport has any access to your error-ridden and useless secret no-fly lists, so all you're doing is checking whether the name on the ID matches the name on the boarding pass. This does nothing to make anyone safer, and much to make the screening process longer than it needs to be.
June 20, 2008 11:37 PM
Lies:
"You show your ID to test drive a car, view an apartment, buy a house, cash a check, buy cigarettes or alcohol, rent videos and so forth."
To test drive a car, you have to prove you have a license to drive. That's very different. Furthermore, there are efforts to end this practice, since dealerships are abusing it in order to run unauthorized credit checks while you are test driving.
I have never shown ID in order to view an apartment. I don't recall showing identification at any point during the purchase of my house.
You don't need a government-issued photo identification to cash a check at an ATM.
Cigarettes and alchohol have an age requirement, so you have to prove you are old enough. It's about age, not identification.
What kind of video stores do you rent from? I've had several memberships, none of which required a government-issued photo ID. You need cash or a credit card to set up an account. You just need the account number to rent a movie. You never have to show government-issued photo identification.
Bad Logic:
"If our goal is to keep bad people off of planes, and our law enforcement and intelligence partners have gone to the lengths of creating watch lists of known terrorists to keep them off said planes ..."
There is no possible way to make a list of dangerous people. Not an effective one, anyway.
The list in question is not a list of dangerous terrorists. If you had such a list, you could arrest such people.
The list, at best, is a huge data mining fiasco filled with zillions of innocent people and probably missing nearly all would-be terrorists.
There are almost a million names on the watch lists, out of about 300 million residents of the U.S. Are you really suggesting that 1 out of 300 Americans is too dangerous to be allowed onto an airplane?
(Items, on the other hand, can be categorized into "possibly an effective weapon" and "probably not an effective weapon". There might be some disagreements, but at least it wouldn't have to be a secret list. We could have open debate about what belongs in which category. A terrorist without a weapon is unlikely to take control of a plane. A previously unidentified hijacker with a weapon is dangerous, regardless of whether he or she is on the no-fly list.)
Oh, and the goal is not to keep bad people off of planes. It's to provide the illusion that flying is safe so that the industry doesn't completely collapse. It's called security theater.
"... we have to know for sure that each person who goes through matches the name on their boarding pass ..."
But anyone can print a boarding pass with any name on it. I can buy a ticket under one name, make a copy of the boarding pass with another name that matches a stolen ID. This new process doesn't verify that people who get through the security checkpoint are not on the no-fly list. So even if this strategy made sense, your implementation fails.
Discrimination:
There are people who do not possess a government-issued photo ID. This policy discriminates against them.
This is about control. It's about retribution against the states that are rejecting the Real ID Act. It's about training Americans to genuflect to authority. ("Papers, please!") It's about retribution against patriots like John Gilmore.
Hell, this policy undoes the legal out that got Gonzales and the TSA off the hook in Gilmore v. Gonzales.
June 21, 2008 12:12 AM
If I refuse to show an identification card, but agree to cooperate to verify my identity another way, will I be allowed to fly?
What does the alternate verification means entail?
June 21, 2008 12:14 AM
A friend of mine was renewing her security clearance for a defense job, and she used me as a reference.
A man from the DoD met me to ask questions about my friend. At the outset, he showed me (what I assume was) his DoD identification.
I started to pull out my wallet to prove that I was really the person he was supposed to interview. He averted his eyes and told me to put my driver's license away, as though it was a policy that he was not supposed to verify that he was talking to the person he thought he was talking to.
I'm not sure how it applies here, but it was an odd moment I'll never forget.
June 21, 2008 12:22 AM
The no-fly list is a tantalizing target to those with political power.
There are no public checks on who goes on the list and who comes off.
It's possible, maybe even likely, that the list today is an honest effort to identify potential skyjackers.
How will we keep the list safe from those who want to harass activists or do political favors for those in power?
The founding fathers built lots of checks and balances into the mechanisms of government they invented. The no-fly list is a new mechanism with no such assurances.
The list is effectively a law that singles out specific individuals. Even worse, it's a secret law. This is incompatible with freedom or the Constitution of the United States of America.
June 21, 2008 12:34 AM
It's so nice to see everything our nation used to stand for be destroyed from the inside by well-intentioned people afraid of thinking.
June 21, 2008 1:00 AM
I love the fact that most of these bloggers want to invoke their constitutional right (When it's conveinient) by not showing their ID to travel across the U.S.
How about I bring a gun aboard an Aircraft. I'm sure no one would have a problem, since it's my constitutional right to bear arms... You people need to grow up and stop picking and choosing when you want to invoke your constitutional rights. BTW, I will teach other TSO's how to say papers please in German and Russian....just to make you guys feel more comfortable. All jokes aside, take your ID with you and you won't have to worry about Big Brother and the Post 911 sacrifices of freedom.
June 21, 2008 3:04 AM
"You show your ID to test drive a car, view an apartment, buy a house, cash a check, buy cigarettes or alcohol, rent videos and so forth."
What a load of nonsense. I didn't show an ID the one time in my life I test drove a car, I don't use checks or buy cigarettes, and the one time a liquor store asked me for ID I refused to show it, bought my booze somewhere else, and then retaliated by going by and smashing their front window later that night. I don't put up with this "papers, please" nonsense from anyone, and trying to suggest that because there are certain cirumstances in which it is acceptable to ask for an ID (buying a house or making a withdrawal at a bank) does not -- contrary to the TSA's suggestions -- translate into a conclusion that it is acceptable to demand ID in any other circumstance.
I for one will continue to refuse and resist.
June 21, 2008 3:11 AM
Several commenters are trying to point out that presently, the identification of potential passengers at the government checkpoint will not aid the TSA in restricting the movement of people on the Department of Homeland Security blacklists because the TSA document checkers have no way of looking up the passengers' names at the time that they are identified.
I believe that this valid, but relatively unimportant. I'm concerned that focusing on it will distract us from the more troublesome aspect of this program. I'm also concerned that the same loophole that makes the current system seem a bit less troublesome will make excellent justification for later amending the system to be something that is definitely more troublesome.
Please, please, think beyond the immediate situation of you walking through an airport security line and whether someone who wants to know who you are can do anything useful with that information to what kind of long-term change you are agreeing to and how hard it will be to stop this ball -- should we ever want or need to -- once it's rolling.
What we're creating is a system whereby some unknown group of people can -- for any reason they wish or for no reason at all -- ensure that a particular person will not be able to pass through government checkpoints.
In the right hands, such a system could be somewhat useful. It might help us find some bad people that we've been looking for but have been unable to find (assuming these fugitives decide to walk up to our government checkpoint). But we aren't allowed to know whose hands the system is in. We're told that DHS has a list of people who should be watched or barred from traveling, but we don't know why people were put on the list, who put them there, or how they can get off it.
We're establishing a precedent of our federal government setting up checkpoints at which we must convincingly identify ourselves to an agent, then wait for permission from him to proceed. That he wants to know who we are is far less significant than the fact that he's saying, "you may not pass unless I allow you to, and if I don't, I do not have to tell you why."
Think of how bad that is. Think not of the few criminals that will be caught in the net but of the ramifications of requiring people to ask for and receive permission from the government before moving around within their own nation. Think about how that sort of restriction has been used in other countries. Even if you trust the people in authority now, think of how this system might be used if in the future there are people in authority who you do not trust.
Of course, right now they cannot check people's names against the blacklists from out there at the document checker station. But think how little extra equipment would be required in order to do so. Hand-held wireless terminals for document checkers would provide agents with the ability to lookup names right there at their document-checking podium, closing the loophole and landing us with a system that truly allows the maintainers of the Department of Homeland Security blacklist to restrict the movement of anyone. Why would we not do that once we've established that people must identify themselves and wait for permission to proceed? "Well of course," someone will say, "we have a person's name. Why shouldn't we check to see if he's on the list? It won't be extra hassle for the honest, innocent people." Once we go along with that, we'll have a system that looks more ripe for abuse than the one we're being convinced to go along with now.
And of course, right now this only affects commercial air travelers. But if we accept this policy for air travel, why would we not eventually accept it for other modes of travel? The arguments for creating checkpoints elsewhere would be almost identical, and additionally, there would be the argument that we're already doing it in airports, so doing it elsewhere wouldn't be anything new. Once we're all accustomed to presenting our credentials upon demand at government checkpoints, it will be very easy to convince us that more checkpoints would catch more criminals. Why would we not do this once we're comfortable doing it at airports?
With this system of "just trust us" checkpoints, how can we know that people's movement is being restricted for just reason? We can't. Of course, we can simply trust that those who are able to put people on the list, now and forever, will use their best judgement, and that they have good judgement. But we should not need to trust them, so people long ago set up a very effective system of justice that did not require such blind trust in anonymous people in positions of authority.
Sometimes we need to stop some people from moving around, and we have a system that allows us to do so: We put people on trial. If the judge or jury finds that the person's movement should be restricted, we imprison him or place him under house arrest.
We don't need another system for restricting people's movement, and we need not to have one that restricts their movement for reasons that are kept secret. When we restrict someone's liberty, we need to be very sure of our reasoning, and that means we need to have a very transparent process.
It's hard for me to believe that I even have to try to convince people that restriction of civil rights based on a secret blacklist is bad, or how extensively such a system can and thus eventually will be abused.
June 21, 2008 3:21 AM
"This sounds to me like the USSR and East Germany before the wall came down."
Welcome to neo America comrade.
,>)
May I see your papers, please?
June 21, 2008 4:47 AM
Why does it matter that I 'am who I say I am'? Unfortunately, for every terrorist we kill or capture in Iraq and Afghanistan, several more are trained and indoctrinated into terrorism. The percentage of these folks you have on a 'watch list'?? I think you see where I'm going with this. Once a terrorist has a rap sheet and shows up on the 'watch list', their usefulness has expired, and new blood will take their place. The ones with no criminal history, who quietly blend into society until it's time to strike, and who can obtain perfectly legitimate identification in their own names to do their evil deeds. This is the way professional terrorists operate. Sure, you might catch an illegal immigrant or common criminal here and there, if you believe that's you're role (but since you're not 'law enforcement', it probably isn't your role), but in any case you won't catch those you're really looking for (or, rather, the unknown terrorist foot soldiers you should be looking for).
June 21, 2008 4:55 AM
Bob,
Your post suggests that people who do not want to show ID should lie and say they lost it. That actually gave me a good idea on how to avoid future airport hassle: I should start to lie.
I am always SSSSed on my boarding pass, which tells me I am (incomprehensibly) on your (highly questionable) "watch list". Up to now I have dealt with the inconvenience by simply going through the "secondary screening" harassment.
From now on, I will buy tickets in my sister's name and travel with her ID. It will keep me from being SSSSed (she never is) and help get other people through the line faster. The TSO will never know I switched IDs (we look the same) and all of us will be happier.
I may feel a little guilty for the lie (it is not my nature), but given all I have been through with you guys and the stupid rules that keep on piling on, I think I earned the right to do so!
Thank you for your help!!
June 21, 2008 5:42 AM
The airlines do check the passengers against the watch and no fly lists folks. We are just ensuring the same person that they checked is the person standing in front of us. If they have lost their ID the procedures aren't the same as they have been thus far. Yes they'll get extra screening. But we have procedures in place and steps to ensure that the person telling us they lost their ID is indeed the person with the boarding pass and not on the watch list. This will take some time, and telling us you do not want to show it to try to game the system won't be allowed.
As was explained this is about keeping the bad guys from flying into, around, and in this country. It's not about catching them at the airport, it's about stopping them before they fly on planes in America. The bad guys still do want to attack us and keeping guns and bombs off planes is just one way to prevent this.Because they are constantly trying to come up with new methods to do us damage, keeping them from flying altogether is a better goal.
The 9/11 hijackers were on watch lists and thankfully the procedures in place now would prevent them from getting a ticket in someone else name, and then refusing to show ID and then being allowed through with nothing but a patdown and their bags searched. I do not understand why this is so hard to understand.
June 21, 2008 6:21 AM
HSVTSO: Just a fast comment that I have put you up many many points in my impression meter after you declared yourself an atheist and agreed that ID does not add to security. You fully made up for lost points for being a smoker.
June 21, 2008 8:55 AM
I will not comply with this policy. I work at TSA HQ, and believe this is a step too far. It doesn't make us more secure, basically alows polite terrorists on planes while hassling innocent citizens, and is an unreasonable restriction on our liberties. I'm no crazed libertarian, if anything I've always jumped to TSA's defense, but this is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and I can't wait until the court puts the smack down on this policy.
And yes, I AM looking for other employment.
June 21, 2008 9:42 AM
Anonymous writes:
The 9/11 hijackers were on watch lists and thankfully the procedures in place now would prevent them from getting a ticket in someone else name, and then refusing to show ID and then being allowed through with nothing but a patdown and their bags searched. I do not understand why this is so hard to understand.
Two flaws in this argument:
a) Even in the scenario you describe, it's still possible for a terrorist to get through the checkpoint. Mr. Bad Terrorist buys a ticket in the name of Mr. Safe Passenger. Before coming to the airport, Mr. Bad Terrorist prints Mr. Safe Passenger's boarding pass at home. Then, Mr. Bad Terrorist makes a copy of the boarding pass, substituting his own name.
Mr. Bad Terrorist goes to the checkpoint, presents his own legitimate ID and doctored boarding pass. The TSO sees that his ID is genuine and matches the boarding pass and lets him through.
After passing through screening, Mr. Bad Terrorist throws away the doctored boarding pass, and uses Mr. Safe Passenger's boarding pass to board the plane.
Voila. No-fly-list circumvented.
b) Even if Mr. Bad Terrorist gets through the checkpoint ... as you've pointed out, they've had their bags searched for contraband. If they don't have any weapons on board, should it matter that they're under suspicion?
June 21, 2008 9:57 AM
I love how the TSA sounds more and more like Col. Klink everyday. This is yet another sign that window dressing is more important than following the law and actually providing security.
Let's see, I've never shown my ID to drive a car, view an apartment, buy a house, or buy cigarettes or alcohol, or rent videos. I didn't have to show an ID to take my children home after they were born!
This is an attempt to change our culture that is unacceptable. Let's hope the next administration shuts you guys down once and for all. You might not have alterior motives, but you just don't get the idea of the slippery slope or rule of law either.
June 21, 2008 11:32 AM
Folks, I urge you to write your Congresspersons and Senators about this. I have. They need to know that people are against this "policy change." In addition to writing your own Senators, I suggest you write Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain as well, since they are sitting Senators who, in addition, have a significant interest in pleasing the people of this country, at least for the next few months.
The quickest way to contact a Senator is via their Senate contact forms: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
The Representatives are harder to contact right now. (At least, my Congressman, Virgil Goode, Jr. -- oh, the shame! -- doesn't seem to be accepting emails right now). Try https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
So, your homework assignments(!) are to write to your one (1)Congressperson and four (4) Senators today. Exercise your rights!
June 21, 2008 11:51 AM
Anonymous wrote:
What does the alternate verification means entail?
After arriving at work and learning that myself, I can say that you - and probably everyone else here that was already opposed to the mandatory ID requirement - aren't going to like it.
But because it is new, I'm pretty sure that going into it at length would generally be considered A Very Bad Thing™ where it comes to my future employment in that it's probably also considered SSI.
Until I know for a fact one way or the other, I'm not going to get into it.
Bob, Chris, one of yinz want to try to field this one? If it's even possible to?
June 21, 2008 12:10 PM
If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesnt have sirens and pull you over in the lines.
June 21, 2008 12:47 PM
As was explained this is about keeping the bad guys from flying into, around, and in this country. It's not about catching them at the airport, it's about stopping them before they fly on planes in America. The bad guys still do want to attack us and keeping guns and bombs off planes is just one way to prevent this.Because they are constantly trying to come up with new methods to do us damage, keeping them from flying altogether is a better goal.
How does having a valid ID keep guns and bombs off of planes?
It doesn't. That's what the metal detectors and other machinery are for. Since that is the case, what difference does it matter who I am?
What a false sense of security you are perpetuating here: if you show ID, all will be safer? Really? So you know for a fact that making sure that John Smith is really John Smith somehow magically makes guns and bombs disappear. Talk about a stretch in logic.
Bad people have valid IDs and will try to disrupt any flight whether their name is John Smith or Osama bin Laden. We have no way of knowing if the nicely dressed person with the valid ID is actually a horrible serial killer or just a traditional businessman.
That is why showing ID to your TSO is security theater. IDs are not magic wands that stop guns and bombs. Likewise, they do not guarantee - ever - that the person sitting next to you isn't someone who likes shoving bodies through a woodchipper.
And, just for laughs, can anyone at the TSA show me a study that indicated that ID checking has a direct correlation on the number of bombs or guns that do/do not get on board an aircraft?
June 21, 2008 1:22 PM
According to the rules it has to be a valid ID, and according to the rules only states that conform to REAL ID are valid ID. The extensions will eventually run out, and several states have proclaimed they absolutely will not conform with the REAL ID requirements. How will residents of those states be allowed to fly?
June 21, 2008 2:06 PM
Bob, this entry really does make me sad. You were the only blogger who tried to maintain a shred of integrity. Now you are repeating the already trashed party line about how this is about security and not control, and so you repeated the debunked party line about how this is about security and not control.
And no, there are certain things you list as requiring an ID for that you don't need to show it for. View an apartment? No. To rent one you often do, but not to view one.
A few more questions for you to not answer: what if I demand to see the ID of the TSO in order to ensure he has the proper authority to demand my ID, and will the TSOs give out the privacy act statements as required by law to avoid a $5000 fine according to 5 U.S.C. § 552a (e)?
June 21, 2008 2:14 PM
OK, so you are saying that checking ID's will keep bad people off airplanes. So if I am NOT a bad person, and your ID checker allows me to pass, then I should have NO further screening, be allowed to take liquids aboard, and not remove my shoes. So with this 100% mandatory ID check that you profess will catch bad people, then why are the good people prohibited from taking liquids aboard, required to take off shoes, and generally treated as bad people? You can't have it both ways. I think you are forever digging yourself into a never ending deeper hole.
June 21, 2008 2:48 PM
"They want to look at your ID."
Um, no. They want your Driver's License because it's proof that you're allowed to be on the road in a car. I'm pretty sure that if I handed over my passport in such a situation that the cop would NOT be happy about it.
June 21, 2008 2:54 PM
Today in History:
June 21st, 1788 the Constitution was ratified by New Hampshire the ninth state to do so. New Hampshire's ratification caused the U.S. Constitution to go into effect.
June 21st, 2008 the TSA exactly 230 years later attempts to remove the U.S. Constitution's authority over Citizen travelers.
June 21, 2008 3:01 PM
It's all about control.
It's about controlling states by mandating ID requirements.
It's about controlling citizens by mandating that they tell the government who they are and where they are going (despite constitutional protections).
It's about expanding control and influence through mission creep and un-debated, un-democratic edict and mandate.
What it is not about is increased security. It wastes hundreds of person hours a day with minimal benefit. Checking ID against a piece of paper to see if printed words match without much assurance that either isn't a forgery is a waste of time and only serves as an unnecessary inconvenience and revenue protection for the airlines.
Hmm. Rarely do I get this angry during a weekend. Thanks bloggers.
June 21, 2008 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...
If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesnt have sirens and pull you over in the lines.
When TSOs become cops AND if I am suspected of committing a crime THEN the TSA may demand ID.
June 21, 2008 3:44 PM
annonymous said
"If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesnt have sirens and pull you over in the lines."
Because...The TSA aren't cops and they don't have probable cause that a crime has been committed, and, other than revenue protection, it doen't matter what your name is. Without the ability to cause problems on an airplane, it doens't matter who is on it.
June 21, 2008 4:01 PM
My grandmother has bought two houses, and never had any ID.
She still doesn't have any photo ID. She's from the Old Country. She has never driven a car, so she doesn't have a driver's license. Maybe somewhere she has a social security card. Even her utility bills are in my name.
She also has a thick Italian accent and cannot hear very well anymore. I don't think her interrogation (that's what it will be) will go well.
Once a year, she gets on a plane and visits us in Florida. If she is not permitted to fly, prepare to see a little old lady v. Hawley lawsuit in the near future.
June 21, 2008 4:17 PM
re: Anonymous said...
If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesnt have sirens and pull you over in the lines.
...........................I think the statement above qualifies as the most ignorant post of all time!
Let me explain so even you can understand.
You need a Drivers License to operate a motor vehicle.
You do not need a license to fly unless your the pilot, and then it would be a different type of license.
June 21, 2008 5:09 PM
Phil said...
Several commenters are trying to point out that presently, the identification of potential passengers at the government checkpoint will not aid the TSA in restricting the movement of people on the Department of Homeland Security blacklists because the TSA document checkers have no way of looking up the passengers' names at the time that they are identified.
===========================
100% on point!
100% accurate!
Thanks Phil
And Blog Operators are in full censorship mode at this time. They are not following posting quidelines either.
June 21, 2008 5:20 PM
The creators of this ID policy should be arrested and charged with treason. They have infact attacked the Constituion of the United States and should be made to stand for their crimes.
June 21, 2008 5:31 PM
This is truly amazing...everyone crying about this issue: "TSA is making me show my ID, how dare they". "What gives them the right to ask who am I just before I get into a piece of machinery that contains 1,000's of gallons of jet fuel, is carrying dozens of mothers, fathers, full families, will soon be traveling at hundreds of miles an hour right over top of major metropolitan cities with hundreds of thousands of people." "I mean my goodness, its not like even if I was a bad guy there would be a chance to do something". Are you people really this stupid and ignorant?
While I agree TSA certainly has some annoying things that they do and can largely be questioned as important or not, this is a relatively minor thing to be complaining about. Will it stop terrorist? Who knows. Will it help prevent wanted criminals and child molesters from fleeing their states undetected? Probably.
For the guy who stated that he was asked to produce an ID for buying alcohol and refused and went and bought it somewhere. I hope you don't have a 12 year old or 13 year old who decides to go buy some liquor. He/She will probably go where you shop. But then again, you would probably argue that this is a free country...blah blah blah
Maybe since everyone is so upset about the whole ID thing, TSA should stop checking the ID's of people who work at the airport, or better yet the pilot's. After all, if its inappropriate for you as a passenger who is completely unknown to have your ID checked, why should the employee's have to show theirs?
Think about it people you're complaining about having to show a piece of plastic with your picture. You want to complain, why don't you complain that TSA has invested so much money into aviation security but has implemented no real visible security measures on our highways, bridges, and subways and other mass transit. There is something to worry about.
June 21, 2008 5:51 PM
Anonymous said:
"If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID."
No, anonymous, they want to see if you have a license to drive. Running warrants and confirming ID is secondary to proving that you have a license. Actually, the police are forbidden from asking for ID to ask "just because", which is, in fact, what the TSA is doing.
How long do you suppose it will be before this is challenged in a court of law? It can't some soon enough.
You know, I've begun to feel really sorry for Bob, Christopher, Nico and all the other TSA people here. Do you all truly believe what you write here? Do you truly believe, in your heart of hearts, that showing ID equals security? And if you do truly believe that, will you please tell us, from your heart of hearts, why you believe that?
June 21, 2008 5:58 PM
Okay, so for those who say, I've never had to show id to do this or that....blah blah blah.
Bank accounts: can't open without valid identification (usually two pieces)
You can be carded for alcohol until the age of 27, even though the legal drinking age in most states is 21! Anyone APPEARING to be under the age of 18 has to show id to buy tobacco products. Come on people, we are not the enemy, we are seriously trying to ensure your safety. But I am firmly convinced that most of you will NEVER be satisified with anything we do because you TRULY need something to complain about. "I had to take my shoes off" "I had to show my id to get on the plane" "I had to send my stuff through the xray maching" blah blah blah. I'm sick and tired of the complaining and putting us down with everything we do. If you don't like it, DON'T fly!
June 21, 2008 6:23 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "If you get pulled over by the police, what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesn't have sirens and pull you over in the lines."
Apples and oranges and this shows a clear misunderstanding.
If a policeman pulls me over, this means I'm driving a car. First of all, he has to have probably cause to even pull me over (speeding, broken tail light, reckless driving, etc). A cop just can't pull me over and ask me for ID because he feels like it.
Secondly, the cop asks for my LICENSE to verify that I am indeed licensed to drive. He may run other checks to make sure that my license isn't suspended, wanted for other crimes, etc. The policeman doesn't demand ID from everyone else in my car. Just me, because I'm the one that allegedly broke a law.
If he stops me while walking down the street for a supposed crime, I just have to identify myself per Hilbel. Don't have to show ID. Again, he has to have a reason to card me ... he can't do it indiscriminately.
Buying a ticket and showing up at the airport isn't probable cause. I did nothing wrong other than to have the audacity to buy a plane ticket and expect to use it. No probable cause. No alleged crime in commission. I'm not asking to fly a plane, where verifying my license to fly it would be appropriate. I'm wanting to board a plane.
Kippie and his crew aren't cops and have no law enforcement powers. They told a court in Gilmore that ID isn't required and now showing that it was essentially a lie. This is something targeted at those who assert their rights to free movement and association. It is discriminatory, unamerican, and unconstitutional.
Then again, Kippie's actions, and those of his superiors Chertoff and Bush, tend to show they have blatant disregard for the law anyway so it shouldn't be a surprise they abuse it.
Robert
June 21, 2008 6:47 PM
Another thing:
If TSA asks to see my ID, I'm going to ask to see theirs. After all, ID is security and I need to protect my identity from thieves. We all know that anyone can get a costume uniform from anywhere, so how do we REALLY know that the TSO is who he/she says he is? Hey, it works for Kippie. He says ID is security. And if they refuse? Call an LEO.
I also suggest asking the TSO for clean gloves. We all know that they rotate stations and they don't change their gloves often. They could have been pawing thru someone's dirty underware, just went to the bathroom while wearing those gloves (there are reports of this) or worse before handling your ID. Make them change them. They have to if you ask.
Robert
June 21, 2008 6:52 PM
Yall are rather paranoid and not in touch with reality. You have to show ID to view apartments, five years ago when I had rented and just one month ago, when I went to five different apartment complexes in DFW with my mom. You either show it and they copy it and give it back to you or they keep it while you look at the apartment. But they will not show it unless you provide ID.
I have visited probably twenty different car lot complexes in Arizona, California and Texas and all of them asked for my ID and kept it before I could drive. I was told by the dealer that this was in case something happened to the car or the salesperson, then they have a way of IDing the bad guy. They will not let you test drive unless you show ID.
Every time you buy alcohol or cigarettes and you look under the age on the sign posted at the counter, then the salesperson is legally bound to ask for your ID. IF they don't they are breaking the law. If you don't show ID and you look close to the age in question, then you can't buy the booze or cigarettes.
This is a simple request that hurts no one. Sure the bad guys can find a loophole around it, but that doesn't mean TSA shouldn't even try it. Bad guys break into cars, does that mean we shouldn't even put locks or alarms on them?
I don't know what kind of control you all think TSA screeners have. I have seen screeners hit, spit on, coughed on, verbally abused and berated by passengers as if they had a right to do any of that just because they were inconvenienced. And these screeners did not cause the passengers to act that way. They had been doing their job without attitude. In fact, most were polite and friendly.
These screeners do not make the rules, but yes they do have to enforce them, so you don't like the rules, go after the people who made the rules, not the lowly screener who has no power nor control of the situation.
I was in the military from 92 to 99 and it's the same as blaming the private for the general's orders. If the order is unlawful, then it is the private's fault too, but if asking for ID is unlawful, then the apartment complexes, the alcohol/cigarette salesclerks', and anybody else that asks for ID and will not provide service without is breaking the law as well.
June 21, 2008 7:21 PM
If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesnt have sirens and pull you over in the lines.
This is silliness.
With the exception of random checkpoints for immigration violations or drunk driving, the only time a Law Enforcement Officer officer can pull you over is with probable cause such as a broken tail light or excessive speed.
The TSOs are absolutely NOT Law Enforcement Officers nor does my decision to fly from Phoenix to Las Vegas constitute probable cause.
This is basic, American civics, not brain surgery.
June 21, 2008 7:24 PM
you people act like showing ID is the only and main way that terrorists and their ilk are to be kept at bay. that's not the only thing TSA is doing. get a grip. it's one spoke in the wheel. why don't you people that don't like anything TSA is doing make your own airline and fly in it? all you do is complain but don't give any solutions. i don't have a problem with it so i don't need to make up a solution. but you all do, so be proactive not reactive.
June 21, 2008 7:43 PM
"I encourage ALL flyers to require (They can't refuse!) screeners to change gloves -- even at the document/"Papers Please" checkpoints."
I hope your not in front of me when I fly. I do not have time for YOUR nonsense when I have to deal with TSA's
June 21, 2008 7:47 PM
"I for one will continue to refuse and resist."
Brave words.
How often do you fly each year?
June 21, 2008 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...
If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesnt have sirens and pull you over in the lines.
ive been pulled over without any ID. no problem because i told him i forgot my wallet. had i said "its my right not to show you my ID", im sure i would have had a problem.
June 21, 2008 8:00 PM
Someone who seems to think that driving a 2000-pound battering ram is similar to walking around on foot or sitting in an airplane wrote:
"If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for?"
They are likely to ask for anything that they think you might provide to them that might help them build a case against you. They're not judges, and they're not required or expected to be impartial. This is why the wise person keeps his mouth shut until he's in front of a judge or jury.
But more generally speaking, what police are very likely to request when they stop you from driving on a public road are 1) indication that you have completed the requirements for driving (i.e., that you have received license to drive), 2) indication you own or have permission to drive the vehicle you are driving, and 3) indication that you have arranged for insurance of your ability to pay for damages you might cause while driving this dangerous machine.
"They want to look at your ID."
Sort of. They want to get as much information as they can, regardless of whether they have any right to do so, because it's their job to do so. Realistically, though, most of them work within the law, so regardless of what they want, what they'll demand of your (remember, a demand is entirely different than a request, and if a law enforcement officer has the right to demand something of you, he is not going to request it of you) is your driver license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. During this process, he will almost certainly find out who you are and want to know if you are a fugitive. Any desire to identify you, though, is similar to that of the TSA -- something that overreaches their responsibility and, if forced, amounts to them conducting a dragnet operation.
In the United States, we just don't stop everyone as if they are criminals in order to find the few criminals. It is unconstitutional to do so.
"Why should traveling through an airport be any different?"
It shouldn't; it should be very similar -- if you wish to "drive" the airplane, then you should carry proof that you have been approved to do so. Similarly, traveling as a passenger in a plane should be very similar to doing so in an automobile -- you need not carry any special papers with you and you need not turn over any papers, submit to searches, or answer questions, unless a warrant has been issued by a judge.
June 21, 2008 8:17 PM
If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesnt have sirens and pull you over in the lines.
It's completely different.
A police officer can ask for my driver's license at a traffic stop because it's a driver's licence, and I'm suspected of committing an offense having to do with driving. The fact that DLs have become de facto identity cards is somewhat accidental --- and at times even problematic. (I remember my high school classmate who got hassled when she presented a state ID card rather than a driver's license. Of course, the fact that she was blind and thereby ineligible to have a driver's license completely escaped them ...)
So, I am required to have a driver's license in order to drive a car (but not to ride in one, incidentally). Should one have to have a "passenger's license" in order to ride in an airplane? That is the matter being debated here.
Incidentally, I'm not completely sure where I stand on that question. Requiring a driver's license to drive seems (to me) to be quite reasonable; it requires the bearer to complete basic educational requirements and agree to abide by "the rules of the road". But I'm not convinced that the manner in which IDs are checked by TSA serves a security-oriented purpose.
June 21, 2008 9:11 PM
"If you get pulled over by the police what do they ask for? Drivers License. They want to look at your ID. Why should traveling through an airport be any different? Except i guess TSA doesnt have sirens and pull you over in the lines."
99 times out of a hundred when an officer stops the car I'm driving and asks for my ID it is because he observed me breaking the law, or has received information via his communications systems that a person matching my description driving a car that matches the description of the one I'm driving is wanted for breaking a law, etc.
Rarely will I find police officers lined up at an intersection asking everyone who goes by to display their ID for validation - at least not in the United States, and not yet.
Even a Terry Stop has it's limits, and in most states if an officer stops me as I'm walking by and asks who I am, he must take my word for it rather than demand I present my papers.
Again, if the officer has seen me commit a crime or has a reasonable suspicion that I have, and can articulate that suspicion, he can detain me and demand ID, but he cannot do this randomly. At least not yet.
When properly asked for ID, BTW, I hand over to a Law Enforcement Officer (not a checker at the grocery store or airport...) both my driver's license AND my license to carry concealed weapons - I want him to know that I am armed (possibly better than he is).
Even entering my local courthouses, into areas where firearms are not allowed, I am not asked for ID, but I DO unload, lock open and clear my firearms, hand them over to an official, and accept a key for the locked cubby they are placed in before passing through their metal detector.
(I even have to do that when renewing my concealed carry license as the office where I must present myself for that is co-located with the courts.)
Oh, yeah, back to being stopped for a traffic infraction or whatever: Yes they ask for my ID, they probably saw me break the law. In passing through an airport - which I have done uneventfully for over 40 years - I've not been observed breaking any law, even a secret one.
I'm authorized to carry a firearm for the protection of myself and others, and before doing that as a civilian I did it as part of the DOD. I probably carried arms for my country before most of the airport deodorant confiscators were eating solid foods. Yes, I am peeved to be treated as a common criminal by those without any background or credibility to do so.
One last note to TSOs: Treat me as at least your equal - there is NO reason to talk down to me, and such behavior is NOT acceptable. I've put my life on the line to guarantee your safety, and unless and until you can say the same, stand up straight, suck it in, and treat me with appropriate respect.
Tom
June 21, 2008 9:44 PM
It is incredible that the TSA is still trying to use the "Terror Watch List" or "No Fly List" argument to defend its unconstitutional invasion of privacy. The obvious flaw in this reasoning has already been pointed out repeatedly to the TSA -- if these "terrorists" are S-O-O-O dangerous that they cannot be allowed on board an airplane, why is it that they cannot be arrested? Really, Bob, is this how the TSA is "protecting" America? -- "I'm sorry, Mr. ...O. Laden, but you are on my list and I cannot allow you past this checkpoint. Feel free to complete and submit one of these complaint forms and have a nice day". Really, Bob, it IS about control, and not about security -- unless you really believe that there are terrorists out there who are willing to kill, but who wouldn't want to lie about forgetting their ID.
June 21, 2008 10:39 PM
I flew recently through Phoenix and saw this policy in action. The TSA agent was sitting at his podium leaning against it. I handed my id towards him. He refused to move even an inch to reach it. I had to lean across all my bag and place it in his hand. After checking it he held it up making me again reach across all my luggage to take the id. This was a very intentional action and against goes to show the mind set of most TSA agents.
June 22, 2008 12:39 AM
I don't get what the big deal is about????
If ever I am asked to show ID I do. It's not hard, I reach into my purse pull out my wallet open it and guess what, there's my ID.
Chris Boyce said...
Hey Kip, you know what? Every one of your document checker screeners I encounter will be required to change their gloves before they touch my precious ID. You can take your ID retaliation harassment and -- do you know what -- with respect to my Irish posterior.
I encourage ALL flyers to require (They can't refuse!) screeners to change gloves -- even at the document/"Papers Please" checkpoints.
Hey Chris,
I am a TSO and do change my gloves BEFORE and AFTER touching any passenger and would be more then happy to change my gloves every time I touched your precious ID or any passengers who ask. And if a passenger ask to see my badge, I'd be happy to show that also.
June 22, 2008 12:49 AM
BlognDog said:
"What a load of nonsense. I didn't show an ID the one time in my life I test drove a car, I don't use checks or buy cigarettes, and the one time a liquor store asked me for ID I refused to show it, bought my booze somewhere else, and then retaliated by going by and smashing their front window later that night. I don't put up with this "papers, please" nonsense from anyone, and trying to suggest that because there are certain cirumstances in which it is acceptable to ask for an ID (buying a house or making a withdrawal at a bank) does not -- contrary to the TSA's suggestions -- translate into a conclusion that it is acceptable to demand ID in any other circumstance".
Sir are you openly bragging that you vandalized a business for doing their job. Checking ID's is required by law.
June 22, 2008 2:38 AM
It is mind blow to think that people have time to come here and complain about showing your ID. Are you for real? Show your stupid ID and move on with your life all this talk about TSA and your rights not to show your ID BLAH BLAH BLAH. Life is to short to worry about showing my ID and I have more important things in life to think about. Oh and before you tell me how much you fly and so on and so forth. I travel for business at least 2 times if not more per week so I get to deal with TSA. TSA Keep up the good work.
June 22, 2008 4:28 AM
I don't personally have any problems showing ID, but I can't get the logic of this new policy (maybe because I'm blond...). Saying you lost your ID is OK, but saying you don't want to show it is not. Is that actually it? Does that make sense to anyone except the guys who invented this policy??
I am surprised at the number of TSOs that declare here that they do not agree with this rule. Says something, doesn't it?
I would really like to see the statistics on this policy and others in place. The only numbers I have seen are that more than half of mock bombs brought through by independent testers still go unnoticed. I don't understand why we have to invest so many tax dollars on a system that for all means is proven inefficient and greatly inconveniences many, many people.
June 22, 2008 6:06 AM
Certainly TSA has to come out of the chute fighting any insubordination. With states in rebellion against the RealID and Oklahoma going so far as declaring "Sovereignty" it's time to knuckle under these threats to America.
I propose that TSA hold any passengers that do not follow the ID rules incommunicado for a period of time under the terrorist laws. It's about time that these laws were used on scofflaws in this country.
June 22, 2008 10:06 AM
Bob, you should go into politics, your ability to spin a web of falsehoods is equal or better than most Senators or Representatives.
I have to wonder how you can sleep at nights.
June 22, 2008 11:17 AM
Is it Really that much of a hassle to show your ID? It will maybe take an extra two seconds. i would way rather show my id instead of going through more screening. It just makes sense. The right person is using the right ticket. Why make such a big deal of nothing...now i will see all of the comments about how its intrusive, your american you have rights...I do agree we all have rights but, why should it make a difference? Most people as it is show their id and dont complain, so why make a huge deal of nothing?And when you get pulled over the police want to see you ID one to check for warrants and see who they are dealing with, Not just to see if you can drive. TSO's sure they arent police but, why not have them look at your id and make sure your the right person going to the right place. Sure they arent looking for warrants but if they find someone with a fake id, that person should be in some hot water. Why do you need a fake ID? probably because your going to be doing something you shouldn't be. The End
June 22, 2008 11:19 AM
Anonymous said:
Saying you lost your ID is OK, but saying you don't want to show it is not. Is that actually it? Does that make sense to anyone except the guys who invented this policy??
That's not entirely accurate. It's not a "Oh, you lost your ID? That's okay, I'll just mark SSSS on your boarding pass and you have a good day!"
Nobody gets through without their ID being verified. As I said above, once that actual process gets out there and known it's going to be liked about as much as the rest of this whole shebang.
Ayn R. Key said:
A few more questions for you to not answer: what if I demand to see the ID of the TSO in order to ensure he has the proper authority to demand my ID, and will the TSOs give out the privacy act statements as required by law to avoid a $5000 fine according to 5 U.S.C. § 552a (e)?
(a) If anyone demands to see my ID, I will show them what we are required to show them - the nameplate on the right pocket on the front of my uniform with my name and serial number on it.
(b) Yes, the Privacy Act statement is included and is satisfied on the form required for when someone doesn't have their ID and is willing to cooperate with us to verify it.
June 22, 2008 11:29 AM
Ouch, some of these fanatical crybabies are making people defend the monster.
Please, I urge people who are making the case that the obligatory showing of ID is inconstitutional to show a little constraint.
It may not be permitted (we should let the supreme court decide, look even Guantanamo bay detainees are getting their due rights), but it is definately not the worst thing in the world, not the evidence that we live in a dictadorship and yes, many many places require to see your ID. I have no idea what place YOU live in, but I have to show ID to buy beer, smokes and to rent an apartment... tough cookies.
I doubt anybody here is a tinfoil hat wearer... let's not sound like one.
June 22, 2008 11:32 AM
You know what would be a really cool "next step" in the TSA's evolution?
- Stop screening shoes. The US is the ONLY COUNTRY that does this (to my great embarrassment as a patriotic citizen). Ask yourself WHY are we the only Pavlovian security system that reacts with rote stupidity to a threat by a retarded British man from SIX YEARS AGO? The Israelis, who, I am sure, know a thing or two about terrorism, DO NOT have this imbecilic rule. Shoes bad? How 'bout underwear?
- Stop taking my drinking water. It is impossible to make binary explosives out of household ingredients WITHOUT A LAB! See any labs in an airport or on an airplane lately?
June 22, 2008 11:38 AM
Quote from anonymous: "I don't get what the big deal is about????
If ever I am asked to show ID I do. It's not hard, I reach into my purse pull out my wallet open it and guess what, there's my ID."
It's not that doing so is a hard thing to do. No one here will say that reaching into a wallet to get out an ID is excruciatingly difficult ... at least not physically. The whole point is we shouldn't have to do it at all.
The whole ID farce is revenue protection for the airline and quite frankly, it's not government's responsibility to do that.
Secondly, it's none of the government's business where I go domestically or why. This is America ... the land of the free (supposedly). I don't need to ask permission to travel domestically or even internationally from the US (may need visas abroad but that's because I'm asking to be a guest in their country). Kippie's trying to change that. Screen me and let's move on. The ID harassment is garbage ... especially when it's just targeted just against those who don't want to show ID because they object to the policy. Does Kippie REALLY think that a terrorist is going to call attention to himself and not show ID? Does he think he'll catch the terrorist if they do present ID because "terrorist" is written on it?
TSA needs to stick to its mission: screening passengers and bags. No more, no less. It can't even do that right and then it tries to expand its mission with the same amount of people? Kippie, do you REALLY think TSA's going to improve it's abilities by adding MORE things to do that TSA can't do right?
To those that don't think ID's a big deal ... good for you. That doesn't make those of who object whiners as you seem to allude.
I'm glad there are ID checkers willing to change their gloves and show their ID. I think it's only fair considering the circumstances. I apologize for those behind me, but if you've seen a TSO take a leak wearing those gloves, walk out and start checking your ID without changing them, you're not going to want him touching your ID either. They don't just ask to look at it folks. Instead of being mad at me, how about being mad at them for taking away SSSS for those who don't wish to show it? Or do you not care because it doesn't affect you? Guess you'll only care if starts to affect you.
Robert
June 22, 2008 12:22 PM
"You want to complain, why don't you complain that TSA has invested so much money into aviation security but has implemented no real visible security measures on our highways, bridges, and subways and other mass transit."
No. Just NO. I want this silliness to start and end with air travel. I can't believe you're advocating spreading this to other forms of transit. Everyone's complaining because this shouldn't have started on air travel in the first place, let alone every form of transit available to anyone. Think long and hard about what that would do to our transportation infrastructure and subsequently the country as a whole. Look at what it has already done to our air travel.
I thought that America was founded on the exact opposite of the direction this country is headed...
June 22, 2008 1:47 PM
I hope your not in front of me when I fly. I do not have time for YOUR nonsense when I have to deal with TSA's.
Sorry. My Constitutional and civil rights will always be more important than your convenience.
June 22, 2008 2:12 PM
Sir are you openly bragging that you vandalized a business for doing their job. Checking ID's is required by law.
Ooooo...it's required by law...like turning over Jews was in Germany? What on earth does "required by law" have to do with whether something is acceptable or not? Jesus Christ was tried, convicted, condemned and executed by a duly constituted Court in full compliance with the law. I demonstrate contempt for immoral, unethical laws by willfully breaking them, undermining them, challenging them, or simply ignoring them every day of the week.
June 22, 2008 2:26 PM
Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/business/yourmoney/17digi.html?scp=1&sq=tsa&st=cse
It isn't very recent, but still holds true and has very solid suggestions at the end.
June 22, 2008 2:48 PM
I just spent the last few minutes perusing the comments on the new ID policy. Nice going Kip. You have managed to put your foot in it yet again. I can see arguments being made for this policy violating the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution, as well as the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I haven't had the time to post as many comments as I have in past weeks on the blog due to work commitments, but I still try to follow regularly what's been going on here and I have to say that I'm pleased to see that more and more people are standing up for their rights and holding TSA's feet to the fire. With the changing of the guard in Washington this coming January I can only hope for sweeping changes in the TSA which will lead to sweeping changes to these incursions on civil liberties when the focus should be on things that could actually make us safer (such as screening all airport employees, all cargo, all vehicles that enter the sterile areas of airports -- things that the TSA is only "thinking about" doing as I write this).
June 22, 2008 4:38 PM
This may be the best institutional blog going. Look how many people actually read it.
By the way, I do not think the "policy" is about control or not control. I think it is about demonstrating that if you do not have what a government agent considers to be the correct attitude, your life will be made more difficult.
1.20.09
June 22, 2008 5:01 PM
Sigh. Once again...
For those who state that the TSA has made us "safer":
If the TSA is itself responsible for the fact that no planes have been hijacked or exploded from 9/11/01 to 6/22/08, who is responsible for the fact that no planes were hijacked or exploded out of the US from 5/22/1962, when Continental Airlines Flight 11 exploded, until 9/11/01? Dumb luck?
Bob, if you're going to be serious about this, please explain how "I refuse to show ID" is bad, but "I lost my ID" is fine. You leave a hole big enough to drive a truck through, you can't get away with avoiding explaining it.
June 22, 2008 6:37 PM
Get some popcorn, because this is going to be a long post.
According to the TSA only 300 people a day out of 2 million airline travelers do not posses ID at the checkpoint. That is less than 1 person per airport per day or a measly 0.00015% of the travelers.
Out of those 0.00015% of the traveling citizens that do not have ID, how many are Constitutionalists that simply tell the TSO "No" and take a secondary screening?
Apparently there are enough Constitutionalists out of the 0.00015% of the travelers lacking ID to threaten the authority of the TSA to such an extent it caused the TSA to retaliate by invoking this new rule.
The real question here is, does the TSA have the legal right to demand ID in order to travel? The short answer is they DO NOT.
The law the TSA says gives them the power and authority to demand ID in fact does just the opposite. The law LIMITS the TSA to screening for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
From the TSA web page TSA Announces Enhancements to Airport ID Requirements to Increase Safety.
Under the law that created TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the TSA administrator is responsible for overseeing aviation security (P.L. 107-71) and has the authority to establish security procedures at airports (49 C.F.R. § 1540.107). Passengers that fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight (49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2).
I have read P.L. 107-71 (PDF warning) and I can't find one thing that gives the TSA the right or authority to demand ID from a traveler. Maybe you can.
I have also taken the time to read the law, 49 C.F.R. PART 1540--CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES, that the TSA says grants them the right and authority to demand ID.
To fully understand a law you must start with the definitions used in that law. The definitions place limitations without causing endless repeated explanations in the body of the law.
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
With those definitions in mind let us look at the sections of the law that the TSA pretends to grant them the right and authority to demand ID.
§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
And
§ 1540.105 (a)(2) Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
Maybe the TSA was showcasing § 1540.105 (a)(2) because it adds the words "systems" and "measures", hoping that most will not understand that those do not apply to sterile areas as defined in the law. Those two words apply to exclusively to secured areas, AOA and SIDA as they are defined in the law.
Granting access to the sterile area as defined in the law is LIMITED to the screening of persons and property.
Screening is LIMITED in the law to the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Any procedure the TSA comes up with to grant or deny access to the sterile area is LIMITED by LAW to the detection of weapons, explosives and incendiaries.
I challenge the TSA to PROVE it has the authority and right to demand an ID in order for a citizen to be granted access to a sterile area.
BTW you may want to fix this part on your web page "Passengers that fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight".
"Secure area" needs to be replaced with "sterile area" as regular passengers do not enter secured areas as defined by the law.
June 22, 2008 6:49 PM
For what its worth:
Pilots have certificates, not licenses. Please keep that straight when making posts.
I always thought ID was a requirement prior to this thread. How misinformed I was.
Regardless, I use my Passport (never been out of the country) as ID (Papers Please) when going through an airport. Makes it a lot easier considering the lack of uniformity of Sate DL's and other ID's.
You thing the ID issue is an attack on the Consitiution? You may not have see anything yet.
While I am proud of this country's heritage, I am ashamed of the direction the current administration has taken us in. May it change for the better in January. Vote wisely in November.
June 22, 2008 9:00 PM
So what good does a TSA document checker do for the traveling public?
The traveling public meets a disinterested government employee who dedicates perhaps 5-10 seconds to 'verify' the authenticity of the documents you, the traveling public have just provided them. Perhaps the FBI could learn a thing or two from the gate guardians (think of Cerberus) when it comes to verifying documents. If you're lucky the document screener actually looks at you (doesn't always happen) so rather than verifying who you are against your documents, they seem more intent on the validity of those documents. So this isn't as much of a who are you, but instead are your documents valid?
How does valid documentation make your travel any safer? Identify me if the plane crashes? Pretty rare event. We know that TSA doesn't reference the no-fly list, but instead relies on the airline's database. Perhaps this situation was foisted on the American traveling public by folks who watched too many WWII movies with the heavies asking 'papers please' while the good guys sweat it out knowing that they don't have good papers. Would it be possible for DHS/TSA to drop the scenarios derived from Hollywood movies as marching orders? What next a genetic test that proves we're humans, not space aliens masquerading as humans? Other than a misguided sense of security (security at any cost) what is TSA attempting? Intimidate the traveling public? Clue, terrorists aren't intimidated by these and other measures. They do the same risk/reward management when planning attacks as we do.
June 22, 2008 9:21 PM
did you ever consider that the terorrists are more likely to just show the ID than get instantly flagged for extra screening?
Or did you take the approach that if anybody looks different than your screeners they will get flagged anyways making the arguement flawed because your bigots?
"our goal is to keep bad people off of planes" That isn't your goal...self justification is your goal.
June 22, 2008 10:07 PM
Why do we have ID's? It is not because we like the pictures. They are to prove we are who we say we are. We show them at many places such as clubs, cruise ships and so on and so on. We go through metal detectors at amusement parks and get searched at sporting events just to name a few. Should everyone who wants to fly just be let on airplanes no questions asked? It is not a perfect system but some of the energy used for griping should be used to come up with solutions. We are asked to do many things we do not like in this free country but we have the choice to decline.
June 22, 2008 11:12 PM
If the screener asks politely, I'll show them my ID. If they don't ask politely, I will ask them to repeat themselves. (I can fake bad hearing just as well as anyone else). Third time of the screener being rude, I ask for a supervisor.
June 23, 2008 4:44 AM
""This sounds to me like the USSR and East Germany before the wall came down."
Welcome to neo America comrade.
,>)
May I see your papers, please?"
What's this "may" business, Comrade?!? Prole WILL show papers, or grovel sufficiently to amuse agent of Father State! IS no other option!
"May"? One suspects you did not attend proper training, Comrade... Where are YOUR papers?
June 23, 2008 8:58 AM
Is there any policy the TSA decided to use that was changed because of this blog? As far as I can tell, no. We asked for trace testing instead of liquid limits. We asked for shoe scanning instead of removal. We asked for the end of the SSSS boarding pass. We asked for full body scanners to come out into the open. We question ID and a silly policy encouraging people to lie is enforced. We are ignored. Rules keep piling up, and all we can do is complain.
This blog is where ideas come to die in cyberspace. I can only hope that next January will bring the end of this stupid administration and total waste of our time with "security theaters".
Unfortunately, I still have a lot of traveling to do until then.
June 23, 2008 9:05 AM
So, I will be refused if I say "I respectfully decline to show ID, but my name is..." but not if I say "I forgot my ID, but my name is..."
Seems like the first case is clearly protected political speech, while the second may actually be a terrorist capable of looking up and to the left while lying (which, I'm sure would fool 90% of your "behavior analysts.")
If a supposed "terrorist" gets on a plane, who cares? If you've done your job correctly, the "terrorist" won't pose a threat on that flight. And isn't that your job? Not "keeping bad people off planes."
This is just another step towards a fascist state. The people will eventually wake up, and those in charge, as well as those "just following orders," will be held accountable for their crimes.
June 23, 2008 10:06 AM
"Ouch, some of these fanatical crybabies are making people defend the monster."
And, to what ugly little monster, pray tell, are you referring- the current roster at the executive branch of our government?
"Please, I urge people who are making the case that the obligatory showing of ID is inconstitutional to show a little constraint."
Shouldn't that be unconstitutional restraint, or something to that effect?
It may not be permitted (we should let the supreme court decide, look even Guantanamo bay detainees are getting their due rights), but it is definately not the worst thing in the world, not the evidence that we live in a dictadorship and yes, many many places require to see your ID. I have no idea what place YOU live in, but I have to show ID to buy beer, smokes and to rent an apartment... tough cookies."
I can't remember having to show ID outside of an airport, and even then it is only if I fly by commercial airline.
"I doubt anybody here is a tinfoil hat wearer... let's not sound like one."
Can you send us a recording?
June 23, 2008 10:08 AM
"Is this about control? No."
Stop trying to spin this into something it's not.
It IS about CONTROL, whether you want to admit it or not.
Forcing us to have TSA's permission to travel IS about control. Checking ID - and denying boarding - is control. KNowing who is on a plane IS control - there is NO other reason to have that information.
TSA's job is to prevent people from getting on a plane. And to control who does get on a plane. It's that simple. ID checks & background checks are just another way to prevent transportation to those that don't trust government or disagree politically.
The first thing an oppressive government does is to require ID of its citizens, and to use that ID to deny rights and privileges. Forcing ID gives the oppressive government the ability to institute further restrictions (and/or deny rights, imprision people, or otherwise concentrate power.
June 23, 2008 10:10 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"many many places require to see your ID. I have no idea what place YOU live in, but I have to show ID to buy beer, smokes and to rent an apartment."
None of those is an example of the public being required to show credentials. In each case, you are choosing to do business with someone else who chooses not to do business with you unless you show credentials that the other he can use to identify you. If you don't like the other party's policies, you can do business with someone else with different policies.
In the case of government checkpoints, there is no "someone else" to choose.
The policies mutually agreed upon by two private entities is entirely different than a policy forced upon the public by their government.
June 23, 2008 11:05 AM
"On the other hand, if you do not cooperate and state that you’re not willing to show us your ID, you will not be permitted to fly."
In other words, if you are one who is a political protester or one who stands up for their constitution (and the rights embodied therein), you will be denied the ability to travel.
Sounds like political oppression to me.
June 23, 2008 11:06 AM
Well it is nice to see my take on the legalities of the new forced ID policy gave the TSA some pause. I sure hope you guys are taking this time preparing a legitimate argument for your side.
June 23, 2008 11:08 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Saying you lost your ID is OK, but saying you don't want to show it is not. Is that actually it? Does that make sense to anyone except the guys who invented this policy??"
HSVTSO Dean responded:
"That's not entirely accurate. It's not a "Oh, you lost your ID? That's okay, I'll just mark SSSS on your boarding pass and you have a good day"
It is accurate. Let's consider four scenarios, two in which someone says he misplaced his credentials, two in which he politely declines to present credentials because it is his right to do so, two prior to the new rule instated by TSA on June 21, 2008, and two after:
Last week:.
scenario one:
traveler: "I'm sorry, I don't have any ID to show you, because left my ID in my other pants."
TSA agent: "That's okay. You'll be subjected to additional screening. Please step over there."
scenario two:
traveler: "I'm sorry, I don't have any ID to show you, because I know that I am not required to do so, and if we don't excercise our rights, we will lose them."
TSA agent: "That's okay. You'll be subjected to additional screening. Please step over there."
Today:.
scenario one:
traveler: "I'm sorry, don't have any ID to show you, because I left my ID in my other pants."
TSA agent: "That's okay. You'll be subjected to additional screening. Please step over there."
scenario two:
traveler: "I'm sorry, I don't have any ID to show you, because I know that I am not required to do so, and if we don't excercise our rights, we will lose them."
TSA agent: "Stop right there. You may not pass the checkpoint. You're not going to fly today."
June 23, 2008 11:20 AM
Ayn R. Key said
A few more questions for you to not answer: what if I demand to see the ID of the TSO in order to ensure he has the proper authority to demand my ID, and will the TSOs give out the privacy act statements as required by law to avoid a $5000 fine according to 5 U.S.C. § 552a (e)?
hsvtso dean said
a) If anyone demands to see my ID, I will show them what we are required to show them - the nameplate on the right pocket on the front of my uniform with my name and serial number on it.
(b) Yes, the Privacy Act statement is included and is satisfied on the form required for when someone doesn't have their ID and is willing to cooperate with us to verify it.
(a) Insufficient. I want to see your government issued ID. A plastic card about the size of a credit card, white with your picture on it. It probably has a chip in it too. I want to ensure you have proper authority to ask for my ID.
(b) That does not answer the question and you know it. You are required by law to provide me with a privacy act statement WHEN you ask for my ID, not just if I don't happen to have it. Every time you ask for ID, whether or not the person has ID, whether or not they choose to show ID, you are required to have a privacy act statement handy and ready to provide to the person whose ID you are asking for.
June 23, 2008 11:32 AM
"If our goal is to keep bad people off of planes,"
No, the ID check has a purely commercial reason: It makes it harder for passengers to sell their tickets, so the airlines can make more money in changing or cancelling tickets.
Like the rest of TSA, it makes little sense from a security standpoint.
TSA is probably responsible for killing
more people by wasting time than they could hope to save through screening.
If you were truly serious about transportation safety, I'd bet we would be better off putting all the TSA personnel to work fixing bridges and roads: A tiny 1% improvement in road safety would save 420 lives per year.
June 23, 2008 11:48 AM
That was a great New York Times article that was posted by an Anonymous above me. Says it all.
And on this ID issue- I've never known that ID wasn't necessary to fly before now because I've always flown internationally (only rarely have I flown domestically) and I hope that enough of an uproar is raised, either by people who are majorly inconvenienced by this (if the secondary ID verification procedure info is SSI I'm guessing it's something that will take an eternity and/or annoy anyone in such a situation) or by the TSA only accepting REAL ID (with that many states saying NO, especially California) and inconveniencing people that way, that this measure is withdrawn with all possible speed.
Keep making air travel harder, TSA- maybe Amtrak will finally get its time in the sun.
June 23, 2008 11:48 AM
To those comparing this to cops checking driver's licenses: We are passengers, we are not driving. It is a bad analogy.
By the way TSA: do you check the pilot's licenses 100% of the time?
June 23, 2008 12:01 PM
@HSVTSO Dean wrote:
"If anyone demands to see my ID, I will show them what we are required to show them - the nameplate on the right pocket on the front of my uniform with my name and serial number on it."
I'm sorry, that's not sufficient. I would like to see a REAL ID compliant government-issued photo ID so that I know you didn't just steal the nameplate.
June 23, 2008 12:02 PM
Quote from anonymous: Why do we have ID's? It is not because we like the pictures. They are to prove we are who we say we are.
Which accomplishes what? I present an ID saying I'm Robert Johnson with a boarding pass in my name. What does that accomplish? Furthermore, why do they need to know if they're going to screen me anyway?
We show them at many places such as clubs, cruise ships and so on and so on. We go through metal detectors at amusement parks and get searched at sporting events just to name a few. Should everyone who wants to fly just be let on airplanes no questions asked?
Straw man argument. No one's saying that anyone should be let thru no questions asked. No one's saying that screening for prohibited items (real ones ... not water, shampoo, etc) shouldn't occur. What's being said is that the ID is irrelevant and quite frankly, none of the government's business for flying on a plane. Screen the passengers for prohibited items. If they pass, have a nice flight. If they don't, the situation should be rectified before letting them pass.
The difference between showing those entities ID's is that they're private organizations and I have a choice whether to interact with them or not. If one provider harasses people with ID for no valid reason, I can choose another one. I don't have that option with TSA. TSA is basing using constitutionally protected rights based on providing "papers." I have a problem with that.
Those entities may or may not have a valid reason for asking ID. Some require it to verify that a person is of legal age to drink. Others do it for stupid reasons. If someone requires ID to use my Visa card, I file report with Visa because Visa prohibits the practice. I'm also free to walk away if I object. I'm not free to make those choices with TSA.
It is not a perfect system but some of the energy used for griping should be used to come up with solutions.
You assume that those of us griping do nothing but gripe. I've suggested many solutions to both TSA and Congress and it largely falls on deaf ears. Congress is too scared to do anything because their opponents will say they're soft on security or terror. TSA does what it wants anyway and hasn't shown an interest in actually listening to other people. There are organizations and companies out there that have proposed viable solutions to the challenges we face. In some cases, the tech has been there for awhile ... such as screening liquids has been done in Japan for years yet TSA says the technology doesn't exist. It's really hard to propose change when the organization is ignorant, arrogant, and sticks its head in the sand.
We are asked to do many things we do not like in this free country but we have the choice to decline.
Papers please or don't fly. Yeah, that's the hallmark of a free country. :rolleyes:
This isn't paying school taxes, getting a driver's license or anything like that that ensures safety. This is a direct assault on protected rights and is about control, not safety.
Robert
June 23, 2008 1:10 PM
A flyer recently was one of the TSA's first customers under the new rule, and describes it here.
Interestingly, one of the "verification" questions he was asked was his political party affiliation. Wonder what would happen if he had answered 'hammas' or something similar?
June 23, 2008 1:23 PM
I do not see how this increases security. What terrorist would want to draw attention to her/himself? How is not consenting to an ID check reason to believe the person is on the no-fly list? It seems to be circular reasoning. We ask everyone and if whoever doesn't answer must be on the no-fly list - which is proposterous.
This was under the TSA FAQs
And for all the legal eagles out there, it is my constitutional right to fly without ID.
Under the law that created TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the TSA administrator is responsible for overseeing aviation security (P.L. 107-71) and has the authority to establish security procedures at airports (49 C.F.R. § 1540.107). Passengers who fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight (49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2). Additionally, in Gilmore v. Gonzalez, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff’s constitutional challenges to a passenger identification policy.
This initiative is simply a way for us to better enforce the no-fly list and ensure the safety of the traveling public. No secret motives, no hidden agendas, just a security enhancement aimed at people trying to game the system.
This doesn't address the question at all. Nowhere in there does it even mention the constitution. An act of congress can grant the TSA any set of powers they feel like, but unless it is constituionally permissable it doesn't mean squat when brought into the courts. That's how it works and they are picking bits of information. The 9th circuit court rejected that required additional screening but affirmed that the passenger didn't need to show his ID.
First, the 9th Circuit has seen the Secret Law on ID at airports and, according to them, one can either choose to show ID or 'volunteer' for additional screening.
http://papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
It does appear that this new TSA regulation is in direct conflict with that ruling. It also appears as though the TSA is trying to mislead the public by picking and choosing which information to furnish to give the appearence of compliance.
June 23, 2008 1:42 PM
Someone goes through the process for the first time.
June 23, 2008 1:49 PM
I always thought the old policy was reasonable: you don't want to shaw an ID? Fine, go through extra screening so we know you aren't carrying knives, bombs, guns, or other items you could use to conduct a plausible terrorist attack. That balanced security with liberties as well as could be expected.
So why did TSA replace this policy with such a silly one? It won't stop a terrorist, and while hard corp nutsy constitutionalists might be rare, there is nothing illegal about being a nusty hard core constitutionalist, so are we going to just arrest them now? Ridiculous!
Combine this with a liquids policy that still doesn't make sense, and I don't see how anyone can defend TSA anymore.
June 23, 2008 1:52 PM
Questions you might be asked if you say you "forgot" your ID (from The Consumerist via FlyerTalk):
The first was my date of birth, the second was a previous address (which I only got right on my second try), and the third was "You are registered to vote. Which political party have you registered with?"
June 23, 2008 1:54 PM
Check out what TSA actually does to people who honestly forget their ID post 6/21:
http://tinyurl.com/6p2xdu
In short, he was made to sign an affidavit, provide information about current and previous address, and made to answer questions about political affiliation. How can that possibly be legal?
This ID policy is entirely about control; it's about TSA dominating citizens who try to assert what's left of their rights or those who just forget their ID and dare to show up anyway.
At this point I fail to see any difference between TSA and the DDR's Stasi, and it is truly disgusting. Next time I approach a TSA document checker, I'm seriously considering responding to his request for ID with, "Jawohl, mein Herr. Hier sind meine Papieren."
June 23, 2008 2:09 PM
"I hope your not in front of me when I fly. I do not have time for YOUR nonsense when I have to deal with TSA's.
Sorry. My Constitutional and civil rights will always be more important than your convenience."
So you violate my rights to preserve yours? Only in America!
June 23, 2008 2:22 PM
"Why do we have ID's? It is not because we like the pictures. They are to prove we are who we say we are. We show them at many places such as clubs, cruise ships and so on and so on. We go through metal detectors at amusement parks and get searched at sporting events just to name a few. Should everyone who wants to fly just be let on airplanes no questions asked? It is not a perfect system but some of the energy used for griping should be used to come up with solutions. We are asked to do many things we do not like in this free country but we have the choice to decline."
You are confused on a couple of points. First, I've never shown ID at amusement parks or sporting events. Second, the reason your ID is checked at clubs is to verify an age requirement, NOT to establish your identity. Third, your examples all deal with interactions with private establishments, which do not have to afford you the same freedoms that the US government does.
June 23, 2008 2:26 PM
I see from the experiences of a traveler (described in the Consumerist blog) that POLITICAL AFFILIATION is something that TSA considers when quizzing people who lose ID.
POLITICAL AFFILIATION. That goes to who I vote for.
This is SOLELY about CONTROL and INTIMIDATION.
Demanding one's POLITICAL AFFILIATION IS OVER THE LINE, UNAMERICAN, AND IMPINGES ON OUR RIGHTS.
TSA, YOU'RE OVER THE LINE ON THIS ONE.
June 23, 2008 2:36 PM
Question for Trollkiller:
§ 1540.105 (a)(2) Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
Regarding the above would this clause demand that all people be process through security the same as any other person?
Workers would be required to have the same scrutiny as a passenger?
My reading of the above would indicate that by not screening all airport workers who cross the boundary that TSA is in violation of the law.
What say you?
June 23, 2008 2:39 PM
Here's a list of ID cards that I have on my person right now:
DHS ID badge
Pentagon Contractor badge
Navy Civilian CAC
Classified information courier card
My company's ID card
DoD Geneva Convention ID card
Driving license
In my briefcase:
Passport
Official Passport
COMPACFLT ID badge
Why do I tell you this? Because I think it demonstrates that I'm the kind of guy that's used to carrying and showing ID. In a typical day, I have to show credentials about a dozen times. I'm know all about showing ID, I'm used to it; doesn't phase me.
And that being said, I guarantee you: showing ID will do nothing but further the Grand Security Theater that is the TSA. It doesn't stop bombs from getting aboard. It doesn't stop bad people getting aboard. It wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 hijackers. It is at best a minor inconvenience to the determined hijacker. In practice it serves only to make the whole air travel process more intimidating, more draconian. It casts a pall of, "Papers, please, citizen" over the whole affair. It makes us no safer, but adds to the Big Brotherish atmosphere that TSA engenders. And therefore, it quite nicely accomplishes the terrorists' mission (disrupting our lives, making us afraid, causing us to distrust our government) for us.
And to those of you who say, "You're paranoid. You've got nothing to fear if you're not a terrorist," I'll tell you what: How about we have the police come around to your house once a day and look for drugs or obscene material or illegal weapons. Now, I'm not saying you have any of those things. But since you don't, you've nothing to fear, do you? And it'll make us all safer, right? So it's worth it!
June 23, 2008 2:44 PM
"Forcing us to have TSA's permission to travel IS about control. Checking ID - and denying boarding - is control. KNowing who is on a plane IS control - there is NO other reason to have that information.
TSA's job is to prevent people from getting on a plane. And to control who does get on a plane. It's that simple. ID checks & background checks are just another way to prevent transportation to those that don't trust government or disagree politically.
The first thing an oppressive government does is to require ID of its citizens, and to use that ID to deny rights and privileges. Forcing ID gives the oppressive government the ability to institute further restrictions (and/or deny rights, imprision people, or otherwise concentrate power."
Seems to me it is part and parcel of the current administration's attempted power grab. Mostly it is another poorly thought through response to what they call terrorism. The British do not pander to this concept, and consider it to be criminal activity. The TSA authority is limited to commercial flight- private aircraft and certain other flights, which are often used by their wealthy donors, are unaffected, and presumably are not a security threat. If you wander into General Aviation, you will see exactly what air transportation was years ago. Apparently, just as safe.
June 23, 2008 3:18 PM
(b) Yes, the Privacy Act statement is included and is satisfied on the form required for when someone doesn't have their ID and is willing to cooperate with us to verify it.
We've been receiving reports about the existence and contents of this new form, including a blogger who was asked for his political part affiliation!
I'd like one of the TSA bloggers to direct us to the on-line Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is required for this new form. It should disclose everything about it and the uses of Privacy Act information, including the identity of the commercial data base company whom you have contracted with to verify our identities.
I realize this request will be impossible to satisfy, because this would have required the TSA to obey the law of the land.
June 23, 2008 3:21 PM
yangj08 said...
Keep making air travel harder, TSA- maybe Amtrak will finally get its time in the sun.
Gotta show them your ID too.
June 23, 2008 4:11 PM
Thanks Trollkiller and to the anonymous poster who linked to the 2006 NYT article. Both are excellent reading for air travelers and those impeding them.
I was especially interested in the premise that the TSA's legal raison d'être was to prevent "bad things" from entering the sterile zones at airports, and not to prevent people from flying because they didn't meekly kowtow when encountering a uniformed TSO.
This particular topic has generated some quite interesting posts and points, even if it hasn't garnered much in the way of official response.
June 23, 2008 4:18 PM
see also: BoingBoing: "What it's like to fly with no ID under TSA's new rules," by Cory Doctorow, June 23, 2008.
June 23, 2008 4:35 PM
Wintermute???
Don't I know you from TORC?
June 23, 2008 5:31 PM
Quote from anonymous: "So you violate my rights to preserve yours? Only in America!"
As so many like to point out on here, where is convenience a right?
If you really cared about convenience, you would be squawking about this BS TSA is putting us thru rather than saying ID check is convenient.
Robert
June 23, 2008 5:48 PM
Ayn R. Key wrote:
(a) Insufficient. I want to see your government issued ID. A plastic card about the size of a credit card, white with your picture on it. It probably has a chip in it too. I want to ensure you have proper authority to ask for my ID.
Snarky, but cute. It's blue, actually, and you still don't get to see it unless I feel like showing it to you. My nameplate is all you'll get.
Though if you really do want to see one, you can catch a glimpse of it at the bottom of the screen on that video Bob posted with the "passenger's-eye view of the checkpoint" thing when the person with the camera reaches the travel document checker podium.
(b) That does not answer the question and you know it. You are required by law to provide me with a privacy act statement WHEN you ask for my ID, not just if I don't happen to have it. Every time you ask for ID, whether or not the person has ID, whether or not they choose to show ID, you are required to have a privacy act statement handy and ready to provide to the person whose ID you are asking for.
Check the law again, yo. I'll point out the pertinent part so you don't have to look it up.
____
5 U.S.C. § 552a (e)(3)
(3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual--
(A) the authority (whether granted by statute, or by Executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;
(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used;
(C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and
(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information;
____
Note the "or" that I singled out. The actual form that's handed out for verifying someone's identification has the Privacy Act notification at the bottom of it, with all of the information required per the Privacy Act itself. Now, just with what I understand about grammer, since they did it with the first part (i.e.; the form on which the information is gathered), they don't have to do the second (the thing which can be retained by the individual).
Though I'm sure if you asked for it, the Supervisor would make you a photocopy of it.
June 23, 2008 6:39 PM
What these folks aren't getting is that by requiring ID, you're closing that old loophole that allowed (up until Saturday) anyone, good or bad, to show up with any boarding pass (theirs or someone else's), say they lost their ID, get a pat-down and bag check and be on their way.
------
Uh no, you've closed nothing. You know very well anyone can buy a plane ticket online, use a fake name and real credit card, and buy a plane ticket. Then fake up a boarding pass that has the same name as legal unforged photo identification, which has the name of someone on the no-fly list. Meanwhile the real boarding pass is printed with a fake name, and used to board the plane.
June 23, 2008 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...
Question for Trollkiller:
§ 1540.105 (a)(2) Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
Regarding the above would this clause demand that all people be process through security the same as any other person?
Workers would be required to have the same scrutiny as a passenger?
My reading of the above would indicate that by not screening all airport workers who cross the boundary that TSA is in violation of the law.
What say you?
I am happy someone saw my post after it was completely buried.
Short answer to your question is no.
The way the law is written it looks like the person that is in a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area would be the one in trouble not the TSA for failing to do their job.
They would also only be in trouble IF they did not comply with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied.
If, in the case of unscreened airport workers, there is NO system or measure being applied then the person would not be violating the law as they did comply with what was required of them by the TSA.
If the area needs a badge to access and the person went in a side door to circumvent the badge check they would be breaking the law.
If on the other hand that area should require a badge check but the TSA has not gotten around to implementing it, the worker would be in the clear.
June 23, 2008 7:36 PM
Time for a Congressional investigation into both DHS and TSA. Hope that Certoff and Hawlsey have on their kevlar underwear. Asking people their political affilliation is just wrong on all points.
June 23, 2008 7:57 PM
"Gotta show them your ID too."
NOW I know why everyone brings up driving as the first alternative to flying. I live in friggin' China (been living here for 3.5 years, America before that, usually took the train for LA-San Diego back then) and they don't make you show ID for domestic travel. Well, keep at it- let's see how much of a load the interstate highway system can take.
And look more closely at the Consumerist article- while they're requiring ID, it seems as though they're now willing to take anything with a photo and your name on it instead of requiring state/federal-issued ID.
June 23, 2008 8:29 PM
yangj08 said...
"Gotta show them your ID too."
NOW I know why everyone brings up driving as the first alternative to flying. I live in friggin' China (been living here for 3.5 years, America before that, usually took the train for LA-San Diego back then) and they don't make you show ID for domestic travel. Well, keep at it- let's see how much of a load the interstate highway system can take.
And look more closely at the Consumerist article- while they're requiring ID, it seems as though they're now willing to take anything with a photo and your name on it instead of requiring state/federal-issued ID.
You did not know that a Costco card was Real ID compliant?
June 23, 2008 10:15 PM
Quote from HSVTSO:"Though I'm sure if you asked for it, the Supervisor would make you a photocopy of it."
After photocopying your ID for daring to ask.
Many TSO's won't even show us their name badge because they know a complaint is coming.
Honestly, what do you have to hide by not showing us your ID? By TSA's logic, you have ID and you're refusing to show it. Therefore you must have something to hide and are a threat. Do you want to work today?
That's exactly how you're treating passengers. Do you not see how you have a double standard? TSA tells us ID is security, because stuff can be faked. If you're not willing to show it to us, how do we know you're REALLY with TSA? How do we REALLY know you're not in a costume uniform?
Robert
June 23, 2008 10:18 PM
hsvtso said
Note the "or" that I singled out. The actual form that's handed out for verifying someone's identification has the Privacy Act notification at the bottom of it, with all of the information required per the Privacy Act itself.
Yes, which means that when you ask for my ID as part of the standard ID check which verifies that my ID matches both my face and my boarding pass - not a special ID check but a normal ID check - you either have a form that you are filling out with the Privacy Act statement on it that I can read, or you have a Privacy Act statement to hand me. And since you're not filling out a form on the standard ID check then it has to be a handout. Which it isn't since you don't have those either.
Or maybe you are gathering info on each and every single person who is going through the standard ID check. Are you?
hsvtso also said
Snarky, but cute. It's blue, actually, and you still don't get to see it unless I feel like showing it to you. My nameplate is all you'll get.
Though if you really do want to see one, you can catch a glimpse of it at the bottom of the screen on that video Bob posted with the "passenger's-eye view of the checkpoint" thing when the person with the camera reaches the travel document checker podium.
If you are the one checking my ID, the person in the video isn't the person whose ID I want to see. Even if you are the person in the video. I want to see your government issued Identification Card, the same as the one I got from the military and the same as the one I got from NASA.
I want to match your name to your face, and your "nameplate and badge" do not do that. I want to ensure you are you before I hand over my ID. Shouldn't I be protected from terrorists too? Don't you care about protecting the flying public from terrorists? Shouldn't we have a right to know the TSOs are actually TSOs and not someone who stole a TSO uniform and badge?
June 23, 2008 10:35 PM
Trollkiller said in part....
Short answer to your question is no.
The way the law is written it looks like the person that is in a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area would be the one in trouble not the TSA for failing to do their job.
..........................
I see what your saying Trollkiller but the way I read it is that all people must comply with the procedures to enter the secure area whatever that process is.
I don't see mention of different standards depending on ones role.
TSA requires any one person to go through a particular screening process then that is the procedure for all people to enter the secure area.
The way I read it TSA must screen all people with no exceptions.
June 23, 2008 10:42 PM
Anonymous said...
I see what your saying Trollkiller but the way I read it is that all people must comply with the procedures to enter the secure area whatever that process is.
I don't see mention of different standards depending on ones role.
TSA requires any one person to go through a particular screening process then that is the procedure for all people to enter the secure area.
The way I read it TSA must screen all people with no exceptions.
I am sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking.
You are correct, if the TSA has set up a minimum requirement for access to a restricted area everybody must comply with that minimum.
In the case of a sterile area what ever the minimum screening for weapons, explosives or incendiaries is, that is what everyone including TSO and airport employees should be enduring. The section of the law you need to look at is (a)(1) Key word would be “modify”.
§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
top
(a) No person may:
(1) Tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, attempt to circumvent, or cause a person to tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, or attempt to circumvent any security system, measure, or procedure implemented under this subchapter.
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
(3) Use, allow to be used, or cause to be used, any airport-issued or airport-approved access medium or identification medium that authorizes the access, presence, or movement of persons or vehicles in secured areas, AOA's, or SIDA's in any other manner than that for which it was issued by the appropriate authority under this subchapter.
(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to conducting inspections or tests to determine compliance with this part or 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII authorized by:
(1) TSA, or
(2) The airport operator, aircraft operator, or foreign air carrier, when acting in accordance with the procedures described in a security program approved by TSA.
June 23, 2008 11:56 PM
"Snarky, but cute. It's blue, actually, and you still don't get to see it unless I feel like showing it to you. My nameplate is all you'll get."
Um, I also disagree with this. If I presented a nameplate with no picture, I would probably be subjected to this secondary verification. So it's only fair that full photo ID be presented when someone asks for it.
With an attitude like that, I think I'd rather drive too, no matter how high gas prices get- it's a small price to pay to be sure that I'm in full control of my traveling experience.
June 24, 2008 12:08 AM
"What's this "may" business, Comrade?!?"
Comrade, when one is confident in one's power one may condescend to act with false civility to the proles.
,>)
June 24, 2008 9:09 AM
Continuing discussion about minimum access screening to secure area of airport;
You are correct, if the TSA has set up a minimum requirement for access to a restricted area everybody must comply with that minimum.
...........................
We agree that everyone must (under the act)receive the same minimum screening to gain access to the secure parts of an airport.
I would think the FSD's at each airport are tasked and responsible to ensuring these standards are being met.
If the FSD's are allowing various standards based on a persons role then I would think they are in violation of the act and in fact should be charged with a crime. The question is the crime a felony or lessor violation.
The TSO's who are carrying out these different procedures would also be at risk for not enforcing the law as surely it is presented in their training.
As we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I hope some enterprising law firm picks up on this discrepancy and takes TSA to task.
June 24, 2008 1:16 PM
For Ayn R. Key and Yangj...something.
Um, I also disagree with this. If I presented a nameplate with no picture, I would probably be subjected to this secondary verification. So it's only fair that full photo ID be presented when someone asks for it.
Shouldn't we have a right to know the TSOs are actually TSOs and not someone who stole a TSO uniform and badge?
It's all about what is required of us by TSA. As a passenger, the TSA requires that the ID be shown at the TDC. As a screener, the TSA requires that the nameplate with first name and serial number be shown when asked for by a passenger.
Like most other Americans, I don't like people making unjustified demands of me. :) If you asked to see it, I'd probably show it to you. But if you make a demand of me and I'm not required to do whatever it is you're demanding?
Also interesting to note, since you mentioned NASA, the NASA ID cards aren't acceptable as forms of ID to entering into the sterile area anymore. :)
Also interesting to note, my own DHS badge isn't acceptable either. Go figure.
Well. They are you just need a second form of ID to go along with them, and if you have a second form of ID in the first place, what difference does it make?
TSA in it's infinite wisdom again.
Or maybe you are gathering info on each and every single person who is going through the standard ID check. Are you?
Not that I'm aware of. But just in asking to see your ID to compare it to the boarding card, I don't see how that constitutes as "collecting information" for which the Privacy Act would cover.
June 24, 2008 9:36 PM
I'm sure they will just that because most of the TSOs invent their own policies, there is no standard policy for access to the sterile zone. They don't ever take ction on their constant incompetence, why wouldnt they use it in court?
June 25, 2008 12:03 AM
"It's all about what is required of us by TSA. As a passenger, the TSA requires that the ID be shown at the TDC. As a screener, the TSA requires that the nameplate with first name and serial number be shown when asked for by a passenger."
Quite the double standard there. In that case I'd say that everyone here is right; the problem sits at the top.
"Like most other Americans, I don't like people making unjustified demands of me. :) If you asked to see it, I'd probably show it to you. But if you make a demand of me and I'm not required to do whatever it is you're demanding?"
I think that most people here considers this ID requirement "unjustified". The only difference between you TSOs and the rest of us is that you have the government on your side. *sigh*
June 25, 2008 7:56 AM
hsvtso,
If you are not gathering info on us, then you do not have a form on which you are entering the info that has a privacy act statement, and therefore your offer to show me that form with the statement is not a valid offer. Therefore you need to have privacy act handouts available for distribution when you ask to see our ID if you do not want to be in violation of federal law. Standard "may I see your ID" requires a Privacy Act statement be given to those you are requesting ID from.
That's what the "or" you are hiding behind says. It says if you are gathering data on a form you can hand me a statement OR let me read the statement on the form. You are not gathering data on a form. There is no "or". There is only a statement you must hand out.
If you ask for ID, you must have a statement, whether the person has ID or not, whether they choose to show ID or not. Do you have those statements to distribute? Don't hide behind the "or" of "we are gathering the data on this form" because you aren't. You need those statements to avoid breaking federal law.
As for the ID requirement, you are required to show us a name plate and a badge. If I offered to show you nothing more than a nameplate and a badge, you would inform me that you have no means to match my name to my face. You call it an unjustified demand that I ask to see a valid ID that has a picture in order for me to verify that you are who you say you are?
June 25, 2008 11:04 AM
HSVTSO Dean said... in part
Not that I'm aware of. But just in asking to see your ID to compare it to the boarding card, I don't see how that constitutes as "collecting information" for which the Privacy Act would cover.
............................
The problem with seeing our ID is that your an agent of the government. You have collected the information on the ID and I as a citizen have no idea what you will do with that information.
The Privacy Act is a statement explaining what the government will do with that information and how it will be used.
By you reading my ID the collection of personal information by the government (you as its agent) has happened and Privacy Act disclosure is required or you as an individual are in violation of the law and subjeect to a significant fine.
I would not accept the ID unless I had the Privacy Act Disclosure available to give to the citizen.
You do what you want, just make sure your checkbook is flush!
June 25, 2008 11:15 AM
notice nobody from the TSA ever answers any of our comments on here?? freaking ridiculous. they don't respond to the valid points that are frequently made either, but that's a whole different story
June 26, 2008 12:40 AM
The TSO checking ID against boarding pass doesn't write any of the information off of either document down. I forget who has shown me their ID the second someone else presents their ID and boarding pass. I'm pretty sure it's the same at the bank and grocery store and they take down much more information than we do.
June 26, 2008 2:51 PM
RE:Anonymous said...
The TSO checking ID against boarding pass doesn't write any of the information off of either document down. I forget who has shown me their ID the second someone else presents their ID and boarding pass. I'm pretty sure it's the same at the bank and grocery store and they take down much more information than we do.
..........................
The TSO has viewed a persons name, date of birth, address and other personal information. What happens to that information after the traveler moves pass is unknown. The point being that a representative of the federal goverenment has required the person to provide that information or not pass. Privacy Act disclosure is required.
The example of the bank or grocery store is not germaine. That is a transaction between a private person and a private business. The rules are entirely up to the business to determine and for the indivual to accept should they desire to conduct business with them.
You cannot compare private business and goverenment requirements, they are totally different.
June 27, 2008 11:28 AM
Thank you for forgetting what you just looked at. You actually help prove how pointless the exercise is. You are looking at to pieces of data, both supplied by the person standing in front of you, to see if they match. Duh.
June 27, 2008 12:03 PM
I went into the archive to read some stuff when I had some downtime, and found a post that might answer the dispute concerning the ID verification process and how the Privacy Act impacts it.
Written by Francine Kerner, Chief Counsel at TSA:
And Now, a Word From Our Lawyers
In simple terms, the Privacy Act is a statute that controls the government's collection of personal information for later use. This is an important point. Merely asking a traveler to provide ID for a quick examination at the checkpoint does not trigger application of the Privacy Act as long as the agency is not making a record of the information to use in the future. In contrast, if TSA records a traveler's name or other identifying information with the intention of filing the information so that it can be retrieved at a later date by the traveler's name or ID, the agency is required to comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act.
Which, from what I understand about the procedures, is what happens.
As for the unjustified comment - there's no regulation or requirement set upon me by TSA that justifies me showing a passenger my government credentials upon demand. Ergo, my nameplate with first name and serial number.
And, given that it probably will not diffuse the disagreement over the ID concerns...
You won't convince me.
I won't convince you.
Wanna just leave it at that?
June 27, 2008 12:04 PM
You won't convince me.
I won't convince you.
Wanna just leave it at that?
////////////////////////////
Nope, don't think so;
Your leaders have stated that they must know who we travelers are to gain access to the secure part of an airport. This means that they are in fact checking us against some database of people who are not permitted access.
To accomplished that task requires checking names against something. That something is a record and ones ID contains privacy information.
I think your lawyers are wrong on this one.
Although I did not bring up the point of wanting to see your ID I see no reason that you would hesitate to show a concerned citizen that you are who you claim to be.
How does that action compromise you?
June 27, 2008 4:01 PM
HSVTSO Dean said...
________________
You won't convince me.
I won't convince you.
Wanna just leave it at that?
________________
No.
Tom
June 27, 2008 4:10 PM
Its funny that every comment seems to be by employees of the TSA. Who else knows the checkpoint lingo. LEO's, STSO, etc.... TSA employees couldn't gripe on the Idea Factory, so all of them moved to here.
June 27, 2008 8:04 PM
hsvtso wrote
As for the unjustified comment - there's no regulation or requirement set upon me by TSA that justifies me showing a passenger my government credentials upon demand. Ergo, my nameplate with first name and serial number.
And, given that it probably will not diffuse the disagreement over the ID concerns...
You won't convince me.
I won't convince you.
Wanna just leave it at that?
No.
How do I know you are the person the name plate belongs to?
You could be wearing someone else's nameplate and badge.
You could be a terrorist who stole a plate and badge from a TSO.
Don't I deserve to be safe from terrorists?
Apparently I don't deserve to be safe from terrorists, but I knew that TSOs (including you) don't have the job of keeping me safe anyway.
June 27, 2008 11:39 PM
Anonymous wrote:
This means that they are in fact checking us against some database of people who are not permitted access.
Hm. Shooting from the hip again here, but this is my take on the process:
The no-fly list is accomplished on the airline side of the system, when you check-in. In a manner of speaking, I suppose you could look at it from the point of view of: You were issued a boarding pass by the airline which means you are not on the no-fly list, we check your identification against the boarding pass (and, for sake of argument, we're going to ignore all of the spygame-esque stuff) and make a reasonable judgement against your face with the image on the identification you provide. If we conclude that everything's in good order, we have established that you are not on the no-fly list given that the airlines have given you a boarding pass, and you appear to check out with it.
It's not so much a positive-establishment that you're not on the no-fly list, whereas it's more of a negative-check.
Or, in simpler terms:
"You have a boarding pass, let me make sure you are the person on the boarding pass.... hmm... okay, you are, that means you're not on the no-fly list."
As opposed to:
"Let's see if you're on the no-fly list... hmm... nope, okay, you're good to go."
Now, I might be wrong about how the process works, but that's just me logically trying to work my way around to figuring out what the TSA says compared to what we actually do.
And, just in case some people still aren't clear on the concept, being given the SSSS treatment doesn't mean you're on the no-fly list. Taking from TSA's public website:
"Whether you're eight or 80, the most common occurrence is name confusion and individuals are told they are on the no fly list when in fact, they are not. If you get a boarding pass, you’re not on the no fly list."
I think your lawyers are wrong on this one.
And you're welcome to that opinion. :) Granted, a lawyer is not a judge (nor a panel of judges), even Ms. Chief Counsel herself. When the first lawsuit is filed over this, we'll have to just wait and see how the Judiciary sees it.
Even then, though, there will be people who think it's wrong. Just take the DC handgun ban being overturned by the Supreme Court this week - I think the Mayor of Chicago was very adamant in expressing his beliefs that it was a wrong decision.
How does that action compromise you?
It doesn't in the least. But I'm still not going to show it if you make a demand of it and I don't have any regulation that requires me to show it to you.
Ask nicely, instead. :)
June 28, 2008 10:19 AM
Prate all the rhetoric you want - you're still not getting my government credentials unless you ask nicely. :)
And I'm through with this particular discussion, since it's plain that nothing more constructive will be had from it.
June 29, 2008 12:45 PM
To HSVTSO Dean:
I have to agree with my fellow travelers. Your photo ID should be on display.
If I ask a police officer, meter reader or even an IRS employee to show me their entity issued ID they are required to show me. Why not a TSO?
June 29, 2008 3:18 PM
"As for the unjustified comment - there's no regulation or requirement set upon me by TSA that justifies me showing a passenger my government credentials upon demand. Ergo, my nameplate with first name and serial number."
As opposed to the regulation set upon the travelers by the TSA that apparently no one can find a justification for? Seems that we both want to say no to showing full ID, but you have the government on your side.
June 30, 2008 4:52 AM
Trollkiller:
I have to agree with my fellow travelers. Your photo ID should be on display.
Incidentally, I also have a SIDA-access badge issued by the airport with my full name and photo hanging from my left pocket, but it's not the government credentials. Once upon a time, said government credentials were behind the SIDA badge facing the opposite direction (the thing spins relentlessly all the time, and for some reason always seems to land face-down when it decides to stay. Instead of always flipping my SIDA badge around to face forward, I just put my credentials behind it).
Unfortunately, it's not very sturdy. The little piece of plastic that holds it over the thicker piece of plastic that hangs from the ID reel broke, so it now resides quite comfortably in my wallet.
I haven't mentioned the SIDA badge until now because everybody's been focused on the government credentials themselves, which have no place in the official uniform or any relevance at all outside of temporary duty assignments. :)
If I ask a police officer, meter reader or even an IRS employee to show me their entity issued ID they are required to show me. Why not a TSO?
That, sir, is the right question that I've been waiting for someone to ask.
Probably because TSA doesn't keep track of us or identify us by our firstname.lastname, but rather by firstname.serialnumber. So if there's any kind of compliment or complaint filled out, and hell even on paperwork like HAZMAT discovery forms and such, it always asks for firstname.serialnumber.
June 30, 2008 5:18 PM
Trollkiller said:
If I ask a police officer, meter reader or even an IRS employee to show me their entity issued ID they are required to show me. Why not a TSO?
HSVTSO Dean said:
That, sir, is the right question that I've been waiting for someone to ask.
Probably because TSA doesn't keep track of us or identify us by our firstname.lastname, but rather by firstname.serialnumber. So if there's any kind of compliment or complaint filled out, and hell even on paperwork like HAZMAT discovery forms and such, it always asks for firstname.serialnumber.
To continue, if I may, that still does not answer the simple question from Trollkiller: Why not the TSO if all those other 'officials' show their when asked while performing their duties? (Even as a civilian employee, when challenged I'd ALWAYS show my ID.)
A picture ID with however your employer identifies you would help to show the nameplate is legitimately yours, not found, borrowed, stolen, or just plain fake. (Blue uniform shirts are available at most any uniform supplier.)
Thanks!
Tom
June 30, 2008 5:51 PM
Once again, I must ask what constitutes an acceptable form of identification. I have been told that it must be a government issued photo ID with an expiration date, but TSA refused to accept my USDA-issued photo ID badge. (Yes, my ID card has an expiration date, and it is HSPD-12 compliant.)
Will TSA document checkers accept Kip Hawley's TSA-issued photo ID card? Or will they claim that they don't know what it is and require Kip to produce a driver's license instead?
June 30, 2008 9:14 PM
HSVTSO Dean said...
Trollkiller:
Once upon a time, said government credentials were behind the SIDA badge facing the opposite direction (the thing spins relentlessly all the time, and for some reason always seems to land face-down when it decides to stay.
If I ask a police officer, meter reader or even an IRS employee to show me their entity issued ID they are required to show me. Why not a TSO?
That, sir, is the right question that I've been waiting for someone to ask.
Probably because TSA doesn't keep track of us or identify us by our firstname.lastname, but rather by firstname.serialnumber. So if there's any kind of compliment or complaint filled out, and hell even on paperwork like HAZMAT discovery forms and such, it always asks for firstname.serialnumber.
The SIDA badge always turning backwards is just God's way of protecting the public from bad photographs.
;-)
So you are tracked by firstname.serialnumber, that makes sense as there must be a bunch of John Smiths among the past and present TSA employee base.
In that case you should have a picture ID that conveys firstname.serialnumber, the airport you are attached to, expiration date and your position. (TSO, Supervisor, BDO)
As has been brought up, how do we know you are you?
You could be just some thief that stole a uniform and are using it to scam unsuspecting passengers.
Remind me and I will start asking the TSA why they don't make you carry ID, just as soon as I finish whooping up on them for requiring me to show ID.
:-D
July 1, 2008 1:12 AM
It's all in the presentation, Tom. I've said multiple times that if someone asks nicely, I have no problem in the world whipping my wallet out and showing the credentials.
What I have a problem with is someone making an outright demand for it, and I'm not required to do whatever it is that they demand.
I'm American that way. Sue me.
Did the same thing to a police officer one time, who thought he had a cheap and easy drug bust (just to give you some background, this is a picture of me, albiet heavily shadowed. This is another one, chosen specifically because of the jewelery I wear on my hand). The cop saw me and figured "Hey, this kid must have some kind of drugs! I'll make up some stupid lie about someone seeing him walking around with a shotgun so I can search him!"
And he did. But since I don't even drink, much less use illegal narcotics, I had not a problem in the world with him wanting to search my vehicle or me.
But when he made the demand that I stand in a particular spot, instead of asking nicely, I very purposefully stood one foot to the left of it and asked if it was good enough.
All it takes is a little civility.
"Hey, can I see your government ID?"
See? It's not too hard. Just ask nicely, and all the world might come to you. :)
Anonymous wrote:
Once again, I must ask what constitutes an acceptable form of identification. I have been told that it must be a government issued photo ID with an expiration date, but TSA refused to accept my USDA-issued photo ID badge. (Yes, my ID card has an expiration date, and it is HSPD-12 compliant.)
Federal Government credentials are no longer acceptable as a sole form of ID. They must be presented with a second form of ID, now, such as -- oh, anything with your name on it. A utility bill, for example, works just fine. Hell, a credit card with your name on it works, too.
In general, to fall under the "other federal government-issued IDs" criteria, the card has to have your photo, your date of birth, an expiration date, an~nd... a couple of other things. I'm at home, so I can't look it up on this computer.
Yeah. A State-issued driver's license is your best bet. Or military ID. If you have one, a TWIC card works just as well, too.
No form of municipal credentials is good, though. No firefighter cards, no police ID badges, etc etc.
Like I said earlier in this thread, the allowable-ID media has been narrowed significantly. I'm not terribly sure why TSA chose to do this, but it's been a monumental PITA.
Will TSA document checkers accept Kip Hawley's TSA-issued photo ID card? Or will they claim that they don't know what it is and require Kip to produce a driver's license instead?
You're trying to be snarky, I think, but you're actually speaking the truth. If Kip Hawley (or anyone else in TSA) was there at the airport on official business, then our TSA-issued blue ID card is enough to get us into and past the checkpoint for us to do our business.
If he was flying, though? :P Then no, the TSA-issued blue ID card would not be sufficient for him to access the sterile area. Just like me. Just like I said earlier in this thread when I was talking to Ayn R Key and Yangj...something. I added a quick note that I bolded for clarity:
"Also interesting to note, since you mentioned NASA, the NASA ID cards aren't acceptable as forms of ID to entering into the sterile area anymore. :)
Also interesting to note, my own DHS badge [note: my TSA-issued government credential card] isn't acceptable either. Go figure."
And one more bonus photograph. Hi there!
July 1, 2008 9:07 AM
HSVTSO Dean said:
"It's all in the presentation, Tom. I've said multiple times that if someone asks nicely, I have no problem in the world whipping my wallet out and showing the credentials.
What I have a problem with is someone making an outright demand for it, and I'm not required to do whatever it is that they demand.
I'm American that way. Sue me."
Understandable, Dean, but then you CERTAINLY should understand the feelings generated when a TSO demands our ID before domestic travel, especially when such a demand is questionable under the circumstances, and has not yet been vetted by the courts.
Yeah, someone is sure to start squawking Gilmore v. Gonzales, but IIRC that was decided because there was an alternative of questioning and search if a person refused to show ID. This whole discussion started with the TSA removing that option by stating that when ID was demanded "the dog ate my ID" would be OK, but "I'd rather not" would be no flight.
I also understand to a small extent the being "selectively stopped" by LEOs because of an outward appearance, as I drive a vehicle that stands out and is aimed at a very young crowd (lightly customized original Scion xB), and officers often get flustered and end up not even asking for a driver's license after stopping me for some imaginary reason and finding someone their grandfathers age glaring at them from the drivers seat. :o\
HSVTSO Dean said:
"If Kip Hawley (or anyone else in TSA) was there at the airport on official business, then our TSA-issued blue ID card is enough to get us into and past the checkpoint for us to do our business.
If he was flying, though? :P Then no, the TSA-issued blue ID card would not be sufficient for him to access the sterile area."
Of course if Kip (or anyone else in TSA) were to get "past the checkpoint" they could fairly easily from that point wander away (head for the restroom?), pull out their un-shown boarding pass and climb aboard an aircraft, I would suspect...
Thanks for the pics, Dean, it makes it easier to speak to the other side as a human being. :o)
Please allow me to return the favor: Who's Tom?
July 1, 2008 1:06 PM
Tomas wrote:
Understandable, Dean, but then you CERTAINLY should understand the feelings generated when a TSO demands our ID before domestic travel...
Naturally. Though I think you're interchanging 'require' for 'demand.'
While I have to require all passengers to show me their identification when I'm working at the travel documen podium, I never make a demand for it. I've always seen demands (particularly unjustified demands) as being presumptuous and hubris-filled, and why make a demand when you can just ask nicely for something, instead?
The same understanding makes me shake my head and normally release a groan when some TSO or non-TSO-pro-TSA person gets on here and starts getting asinine.
"IF U 4 NO LIKZ IT THEN DON'T FLYZ!!1!!one!!" isn't an appropriate response to... well, anything, really.
Of course if Kip (or anyone else in TSA) were to get "past the checkpoint" they could fairly easily from that point wander away (head for the restroom?), pull out their un-shown boarding pass and climb aboard an aircraft, I would suspect...
Yeah, but that's actually a whole bunch of people. Airport employees, for example, if they only show their SIDA badge to get through the airport can do the same thing. So can airline employees, for that matter - like a pilot or a sky waitress on a flight or something but not as a member of the crew (i.e.; not in uniform) can come through the checkpoint with only their airline ID and not have to show their boarding pass.
But that's still a discussion for a whole different thread. I was just dealing with the technicalities of what is supposed to be allowable versus what is not.
July 3, 2008 11:18 AM
hsvtso,
So we are only required to show our ID, there is no demand that we show ID? That's a word game. Both words mean that it is mandatory, even if phrased in the form of a request. It is a requirement. When you say "pretty please with sugar on top show me your ID" it is a demand because you are a TSO.
July 3, 2008 5:01 PM
Oh, Ayn R. Key. Let me try to spell this out one more time.
First off, it's not a word game. I never disputed the requirement to show ID (save only that I don't think it does very much to enhance the security of the process). I've said one thing very consistantly the entire time (seriously - scroll up and you'll find it!), and that is to ask nicely. The only thing I said about a demand is that it's rude and presumptuous.
Had the police officer who stopped me said something to the nature of "I need you to stand right over here while I search your vehicle, sir," I wouldn't have had a problem in the world doing what he wanted.
However, instead, he said "Stand right here and don't move." Which did nothing but spark my desire to thumb my nose at him.
It's not splitting hairs, and it's not semantics. It's the inherent difference between being polite and being rude, with nothing at all involved with the requirement to show identification.
July 4, 2008 11:15 AM
Most of the super negative comments are coming from Anons so I decided to do the same but actually say something that makes sense. It is nothing but the truth when you say that everyone cannot be pleased. If TSA suddenly decided to give in and give the flying public what they wanted...(i.e. no more ID checks, no more secondary screening, no more checking your bags, or making you throw away your precious 20 oz. water/soda.) ...you would be the same people to moan and groan and complain about the lack of security when you want to fly. You will be the same people that would say that it was ridiculous or inappropriate that such an act was done. I agree with Bob on this one, if you have nothing to hide then what's the big deal?!? You show your ID to do just about anything in the United States, what's so hard about having to show your ID to freaking fly? Stop being big babies and just do us all a favor...do what they ask so WE don't have to stand behind you in line and watch you act like an idiot. We all have places to go just as you do.
July 16, 2008 1:41 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"If TSA suddenly decided to give in and give the flying public what they wanted...(i.e. no more ID checks, no more secondary screening, no more checking your bags, or making you throw away your precious 20 oz. water/soda.) ..."
No one here is asking for that. If you truly disagree, please cite some examples.
I believe that most of us think checking bags for dangerous items is a fine policy. However, most of us know that checking ID is not useful for anything other than conducting unconstitutional dragnet operations, and that the banning of liquids unless they are separated into containers of less than 3.4 ounces is ridiculous. Both are a waste of our money, and the ID check amounts to a restriction of our right to travel without interference from the government. TSA have provided no reasoning for any of this.
"if you have nothing to hide then what's the big deal?"
Do you have curtains on your windows? Why -- do you have something to hide? Do you send love letters or financial and medical records on postcards? Why not -- do you have something to hide?
See also: Solove, Daniel J., "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" . San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, p. 745, 2007
"You show your ID to do just about anything in the United States"
Maybe you do, but I don't. Could you please provide some examples?
July 16, 2008 11:36 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home