Paul recently blogged about Secure Flight. Since then, the fine folks from the Secure Flight program have been monitoring the comments and have been kind enough to answer some of your questions.So here goes…
Q: We’ve still never gotten a definitive answer on what law compels travelers to reveal all this personal information. ~ Adrian
A: The 9/11 Commission Report recommended that TSA take over watch list matching from the airlines. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 codified this recommendation and requires DHS and TSA to assume pre-flight comparisons of airline passenger information to federal government watch lists. TSA is implementing the Secure Flight program to meet this Congressional mandate. The Secure Flight Final Rule provides the regulatory authority for the implementation of the Secure Flight program.
Q: Also, how else will this information be used? Will the airlines be allowed (or compelled) to keep all of this personal information about us? Will the TSA or other government agency be building a database of the times we fly? ~ Adrian
A: TSA collects as little personal information as possible to conduct effective watch list matching. Also, personal data is collected, used, distributed, stored, and disposed of in accordance with stringent guidelines and all applicable privacy laws and regulations. Secure Flight has published an updated Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in conjunction with the Final Rule and System of Records Notice (SORN) published in the Federal Register, August 23, 2007 provide detailed information about the program’s privacy approach. TSA does not collect or use commercial data to conduct Secure Flight watch list matching. Data elements collected under Secure Flight will only be retained for seven days if the traveler is not a match to the No Fly or Selectee lists. For these travelers, all data will be purged from TSA systems after seven days. For travelers who are identified as a potential match, but later determined to not be an exact match to the watch list, data will be retained for seven years. Data elements for individuals identified as an exact match to a No Fly or Selectee terrorist record will be retained for law enforcement purposes for 99 years by Secure Flight.
Q: When one is mistakenly added to the Selectee or No Fly lists, how do they get off? ~ Adrian
A: If you were able to obtain a boarding pass, your name is not on the No Fly list. Redress is an opportunity for passengers who believe they have been improperly or unfairly delayed or prohibited from boarding an aircraft to seek resolution and avoid future delays. The affected passengers often have the same or a similar name to someone on the watch list. The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) provides a one-stop shop for passengers seeking redress. Secure Flight uses the results of the redress process in its watch list matching process to help prevent future delays for misidentified passengers.
Q: How do people who do not have a government-issued photo ID deal with these rules? Getting a government-issued photo ID typically requires a birth certificate. My great grandmother’s birth certificate was lost in a court house fire decades ago, and she never had a driver’s license or passport. ~ Adrian
A: Federal regulations require that passengers present a government-issued photo ID during the check-in and screening process. If a passenger doesn’t have a government-issued ID, it is recommend they take the necessary steps to obtain one. It just makes sense to take a couple of hours to get a Government ID to avoid delay at security checkpoints while TSA confirms their identity and ensures they do not pose a threat to security.
Q: It's funny that many ticketing websites don't allow you to use your full middle name, yet the state asks for you to do it. This is nothing but a pain and more security theater. Thanks for making sure the lines get longer at security. Will you be adding staff to deal with it? Or will you continue to have too few checkpoints open at most airports? You're worse than Target! Q: Did TSA check with travel and airline web sites to give them time to update their data fields before adopting this policy? My wife went to Orbitz today to change her profile name and Orbitz only has space for a middle initial. But both her driver's license and my passport list her full name. How are we supposed to handle things like this? My wife also checked with United.com and they don't even offer a spot for a middle initial. I expect this new TSA policy has been planned for years. If so, why didn't TSA give the airlines and travel agencies time to update their records? What in the world is the hurry?
A: Secure Flight will be phased-in and each airline will be incorporating the necessary changes into their systems over the next few months. Passengers shouldn't be concerned if particular airlines or travel websites don't ask them to provide the additional information right away or if they’re not yet able to accept full name or other information required by Secure Flight; it should not impact their travel. Members of the travel industry will request this information as their capability to capture it is integrated into their individual systems. As for longer lines at airport security, Secure Flight will not impact the process at the security checkpoint in any way. At the security checkpoint, TSA strives to ensure you are who you say you are. TSA performs travel document checking to see that you, your identification, and your boarding pass match and are valid. Secure Flight, on the other hand, is a behind-the-scenes process that TSA and airlines collaborate on to compare the information you provide against government watch lists. The additional data elements that you may be asked to provide, such as date of birth and gender, serve to better differentiate you from individuals on the government watch list. Secure Flight will not impact the security checkpoint experience. While Secure Flight and travel document checking are both critical security functions, they serve different purposes at different points in the security process.
Q: My passport/passport card driver's license and credit cards differ in how they display my name (full middle name, middle initial, not indicator of middle name), so this may take some fiddling to make certain things match up for the TSA folks. One interesting thing none of those show is that actual CORRECT spelling of my name, because most US font sets do not include Slavic diacritic marks... ~ Tomáš
A: Passengers should ensure that the name used when making a reservation matches their government-issued ID used when traveling. Depending on which government ID you plan to use for a particular trip, you should provide your name as it appears on that ID for your travel. TSA has built some flexibility into the processes regarding passenger name accuracy. For the near future, small differences between the passenger’s ID and the passenger’s reservation information, such as the use of a middle initial instead of a full middle name or no middle name/initial at all, should not cause a problem for you. Over time, you should strive to obtain consistency between the name on your ID and your travel information.
A big thanks goes out to the Secure Flight program office. By the way, check out the press release about the new Ad Council campaign aimed at raising awareness of Secure Flight.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
138 comments:
Ah yes, but...
Q: Does ID = security?
A: No.
You gotta love this Q & A:
"Q: How do people who do not have a government-issued photo ID deal with these rules? Getting a government-issued photo ID typically requires a birth certificate. My great grandmother’s birth certificate was lost in a court house fire decades ago, and she never had a driver’s license or passport. ~ Adrian
A: Federal regulations require that passengers present a government-issued photo ID during the check-in and screening process. If a passenger doesn’t have a government-issued ID, it is recommend they take the necessary steps to obtain one. It just makes sense to take a couple of hours to get a Government ID to avoid delay at security checkpoints while TSA confirms their identity and ensures they do not pose a threat to security."
Whoever wrote the "answer" never read the question. How does one go about getting a government issued ID without a birth certificate? That was the question.
--
BTW, the PIA for Whole Body Imaging says "brochures" will be available at checkpoints that have WBI to insure that passengers are giving informed consent to being strip searched. Where are those brochures?
Q: How do people who do not have a government-issued photo ID deal with these rules? Getting a government-issued photo ID typically requires a birth certificate. My great grandmother’s birth certificate was lost in a court house fire decades ago, and she never had a driver’s license or passport. ~ Adrian
A: Federal regulations require that passengers present a government-issued photo ID during the check-in and screening process. If a passenger doesn’t have a government-issued ID, it is recommend they take the necessary steps to obtain one. It just makes sense to take a couple of hours to get a Government ID to avoid delay at security checkpoints while TSA confirms their identity and ensures they do not pose a threat to security.
.....................
So is it TSA's claim that a passenger cannot travel by commercial air unless they have a government issued ID?
Bob at TSA wrote:
"Federal regulations require that passengers present a government-issued photo ID during the check-in and screening process."Do they? Which regulations? At one time, regulations required airlines to request proof of identification, but not to require it as a condition of carriage. Has this changed?
"It just makes sense to take a couple of hours to get a Government ID to avoid delay at security checkpoints while TSA confirms their identity and ensures they do not pose a threat to security."How does someone's identity allow you to ensure that he does not pose a threat? Aren't you simply using the ID check to restrict freedom of movement based on government blacklists?For anyone reading this who thinks, "What's the big deal with just showing ID? I have to do it all the time?" I'd like to point out that you may choose to do it all the time, but very likely are not often required to do so in order to exercise your right to move and associate or as a condition of any other Constitutionally protected action. Your government requiring you to "show ID" is quite different than an arrangement between you and another private entity that involves you voluntarily doing so.
Many of us care little about the tiny hassle of showing our papers, but are deeply concerned with the implications of living in a "Papers, please!" society. We Americans must stand up for our rights, or they'll be gone when we need them most.
See also: "What's wrong with showing ID?" from The Identity Project. It sums up this issue very well.
Paraphrasing a small portion of the aforementioned IDP page: 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.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Q: "what law compels travelers to reveal all this personal information."
A: "The Secure Flight Final Rule provides the regulatory authority for the implementation of the Secure Flight program."
Comment: And who drafted the Secure Flight Final Rule? The TSA! Hold on Mabel, 1st question out of the box, and already the circular reasoning has me dizzy!
Sandra, Here is the answer that you missed. TSA suggests you take the time to do whatever it takes to get an govt. ID. TSA is not in the business of issuing govt. IDs. TSA is not in the business of replacing birth certificates.
Bob (and friends):
With respect ... some of these answers don't address the questions.
To the question "how do you get off the selectee or no-fly list", you don't answer the question. You say that passengers can seek redress if they had problems in the boarding process ... but you never say whether or not that process can result in actually getting one's name off the various lists.
To the question "how does a passenger without a government ID deal with these rules", your answer was "get an ID". Clearly, there will be passengers who will approach the checkpoint without government-issued ID; as TSA has itself noted, there are legitimate reasons for this to happen (like a lost wallet). What will TSA do in such situations? It's a little hard for me to get a driver's license when I'm halfway across the country from my home.
[And by "you" above, I mean TSA in general ... not you personally, Bob.]
I still can't understand how this will do anything to improve security. Is there some official document that either explains exactly how it improves security or contains so much doublespeak that it makes me say "never mind..."?
None of the privacy statements and rules regulate what the airlines may do with the additional information that the TSA now compels them to collect.
Given that the airlines have flagrantly ignore their own privacy policies in providing information to the federal government, this seems like a huge oversight.
The question about how to fly if you cannot get a government-issued photo ID (for example, if you do not have a birth certification, you cannot get an ID) was completely ducked.
If I'm flying in-state, how can the Federal government set the rules for what the airlines much collect? The commerce clause only authorizes the feds to make rules for interstate commerce.
So the only way to know if you're on the selectee list or the no-fly list is to attempt to travel.
NoClu said....
"Ah yes, but...
Q: Does ID = security?
A: No."
In your opinion, right? Congress, the 9/11 Commission, and other organizations think identification verification is one part of providing security. What makes your opinion more valid than their collective one?
http://papersplease.org/id.html
"We uphold freedom by exercising it – not by restricting it.
Using this country's transportation system to conduct a dragnet, using government secret lists of wanted people, degrades our freedom and makes people less inclined to voice their opinion for fear of ending up on these secret lists. While the present administration may have benevolent intentions to justify their actions, our future is imperiled by this wholly un-American activity."
Anonymous wrote:
"Sandra, Here is the answer that you missed. TSA suggests you take the time to do whatever it takes to get an govt. ID. TSA is not in the business of issuing govt. IDs. TSA is not in the business of replacing birth certificates."
No, sweetie, I did NOT miss the "answer" because there was no answer to the question of how does someone get a government issued ID without a birth certificate.
It was YOU who could not comprehend either the question or the "answer."
Just the 9/11 Commission Report alone is a serious bit of reading- well over 500 pages. Too bad the deadline precluded delving into many issues that the commission members were interested in examining in greater detail.
Sandra said...
BTW, the PIA for Whole Body Imaging says "brochures" will be available at checkpoints that have WBI to insure that passengers are giving informed consent to being strip searched. Where are those brochures?The Government Printing Office hasn't printed them yet?
If you don't like the rules, don't fly.
Someday, the TSA will be repealed, its employees fired, its power broken, its rules eliminated, and its control rendered forever finished. Every time I fly, I do it with merely limited protest only because I focus on that day.
The security/privacy trade-off is false. Someday, we will regain our privacy and security will fail to crumble. And those who love true liberty will exult, while the likes of you guys will be left fuming because you fear it.
I have two middle names. My passport has my full name spelled out (all four of them). My driver's license has my first, second and last names. My CAC has my first and last names and two middle initials.
You mention some flexibility on how names match. How will that be handled for people with two middle names?
An anonymous "genius" suggests
If you don't like the rules, don't fly.I don't like the rules. The rules are unconstitutional. The rules are unamerican. The rules don't make common sense. The rules as implemented don't do anything to keep anyone truly safer, but do a great deal to keep people scared and cowed. The rules smack of totalitarian societies. You bet I don't like the rules and now that I have a choice, I do not fly when there are alternate means available. I have let the airlines know this as well. I urge others to do the same.
TSA has not demonstrated any actual interest or ability to keep the public safe from anything. It has, on the other hand, demonstrated remarkable alacrity in finding ways to maintain its budget allocations in times of government cutbacks. This appears to be TSA's true motivation.
My lone voice will do nothing to sway the airlines to put pressure on the government to disband and reform TSA. My lone voice in concert with thousands of others, however, can and will. I am, have, and do exercise my voice anyway. Please exercise yours.
" Anonymous said...
If you don't like the rules, don't fly.
June 2, 2009 7:50 PM"
Or, GA, your only logical choice...
And I sent in my redress request TWO MONTHS ago and no response yet...why don't you guys get on the ball here?
NoClu said...
Ah yes, but...
Q: Does ID = security?
A: No.
###
Yep, the 9/11 hijackers had ID, so ID does not = security. So:
Q: What does ID equal?
A: Elimination of the ticket resale market and bigger ticket change fees. If you can wrap it up in 9/11 security, it is a bonus for the airlines.
Anonymous said...
If you don't like the rules, don't fly.
June 2, 2009 7:50 PM
Excellent suggestion.
The only way the people can stop this madness is to place the airlines ability to conduct business in jeopardy.
Not buying airline tickets will be the quickest way to do this.
I notified the airline I used most often that I will no longer purchase their services because of TSA policies, I encourage others to do the same.
Dear TSA Blog Team. Can you please comment on e-cigarettes? I recently purchased an "electronic cigarette" and nobody will give me a straight clear answer.
They is no "burning" or anything related to an actual cigarette, it's basically a nicotine inhaler.
How can we ensure TSA security allows me to safely transport the item, and if possible how to approach using such a device on the plane?
Confused flyer - ck
Well hello there Secure Flight folks.
Q: We’ve still never gotten a definitive answer on what law compels travelers to reveal all this personal information. ~ Adrian
A: The 9/11 Commission Report recommended that TSA take over watch list matching from the airlines. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 codified this recommendation and requires DHS and TSA to assume pre-flight comparisons of airline passenger information to federal government watch lists. TSA is implementing the Secure Flight program to meet this Congressional mandate. The Secure Flight Final Rule provides the regulatory authority for the implementation of the Secure Flight program.
This is a good answer, but in the future instead of just pointing to a 236 page document please give the appropriate section number or page number. Thanks.
Can you tell me what part of Secure Flight (or any other statute) gives the TSA the authority to force verify my ID at the checkpoint as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area?
Please answer in the following format for easy verification. (Title number, section and paragraph. Example: Title 49 1560.105 (c)(1) )
So is Chris Soghoian's boarding pass stunt too SSI for this blog?
Anonymous said...
If you don't like the rules, don't fly.
June 2, 2009 7:50 PM"
Anonymous said...
Or, GA, your only logical choice...
June 2, 2009 10:37 PM
Not for long. TSA is getting their fingers into private air transportation at every opportunity, too. See:
NBAA reponse to TSA Security Directive 1542
or google SD 1542 or LASP TSA
Let's see. We now have to provide our full legal name, along with our gender and date of birth. That's supposed to make it easier for the TSA to properly match our identity information against the million-odd names on the consolidated watch lists. And that's supposed to make travel easier for us, at the possible cost of an increased risk of identity theft. It's also supposed to improve aviation security, although I can't for the life of me understand how. But the TSA say it will improve security, so I'll trust that it does.
Now that the TSA is improving the "front end" of the matching process by using more identifying data, what are the various agencies that compile the watchlists doing to improve the "back end"? Are they updating the million-odd names to add middle names, gender, and date of birth? If they're not, how does the "front end" improvement do anything to either improve security or make travel easier for passengers? It just seems to me that there will be more opportunities for error, and more false positives that will cause more difficulties for more passengers. What am I missing here? Paul? Bob? Anyone?
Until someone from the TSA officially dismisses my question, I guess I'll just have to do what any loyal patriotic American should do in cases like this. Whenever I see or read something about the TSA that doesn't make sense, I close my eyes and visualize those planes crashing into the World Trade Towers on 9/11. The fear washes away the confusion and replaces it with gratitude for the TSA and the excellent job they've been doing to keep us safe.
Back when Secure Flight was first introduced in 2004, the ACLU's study of Secure Flight likened it to the French Maginot line in World War II. Sure, it looks secure -- but when you can just walk around it, it's not really much. Considering the problems of identity theft in this country, and how easy it is, especially if you have the means and the technology to do so, to steal one's identity... a terrorist who believes they might be on the watch list (not like any known terrorists are on the watch list mind you) is going to use a stolen identity to walk onto the plane.
Bob, will other government agencies -- say, law enforcement, have access to the database? Will the FBI be allowed to regularly search the database (since even for those of us who are innocent, our travels are kept in a government database for a week) for fugitives or wanted criminals who may be traveling? Can you guarantee that Secure Flight won't be expanded to do just that -- and even more? I mean, what about looking for people who owe money on their taxes? Or deadbeat dads?
CAPPS II (Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System) was killed by President Bush in August, 2004, because of overwhelming concerns [gao.gov, PDF] about passengers' privacy and their freedom to travel.
In what ways is Secure Flight different than CAPPS II with regard to mitigating these concerns?
I can't believe the level of paranoia displayed on this site. A "government dragnet" to prevent freedom of movement. Really?
Our privacy has been merely imaginary since the red scare of the 1950's and the Patriot Act even further reduced it.
Dismantling the TSA is akin to to cutting one of the heads off of the Hydra, it doesn't kill the beast and more ferocious, snarling, sharp-fanged mouths will spring from the wound.
TSA is not the monster you're really after. Perhaps you are ignorant of the larger problem or perhaps you are afraid to see it. Something may be rotten in the USA but it is a result of our own complacency and "pass the blame" mentality.
"Sandra, Here is the answer that you missed. TSA suggests you take the time to do whatever it takes to get an govt. ID. TSA is not in the business of issuing govt. IDs. TSA is not in the business of replacing birth certificates."
No, sweetie, I did NOT miss the "answer" because there was no answer to the question of how does someone get a government issued ID without a birth certificate.
It was YOU who could not comprehend either the question or the "answer."
___________________________________
Sorry Sandra but anon is right, SWEETIE. There is no answer because TSA does not have to explain how to obtain an ID. Next time you walk into the DMV and TSA is working the counter than maybe we will pass along some advise on what steps you have to go through to get an ID when your birth certificate has been misplaced.
Dear TSA Blog Team. Can you please comment on e-cigarettes? I recently purchased an "electronic cigarette" and nobody will give me a straight clear answer.
They is no "burning" or anything related to an actual cigarette, it's basically a nicotine inhaler.
How can we ensure TSA security allows me to safely transport the item, and if possible how to approach using such a device on the plane?
Confused flyer - ck
___________________________________
TSA does not care about your electronic cigarettes. People can bring real cigarettes and real lighters. So why wouldnt someone be able to bring a fake cigarette through. If they were in you carry on when you came through a checkpoint no one would even think anything of it.
Winstonsmith wrote:
“I don't like the rules. The rules are unconstitutional.”
Just because you have one, does not make it equal the other. IOW, they are constitutional despite opinions to the contrary. As authorized by congress and the President of the United States.
“The rules are unamerican.”
Please take the next decade to explain to us what your vision of what “American” and “Un-American” is.
“The rules don't make common sense.”
Only to those who don’t know what they are talking about. To those that do, or to those who have the ability to think rationally about the subject, the rules are just fine.
“The rules as implemented don't do anything to keep anyone truly safer, but do a great deal to keep people scared and cowed.”
9/11 hijackers used box cutters to hijack planes, and they were not prohibited items then. They are now. Planes didn’t have armored doors in those days, they do now. Cargo went completely unscreened, but more than 50% of it is now days and will be 100% by sometime in 2010.
I see hundreds of passengers every day, and none seem scared or “cowed” to me. Most are quite friendly, and even those who are not, understand the need for the procedures.
“The rules smack of totalitarian societies. You bet I don't like the rules and now that I have a choice, I do not fly when there are alternate means available. I have let the airlines know this as well. I urge others to do the same.”
You are not required to “like” the rules. No one is going to make you. You are required to abide by them though if you want to fly on a commercial aircraft in the USA.
“TSA has not demonstrated any actual interest or ability to keep the public safe from anything. It has, on the other hand, demonstrated remarkable alacrity in finding ways to maintain its budget allocations in times of government cutbacks. This appears to be TSA's true motivation.”
I would suggest that you read the following:
• 7 passengers were arrested after investigations of suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents
• 23 firearms found at checkpoints
• 2 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints
• 27 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach
http://www.tsa.gov/
“Safe” is a matter of perspective, and to be honest I think that those weapons not getting on aircraft makes those aircraft, passengers, and crew, a bit safer.
“My lone voice will do nothing to sway the airlines to put pressure on the government to disband and reform TSA. My lone voice in concert with thousands of others, however, can and will. I am, have, and do exercise my voice anyway. Please exercise yours.”
You are welcome to exercise your rights in any way you feel necessary, but if I were you I’d learn a bit more about them….
The question re ID was, in effect:
How does one obtain a government issued ID without a birth certificate?
The non-answer was: spend the time to get a government issued ID.
Anonymous said...
"Dear TSA Blog Team. Can you please comment on e-cigarettes? I recently purchased an "electronic cigarette" and nobody will give me a straight clear answer.
They is no "burning" or anything related to an actual cigarette, it's basically a nicotine inhaler.
How can we ensure TSA security allows me to safely transport the item, and if possible how to approach using such a device on the plane?
Confused flyer - ck"
I have seen one of these - that I know of - and there was no problem. If you are at all worried about it, remove it from you bag, run it in a bin by itself, and let the TSO's look at it. If yours was like the one I saw, there won't be an issue.
Kizer said...
“Dear TSA Blog Team. Can you please comment on e-cigarettes? I recently purchased an "electronic cigarette" and nobody will give me a straight clear answer.
They is no "burning" or anything related to an actual cigarette, it's basically a nicotine inhaler.
How can we ensure TSA security allows me to safely transport the item, and if possible how to approach using such a device on the plane?
Confused flyer – ck”
Currently, electronic cigarettes are not a prohibited item(prohibited items list).
The cigarette pack will probably look weird on the x-ray(as compared to a normal cigarette pack). You might want to give the x-ray operator a heads up or separate the pack out of your bag. If a inspection is called, the pack is already out of your bag and a inspection can be done quicker with less inconvenience to you as the passenger.
Just do whats more convenient to you(CK), but I don't foresee you having a problem at the checkpoint.
Happy flying,
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
"SecureFlight" is never going to work, so don't spend any time worrying about it.
Trollkiller said....
"Can you tell me what part of Secure Flight (or any other statute) gives the TSA the authority to force verify my ID at the checkpoint as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area?
Please answer in the following format for easy verification. (Title number, section and paragraph. Example: Title 49 1560.105 (c)(1) )"
In the last few years the courts have issued rulings regarding identification verification, noting that it does not violate constitutional rights.
GILMORE v. GONZALES
This was in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.
Gilmore appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear his case.
Also at issue is a "secret law" that requires people to show proof of identification when flying. This secret law was made available to the 9th Circuit Court so that it would help in their decision.
The Supremem Court refused to consider the constitutionality of the government having secret laws.
Gilmore has now turned to the public to gather support to petition law makers - not to forbid identification checks, but to make this law public.
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/
So to those of you out there asking for the specific law which states you must provide your identification, well, the law exist. But it is kept secret. If I can't read, touch, or see something, does that mean it does not exist? I hope we don't use that logic. Understand, this is NOT an argument from me that this law should be secret. I don't know why it is, but I have some ideas - just my ideas, which really means nothing.
Yes, I work for TSA. I would perfer this law to be public so for once and for all the idea that an identification check is illegal would end.
The courts have ruled identification checks are constitutional.
I suggest if you want this law to be made public you should support Gilmore's cause.
Sandra said...
"How do people who do not have a government-issued photo ID deal with these rules? Getting a government-issued photo ID typically requires a birth certificate. My great grandmother’s birth certificate was lost in a court house fire decades ago, and she never had a driver’s license or passport."
You need to contact the DMV in the state you live in. I was in a situation where I had no birth certificate, my wallet was stolen (so no driver's license, and I happened to have my social security in my wallet at the time. I know, my mistake).
As I understand it each state is different, but your great grandmother should still be able to get all of the required documents. It will just take time. And as I said, each state is a bit different, and it's a bit more difficult when your birth certificate issuing state is not where you now live, as was my case.
But it can be done.
In what ways is Secure Flight different than CAPPS II with regard to mitigating these concerns?
It's the very same thing. The only difference is that the TSA has grown in its power, authority, and arrogance since 2004. So if privacy or other concern gets in the way of their bureaucratic steamroller, they just step on the gas and flatten it into an insignificant pancake.
What is the point of all of this if it is this easy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30958029/
to get through such a background check?
This is the same sort of things that minors have done for years when they want to purchase cigarettes or alchohol; borrow a valid ID of an older sibling or someone who looks similar.
Whats next, biometric checks for domestic flights to prove that an ID is really your ID?
Can we have real security rather than a show of security.
"If you don't like the rules, don't fly."
As long as "We the sheeple" put up with this, the longer it will last. Take alternative forms of transportation, or stay local. Tell your Senators and Congresspeople you just won't vote for them next time around.
Kizer wrote:
I recently purchased an "electronic cigarette" and nobody will give me a straight clear answer.
and
Anonymous wrote:
If they were in you carry on when you came through a checkpoint no one would even think anything of it.
As a smoker, and indeed as someone who has invested into an electronic cigarette (aren't they just... nifty?), and as a TSO, I can give you some advice on this:
To potentially make it less time-consuming and avoid a possible bag check, put it into a bowl by itself into the x-ray.
Unfortunately, the x-ray image of the NJoy version of the electronic cigarette has a... distinctive look to it that could very possibly trigger a bag check.
Like I said, it'd save you some time. All things considered, it is permitted.
Still, aren't they just so neat? :D
QFTFA:
"Passengers should ensure that the name used when making a reservation matches their government-issued ID used when traveling. Depending on which government ID you plan to use for a particular trip, you should provide your name as it appears on that ID for your travel."
Nice side-step of the issue there. I'm not worried about my name on my ID being spelled correctly. All my "Government Issued ID", even the ones that require background checks [even my worthless TWIC-tax ID], have my FLN on them. That I can control. Even the power-drunk contractor collecting money for my TWIC was able to type my name in properly. Gotta wonder how many 'valid' id's were sold for a few hundred extra bucks there.
What happens in my case when the SATO operator mispells my name on my ticket? If I'm flying via SATO, I am on orders. That mean's I must be where my orders say, when they say I am supposed to be there. If I'm not, I am subject to disciplinary action for not reporting as ordered.
I don't purchase my SATO tickets. Some DoD contractor low-level purchases my SATO tickets. I have no control over how my name is mispelled by the various fingers in the pot.
Will the TSA write "get out of disciplinary action free" cards for DoD personnel when they get refused transportation because of a typo?
I care about your Electronic Cigarettes.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. They're good to go through our checkpoints.
Bob
TSA Blog Team
Bob said...
I care about your Electronic Cigarettes.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. They're good to go through our checkpoints.
Bob
TSA Blog Team
Careful Blogger Bob some of the humorless in this crowd will be offended that you are promoting smoking from a Govt. Blog....
The 9/11 comission report was an interesting document. It may have recomended many things.
Yes, many of its recommendations may have been very sensible approaches to solving some of the issues it identified.
As I have not read the report, I will format my position as a few questions, that I think bear asking. (and to show, well, hey... I do believe I could be wrong).
Did the 9/11 comission report fully investigate the implications of these requirments vis a vie:
1. Flase positive vs False negative rate?
2. Cost to implement vs benefit of implementation?
3. Unintended consequences of implementation of these policies?
ALL of these are important when implementing a policy. ANY POLICY.
I am skeptical of this. Very skeptical. Partially because, and I am going to be very frank here.
I have worked my entire career in the public sector. I know how budgets work. I know how the model of organization itself imposes a sort of "can't see the forest for the trees" mentality. I live it five days a week.
Congress said "Here is a budget, and some recommendations on how to make the country more secure, whatever that means". They allocated budget, and chartered a department... and a new little fiefdom of transportation security was born.
I haven't read the appropriate acts of congress or anything, but, how close am I?
So, the political animals got together... and, in my experience, "political animal" often goes all the way down to minor players of middle management.... but thats a whole different set of stories.
Anyway... they decided something was a good idea, and it should be implemented. Actually... now that I think about it... I don't have an answer.
The higher ups don't listen to anyone who is lowly enough to not be "on their level". Its a common problem amongst the personality types who do things like run for congress or apply for "director" jobs. Far too wrapped up in their own world to realize that a real world where all these factors are real also exists.
Unfortunately, this means they tend to get technical details wrong. Often very wrong. They also tend to greatly overestimate their own competence in technical matters.
But what do I know, in the past two years I have started out on a project with requirements specified above me (and communicated indirectly through people who didn't understand them) that turned out to be impossible without changes from other departments. Seen a project spun up to "identify a product" that solves the problem (even though I told them what we needed to do to solve it), saw that project die for lack of funding, then 10 months later, was asked to submit a paper on why we should do this and what we need to do.
Three months after that, I was told that the manager too many levels up to be making technical decisions was blaming us for stalling. Stalling on the killed project, or the one that hadn't been approved?
Then I and 4 other peers had to get together and write a technical paper on WHY it doesn't work like they think it does and what all the options are for fixing it.
Another month... and they still haven't approved a course of action.
You will excuse me if a decade of work in this, and similarly organized places, doesn't leave me with a heck of a lot of confidence that this particular instance of the beast is any more rational. Especially when I have yet to see any evidence that it is.
I also happen to be a hard one to please in this area because I AM a security geek. Ever in Boston and wanna chat over a beer about secure interaction protocols, I think it sounds fun.
Then again, I read Applied Cryptography for fun. (kinda sad, I lost my copy :( ). I may not be an expert, but even I see some pretty major problems with the arguments with things like "checking ID helps security" or even that "Terrorism is a threat worth spending a lot of time thinking about the dangers of".
-Steve
Anonymous: If you read Gillmore, you'll see the reason why requiring ID wasn't struck down. Gillmore had the option of taking a secondary screening in lieu of a showing an ID. He refused so there was no damage in the court's eyes.
However, that option is gone now. If Gillmore were to do the same thing again, TSA would refuse to allow him on the plane. If he forgets his ID, he'd be ok, but according to TSA, he can't refuse to show it. So with the option gone now, the court may see it differently.
I wouldn't bank on the ID check being constitutional. The suit was only chucked because there was an alternative. That alternative is gone now.
Al
"I care about your Electronic Cigarettes.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. They're good to go through our checkpoints.
Bob"
I want whatever TSA is smoking in those things, Bob. Must be some great stuff considering what comes out of TSA.
Al
Al said...
“However, that option is gone now. If Gillmore were to do the same thing again, TSA would refuse to allow him on the plane. If he forgets his ID, he'd be ok, but according to TSA, he can't refuse to show it. So with the option gone now, the court may see it differently.”
Confused here Al. Gillmore was attempting to check-in at his airline. He never made it to the checkpoint.
Remember Al:
TSA Checkpoint: “Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification OR assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity.”
Check-in: “Under the Secure Flight Final Rule, TSA requires airlines to collect and transmit to TSA the following information:
* Name as it appears on government-issued I.D. used when traveling (required)
* Itinerary (required)
* Date of Birth (required)
* Gender (required)
* Redress Number (optional)
Passengers are only required to provide their name as it appears on their government-issued I.D., date of birth, and gender to allow TSA to perform watch list matching. TSA is not requiring individuals to provide other information such as passport information to aircraft operators. However, covered aircraft operators must transmit such information to TSA if it is provided by the passenger. Providing the optional information is beneficial to passengers as it helps ensure they are not misidentified as a person on a watch list. Secure Flight does NOT assign a score to individuals, use commercial data or predict behavior.”
Secure flight and the checkpoint are two different beasts. The new checkpoint procedure kills anonymous flying. You can no longer go through a TSA checkpoint anonymously. “Secure Flight requires that domestic aircraft operators request and collect passengers names as it appears on their government-issued I.D. when traveling as of May 15, 2009, and date of birth and gender as of August 15, 2009 for their domestic flights. For international flights, name as it appears on their government-issued I.D., date of birth, and gender must be requested and collected as of October 31, 2009.”
Secure flight is the law. No hidden rules or secret laws. You can read the secure flight final rule yourself. You can challenge it as well but good luck. Secure flight has been worked on since August of 2004.
later,
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
"As I understand it each state is different, but your great grandmother should still be able to get all of the required documents. It will just take time. And as I said, each state is a bit different, and it's a bit more difficult when your birth certificate issuing state is not where you now live, as was my case."
I have watched the NJ DMV turn away an older man when he went to renew his DL under REAL ID. He left the office in tears.
Why? Because the name on his social security card was different than the name on his birth certificate.
Why? Because he was born in Italy and upon his confirmation in Italy he took a middle name, which middle name he continued to use. That middle name/initial was on his social security card but not on his birth certificate.
NJ DMV told him he had to get the record from the church in Italy to confirm his middle name! Only then would they renew his DL. But he didn't remember the name of the church.
His expiring(ed) DL was taken away from him when he began the process to get a new license and the MVD would not return it to him.
He left that office a broken man, in tears, because for all intents and purposes, he would no longer be allowed to drive. And, because of the wisdom of DMV, he no longer had any form of identification.
You tell people "just" do this or "just" do that and you can get some form of identification. When one is very old and/or born in a different country, it is "JUST" NOT THAT EASY. It can take months and months of attempting to track down documents and cost hundreds of dollars to do so.
If one needs/wants to travel in the not-too-distant future, there is no way one can obtain a "government issued ID" in time to do so.
This fiasco, too, has been brought upon us by DHS.
TSORon said:
"....they are constitutional despite opinions to the contrary. As authorized by congress and the President of the United States...."
OMG!
Do you really believe anything is "constitutional" if "authorized by congress and the President of the United Sates"?
I hope not. If you do, I would suggest taking civics 101 again.
Al Ames said...
"I care about your Electronic Cigarettes.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. They're good to go through our checkpoints.
Bob"
I want whatever TSA is smoking in those things, Bob. Must be some great stuff considering what comes out of TSA.
Al
June 3, 2009 11:58 PM
....................
If TSA would just stop smoking whatever it is they are smoking we could have some sensible security at airports.
Not the ineffective theater we now have!
@Bob: "Smoke 'em if you got 'em. They're good to go through our checkpoints. "
Do TSOs know that they contain the dreaded and feared phase of matter known as a liquid and therefore force them into "Freedom" Bags?
carp said...
The 9/11 comission report was an interesting document. It may have recomended many things.
Yes, many of its recommendations may have been very sensible approaches to solving some of the issues it identified.
As I have not read the report, I will format my position as a few questions, that I think bear asking. (and to show, well, hey... I do believe I could be wrong).
Did the 9/11 comission report fully investigate the implications of these requirments vis a vie:
1. Flase positive vs False negative rate?
2. Cost to implement vs benefit of implementation?
3. Unintended consequences of implementation of these policies?
#####
Excellent questions!
Unfortunately, since the answers are all predictibly disappointing, TSA will ignore them.
"You need to contact the DMV in the state you live in. I was in a situation where I had no birth certificate, my wallet was stolen ...
As I understand it each state is different, but your great grandmother should still be able to get all of the required documents.
But it can be done."
That's a different situation. Not only doesn't my great grandmother not have a birth certificate, but the STATE no longer has a record of it either (because of a courthouse fire). She never had a driver's license, state ID card, or passport, so there's no paper trail to check to see that she once had a birth certificate. She does have an SSN, but that's not sufficient to get a state ID card issued.
The new TSA rule now makes it impossible for her and others like her to fly commercially. If the TSA expands this program to include trains and busses, they will have restricted her right to travel freely within the country.
+1 for Al Ames:
"I wouldn't bank on the ID check being constitutional. The [Gilmore v. Gonzales] suit was only chucked because there was an alternative. That alternative is gone now."
Remember that Gilmore didn't just refuse to show government-issued photo ID. He didn't HAVE any government-issued photo ID. As I recall, he lost his driver's license when he was diagnosed with epilepsy.
West at TSA wrote:
"Remember Al:
"TSA Checkpoint: `Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification OR assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity.'"
West, that press release was a lie. Eleven months after The Identity Project submitted a FOIA request for the relevant SOP, TSA complied. Your SOP in effect on June 21, 2008, conflicts with what was in your June 21, 2008, press release (which, oddly, has since been post-dated to June 23, 2008).
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
***HANDGUN HANDED OFF AT AIRPORT***
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20090604_Police__Handgun_handed_off_at_airport__gets_on_plane.html
...........................
****ANOTHER TSA SCREENER STEALING FROM CHECKED LUGGAGE****
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20090604_Police__Handgun_handed_off_at_airport__gets_on_plane.html
..............................
Bob, would you like to explain how background checks make the need to screen airport workers a waste of time?
Oh, and how about screening workers, especially TSA employees, when leaving the secure area.
Could someone place a dangerous item in checked luggage? Seems to me that they can if they can remove items?
You guys go right on checking those ID's (on topic) that add nothing to safety while leaving some known gaping holes in the security plan.
• 7 passengers were arrested after investigations of suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents
A whole 7, eh? How many of them were demonstrable threats to the safety of the plane they would have boarded?
• 23 firearms found at checkpoints
How many weren't found at checkpoints?
• 2 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints
You guys should probably stop bragging about your single-digit successes. It's a little sad when you consider just how many thousands of artfully concealed prohibited items likely passed through checkpoints undetected in that same time period.
• 27 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach
How many of those involved a genuine, honest-to-god, unqualified threat to the safety of air-travelers? How many were false alarms?
My wife recently attempted to get a Mn after moving in from out of state. She had her birth certificate, divorce decree, and marriage license. They required her marriage license from her first marriage before they would issue a new driver's license. After months of sending off inquiries to get a new license she finally got all of the paperwork together and Mn granted her a driver's license.
She was driving on an expired out of state license because of the (not so) real ID requirement. The reason for the hassle? They had to track the name changes. Too bad they couldn't have worked with the Social Security people to verify the name changes due to marriage and divorce.
Our government at work. Like the DMV in your state? You'll love the DHS when it puts into place half baked, poorly thought out policies.
Something I'm confused about - the security holes inherent in being able to print your own boarding pass have been exposed in the past, and this doesn't seem to do anything to fix them.
How does this prevent anyone from purchasing a ticket in the fake identity of Good A. Citizen, editing the identity information on the boarding pass to use their real (no-fly-listed) name, presenting security with their (real, no-fly listed) ID and edited ticket at the checkpoint (where their identity won't be checked against the no-fly list), and then using the "real" ticket to board?
In response to Adrian's question - and Sandra's comment saying TSA's answer didn't actually answer the question: "Q: How do people who do not have a government-issued photo ID deal with these rules? Getting a government-issued photo ID typically requires a birth certificate. My great grandmother’s birth certificate was lost in a court house fire decades ago, and she never had a driver’s license or passport. ~ Adrian
Here's a better answer:
I called some state offices of vital statistics and DMVs to get the scoop. Birth records are stored by the state Office of Vital Records or Statistics, not just the courthouse. The first thing you should do is call your state office of vital records to see if they have a copy of the birth certificate. Many of our great grandparents or grandparents could have been born at home, which further complicates the matter, but according to your question, you believe a birth certificate did at one time exist.
If you can't track down any birth certificate, a DMV office suggested that the best way to go was to apply for a passport without a birth certificate. I didn't know that was possible, but it is - I found the form on the State Department website. You would use this: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/79954.pdf
The passport would get you the federal ID to travel.
Without knowing if your question was hypothetical or real, I'd also wonder if your great grandmother received Social Security, which would mean she'd have a SSN and a SSN card. Even a medicare insurance card. If your great grandmother doesn't travel alot and didn't want to go through all the hoops for one flight to a family reunion, she could take her SSN card and book her flight using that name, and I'd also suggest bringing along a utility or tax bill that has her address on it. If she were to show up at the TSA Travel Document Checker station, they could use all the info to verify her identity - it could delay her a bit, but she should get through.
I'm trying to find out how this would work with Secure Flight, and I'll be back later to post more.
Hope this helps.
Lynn
TSA Blog Team
Thank you for finally giving at least better answer to the question of obtaining ID without a birth certificate, Lynn.
However, it's not quite as easy as completing the form to which you linked:
If you were born in the United States and cannot present primary evidence of U.S. citizenship, you may submit Form DS-10: Birth Affidavit as additional evidence of your U.S. citizenship. You may be requested to submit Early Public Records when submitting Form DS-10: Birth Affidavit. The birth affidavit:
Must be notarized
Must be submitted in person with Form DS-11
Must be submitted together with early public records
Must be completed by an affiant who has personal knowledge of birth in the U.S.
Must state briefly how the affiant's knowledge was acquired
Should be completed by an older blood relative
NOTE: If no older blood relative is available, the affiant may be the attending physician or any other person who has personal knowledge of the birth.
Unacceptable Documents
The following will not be accepted as evidence of U.S. citizenship:
* Voter registration card
* Army discharge paper
* Social Security Card
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/Secondary%20Evidence/Secondary%20Evidence_4315.html
IOW, if you're old and without a birth certificate, it's next to impossible to get ID to travel.
Lynn writes (dealing with the scenario of a great-grandmother with no birth certificate, and therefore no government ID) ...
I'd also wonder if your great grandmother received Social Security, which would mean she'd have a SSN and a SSN card.
Not necessarily true. She could've received survivor benefits if her spouse was eligible. That wouldn't require her to have a SSN, only her spouse.
Without knowing if your question was hypothetical or real, I'd also wonder if your great grandmother received Social Security, which would mean she'd have a SSN and a SSN card. Even a medicare insurance card. If your great grandmother doesn't travel alot and didn't want to go through all the hoops for one flight to a family reunion, she could take her SSN card and book her flight using that name, and I'd also suggest bringing along a utility or tax bill that has her address on it. If she were to show up at the TSA Travel Document Checker station, they could use all the info to verify her identity - it could delay her a bit, but she should get through.
I'm trying to find out how this would work with Secure Flight, and I'll be back later to post more.
Hope this helps.
Lynn
TSA Blog Team
June 4, 2009 2:22 PM
If a person is fully screened and has no weapons how does checking ID improve security?
Anonymous said...
In the last few years the courts have issued rulings regarding identification verification, noting that it does not violate constitutional rights.
GILMORE v. GONZALES
This was in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.
Gilmore appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear his case.
Also at issue is a "secret law" that requires people to show proof of identification when flying. This secret law was made available to the 9th Circuit Court so that it would help in their decision.
The Supreme Court refused to consider the constitutionality of the government having secret laws.
Gilmore has now turned to the public to gather support to petition law makers - not to forbid identification checks, but to make this law public.
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/
So to those of you out there asking for the specific law which states you must provide your identification, well, the law exist. But it is kept secret. If I can't read, touch, or see something, does that mean it does not exist? I hope we don't use that logic. Understand, this is NOT an argument from me that this law should be secret. I don't know why it is, but I have some ideas - just my ideas, which really means nothing.
Yes, I work for TSA. I would prefer this law to be public so for once and for all the idea that an identification check is illegal would end.
The courts have ruled identification checks are constitutional.
I suggest if you want this law to be made public you should support Gilmore's cause.
Please cite the courts rulings.
Gilmore Vs. Gonzales the court ruled the REQUEST for ID was legal IF it could be refused and the consequence of the refusal was a standard secondary screening.
Gilmore Vs. Gonzales
Instead of quoting Gilmore v Gonzales and making comments I will make a comment and give you the paragraph number so you can follow along.
The court denied Gilmore's claim that the "law" (order with the force of law) was secret because Gilmore was informed of the "law" and the consequences of disobeying the "law". They denied Gilmore's "void-for-vagueness doctrine" argument because the ID "law" did not impose criminal sanctions on those that did not comply. (Paragraphs 32-35)
What the Justices did NOT do was rule on the Constitutionality of secret laws. They only ruled that Gilmore had adequate notification of the policy, and its consequences. (Proper ruling in my opinion)
The court ruled that the request for ID did not violate Gilmore's rights because Gilmore could receive a secondary screening in lieu of showing ID.
The court supported the Constitutionality of an administrative search for weapons, explosives and incendiaries as being reasonable under the 4th Amendment. (Paragraphs 36-41)
I apologize, I have to run to work and will have to finish this discussion later. I will pick up where I left off. In the mean time, read the Gilmore ruling (no skimming) and pay particular attention to what the Justices say about the consequences of not showing ID and why it is legal to be searched. (hint: revoking consent)
You may also want to click the link attached to my name and read my blog on this issue. This will help you to anticipate my argument and formulate a counter argument.
CYA later, have a fantastic day.
As long as someone doesn't have any type of weapon on board the plane, it does not matter whatsoever who they are or what their name is.
I hope "Secure Flight" fails and is abolished. Same thing goes for the TSA.
Sorry that this does not directly fit into this topic, but it doesn't directly fit ANY, so it goes here because this is the current one, so it might get some attention...
________________
An eagle-eyed passenger at Philadelphia International Airport spotted another passenger handing a bag directly to an airline employee — skipping airport security. The passenger alerted the TSA, who located the US Airways flight and searched the bag. Guess what was inside? An unloaded handgun.
The Philadelphia Inquirer says that Flight 1195 to Phoenix was delayed 4 hours due to the incident. The owner of the bag and the U.S. Airways worker are being questioned.
________________
Tom
Sorry for this second post on the same subject, but the emphasized sentence in the following CBS News report is, I believe, enough reason for it...
________________
(CBS) A US Airways employee and passenger are being questioned after an unloaded handgun was discovered aboard a Phoenix-bound flight originating in Philadelphia, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.
Souces say a passenger allegedly handed a bag containing the weapon to an airline employee, who bypassed the security screening before giving it back to the passenger, reports Orr.
Ammunition was also found on the plane.
Another passenger saw the suspicious hand-off and alerted authorities. The gun was found during a subsequent search of the plane. The flight taxied back to the gate and all the passengers were removed, reports Orr.
Sources says the incident appears to be isolated and is not related to terrorism. Investigators do not believe the suspected passenger intended to use the gun on the flight but was simply trying to elude security in order to carry the weapon to Phoenix, reports Orr.
The FBI, Transportation Security Administration and Philadelphia law enforcement are investigating the incident. No charges have been filed.
________________
HOW did that ammunition get on the plane?
Thanks,
Tom
@Lynn: "I'm trying to find out how this would work with Secure Flight, and I'll be back later to post more."
If this program had been designed in public instead of your bogus SSI junk, you wouldn't just be learning about this situation now.
Kudos to Angelas post.
Most will be able to fly. Most. Those few whose papers are lacking or out of order will not fly. It will be too small a group to change the rules.Does anyone notice that the priority is not making air flight safer, but obeying the rules. Except for dire emergency, why would anyone demean themselves to fly?
H2H: Interesting quoting the Secure Flight Final Rule as law. Guess who "wrote" that "law"? It wasn't Congress - it was TSA.
Sounds to me like a regulation and not a law.
With regards to the "OR" statement, you're still requiring identification. Don't know whether the courts would see it as reasonable or not. You're not screening the passenger - you're denying them entry based on the refusal to show ID. Now if they're willing to be screened with a secondary anyway and just not show ID, I'm not sure that the ID requirement would hold.
Of course, TSA will argue that ID is security, but of course, it has never even proved that here let alone in a court of law. NFL and such are flawed as there's no accountability for getting on, and no real redress to get off of the list. DHS TRIP pretty much gives a letter saying you're not the same person that's on the list, but it still subjects the person to harassment. Just ask the David Nelsons, Robert Johnsons, and anyone else with a common name how well DHS TRIP has worked for them.
Just call it what it is, H2H: you're asking for papers to travel. Just like in Communist and fascist countries. Only you're wrapping yourself in the flag and saying it's for freedom and security when the fact of the matter is that it does neither and TSA is no better than those types its trying to "protect" us from.
Remember, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID. The ID requirement would not have prevented 9/11 from happening. ID and the NFL list also doesn't prevent someone from trying to pull something on a plane. Screening removes the tools for them to do that. Not ID checks.
Al
Al said...
“H2H: Interesting quoting the Secure Flight Final Rule as law. Guess who "wrote" that "law"? It wasn't Congress - it was TSA.”
The reference was to administrative law or The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as most people refer to them as. I prefer administrative law because the regulations have the weight of law. Sorry for the confusion Al.
Yes Al. TSA did write the Secure Flight Final Rule. A Final Rule is regulation issued to amend the Code of Federal Regulations and it finalizes proposed rules (regulations) previously issued or takes final action without a prior proposed rule.
Al said...
“With regards to the "OR" statement, you're still requiring identification.”
At the checkpoint, it just depends on the situation. Yes the checkpoint rules would affect Gilmore but I don't believe he would ever make it to the checkpoint.
Al said...
“Don't know whether the courts would see it as reasonable or not.”
Good question. We are just going to have to wait and see. (Tim grabs pop corn and waits with anticipation) :)
Al said...
“DHS TRIP pretty much gives a letter saying you're not the same person that's on the list, but it still subjects the person to harassment. Just ask the David Nelsons, Robert Johnsons, and anyone else with a common name how well DHS TRIP has worked for them.”
Secure flight is currently having a large impact on “mismatches”. Anybody remember the internet rumors that “SSSS” is gone. I sure do. I haven't done enhanced screening for a marked boarding pass in a while, and this is just phase one of Secure flight. I can't believe the impact it has on security resources.
Al said...
“Just call it what it is, H2H: you're asking for papers to travel. Just like in Communist and fascist countries.”
Ahhh... the old formal fallacy “Affirming the consequent”. Communist and fascist states checked papers. TSA check papers. TSA must be communist or fascist. Not a good argument Al or a argument I want to get into.
Al said...
“Remember, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID. The ID requirement would not have prevented 9/11 from happening. ID and the NFL list also doesn't prevent someone from trying to pull something on a plane. Screening removes the tools for them to do that. Not ID checks.”
The Terrorist Screening Database(TSDB) is US intelligence at work. I'm a firm believer this is proper use of America's intel. I'm pretty bias on this subject so I'm just going straight to the closer. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for posting Al.
Have a good weekend everyone,
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
Bob,
I have two middle names and two last names, a very common thing for people of Latin origin. All my names are spelled out in full on my passport. My full name does not fit on any online form, nor does it fit on a boarding pass (I have asked the airlines). How am I supposed to "strive over time" to have an exact match? Do you suggest I leagally change my name?
If you really want security, then what you really want is a whitelist. Only people on the whitelist get to fly, anywhere, ever, period.
You then need to create a white list. You want secure? Well, then there is only one way to do it... you have to make sure that every person on it is vetted with an in person interview, which includes verification of their ID and taking a biometric that can be used to identify them later. Preferably with a second factor of authentication.
Of course, none of that stops a vetted person from being a particularly well setup sleeper agent, or even from changing his personal beliefs, or even just going crazy.
My point is only this: There are many things you can do, that protect against many things.
There are a few design princibles that I think are very important, but often ignored.
The first is "optimize for the general case". The more volume that you need to pass, the more of a problem false positive rates become.
As was pointed out in "more sex is safer sex" a 5% error rate on HIV tests with the overall infection rate that we have, means a person who gets a positive test result only has a very roughly 20% chance of being one of the positive results that was true.
A .5 % error rate, assuming a large plane with a 200 person capacity, means approximately 1 false positive per flight.
Of course that begs the question of true positive rate. Thats harder to determine since a true positive would have to not only be a violation of policy (remember, we are testing policy here) but a threat to safety of the plane.
SO finding a drug dealer is actually a false positive wrt policy. As is finding an off duty police officers accidently (or incorrectly) packed gun.... or an absentmindedly packed pocket knife (I have come close to doing that one, and have several friends who made that mistake).
SO the question becomes, if you add up all the false positives, how does that compare to real positives. That is, actual real threats to the plane and its passengers being stopped by the policy.
Essentially, we really need numbers to assess these things, and I am not seeing this data anywhere.
Now, Part of the problem is probably one o fperception. There is a tendancy to look at "positive side effects" (like catching drug dealers) as a success of the policy and to be put on the true positive hit list, when the reality is... from the perspective of the TSAs actual mission.... its a false positive.
-Steve
Explanation of the Gilmore ruling Part II
I hated having to bail on this topic yesterday and dang it if I did not lose my train of thought. So if this seems to jump a bit that is why.
We see the courts have ruled that the request for ID is Constitutional because " 52
[H]e may submit to a search of his person and immediate possessions as a condition to boarding; or he may turn around and leave. If he chooses to proceed, that choice, whether viewed as a relinquishment of an option to leave or an election to submit to the search, is essentially a "consent," granting the government a license to do what it would otherwise be barred from doing by the Fourth Amendment.
53
Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. Gilmore had a meaningful choice. He could have presented identification, submitted to a search, or left the airport. That he chose the latter does not detract from the fact that he could have boarded the airplane had he chosen one of the other two options. Thus, we reject Gilmore's Fourth Amendment arguments."
That choice that allows the Government to do what it would not be normally allowed to do has been removed by the forced ID verification at the checkpoint as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.
The TSA killed their right to request ID Constitutionally by demanding ID and using that as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.
HappyToHelp said...
Secure flight and the checkpoint are two different beasts. The new checkpoint procedure kills anonymous flying. You can no longer go through a TSA checkpoint anonymously. “Secure Flight requires that domestic aircraft operators request and collect passengers names as it appears on their government-issued I.D. when traveling as of May 15, 2009, and date of birth and gender as of August 15, 2009 for their domestic flights. For international flights, name as it appears on their government-issued I.D., date of birth, and gender must be requested and collected as of October 31, 2009.”
Secure flight is the law. No hidden rules or secret laws. You can read the secure flight final rule yourself. You can challenge it as well but good luck. Secure flight has been worked on since August of 2004.
later,
-Tim “H2H”
H2H you and I have already gone over that the checkpoint forced ID verification is illegal under the old law and was not made legal under the revision to 1540.107.
If anything the revision of 1540.107 reinforced the fact that the TDC TSO has NO right to see an ID.
The revision of 1540.107 explicitly states when a person trying to gain access to the sterile area must show ID and to what entity.
Title 49 § 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
(a) 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.
(b) An individual must provide his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, date of birth, and gender when?
(1) The individual, or a person on the individual's behalf, makes a reservation for a covered flight, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, or
(2) The individual makes a request for authorization to enter a sterile area.
(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching under §1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case basis.
Sure hope this works better than the background screenings of TSAers and airline employees in PHL!
Al Ames said...
"Anonymous: If you read Gillmore, you'll see the reason why requiring ID wasn't struck down. Gillmore had the option of taking a secondary screening in lieu of a showing an ID. He refused so there was no damage in the court's eyes.
However, that option is gone now. If Gillmore were to do the same thing again, TSA would refuse to allow him on the plane. If he forgets his ID, he'd be ok, but according to TSA, he can't refuse to show it. So with the option gone now, the court may see it differently.
I wouldn't bank on the ID check being constitutional. The suit was only chucked because there was an alternative. That alternative is gone now."
I do not think this is correct. If you were to look up and find even a partical transcript of the trial (and it can be found) you can read what the judges said during the tril. At one point one of the judges actually told Gilmore that he doesn't have the right to fly, that it wasn't a constitutional protected "right", or "freedom", regardless of identification checks. He actually told Gilmore if he didn't want to show is identification, he could simply walk away. And more was said, but if you don't believe me, look it up, cause seeing is believing.
However, you are dead wrong to say it doesn't apply now. Court decisions apply until they are overruled. That is simple fact. It still applies even to this day. Maybe it will eventually be overruled, but as of now it has not. So Gilmore v Gonzales still applies as it was rule: TSA has the right to ask for your identification.
But what I find really interesting is the action (of failure of action) by the Supreme Court. Even if some of the Justices had thought it would be decided in favor of the government, but they personally would have sided with Gilmore, they could have called up the case simply to have it heard, and then written a blistering Dissenting Opinion. If you understand the Supreme Court at all you would understand just how important Dissenting Opinions can be. But this was not done.
No Justice on the Supreme Court though (at that time - may change later) Gilmore v Gonzales had enough merrit to come before the Court. Again, if you think I am incorrect, do a little research on Dissenting Opinions and the Supreme Court online. Lots of info out there. Don't blindly take my word on it.
Conclusion: TSA has the legal right to check your identification, as ruled by our legal system.
Trollkiller said in part...
"What the Justices did NOT do was rule on the Constitutionality of secret laws. They only ruled that Gilmore had adequate notification of the policy, and its consequences."
Sorry, the fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear a case on a "secret law" speaks volumes. You really can't wiggle out of that, try as you might...
And I noticed how you mentioned the "Justices" in this case, but you do not mention they are the 9th Court Justices. Gilmore appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the "secret" law. They refused his appeal. That is a HUGE difference.
You are correct the 9th Court Justices did not rule the governemtns use of secret laws. The Supreme Court Justices, by refusal to hear the case, allows the government the use of secret laws by de facto.
Ok, I have to leave. Long day at work and have to spend time with the family.
But I will be back soon (next week) to let you know your other mistakes in your analysis of Gilmore v Gonzales.
If you can't track down any birth certificate, a DMV office suggested that the best way to go was to apply for a passport without a birth certificate. I didn't know that was possible, but it is - I found the form on the State Department website. You would use this: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/79954.pdf
So basically, all a terrorist has to do to get a US Passport is to notarize some paperwork, make up some "early records" like a bogus school report card, and have their buddy attest to the "fact" they were born in the US. That's secure :rolleyes:
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller said in part...
"What the Justices did NOT do was rule on the Constitutionality of secret laws. They only ruled that Gilmore had adequate notification of the policy, and its consequences."
Sorry, the fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear a case on a "secret law" speaks volumes. You really can't wiggle out of that, try as you might...
And I noticed how you mentioned the "Justices" in this case, but you do not mention they are the 9th Court Justices. Gilmore appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the "secret" law. They refused his appeal. That is a HUGE difference.
You are correct the 9th Court Justices did not rule the Government’s use of secret laws. The Supreme Court Justices, by refusal to hear the case, allows the government the use of secret laws by de facto.
Ok, I have to leave. Long day at work and have to spend time with the family.
But I will be back soon (next week) to let you know your other mistakes in your analysis of Gilmore v Gonzales.
June 5, 2009 7:26 PM
The Supreme Court refusing to hear this case does speak volumes. But they do not say what you think they say.
For the Supreme Court to take a case there has to be a compelling reason such as a fatal error made by a lower court.
There is no compelling reason in the Gilmore ruling for the Supreme Court to look at.
Gilmore had an option to show his ID or submit to a secondary screening. That is reasonable in most people's eyes. The court ruled correctly that there was no 4th Amendment problem due to the option.
The court ruled correctly that Gilmore had enough notice of the requirement for an ID to eliminate the secret "law" argument. (note: the "law" was policy with the force of law as it can keep you from getting on a plane)
The court ruled correctly that because Gilmore had the option of showing ID OR a secondary that the ID portion did not deny Gilmore the right to freely travel. (Granted they pulled a couple of cites that very thinly support their position.)
The court ruled correctly that Gilmore's right to redress his Government was not hindered by him refusing both the ID and the secondary.
What you are not getting is the court ruled that BECAUSE Gilmore had a reasonable option to take a secondary his rights were not violated.
The TSA has removed that option. By removing the option the TSA has lost its saving grace for requesting IDs. Couple that with the statutory (go read my blog) boundaries of the administrative search the TSA is outside of its legal right to demand IDs both Constitutionally and statutorily.
(note: we are speaking about the use of forced ID verification at the checkpoint as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.)
It is so funny to see what people complain about on here. Half the time, I (and I'm sure many others) scan right over the posts by the regulars here b/c you are so redundant, noboby wants to waste time reading the same short story over and over again. Maybe thats why some of your questions go unanswered b/c we just scan over your name when we see it.
About the ID issue, give me a break. Nobody has a problem when showing their ID to cash paychecks, buy alcohol to make sure they're 21 or to go into a bar for that fact, or when signing papers for buying/selling a house (they actually photo copy your ID) and many other instances, so why is it a problem when it means safety for those who travel. Its just procedure to ensure that you are who you are, the same purpose any other place asks for it. It really is just so petty to argue about something so insignificant. Some of you have been arguing since the blog was introduced and you have wasted more time than if you just show your ID to TSA and not give them a hard time about it. It is not stepping on the constitution. You have to show your ID most anywhere you go, so why is it such a big deal when TSA does it? It's not, really, so why don't you guys not ask the same question for the 1000th time and spend some time with your family instead.
Jim Huggins said: Bob (and friends):
With respect ... some of these answers don't address the questions.
To the question "how do you get off the selectee or no-fly list", you don't answer the question. You say that passengers can seek redress if they had problems in the boarding process ... but you never say whether or not that process can result in actually getting one's name off the various lists.
To the question "how does a passenger without a government ID deal with these rules", your answer was "get an ID". Clearly, there will be passengers who will approach the checkpoint without government-issued ID; as TSA has itself noted, there are legitimate reasons for this to happen (like a lost wallet). What will TSA do in such situations? It's a little hard for me to get a driver's license when I'm halfway across the country from my home.
[And by "you" above, I mean TSA in general ... not you personally, Bob.]
----------------------------
Jim Huggins, I would like to thank you for asking questions in a polite manner that we don't see on here often. I bet you that Bob/TSA are more likely answer your questions faster due to that fact alone. I personally am more apt to try and answer questions for those who are polite and not snarky, especially b/c if you read a disgruntled comment, you tend to answer back in the same manner and thats the opposite of TSA's focus on this blog.
In the questions you asked above, I cannot help at this time, but again, thank you for your courteous manner and I hope you get your answers.
Kelly
TSA Blog Team
I thank you so for the informative article. My family was trying to figure out whether our widow aunt could fly to see the grave of her child at Arlington. Our aunt is quite elderly and was born in Peru to US citizens. Born at the house, she had no birth certificate in Peru and no one recorded one in the US. She was never employed and never had a Social Security card.
Obviously, we'll get alternative transportation. Your article saved her from being humiliated or bullied at the airport. Thank you so much.
Anonymous said...
It is so funny to see what people complain about on here. Half the time, I (and I'm sure many others) scan right over the posts by the regulars here b/c you are so redundant, noboby wants to waste time reading the same short story over and over again. Maybe thats why some of your questions go unanswered b/c we just scan over your name when we see it.
About the ID issue, give me a break. Nobody has a problem when showing their ID to cash paychecks, buy alcohol to make sure they're 21 or to go into a bar for that fact, or when signing papers for buying/selling a house (they actually photo copy your ID) and many other instances, so why is it a problem when it means safety for those who travel. Its just procedure to ensure that you are who you are, the same purpose any other place asks for it. It really is just so petty to argue about something so insignificant. Some of you have been arguing since the blog was introduced and you have wasted more time than if you just show your ID to TSA and not give them a hard time about it. It is not stepping on the constitution. You have to show your ID most anywhere you go, so why is it such a big deal when TSA does it? It's not, really, so why don't you guys not ask the same question for the 1000th time and spend some time with your family instead.
If you think you hate reading the same thing over and over again, you should try typing it over and over again.
I ask the same simple question over and over again because it has not been satisfactorily answered.
From the beginning I have asked what statute gives the TSA the authority to force ID verification at the checkpoint as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.
Now that should be an easy answer, in fact when I first asked the question it was merely a curiosity question. I thought I was just looking in the wrong spot.
Obviously I was looking in the right spot because Francine Kerner and the TSA legal team under her have FAILED to show the statute OR provide case law to support their argument.
What you don't or won't get is this has very little to do with showing ID at the checkpoint. Before it was an illegal forced check I had no problem showing ID. They asked, I complied.
Now that the TSA is breaking the law, I do not want to be a partner in crime. Sorry if you don't get it.
Jim Huggins, I would like to thank you for asking questions in a polite manner that we don't see on here often. I bet you that Bob/TSA are more likely answer your questions faster due to that fact alone. I personally am more apt to try and answer questions for those who are polite and not snarky, especially b/c if you read a disgruntled comment, you tend to answer back in the same manner and thats the opposite of TSA's focus on this blog.
In the questions you asked above, I cannot help at this time, but again, thank you for your courteous manner and I hope you get your answers.
Kelly
TSA Blog Team
-------------
Kelly,
You don't get it do you? You're job here is customer service and public relations. You're supposed to at least make it look like you're keeping a (virtual) smile on your face even if you think the people you are dealing with are jerks.
Trollkiller said...
"If you think you hate reading the same thing over and over again, you should try typing it over and over again.
I ask the same simple question over and over again because it has not been satisfactorily answered."
Who decides if the question has been "satisfactorily answered"?
I have read through most of the blogs and many questions have been asked over and over; those same questions have been answered and answered.
Are you saying if you don't like the answer, if it doesn't fit into the exact format in which you want it answered, then it hasn't been answered satisfactorily?
Anonymous said...
"I thank you so for the informative article. My family was trying to figure out whether our widow aunt could fly to see the grave of her child at Arlington. Our aunt is quite elderly and was born in Peru to US citizens. Born at the house, she had no birth certificate in Peru and no one recorded one in the US. She was never employed and never had a Social Security card.
Obviously, we'll get alternative transportation. Your article saved her from being humiliated or bullied at the airport. Thank you so much."
If your aunt resides somewhere in the U.S. she can get identification. Its really that simple; even without a birth certificate or social security card. We did it for one of our elderly family members who had neither.
That being said, if she resides in the U.S., she can fly without id. She (or you or guardian) can provide info at the TDC station to the TSA employees, explaining she has no id, and after a quick check she can fly within the U.S.
Ok, now since you seem to need to be led by the hand in how to obtain identification for her (she should just have some id, even if you decide not to travel by air), there are various ways you can do this. Here is a link that may help:
http://www.in.gov/bmv/4783.htm
Most states have similar ways to obtain identification, even if you dont have a birth certificate or social security card. In many cases you can even uses "secondary" identifiers (like insurance cards, for one thing) to obtain official identificatin. So depeneding of what state she is in, all you have to do is contact that state relevant department, explain the situation, and they will guide you to what you need to do.
Trollkiller said...
"The Supreme Court refusing to hear this case does speak volumes. But they do not say what you think they say.
For the Supreme Court to take a case there has to be a compelling reason such as a fatal error made by a lower court.
There is no compelling reason in the Gilmore ruling for the Supreme Court to look at.
Gilmore had an option to show his ID or submit to a secondary screening. That is reasonable in most people's eyes. The court ruled correctly that there was no 4th Amendment problem due to the option.
The court ruled correctly that Gilmore had enough notice of the requirement for an ID to eliminate the secret "law" argument. (note: the "law" was policy with the force of law as it can keep you from getting on a plane)
The court ruled correctly that because Gilmore had the option of showing ID OR a secondary that the ID portion did not deny Gilmore the right to freely travel. (Granted they pulled a couple of cites that very thinly support their position.)
The court ruled correctly that Gilmore's right to redress his Government was not hindered by him refusing both the ID and the secondary.
What you are not getting is the court ruled that BECAUSE Gilmore had a reasonable option to take a secondary his rights were not violated.
The TSA has removed that option. By removing the option the TSA has lost its saving grace for requesting IDs. Couple that with the statutory (go read my blog) boundaries of the administrative search the TSA is outside of its legal right to demand IDs both Constitutionally and statutorily.
(note: we are speaking about the use of forced ID verification at the checkpoint as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.)
June 5, 2009 11:34 PM"
Actually it does say what I think it says.
There are many reasons the Supreme Court might hear a case. One might be as you say, but this is not necessary. To put simply, if a case "strikes their fancy" they can hear it. They may want to clarify an issue, overturn another decision, simply bring an issue to the forefront, etc. How do we know this? Former Court Justices have said so; if you read some of their biographies, or simply actually study the Court you would know this. Some might call this part of "judicial activism"; maybe it is, maybe its not.
However, other reasons the Court might hear a case involves "national significance". Are you seriously going to argue that the issue of identification check conduted by the government at our airports, or the governments right to have secret laws, has no national significance?
Here is a link regarding why a court may or may not hear a case, because you seem to like things to be cited:
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/works/supremecourthistory_works_howthecourtworks_08.htm
So now we know you are wrong to state that there has to be a fatal flaw in a case as the only reason it goes before the Court, lets move on.
Your wrote: "What you are not getting is the court ruled that BECAUSE Gilmore had a reasonable option to take a secondary his rights were not violated."
I notice you left out the other option the 9th Court said he had. Gilmore could leave the airport. And because he had the option to leave the airport, or the option for secondary screening, he suffered no punitive damage.
You are correct in noting the option for secondary screening is gone. What makes you incorrect is failing to note the option to leave still exist. And if you actually read the ruling, the 9th Court clearly states no one has the right to fly, and if he refused secondary screening and refused to show his id, he could leave without any harm to himself. This still holds true today, and it is why your understanding of this ruling is flawed.
But another thing. This ruling has not yet been overturned. Maybe it will, eventually. Until it does, it still applies. Even if you don't like it.
I'll get back to you later.
Adrian said...
""You need to contact the DMV in the state you live in. I was in a situation where I had no birth certificate, my wallet was stolen ...
As I understand it each state is different, but your great grandmother should still be able to get all of the required documents.
But it can be done.""
That's a different situation. Not only doesn't my great grandmother not have a birth certificate, but the STATE no longer has a record of it either (because of a courthouse fire). She never had a driver's license, state ID card, or passport, so there's no paper trail to check to see that she once had a birth certificate. She does have an SSN, but that's not sufficient to get a state ID card issued.
The new TSA rule now makes it impossible for her and others like her to fly commercially. If the TSA expands this program to include trains and busses, they will have restricted her right to travel freely within the country."
Adrian, contact the relevate state government department. She can still get an id. You do not have to have ever had a birth certificate or social security card or old drivers license to get an id. Its more time consuming, but it can still be done.
"TSA does not collect or use commercial data to conduct Secure Flight watch list matching."
This is a lie. The contents of airline reservations (PNRs), including the itinerary, are commercial data and will constitute most of the "Secure Flight Passenger data" used as the basis for Secure Flight.
"Data elements collected under Secure Flight will only be retained for seven days if the traveler is not a match to the No Fly or Selectee lists."
This is a lie. The TSA might not retain this data, but airlines, reservation services (CRSs or GDSs), and other travel compnaies can, and almost certainly will, retain this data indefinitely, since they will be able to use it for their own commercial purposes (e.g. targetted marketing). Nothing in the Secure Flight regulations restricts the ability of travel companies to retain or use data provided to them by travelers for Secure Flight. There are some restrictions on their use of the cleared/not cleared messages sent by the TSA, but none at all on the additional information travelers are required to give them. They can keep that data forever, use it, or sell it, without notice to, or consent of, travelers.
There are answers to more FAQs about Secure Flight at PapersPlease.org.
Why not use this space to brainstorm ways that the TSA can be improved.
For those that disagree with the TSA, what suggestions do you have to make security better? What should security do to keep people safe? And not so it's just easier for you to get through security.
Complaining never will solve anything.
kellymae81 said...
----------------------------
Jim Huggins, I would like to thank you for asking questions in a polite manner that we don't see on here often. I bet you that Bob/TSA are more likely answer your questions faster due to that fact alone. I personally am more apt to try and answer questions for those who are polite and not snarky, especially b/c if you read a disgruntled comment, you tend to answer back in the same manner and thats the opposite of TSA's focus on this blog.
In the questions you asked above, I cannot help at this time, but again, thank you for your courteous manner and I hope you get your answers.
Kelly
TSA Blog Team
June 6, 2009 4:09 PM
*******
Kelly,
We've tried polite and our questions don't get answered, as you have just demonstrated.
> About the ID issue, give me a break.
> Nobody has a problem when showing their
> ID to cash paychecks, buy alcohol to
> make sure they're 21 or to go into a
> bar for that fact, or when signing
> papers for buying/selling a house
> (they actually photo copy your ID) and
> many other instances, so why is it a
> problem when it means safety for those
> who travel.
Really? Nobody? I don't know... I spent some time in France a few years ago. A country that has seen REAL terrorist threats, I might add. Not some place thats has to look at a 20 year span to find a minor handful of incidents.
They don't ask for ID to get alcohol. In fact, after 2 weeks there, I just about stopped carrying ID, something I wouldn't dream of doing here in our "Free" country.
Now, signing papers for a house... its hard to deny showing ID to someone when you are entering a 30 year contract for several times your yearly salary.
How exactly does showing ID increase security on a plane? Nobody has yet explained this. Nobody has even attempted to explain it.
There is no ongoing relationship. I fly to where I am going, and i leave. Then maybe someday later, I may or may not fly back. Thats it, end of relationship. If I were to pay cash, who really needs to know who I am?
It just doesn't make sense to me to put a requirement on EVERYONE to maybe, catch a one in a billion bad guy, if and only if, you happened to have already identified his name.
I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. What percentage of people detained due to no-fly lists have turned out to be bona-fide terrorists?
How many people is that exactly? Without knowing these things, how can the efficacy of the system with respect to unintended consequences be determined?
Or are unintended consequences not important? What is the value of catching a terrorist? Is it somewhere around the value of installing catalytic converters on every car? Or somewhere around the value of mandating everyone walk around carrying a 20 foot insulated pole with a lighting rod on the top?
Personally, I think it is quite likely closer to the later. THAT is why I no more want to see this regulation than I want to see everyone mandated to carry a portable lighting rod around.
More importantly, can you honesly tell me that the time and cost involved with implementing this is not time and cost better spent elsewhere.... say... on first responders who can help in any situation, including terrorist attacks, heart attacks (far more common) earth quakes etc?
-Steve
> So basically, all a terrorist has to do
> to get a US Passport is to notarize
> some paperwork, make up some "early
> records" like a bogus school report
> card, and have their buddy attest to
> the "fact" they were born in the US.
> That's secure :rolleyes:
He barely needs to get that much to mortgage someones house or take out lines of credit in someone elses name.
Or, he could always just do what high school students have done to buy alcohol for years.... aquire an ID of someone who looks vaguely like them, then MAYBE bother to memorize the DOB and other info on the ID. (on the off chance someone questions it)
Or maybe find a sympathizer who can get (or has) a job at a town records office. How hard would it be to insert a new back dated birth certificate in some town hall, somewhere in the US?
I mean seriously. ID requirements are paper thin, and frankly, already so broken as to be useless. That is, useless to identify anyone but law abiding citizens. Any criminal worth his salt learned to get around them years ago.
-Steve
"About the ID issue, give me a break. Nobody has a problem when showing their ID to cash paychecks, buy alcohol to make sure they're 21 or to go into a bar for that fact, or when signing papers for buying/selling a house (they actually photo copy your ID) and many other instances, so why is it a problem when it means safety for those who travel. Its just procedure to ensure that you are who you are, the same purpose any other place asks for it. It really is just so petty to argue about something so insignificant. Some of you have been arguing since the blog was introduced and you have wasted more time than if you just show your ID to TSA and not give them a hard time about it. It is not stepping on the constitution. You have to show your ID most anywhere you go, so why is it such a big deal when TSA does it? It's not, really, so why don't you guys not ask the same question for the 1000th time and spend some time with your family instead."
Hmm, smallpox blankets, the children's crusade, or, just board the train, get off, and strip for the shower. No problem. In your mind, at least.
But this blog entry does not include procedures for those of us who have been placed on watch lists for political reasons that do not include terrorist activity. Unless "terrorist activity" is now defined as any expression of disagreement with the current administration's policies.
TK said...
“H2H you and I have already gone over that the checkpoint forced ID verification is illegal under the old law and was not made legal under the revision to 1540.107.”
Ahhh... then you should remember you left me far from convinced. The blog has addressed your concerns numerous times.
“Why ID is important”
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/06/why-is-id-important-for-security.html
“Answers to Your Top Ten Questions”
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/08/answers-to-your-top-10-questions.html
“Furthering the Dialogue on IDs”
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/08/furthering-dialogue-on-ids.html
“ID Q&A”
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/07/id-q.html
The original press release(modified) covers the legality of ID checking at a TSA checkpoint...
“TSA Announces Enhancements to Airport ID Requirements to Increase Safety”
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/enhance_id_requirements.shtm
You have been beating the drum for almost a year now. I'm getting the wine bottles and party hats ready for your anniversary. :)
The legal team has vetted the system in place and says that it is both legal and constitutional. Theres not much left to say on the issue, but I will leave you with some quotes.
“As Chief Counsel, I firmly believe that TSA's ID requirements are warranted from a security perspective and entirely legal.”
-Francine Kerner
“Agency lawyers have reviewed the new regulation and are "comfortable" with it.”
-Kip Hawley
-Tim “H2H”
TSA Blog Team
It bugs me a lot that the everyday passenger gets harassed so much yet there is still extreme failures in security, usually unrelated to us common passengers, but rather part of the airline infrastructure i.e. baggage handlers that can steal stuff, unscreened airline employees, unsecure cargo etc....:
1. Stowaway From Ethiopia Found at Dulles
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/07/AR2009060702147.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
2. FBI: Airline worker helped roommate get gun on jet
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=67675203.blog
Furthermore if the TSA works for the United States citizens then why do they allow special screening lanes for the airlines "preferred" passengers? Shouldn't we all get a fair chance to pass through security quickly with limited harassment?
Anonymous said...
"kellymae81 said...
----------------------------
Jim Huggins, I would like to thank you for asking questions in a polite manner that we don't see on here often. I bet you that Bob/TSA are more likely answer your questions faster due to that fact alone. I personally am more apt to try and answer questions for those who are polite and not snarky, especially b/c if you read a disgruntled comment, you tend to answer back in the same manner and thats the opposite of TSA's focus on this blog.
In the questions you asked above, I cannot help at this time, but again, thank you for your courteous manner and I hope you get your answers.
Kelly
TSA Blog Team
June 6, 2009 4:09 PM
*******
Kelly,
We've tried polite and our questions don't get answered, as you have just demonstrated."
---------------------------------
Thats just plain laughable! From the beginning of this blog, many if not most of the critics have been outright rude, snide, condescending, etc...
After reading through all of the post through out this blog, I can also attest to the fact that most of the questions asker here HAVE been answered. Just because you don't like the answer (some of you have post that the answers haven't been answered satisfactory - admitting that they have been answered, just not to your self-set standards) doesn't mean they haven't been answered. Often times, as an adult, you don't get the answer you are looking for. Deal with it. It is what mature adults often have to do.
Why not use this space to brainstorm ways that the TSA can be improved.
For those that disagree with the TSA, what suggestions do you have to make security better? What should security do to keep people safe? And not so it's just easier for you to get through security.
Complaining never will solve anything.
Nor will brainstorming or anything else. As far as the TSA is concerned, the TSA is either already perfect or as good as it's possible to get. They have no interest in anything we have to say, because the only people whose ideas matter work at TSA headquarters. They do their brainstorming in secret briefings, and their ideas are classified or SSI. They're the experts on all aspects of security, and there's nothing anyone who doesn't work at TSA headquarters can say that they don't already know better.
So complain, suggest, brainstorm, or do whatever you want here. Nobody will listen because they don't need to waste their time with ignorant babbling from a handful of people who don't appreciate the TSA's hard work.
carp said...
"How exactly does showing ID increase security on a plane? Nobody has yet explained this. Nobody has even attempted to explain it."
**************************
Actually, I did explain it on another topic. I guess you didn't see it, or your not being honest. So here goes again. Now remember, once this is explained, you may not like the answer, may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been answered or even that no one made an attempt to answer. So lets not here that cry from you again, please.
You have to show you id because of the no-fly list. Not the watch/selectee list. The no-fly list.
Imagine you are on the no-fly list, because, I don't know, you made speaches about blowing up U.S. embassies overseas, ok? So now you can't fly in the U.S. How do you try to get around this?
What you do is show up at any airline ticket counter, say you lost your id, and pay cash for your ticket. Then you go through the TSA checkpoint, and fly to wherever you are headed. What is the point of a no-fly list if you or anyone can do this?
If a policy is in place to match your name to the no-fly list, guess what, more than likely you won't fly. So if your on the no-fly list, and try to buy a ticket and refuse to provide id, you won't fly.
Am I saying you have to agree with this? Nope. I am not even saying I agree with it. Is this policy perfect? Nope.
What I am trying to explain to you that someone or someones decided it would improve aviation security to have a no-fly list. And the only way to ensure that list is enforced is to confirm ticket-buyer identification.
So no more from you asking this question, please. Its to match the no-fly list. No you can debate the concept of does a no-fly list improve security, but that is another topic.
And I answered this before, not in as much detail, but check back a while ago; it is there. That is why so many people say many of you sound like broken records. Over and over again you ask these questions, even when many of them have been answered and answerd....
Anonymous wrote, trying to explain how ID/BP increases security:
"Its to match the no-fly list. "
Anonymous, please tell us how a screener, checking to see if ID matches the BP, knows whether the holder of the ID and the BP are on the no-fly list?
He/she doesn't know and that is what make the entire exercise one in futility.
@Anonymous, June 10, 2009 2:58 PM: "You have to show you id because of the no-fly list. Not the watch/selectee list. The no-fly list....
Imagine you are on the no-fly list, because, I don't know, you made speaches about blowing up U.S. embassies overseas, ok? So now you can't fly in the U.S. How do you try to get around this?"
OK. Imagine that you never made any speeches about blowing up U.S. embassies, and never did anything or uttered even a single word that threatens the United States. But one day you get to the airport and find out that you're on the no-fly list. You go contact the "redress" department of the TSA, send them all the paperwork they ask for, and nothing ever emerges from the black hole into which they cast it. So you're permanently barred from flying, and you have no idea why. And you'll probably never know why because whatever caused your name to end up on the list is buried deep in the classified bowels of some government agency where nobody can either get at it or correct it.
So you shrug, take a deep breath, say to yourself "We're at War, and I reluctantly accept my situation as the price of Victory," and then head down to the Greyhound terminal. And we can all breathe easier knowing that the watchlists are highly effective at protecting America from terrorism.
It's no secret that the watchlists are deeply flawed, with the agencies who continually add to them interested only in quantity irrespective of accuracy. So what I cannot at all understand is how providing more information to airlines is going to do anything to improve either security or passenger convenience when nobody seems to be doing anything to make the lists more accurate and complete. It seems more of a smokescreen to avoid the larger question of the value of the watchlists themselves.
What I predict is consistent with the TSA's history of continually making air travel more difficult and unpredictable, which they equate with "security." There will be more false positive "matches," along with more passengers hassled as the mindless TSA goons spot "mismatches." But fortunately, a few people who don't know better will feel comforted and reassured that the TSA is making airport security even more "thorough."
So, the citizens are expected to have all their belongings pawed over and scrutinized, be electronically strip searched, prove who they are to the nth degree and pay for the privilege to be treated as cattle?
I can't understand why some people submit to this if they have choices. There's no place I have to go that badly.
I know this topic has been up a while, and many probably are done with reading comments on it.
Anyway here are some essays written by... someone who was part of the Secure Flight working group. Potentially the only "Rock Star" of security Bruce Shneier. Of course one of his comments is probably the most telling and in line with what I have been saying about how decisions are made:
"Unfortunately, Congress has mandated that Secure Flight be implemented, so it is unlikely that the program will be killed. And analyzing the effectiveness of the program in general, potential mission creep, and whether the general idea is a worthwhile one, is beyond the scope of the working group. In other words, my first conclusion is basically all that they're interested in hearing."
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0502.html#1
and the previous essay:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/01/secure_flight_p.html
I can't understand why some people submit to this if they have choices. There's no place I have to go that badly.
The TSA can get away with treating air travelers like cattle, little children, and/or convicted felons because most of us don't have choices. There's no other way to get to Europe, Asia, or anywhere else outside the continental United States. Employers understandably won't allow traveling employees a week to drive across the country to a business meeting. Vacationers who are fortunate enough to be allowed to actually use their allotted two weeks off are stuck with staycations if they don't want to spend most of that limited time on tardy Amtrak trains, dodgy Greyhound buses, or driving their own cars in clotted traffic.
Yes, in theory we have a wide array of choices if we are somehow unwilling to unquestioningly accept a wider array of restrictions on our privilege to travel by air, as dictated in secret by officials in Washington and "interpreted" according to the unpredictable whims of individual civil servants at airport checkpoints. But in practice those choices too often are as illusory as the range of options TSOs supposedly offer passengers for dispositioning prohibited items, or the option to choose a grope rather than a strip search.
The "options" are useful for the TSA to spout when they need to evade, spin, or ignore questions about the legality, propriety, purpose, or consistency of what they inflict on us. But in practice, the options actually available to travelers are limited to the TSO's Final Word on any subject: "Do you want to fly today?" The answer to that question often is "No, but I have no other choice."
Sandra said...
"Anonymous wrote, trying to explain how ID/BP increases security:
"Its to match the no-fly list. "
Anonymous, please tell us how a screener, checking to see if ID matches the BP, knows whether the holder of the ID and the BP are on the no-fly list?
He/she doesn't know and that is what make the entire exercise one in futility"
That is a very, very, easy question to answer, Sandra. If the person is on the no-fly list they will not have a BP. So the screener will not even be involved. It will end at the ticket counter before they even get to TSA. See, easy.
I will state it again, as it seemed to be ignored by you and by the person who is post underneath your post as "anonymous" - I don't feel like making 2 post. I did not post this to justify the no-fly list. I did not post this to justify checking identificaton. Someone basically asked by check identification. I post the reason why. It was that simple. No defending TSA, no decrying TSA. Just the answer as to why.
And what gets me is soooo many of you say your questions are never answered. Is that becaue all of you seem to ignore the answers to bark back at those who try to answer? I think so.
Sandra asked:
Anonymous, please tell us how a screener, checking to see if ID matches the BP, knows whether the holder of the ID and the BP are on the no-fly list?
Anonymous replied:
If the person is on the no-fly list they will not have a BP. So the screener will not even be involved. It will end at the ticket counter before they even get to TSA.
Ahh, but here's the flaw in your argument, Anonymous.
When the person approaches the checkpoint, they're holding an ID card and a piece of paper. If that piece of paper is a legitimate boarding pass, it has already been checked against the no-fly list. But if that piece of paper is a forgery, it hasn't been checked against the no-fly list. How does the screener know that the paper being presented is, in fact, an authentic boarding pass?
It's been shown on any number of occasions that it's fairly easy to forge a boarding pass --- especially since passengers can print their own boarding passes at home. So, checking IDs against unauthenticated boarding passes doesn't perform a check against the no-fly list at all.
And what gets me is soooo many of you say your questions are never answered. Is that becaue all of you seem to ignore the answers to bark back at those who try to answer? I think so.
June 12, 2009 2:41 PM
...................
Who are you to answer questions asked of TSA?
"The TSA can get away with treating air travelers like cattle, little children, and/or convicted felons because most of us don't have choices."
Yeah! Good thing the airlines don't!
Wait a minute...
RB said...
"And what gets me is soooo many of you say your questions are never answered. Is that becaue all of you seem to ignore the answers to bark back at those who try to answer? I think so.
June 12, 2009 2:41 PM
...................
Who are you to answer questions asked of TSA?"
Tell me why I can't answer any question asked on this blog?
Jim Huggins said...
"Ahh, but here's the flaw in your argument, Anonymous.
When the person approaches the checkpoint, they're holding an ID card and a piece of paper. If that piece of paper is a legitimate boarding pass, it has already been checked against the no-fly list. But if that piece of paper is a forgery, it hasn't been checked against the no-fly list. How does the screener know that the paper being presented is, in fact, an authentic boarding pass?
It's been shown on any number of occasions that it's fairly easy to forge a boarding pass --- especially since passengers can print their own boarding passes at home. So, checking IDs against unauthenticated boarding passes doesn't perform a check against the no-fly list at all."
It isn't a flaw in my argument. But there is a flaw in you assuming that I believe identification checks are perfect. Nothing is perfect. No security is ever perfect, ever. It never will be. Everyone at TSA knows this, it is discussed often, and planned for.
Checking someones identification against their BP is simply one of many means TSA has in an ATTEMPT to mitigate potential threats.
Taken by itself the idea of checking identification against a BP is not a reliable as it could be. What strengthens security is the entire process, from start to finish. Or that is the idea.
Is security as strong as it could be? I don't know. Is secrity flawed? It may be. Are there weaknesses? Sure are. Does this then mean we shouldn't put in place procedures that have possible holes? Of course we should.
If you haven't figured this out, one thing TSA workss on, though it isn't talked about much, are contingency plans for when and if terrorist sucessfully strike, how to ensure our aviation infrastructure remains operational. So let me ask you this. If TSA thought security was 100% effective, why would contingency plans ever be developed?
Anonymous said...
" But fortunately, a few people who don't know better will feel comforted and reassured that the TSA is making airport security even more "thorough.""
___________________________
Strange how those who often claim to support democracy and lament its loss at the hands of our government, TSA in this case, casually dismiss the opinions of others as worthless. Very democratic of you, Anonymous.
H2H, I saw this the other day and was going to respond, then I lost the post, then I forgot about it. Sorry for the delayed response. (to whoever approves this post, please notify H2H I have responded)
HappyToHelp said...
TK said...
“H2H you and I have already gone over that the checkpoint forced ID verification is illegal under the old law and was not made legal under the revision to 1540.107.”
Ahhh... then you should remember you left me far from convinced. The blog has addressed your concerns numerous times.
[snipped for length]
You have been beating the drum for almost a year now. I'm getting the wine bottles and party hats ready for your anniversary. :)
The legal team has vetted the system in place and says that it is both legal and constitutional. Theres not much left to say on the issue, but I will leave you with some quotes.
“As Chief Counsel, I firmly believe that TSA's ID requirements are warranted from a security perspective and entirely legal.”
-Francine Kerner
“Agency lawyers have reviewed the new regulation and are "comfortable" with it.”
-Kip Hawley
Wow, a whole year, and I still don't have a valid answer.
Take off the apologist hat and read over all those links you posted and you will see a pattern of non answers by the TSA.
Take a look at both the quotes you posted. Both say they "believe" the forced ID verification is legal but neither can defend the forced ID verification on legal grounds.
Give me the case law and statutes, those are the evidence I require. That has not been done yet. Until that is done the drum will keep beating.
H2H, you have been around people long enough to understand human behavior. Ask yourself this question; if the TSA was on strong legal ground, why would it take 4 blog topics and countless posts to answer a simple question?
I have a simple rule that has served me well, whenever someone can not answer a straight question with a straight answer they are trying to deceive. The TSA is trying to deceive.
Anonymous writes:
Taken by itself the idea of checking identification against a BP is not a reliable as it could be. What strengthens security is the entire process, from start to finish. Or that is the idea.
Then this particular "layer" isn't terribly effective. If this "layer" of security can be circumvented by anyone with a printer and a word processor, this doesn't seem to be a terribly useful "layer" ... especially looking at the amount of money being expended on this particular "layer". It might be that this money could be more effectively spent on other "layers".
Tell me why I can't answer any question asked on this blog?
June 15, 2009 8:51 PM
You can answer any question you like.
But when a question is posed to the TSA through this blog a random answer has no value. There is no way to know who you are or who you work for so your response has little meaning.
Now if your saying you can answer for the TSA then just say so, tell us what role you play within TSA and why we should accept what you have to say as being valid.
TK said...
“Take off the apologist hat and read over all those links you posted and you will see a pattern of non answers by the TSA.”
I see... Sticks and stones :) I have read them TK. We just didn't come to the same conclusion.
TK said...
“Take a look at both the quotes you posted. Both say they "believe" the forced ID verification is legal but neither can defend the forced ID verification on legal grounds.”
False claim(“neither can defend the forced ID verification on legal grounds.”)... very disappointed in this comment. See previous links. The chief counsel of the TSA has commented on this issue directly.
TK said...
“H2H, you have been around people long enough to understand human behavior. Ask yourself this question; if the TSA was on strong legal ground, why would it take 4 blog topics and countless posts to answer a simple question?”
Bad logic. That is a fallacy sir. More specifically a irrelevant conclusion. Four blog posts and countless posts on the issue does not equal weak legal ground. For instance, there have been two blog posts on nail clippers and countless posts as well. This fact doesn't effect TSA's legal ground either. The amount of blog posts and comments are irrelevant to the conclusion that you made, and most certainly do not further your argument.
I have never had any illusion that my comments would stop you from beating the drum. I don't mind the music. :) I just couldn't resist commenting on this issue, when you were so close to your one year mark. Happy anniversary TK.
-Tim “H2H”
TSA blog team
Your blog says that in the near future your name on a boarding pass will have to match the name on your ID such as passports etc. As of now many airlines don't have a provision to enter a middle name when purchasing tickets online, in particular, JetBlue. So, how far away is the "near future" and what kind of coordination will be in place to make sure the airlines are on board with this?
HappyToHelp said...
I have never had any illusion that my comments would stop you from beating the drum. I don't mind the music. :) I just couldn't resist commenting on this issue, when you were so close to your one year mark. Happy anniversary TK.
You know the 1st anniversary traditional gift is paper so maybe the TSA will bless me with my 2 FOIA requests.
Seriously how long does it take them to track a complaint when you give them the reference number?
Anyhow, if apologist is the worst thing I call you, consider yourself a member of an elite club of Government employees.
I have no false claim, look at their answers. Commenting does not equal an answer to the question.
I have no bad logic. This question should have been easily answered by pointing to the relevant case law and statutes. By not pointing to the relevant case law and statute the TSA HQ players attempted to outlast Trollkiller and Krew. As you can see that tactic failed because I am determined to see this through.
As I said way early on, I fully expected Francine to say "you are looking in the wrong place". This started as merely a curiosity question and not a crusade.
FYI the 2nd year tradition anniversary present is cotton. I expect you to get me something. (nice shirt, hammock or some shorts would be nice.)
Anonymous said...
"Your blog says that in the near future your name on a boarding pass will have to match the name on your ID such as passports etc. As of now many airlines don't have a provision to enter a middle name when purchasing tickets online, in particular, JetBlue. So, how far away is the "near future" and what kind of coordination will be in place to make sure the airlines are on board with this?"
I can understand your confusion, but TSA SOP also allows for slight variations in your name. What if you type your name incorrectly when booking a flight?
If you name is Steve, and you type Setve. Its no big deal now, and will be no big deal later. If your name is Steve A. Williams, and you boarding pass says, Steve Williams, it really wont be a problem.
How do I know this is true? Have already been briefed about it at our airport. Its not really a major concern.
So why do this? Do you know how many people show up and their boarding pass says something like "Skinny" Pete, and their identification says "John Pete", and they say, "my nickname since childhood is 'Skinny', why the problem?" And they might even have credit cards an other id (their work id) under then nickname "Skinny". The name they use does not match the name on their identification.
And yes, some people even have 2 or 3 middle names. Thats not a problem either. We can all over think the issue, work ourselves into a frenzy over the issue. We can do that over anything. But why should we?
Book the flight under the name of your id, state or federal, and its really not a big issue.
Trollkiller said...
"H2H, you have been around people long enough to understand human behavior. Ask yourself this question; if the TSA was on strong legal ground, why would it take 4 blog topics and countless posts to answer a simple question?
I have a simple rule that has served me well, whenever someone can not answer a straight question with a straight answer they are trying to deceive. The TSA is trying to deceive."
Why haven't you gotten a straight answer? I actually think you have. Over and over and over again. You just don't like the answer, and then accuse TSA of trying to deceive you because you don't like the answer.
It has only taken so much blog space because you and others are not happy with TSA, which is your right, so you keep crying and crying.
Get over it; the answer to your question was answered long ago. The simple fact that you don't like it doesn't change the fact that you have been answered.
I could infer that YOU are attempting to be deceitful, attempting to make it look as if TSA hasn't answered you. But I won't. Why bother? The Trollkiller never lies, why hes a God amongst Men.
I have had a state government issued photo ID turned down twice. Is a South Carolina-issued Concealed Weapons Permit an acceptable form of ID? It is identical to an SC Driver's License except that it says "Concealed Weapons Permit" on the top. The photo is the same. I do not like to give my Commercial Driver's License because if I fail to pick it up or leave it in a pants pocket to get washed, I have to pay a hefty fee and take a test. Who can answer this question?
Quoted:
" Whack said...
I have had a state government issued photo ID turned down twice. Is a South Carolina-issued Concealed Weapons Permit an acceptable form of ID? It is identical to an SC Driver's License except that it says "Concealed Weapons Permit" on the top. The photo is the same. I do not like to give my Commercial Driver's License because if I fail to pick it up or leave it in a pants pocket to get washed, I have to pay a hefty fee and take a test. Who can answer this question?
June 24, 2009 1:15 PM"
________________________________
Uh, NO. "identical to" is not "the same as". It is not a driver's license. Carry permits are not accepted as primary forms of id.
Yet another anonymous commenter has trotted out the "you got an answer; you just don't like it" myth. People, if you believe this to be the case, then please link to or quote the answer. I suspect that in at least 90% of cases, the question was not answered.
For instance, when I ask Bob if it's unlawful to photograph computer monitors, if he responds without a "yes" or a "no" he has not answered. When he links to some information indicating that information conveyed by computer monitors is SSI, he has not answered the question.
If you look closely, you'll find that most of us who ask the same questions over and over are doing so because those questions have not been answered, not because we were not pleased with the answer that was provided.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Trollkiller said...
"I have no bad logic. This question should have been easily answered by pointing to the relevant case law and statutes. By not pointing to the relevant case law and statute the TSA HQ players attempted to outlast Trollkiller and Krew. As you can see that tactic failed because I am determined to see this through."
--------------
WOW! You think alot of yourself, don't ya? No bad logic, huh? Though a bit off topic, I read through some of your own web page and found many places where you misinterpret what you are citing, specifically as it relates to TSA.
On topic, you ignore case law. It has been brought up before that TSA has issued Security Directives, and in this case the requirement to present id is a Directive, which is SSI. These Directives have been reviewed by our courts. They have confirmed that there exist a Security Directive requiring passengers to provide identification. This is proof that you ignore answer you don't like.
Read the 6th note in Gilmore; the Ninth Court recognizes the Directive does exist (though you said you read Gilmore?). The 5th note discusses TSAs authority to issue these Directives.
You should also read the "Petition for a writ of Certiorari" filed by EPIC (no friend of TSA) to the Supreme Court in support of Gilmore.
A quote from that Petition:
"It is clear from the Ninth Circuit opinion that there
exists a TSA Directive requiring a traveler to present
government-issued identification before entering the gate
area of an airport or boarding a plane."
I cited this before. You said whoever wrote this was DEAD WRONG. Odd how even the lawyers on Gilmore's side (those against TSAs identificatin check) believe there exist a Directive allowing for TSA to require identification, yet you don't.
Even more odd, every lawyer involved in this case, on both sides, seems to agree, now, there exist such a Directive, but you still don't. I wonder at your legal qualifications to be able to say all those lawyers are wrong. You should be on Gilmores legal team. Those lawyers charge ALOT per hour; you would make a fortune.
Soooo....
As far as statutes, you won't find any. There are statutes that allow TSA, and other agencies, to issue Directives. Those have been upheld by our courts. What you are looking for is a Directive, but that is still SSI and you won't be able to see it.
So you keep asking for case law, and ignore it when its brought up.
You ask for statutes, when its been pointed out to you what allows TSA to require identification is not statutes, but Security Directives.
You ask for things which you either ignore or know are not there, and claim you are somehow correct because, uh, you lose me there...
Phil said...
"Yet another anonymous commenter has trotted out the "you got an answer; you just don't like it" myth. People, if you believe this to be the case, then please link to or quote the answer. I suspect that in at least 90% of cases, the question was not answered.
For instance, when I ask Bob if it's unlawful to photograph computer monitors, if he responds without a "yes" or a "no" he has not answered. When he links to some information indicating that information conveyed by computer monitors is SSI, he has not answered the question.
If you look closely, you'll find that most of us who ask the same questions over and over are doing so because those questions have not been answered, not because we were not pleased with the answer that was provided."
Incorrect yet agan Phil! Bob did answer, but you just don't like the answer.
Why didn't he say just "yes" or "no"? Because both answer are correct.
You can take pictures of the checkpoint; lots of people do that, they take pictures of their family members being screened or other such things. I have had people ask me to pause while I am screening a family member or friend to take a picture. And in the background can actually be the x-ray monitors. But it is not a direct picture of the monitor.
But no, you can not directly take pictures of the computer monitor; that is SSI, even if it is your property in the machine at the time (usually on the screen are several peoples property at the time, and I would guess if you took a picture and TSA were to allow it you would also have to get permission from that person). And as to is it illegal for you to attempt to obtain SSI info without authorization, you can figure that out yourself.
He answered your direct question. You do not have permission to have access to SSI, and by default it is illegal.
But again, you didn't like that answer. You wanted to set the conditions of his answer - it had to be "yes" or "no". As far as you were concerned, no other answer mattered.
So its still true. Many if not most of the questions asked here have been answered.
And I am sorry, but if you or anyone else here ask question, at least make the effort to look over the blog yourself for the answers. Don't expect or ask anyone else to lead you by the hand to what you want.
Anonymous said...
WOW! You think alot of yourself, don't ya? No bad logic, huh? Though a bit off topic, I read through some of your own web page and found many places where you misinterpret what you are citing, specifically as it relates to TSA.
Please post those "misinterpretations" so that we can all see where you think I am wrong.
On topic, you ignore case law. It has been brought up before that TSA has issued Security Directives, and in this case the requirement to present id is a Directive, which is SSI. These Directives have been reviewed by our courts. They have confirmed that there exist a Security Directive requiring passengers to provide identification. This is proof that you ignore answer you don't like.
Just to be clear, there may be a SSI directive that requires ID NOW, there was NOT one when the Gilmore case was heard.
Proof on this comes from the ruling. "Gilmore had a meaningful choice.
He could have presented identification, submitted to a search, or left the airport. That he chose the latter does not detract from the fact that he could have boarded the airplane had he chosen one of the other two options. Thus, we reject Gilmore's Fourth Amendment arguments."
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "requirement"?
The judges are very plain in their language, no way to unintentionally misinterpret. They say Gilmore could have showed ID OR submitted to a secondary OR left the airport without legal penalty.
The Court even stated that the reason for the rejection of the 4th Amendment violation claim was due to the fact Gilmore had a choice.
I don't care what someone's "Petition for a writ of Certiorari" says, I care about what the Court said. And the Court clearly stated Gilmore had a choice about showing his ID.
Gilmore, or any of the rest of us, no longer have that choice. The TSA's saving grace on the Directive is now gone.
Read the 6th note in Gilmore; the Ninth Court recognizes the Directive does exist (though you said you read Gilmore?). The 5th note discusses TSAs authority to issue these Directives.
The Ninth recognized that the TSA had an ID Directive, and that Directive allowed a choice. The Ninth recognized that the TSA had the authority to make the Directive, it did not however state that ALL Directives issued by the TSA are lawful or Constitutional.
What they did recognize was the Directive in effect at that time was lawful and Constitutional due to the fact it allowed a choice.
As far as I know the current Directive has not been ruled on. If you know a case where the CURRENT Directive has been ruled on, please post a link.
Continued next post
part 2
I cited this before. You said whoever wrote this was DEAD WRONG. Odd how even the lawyers on Gilmore's side (those against TSAs identification check) believe there exist a Directive allowing for TSA to require identification, yet you don't.
Go read the ruling and realize that there has been a Directive issued that supersedes the one in Gilmore OR the TSA is willfully and intentionally violating the Constitutional rights of travelers by removing the choice to show ID.
Even more odd, every lawyer involved in this case, on both sides, seems to agree, now, there exist such a Directive, but you still don't. I wonder at your legal qualifications to be able to say all those lawyers are wrong. You should be on Gilmores legal team. Those lawyers charge ALOT per hour; you would make a fortune.
You would not have wanted me on Gilmore's team. I would have not taken the case because Gilmore had the choice to show ID OR submit to a secondary screening.
Let us be clear, Gilmore is a [insert naughty word here]. He had a reasonable choice and he acted unreasonable. His circumstance was different than the illegal forced ID verifications taking place today.
As far as statutes, you won't find any. There are statutes that allow TSA, and other agencies, to issue Directives. Those have been upheld by our courts. What you are looking for is a Directive, but that is still SSI and you won't be able to see it.
So you keep asking for case law, and ignore it when its brought up.
You ask for statutes, when its been pointed out to you what allows TSA to require identification is not statutes, but Security Directives.
You ask for things which you either ignore or know are not there, and claim you are somehow correct because, uh, you lose me there...
If a directive is contrary to law does the law lose out or does the directive?
I have shown on many occasions the LAW that is contrary to the Directive. You claim I misinterpret them but offer no evidence to support your claim. You may dispute me here, on FT or my blog.
The case law you cite (Gilmore) proves that
1) the TSA has authority to make a directive (no dispute)
2) screening for weapons, explosives and incendiaries are Constitutional (no dispute)
3) REQUESTING ID is Constitutional (no dispute)
4) The TSA had a Directive that was legal and Constitutional, at the time of Gilmore, due to the choice it afforded passengers on showing ID. (no dispute)
What you claim is
1) Gilmore proves ALL directives are legal (wrong)
2) Gilmore proves the REQUIREMENT for ID (wrong)
3) Gilmore proves Directives outrank law (wrong)
Does that about sum it up?
Anonymous said...
Why haven't you gotten a straight answer? I actually think you have. Over and over and over again. You just don't like the answer, and then accuse TSA of trying to deceive you because you don't like the answer.
Maybe I missed it when the law was posted that overrules or changes Title 49 § 1540.5, § 1540.107, §1560.3, and §1560.105(c). If so please feel free to post it again.
It has only taken so much blog space because you and others are not happy with TSA, which is your right, so you keep crying and crying.
You are right I am not happy with the TSA, it costs too much money for too little return, it has a habit of breaking the law, it has a habit of violating citizen's rights and it is way to slow with FOIA requests.
Get over it; the answer to your question was answered long ago. The simple fact that you don't like it doesn't change the fact that you have been answered.
You simply do not get it. Let me explain, "I feel" or "Google says" is not a valid answer. Until a VALID answer is given or this is resolved in court, I will keep beating this drum.
You may ask yourself why I will continue, so I will explain.
This is America, we are an honorable people and we act morally and legally. When the Government acts in a dishonorable, immoral or illegal fashion, I as a citizen bound by honor, morals and laws must protest that act in order to correct it.
I don't live in a third world country, and I will not allow America to become a third world country for my children's children due to my inaction.
I could infer that YOU are attempting to be deceitful, attempting to make it look as if TSA hasn't answered you. But I won't. Why bother? The Trollkiller never lies, why hes a God amongst Men.
You can infer all you want, I have never claimed the TSA has not responded, I claim they have not provided a valid answer.
Now, get on your knees and worship me.
Trollkiller said...
(I have edited the original post becasue of space)
You said: "Please post those "misinterpretations" so that we can all see where you think I am wrong."
Not really going to do you work for you, and it really too much to post. Take that answer as you will.
You said: "Just to be clear, there may be a SSI directive that requires ID NOW, there was NOT one when the Gilmore case was heard."
There was - it was specifically mentioned in the Gilmore case. Again, I thought you read the case. Again, every lawyer involved, on BOTH SIDES, says there was a Directive at the time of Gilmore, which sort of makes your following comments pointless and wrong:
You said: "Just to be clear, there may be a SSI directive that requires ID NOW, there was NOT one when the Gilmore case was heard.
Proof on this comes from the ruling. "Gilmore had a meaningful choice.
He could have presented identification, submitted to a search, or left the airport. That he chose the latter does not detract from the fact that he could have boarded the airplane had he chosen one of the other two options. Thus, we reject Gilmore's Fourth Amendment arguments."
That is not proof there did not exist a Directive (its actually the opposite!!), and it shows that you really do not have any understanding of Gilmore at all.
The judges simply stated Gilmore had 3 choices, and its why the Directive to show identifiction is legal.
By the way, you still have 2 of the choices, and which is why I think if Gilmore is challeged it will be upheld. Also, until a court overturns a ruling it STILL APPLIES. You state several time throughout this blog that because one of the choices no longer exist Gilmore doesnt apply, which is further proof you don't understand what your talking about.
As a side note, you said, "Just to be clear, there may be a SSI directive that requires ID NOW". So Trollkiller, do you now consider yourself answered that TSA has the authority, by Directive, to require passengers to present their identification? I mean, you yourself said that there is NOW a Directive to do so... Just wondering.
You said: "The judges are very plain in their language, no way to unintentionally misinterpret. They say Gilmore could have showed ID OR submitted to a secondary OR left the airport without legal penalty.
The Court even stated that the reason for the rejection of the 4th Amendment violation claim was due to the fact Gilmore had a choice."
And we still have a choice. Only one of those options was removed. You may not like it, but a choice still exist, which is why I think when Gilmore is challeneged it will be upheld. I may be wrong though.
You said: "What they did recognize was the Directive in effect at that time was lawful and Constitutional due to the fact it allowed a choice."
Ok, now you just seem to contradict yourself. First you claim "there was NOT one [a Directive] when the Gilmore case was heard", but now you said the Ninth "recognized" a Directive exist and it "was lawful and Constitutional". Which is it Trollkiller? Did it or did it not exist?
But again, the Court ruled it was constitutional because there exist a choice, WHICH still exist, even if one of the options has been removed.
You said: "The Ninth recognized that the TSA had an ID Directive, and that Directive allowed a choice ... it did not however state that ALL Directives issued by the TSA are lawful or Constitutional."
First, did I say or even imply that "ALL Directives issued by the TSA are lawful"? Don't think I did. I did mention where the Court legally justified TSA's authority to issue Directives, but thats about it.
Second, as I state above, there still exist a choice. And the Gilmore ruling is still in effect till overturned by another Court. Its how our system works.
Trollkiller said...
"What you claim is
1) Gilmore proves ALL directives are legal (wrong)
2) Gilmore proves the REQUIREMENT for ID (wrong)
3) Gilmore proves Directives outrank law (wrong)
Does that about sum it up?"
It only sums it up if you lie and change what I said, which is sort of what you did!
1. Never said all Directives were legal. Simply cited the legal justifications for agencies to make Directives, as pointed out in the Gilmore case (so here is where you lied about what I said).
2. a. if you wanted to travel WITHOUT additional screening, you were REQUIRED to proivde valid id. The Ninth's ruling was clear on this.
b. if you wanted to travel without showing your id and receive additional screening, that was an option too - this is where you seem to get lost, the REQUEST word you love. It should be noted that this option has now been removed, except for those who have lost or had their id stolen, and provide to TSA identifing information (in most cases).
3. Again, don't lie, Trollkiller. I never said, never implied Directives outranked laws. Never. I simply cited where agencies like TSA get their authority to issue Directives. We can have a civil discussion on this blog, but it helps if we each stay honest to each other.
Anonymous, reading is fundamental.
I never claimed that there was no directive in Gilmore, merely that the directive allowed for the REQUEST, not the demand for ID.
"Just to be clear, there may be a SSI directive that requires ID NOW, there was NOT one when the Gilmore case was heard." Apparently you missed the word "requires".
If you can show anywhere I have claimed there was no directive in Gilmore, post the quote.
Lies, and out of context quotes may be a great tactics in Troll Town, they does not work here. Back under the bridge with you.
If you claim I misinterpreted something on my blog, you will need to show me where. After all if I did misinterpret, I will feel it is correct and therefore will not be able to locate the "misinterpretation".
So on the "misinterpretation" claim you will need to back your assertion.
For those new to the net, a standard Troll trick is to claim something without backing it and then claim it would be too tedious to do or that you should not have to waste your time. In other words, the Troll has nothing to back their assertion but they wish to pollute the argument with baseless claims.
Yes you did imply that all Directives issued were legal. That is why I asked "Does that about sum it up?" Giving you fair opportunity to clarify.
It appears now you claim that all Directives are not legal. Good we are making progress.
You seemed to have changed your tune on the REQUIREMENT to show ID that Gilmore was subjected to. I am glad you can now admit that there was no requirement for Gilmore to show his ID. Good, even more progress.
And you admit that Directives are outranked by the Constitution and laws. Fantastic progress! You get a gold star.
Now in all this clap trap you wrote trying to fight the Trollkiller and not the issue, you stumbled (accidentally I am sure) on something that may have merit.
You stated that under the new directive a person still had a choice, that you claim would allow for a forced ID verification to remain Constitutional.
That choice would be either show ID or leave the airport.
Interesting take on the argument, care to expand or would you rather just keep making Trollish arguments?
I recently discovered that someone I know is a fugitive (outstanding warrant) and they're taking a flight tomorrow. How would I report this to TSA?
With your requirement now to give your date of birth to travel agents or companies making reservations in your name, you have helped to keep me unemployed!
That's right, unemployed because now I must reveal my age.
My interviews go very well until I'm asked to visit for the final interview and travel arraignments are made. This is the last time I hear from that company again.
Your rule bypasses the age discrimination law the government put in place.
Post a Comment