It’s been a while since we talked about IDs and what happens if you lose or forget your ID on the way to the airport. With the busiest travel time of the year quickly approaching, I thought it would be wise to do a quick refresher on the subject.So, what if you show up at a TSA checkpoint and you can’t find your ID? Does that mean you won’t fly? Nope… You’ll still be able to fly as long as you provide us with some information that will help us determine you are who you say you are. Verifying the identity of people coming through checkpoints is an important part of security, just as vetting passenger names against the No Fly and Selectee lists.
Using the information you provide, if we can confirm your identity, you’ll be cleared to go through security, and you may or may not have to go through some additional screening. If we can’t confirm your identity with the information you provide or you’re not willing to provide us with the information to help us make a determination, you may not be able to fly.
You can find a list of acceptable IDs here.
Also, prior to the new ID rules rolling out last year, there were tons of questions, and we addressed the questions with several blog posts you can review here:
- 8.13.2008 You won’t be put on a TSA “List” if you forget Your ID
- 8.11.2008 Furthering the Dialogue on IDs
- 7.03.2008 Yet Another ID Post...With Some Answers to Your Questions
- 7.02.2008 ID Q&A
- 6.27.2008 ID Update and Word on the Blog
- 6.23.2008 New ID Requirements: The First 48
- 6.20.2008 New ID Requirements Begin Tomorrow
- 6.11.2008 Why is ID Important for Security?
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
95 comments:
Thanks for the information TSA. I've lost my ID a few times usually when I'm buying beer at the Duty Free.
Bob, I noticed that in none of those links did you ever actually answer the question "Why is ID important?" Since it doesn't show up here either, I'd love to see an answer to that important question. Thanks!
Good post Bob. I hope people will reply in the spirit of the holidays and post in a civil and constructive manner.
Who wants to bet that Trollkiller will harass Bob about what CFR allows TSA to require ID to enter the sterile area? Any takers?
Bob, why does TSA think ID has anything to do with security? You often claim a relationship exists, but have never given one shred of a reason why you think this is so.
Blogger Bob:
Since the TSA seems to have a terrible time communicating policy to individual TSOs -- I'd like to point out that the link photo you posted shows a NEXUS ID 2nd from the left in the top row.
WHY DO I GET HASSLED OR BELITTLED BY A TSO FOR NOT USING A DRIVERS LICENSE AT LEAST 50% OF THE TIME WHEN I USE THIS LEGITIMATE ID?????
Before the ANON TSOs now come back and tell me to "just make it easy on yourself and use a Drivers License," as they tell me at the airport, MY DL DOESN'T HAVE MY FULL NAME, WHICH YOU ARE NOW REQUIRING ME TO USE!
You make it all sound so easy here on the blog, but at the airport, MANY TSO'S EITHER DON'T KNOW OR REFUSE TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES!
Just one more reason why so many people are getting fed up with this organization!
What if you lose or forget your ID? You might be arrested on trumped up charges by an enraged TSA supervisor when you challenge the process.
Ok Blogger Bob I will take the bait.
Obviously you already have the video of Phil Mocek's arrest for failing to show ID and you feel it will exonerate the TSA.
Go ahead and post it, I have to get up early.
Don't believe TSA's PR blather.
Last year around the holidays, a friends dad lost/misplaced his ID before having to fly back home. The man is elderly and suffering from early-stage dementia issues. It's unlikely he would remember his address (he just moved), let alone his political-party affiliation or any other odd id-verification questions TSA might ask.
TSA at BOS barely let him fly in spite of my friend's going through the checkpoint with him (with a gate pass). They got the usual bad attitude from Logan TSA. Apparently it was quite an ordeal.
ID is not security. ID checks are simply a way to enforce illegal and unconstitutional secret blacklists and permission-based domestic travel schemes.
BTW, TSA--any comment on your decision to agree with the ACLU that TSA should not be searching for currency and instead should focus on the statutory mandate of weapons, explosives, and incendiaries? Since your spokesbloggers were so generous in their praise of the previous policy, reading their doublespeak and spin now that TSA has caved to a bit of reality will be entertaining.
Hello Bob,
The timing on this post is curious since it comes hot on the heels of the arrest at ABQ of a gentleman who refused to present his ausweis to TSA (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1017373-flyer-processed-arrested-nm-after-declining-show-id.html).
Could you work to post the video of this episode as quickly as you worked to get the video of the recent disturbance at ATL posted? After all, if TSA has nothing to hide, why not post the video?
T-the-B at flyertalk
Bob,
I'm assuming you've heard about the individual at ABQ who was arrested on trumped-up charges involving his declination to present an ID to your ID checker. Many of us are waiting with baited breath for the TSA's comments. Or, has Francine issued a gag order?
I lost my ID while going through PDX earlier this year. The TSA agent was very understanding. I had no other form of ID but we went through all the stuff in my wallet and he accepted my Costco card with a picture on it.
Didn't help me rent a car however.
Hmm bob the timing on this smells like rotten fish. Is this a premptive cya for the hornets nest your comrades caused. I have seen the charges list and those aren't going to stick especially the concealling identity on since most screeners hide there name bade especially when people are trying to get there name for a compliant.
So please tell me why checking IDs is necessary since they are not checked agianist any list nor have screeners proven any competence in telling real vs fake ids other then the ones that were bad attempts or have rejected valid ids on the approved id list. Massive Fail
And when are you going to discuss the management directive that you stop needlessly fishing for criminal activities that have nothing to do with your mission?
There has still been no adequate explanation of why verifying identity is a security matter. If someone clears the security checkpoint, does it matter who they are?
Exactly how is security improved by showing ID to someone who has no means to reference the NO-Fly database?
How does showing ID improve security in any way?
RB said...
Bob, you apparently did not see this post since no answer has been provided.
The questions deals directly with information TSA is already providing to the public so an answer could not possibly be SSI.
So here are the questions again.
http://www.tsa.gov/311/311-carry-ons.shtm
.....
"All liquids, gels and aerosols must be in three-ounce or smaller containers. Larger containers that are half-full or toothpaste tubes rolled up are not allowed. Each container must be three ounces or smaller."
////
"To ensure the health and welfare of certain air travelers, in the absence of suspicious activity or items, greater than 3 ounces of the following liquids, gels and aerosols are permitted through the security checkpoint in reasonable quantities for the duration of your itinerary (all exceptions must be presented to the security officer in front of the checkpoint):
Baby formula, breast milk, and juice if a baby or small child is traveling;
All prescription and over-the-counter medications (liquids, gels, and aerosols) including KY jelly, eye drops, and saline solution for medical purposes;
Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition;
Life-support and life-sustaining liquids such as bone marrow, blood products, and transplant organs;
Items used to augment the body for medical or cosmetic reasons such as mastectomy products, prosthetic breasts, bras or shells containing gels, saline solution, or other liquids; and,
Frozen gels/liquids are permitted if required to cool medical and infant/child exemptions. Ice is permitted as long as there is no melted liquid present.
<><><><><><><><><>
Bob the statements above are direct quotes from the TSA.GOV web page referenced above discussing 3-1-1 for all travelers and allowable exceptions for those travelers with special needs.
My question to you or anyone at TSA in an official capacity to answer is this;
Are those statements correct and accurate?
..................
Still waiting for your response.
So, if I left my ID at home so it doesn't get stolen during my trip I'd be ok to fly... as long as I provide all other verbal information your agents ask for?
But what about this: http://philosecurity.org/2009/11/16/flyer-processed-arrested-in-nm-after-declining-to-show-id
Anonymous said...
Who wants to bet that Trollkiller will harass Bob about what CFR allows TSA to require ID to enter the sterile area? Any takers?
First off that is a sucker's bet, secondly "harass" is such an ugly word.
Bob, please explain to me how checking ID's would have prevented 9/11? All of the people involved had valid ID's. There are still on going problems with TSO's who won't accept valid ID's that are on the list. So what is the TSA doing to educate it employees?
Can you provide the video from the ABQ incident? From the sounds of it the only person making a disruptive scene was the TSA supervisor.
The list of acceptable IDs claims that all states' driver licenses are REAL-ID compliant.
New Hampshire specifically outlawed making their licenses comply with REAL-ID. The TSA's reponse? "Oh, that's okay. We'll just say that it's compliant anyway."
Trollkiller said...
Anonymous said...
Who wants to bet that Trollkiller will harass Bob about what CFR allows TSA to require ID to enter the sterile area? Any takers?
First off that is a sucker's bet, secondly "harass" is such an ugly word.
**********************************
Agree. Mock, scorn, ridicule, belabor, deride, abuse, excoriate, belittle, etc. are all suitable substitutes.
Bob, when is TSA going to start communicating with the public instead of talking to the public?
I see lots of questions with no answers!
I have to give kudos to Bob and the other TSA blog people. I would have lost patience and stopped allowing the repeat and off-topic questions that constantly come up. Many of these repeat questions have been answered. These trolls don't like the answers and continue to repeat themselves, thinking that it will change the answer or cause the bloggers to give up change their answer to appease the questioners.
ECCO
Bob, do you have an update on the change of policy regarding passengers traveling with large sums of money? Please post a copy of the policy since a claim of "that's what Bob said on the TSA blog" is not considered policy.
Quote from Anonymous: "Agree. Mock, scorn, ridicule, belabor, deride, abuse, excoriate, belittle, etc. are all suitable substitutes."
It can be ended at any time. All TSA has to do is answer the question.
"Because we say it is" is not an answer. If my 5 year old can see that's a nonanswer when it's used on him, what makes it any better that TSA uses it?
As we're a nation of laws, there had better be a good reason why a restriction is in place and it had better be explained. Even better yet, it should be widely available to be read by anyone who wishes to read it.
Nothing would be compromised by saying why. While somethings may need to be classified (and I use that term loosely with TSA), this isn't one of them.
Robert
Anonymous said...
Agree. Mock, scorn, ridicule, belabor, deride, abuse, excoriate, belittle, etc. are all suitable substitutes.
Aww snap you slayed me with your superior Googling skills.
Maybe you can put those skills to good use and answer the question of where does the TSA derive the authority to to forced ID verification at the checkpoint when the statutes CLEARLY state the TSA does not have that authority?
Before you go off half-cocked saying the rule has been vetted by the fine legal team of Chief Counsel Francine Kerner, remember the cash equals contraband policy, was also vetted by that same team.
I have proven my case repeatedly, Francine and crew have not.
All I am asking is for one statute that overturns Title 49 § 1540.5, § 1540.107, and §1560.105(c).
Go fetch.
That is great you can get on a plane if you forget your ID. I travel frequently and now I know there is hope if I left my ID at home. Thank you for the information.
So, if I LOSE MY ID, then I can fly as long as I HAVE MY ID?
Huh!?
Bob, this is just wierd logic!
I fly very frequently and have hip replacement. In future I will ask for Private Screening due to the unwilling nature of most, not all, security personnel -- to immediately bring to me - my personal belongings. I am told to halt and wait, to "keep an eye on" my personal belongings as they roll further away. My personal belongings are out of my range of sight while strangers stream by them. My personal belongings are returned to me at the leisure of available security personnel. When my personal belongings are stolen, who is responsible?
Can someone here also answer why, when I hand your people my foreign passport open on the page with the picture and name, you always leaf through until you find the visa page? Do you really think I don't know you are checking my visa status??
How, exactly, will you use the "additional information" somebody provides to confirm that they are who they say they are.
If that's classified, just say so. If it's not classified, please answer.
To RB and Trollkiller, do you guys do anything constructive or do you just criticize for a living? Grow up.
I find it interesting that Blogger Bob and his colleagues haven't commented on the Ron Paul money handler case.
TSA had to admit it stepped over the boundaries established by its authorization act, and write a new policy.
*chirp*chirp*chirp*chirp*
Can I use google as my id? As I like to tell my wife, I am big on the internets :-)
More seriously, is there any online source you could use to verify your id? I don't suppose that the TSA agents have access to DMV records with pictures.
I lost my ID earlier this year. I I had no other form of ID but we went through all the stuff in my wallet and he accepted my Costco card with a picture on it.
If you can't find your ID, that's okay, just use your other ID.
Huh?
Makes NO sense!
I repeat ... You got no ID? Okay, just show us your ID! No problem!
Just baffling.
The one from the guy who said his friend's Dad lost his ID and was "barely" allowed to fly was comical. Sounds like they let him fly. What were you hoping for?
Bob, you say "Verifying the identity of people coming through checkpoints is an important part of security"
Can you please explain why this is an important part of security?
You do not require this of anyone under the age of 18. Are they less dangerous than someone older?
What if the person had a recent name change, a dangerous person with a new name is now less dangerous?
Does every single person allowed into the sterile area have their ID checked? If not, why? Are they less dangerous?
One last question, which I know will go unanswered: What procedures are in place when a passenger refuses to show an ID and is refused to continue to exercise their freedom to travel? Do they have the option to leave, or are the police called and that person is then charged with various crimes?
"Holiday Travel Refresher: What if I Lose or Forget My ID?"
What if someone just declines to show ID?
Will they be arrested?
Seems SOP at some airports!
Scott Lewis wrote;
The one from the guy who said his friend's Dad lost his ID and was "barely" allowed to fly was comical. Sounds like they let him fly. What were you hoping for?
I was hoping he wouldn't be subject to harassment, threats, "do you want to fly today?" (DYWTFT) etc.
TSA *claims* there is a simple, routine, quick, and effective procedure for no-id travelers that does not involve harassment, threats, and DYTFT.
"Barely" allowed to fly means they were threatened with not being allowed to fly, delayed, and harassed, not just asked a few identity questions. In fact, IIRC, they never actually did ask any questions, they just hassled him and his son with threats.
Interesting that you find that comical. If it were your elderly relative being harassed and intimidated by government thugs, I doubt you would feel the same way.
The guy is in his 80s. He is absolutely no threat whatsoever once belongings have been screened for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. But the almighty TSA must check his name against their precious secret blacklist, so they must have his ID.
The ID requirement is all about power-trips, permission-based domestic travel, and secret blacklists. None of that is acceptable in a free society.
BTW, Bob, a post on Phil Mocek is long overdue. Is Francine having trouble finding a statue on Google that supports referring for arrest a passenger who declines to show ID and/or takes photos at the checkpoint? Does TSA intend to press the "concealing identity" charge? Will TSA be issuing any kangaroo-court civil fines? You might as well at least make some effort to get ahead of this story, because you can be the good guys are going to run with it.
@ "Verifying the identity of people coming through checkpoints is an important part of security, just as vetting passenger names against the No Fly and Selectee lists."
Too bad the TSA lets the potential terrorists themselves connect the vetting layer to the ID checking layer.
Since after all these years TSA obviously remains too dense to close the big hole in this farcical process, let me spell it out once more:
1) A potential terrorist can test and defeat the vetting layer remotely by trying to buy a $100 ticket and print a boarding pass.
1-alternate) Since TSA relies on the potential terrorist to print and deliver the certificate of vetting (the boarding pass) anyone who actually fails step one could Photoshop a boarding pass from any sympathizer in the pool of TSA's 2,000,000 passengers per day who do pass.
2) A potential terrorist can test and defeat the identification layer remotely by getting a real government-issued ID.
2-alternate) Use someone else's real government issued ID (remember how Bonnie Sweeten was A-OK?)
2-alternate) If the potential terrorist can't get get a real ID, use a minor (see Sweeten's daughter).
The only terrorists that this process could stop would be someone with Reid-like stupidity who might draw alter his ID and credit card to say "Richard Reed". A terrorist organization capable of actually plotting, would think their way out of this wet-paper-bag "layer of security".
DaveRedWave said...
To RB and Trollkiller, do you guys do anything constructive or do you just criticize for a living? Grow up.
November 17, 2009 11:01 PM
Dave, TSA is operating outside of the guidelines of the law.
It is my duty as a citizen to challenge my government when they are acting wrongly. I think that is a very conductive endeavor.
Perhaps you need to rethink the civics lessons you should have learned during your schooling.
I will continue asking that TSA clearly state policy, provide clear understandable information to the public and conduct themselves within the bounds of the law.
Seems the problem is with TSA not me!
About 2 months ago my brother flew out of Texas back to California. He forgot his wallet at his friend’s house and had no ID when he arrived at the airport. He told me it took him 5 minutes to get through security. All he had to do was give his name, address, and answer a couple of simple questions. He thought it would be complicated but it was really easy.
Thank you TSA for making it simple to travel!
I am dumfounded when I read the comments on this blog. I simply cannot think of a reason why so many people have problems traveling except for the fact that THEY CHOOSE to have a problem. If you want to have a problem go ahead and create one, if you want to travel freely choose to travel freely and your wish will be granted.
Anonymous writes:
How, exactly, will you use the "additional information" somebody provides to confirm that they are who they say they are.
Well, since no-one from TSA wants to step in and give an authoritative answer, I'll give an unauthoritative one.
There are reports on other blogs about what happens when someone is unable to produce an ID. You complete a questionaire with a great deal of personal information. That information is used to acquire information on you from publicly available databases, similar to a credit check. You'll then be asked questions based on that data: questions that, presumably, would be difficult for anyone else to answer without having done a deep background check. (E.g. "you used to live in Cleveland ten years ago ... what was the name of the street you lived on?")
If you get enough questions right about yourself, you win the quiz and get to go through the checkpoint.
A question about ID checks:
I have a SIDA badge from an air carrier airport because I am a member of a flying club. Why is it that the TSA would refuse to accept that ID when I'm at another air carrier airport, even though it is listed as acceptable ID on the referenced page in the original post? They claim that I have to have a SIDA badge for the airport in question, even though I have a boarding pass?
The stranger twist is I have used it at other airports without question, even at airlines check in.
These trolls don't like the answers and continue to repeat themselves, thinking that it will change the answer or cause the bloggers to give up change their answer to appease the questioners.
fROM aNON
BTW, TSA--any comment on your decision to agree with the ACLU that TSA should not be searching for currency and instead should focus on the statutory mandate of weapons, explosives, and incendiaries? Since your spokesbloggers were so generous in their praise of the previous policy, reading their doublespeak and spin now that TSA has caved to a bit of reality will be entertaining.
November 16, 2009 7:42 PM
-----------------------------------
It was never TSA's job to look for currency or for that matter any illegal item. It was however the job of every TSO to report to Law Enforcement any illegal item found during a bag check and if a large amounts of currency was found in the bag during the check with other indications of illegal activities then also report that to law enforcement. TSO's don't call bag checks if they see a crack pipe on the x-ray. But if they are conducting a bag check in performance of their duty and find a crack pipe, thats when they call the police. Nothing about this concession to the ACLU has change proceedures.
dani said...
" These trolls don't like the answers and continue to repeat themselves, thinking that it will change the answer or cause the bloggers to give up change their answer to appease the questioners."
and the question was?
I believe the above might exemplify the perils of drinking and blogging
TrollKIller sez - "First off that is a sucker's bet, secondly "harass" is such an ugly word."
Man, at least he didn't snipe you with Heckle, or Irritate, or torment persistently, harry, pester, plague, badger or hound....
And that IS a suckers bet. I like the post though, it is good information for the passengers that go on vacation and lose their wallet or ID. It is good that we have a process in place that can ge the person through while ascertaining they are who they say they are.
West
TSA Blog Team
"I have a SIDA badge from an air carrier airport because I am a member of a flying club. Why is it that the TSA would refuse to accept that ID when I'm at another air carrier airport, even though it is listed as acceptable ID on the referenced page in the original post? They claim that I have to have a SIDA badge for the airport in question, even though I have a boarding pass?
The stranger twist is I have used it at other airports without question, even at airlines check in."
As far as I know, your SIDA badge should not be accepted at other airports, only the airport at which it was issued.
I have traveled to other airports to work during emergencies, and even our SIDA badges don't get us anywhere.
The aiports that declined you are following proper procedure.
Unfortunately it's another issue that TSA needs to address. (Following correct procedure at all airports)
All I can do is say, if you get turned away at TDC for using your NEXUS card, or TWIC card, just use your ID, and contact their supervisor after. That way at least one more officer will be re-educated.
"Bob, why does TSA think ID has anything to do with security? You often claim a relationship exists, but have never given one shred of a reason why you think this is so."
As we have all seen in the news, at least once a month this year, there IS such a thing as a stupid terrorist. Believe it or not, not all people with ill intentions will use their real ID's.
If the ID is caught before the person is even screened, we can prevent that person from coming close to getting through the checkpoint. We can also do additional screening on this otherwise normal individual, that will allow us to find what that individual is attempting to smuggle through.
It's one of those numerous layers of security you hear about all the time. It doesn't mean we depend entirely on the TDC posistion to catch someone.
Yes we have caught people smuggling drugs through, and yes we have caught people with numerous other false documents strapped to their person. No these things don't harm the aircraft. We also do not let drugs distract us from our main mission, but if a person can use these tactics to smuggle those items through, then it is a likely way for someone to smuggle actual dangerous items through.
After all that, we also need to check ID's to boarding passes to ensure that if you are designated a selectee, we get the right person that was designated. Also, to make sure someone didn't buy the boarding pass and hand it off to another person to bypass the selectee system.
Which, must have gotten a whole lot more accurate, because I never see selectees anymore.
Why is the US the only country that requires passengers to remove their shoes for screening?
I've traveled through a number of countries this year and the US is the only country that has required me to remove my shoes. Also, can you tell me why my shoes sometimes have to go through additional screening? I've worn the same shoes all year when I travel and I cant tell if its ramdom or not, but sometimes I've been told they will be putting my shoes through additional screening.
While I'm on the subject, why do I have to remove my blazer in the US to go through screening, but not in other countries?
"It was however the job of every TSO to report to Law Enforcement any illegal item found during a bag check and if a large amounts of currency was found in the bag during the check with other indications of illegal activities then also report that to law enforcement."
You are aware that cash is 100% legal, yes? And that the only restrictions on travel with it apply to those traveling internationally? And that citizens can declare their cash to customs AFTER transiting the checkpoint?
You are aware that cash is 100% legal, yes? And that the only restrictions on travel with it apply to those traveling internationally? And that citizens can declare their cash to customs AFTER transiting the checkpoint?
November 22, 2009 10:44 AM
.................
Don't try talking common sense to TSA employees.
Just wait for the next Bierfeldt like incident to happen even though TSA has promised to only search for WEI.
It's only a matter of time.
"Why is the US the only country that requires passengers to remove their shoes for screening?"
Because TSA's shoe carnival policy is a hysterical overreaction to a threat of infinitesimal likelihood. It's a simple fact that the policy makes no one safer and makes travel harder, but TSA is so invested in it that it's afraid to admit its error. Shameful, really.
Anon sez - ""Why is the US the only country that requires passengers to remove their shoes for screening?"
Because TSA's shoe carnival policy is a hysterical overreaction to a threat of infinitesimal likelihood. It's a simple fact that the policy makes no one safer and makes travel harder, but TSA is so invested in it that it's afraid to admit its error. Shameful, really."
Nice to see you back Anon, however you forgot to mention that while shoes are not a method that has been used or attempted since Reid, it is an easy and relatively cheap way to make an anti personnel device (in most cases, a shoe bomb is not going to cause a catastrophic failure on an airplane, unless the stars are all aligned right). This means that any loonie can stuff their shoes (and there are even shoes made with storage compartments in them to help someone smuggle stuff) with boom making material, and cause the people sitting close to them to be killed or at least injured when it goes off. Now, certain anons here will point out that shoes have not been used anywhere in the world since Reids failed attempt and they are correct. This does not mean that it is not a viable threat to the travelling public, it simply means it is not currently the attack method du jour. With the current screening processes we use, it eliminates about 99% of the opportunity to use shoes as a weapon delivery device.
West
TSA BLog Team
"Now, certain anons here will point out that shoes have not been used anywhere in the world since Reids failed attempt and they are correct. This does not mean that it is not a viable threat to the travelling public, it simply means it is not currently the attack method du jour."
West, no shoe attacks against aviation anywhere on earth in the last eight years, regardless of whether or how shoes were screened, conclusively demonstrates that no one, anywhere, has any interest in using shoes to attack aviation. To say otherwise, as TSA does, is a rank lie.
"With the current screening processes we use, it eliminates about 99% of the opportunity to use shoes as a weapon delivery device."
And what's 99% of nothing, West?
Of course, if you lose or forget your ID, it's always possible that the document checker on duty won't know the rules either, and let you through if you have a couple of credit cards in your name --- at least if you're flying through Chicago.
GSOLTSO said...
Man, at least he didn't snipe you with Heckle, or Irritate, or torment persistently, harry, pester, plague, badger or hound....
And that IS a suckers bet. I like the post though, it is good information for the passengers that go on vacation and lose their wallet or ID. It is good that we have a process in place that can ge the person through while ascertaining they are who they say they are.
West
TSA Blog Team
Those words are reserved for the screening procedures at the checkpoints. ;-)
This is OT but I invite everyone to read GSOLTSO's guest entry on my blog about the Freedom Flight. Good stuff right there.
RB said...
Just wait for the next Bierfeldt like incident to happen even though TSA has promised to only search for WEI.
It's only a matter of time.
Anybody want to bet it will happen by the end of February?
Trollkiller said...
RB said...
Just wait for the next Bierfeldt like incident to happen even though TSA has promised to only search for WEI.
It's only a matter of time.
Anybody want to bet it will happen by the end of February?
November 23, 2009 10:04 PM
You betting against?
"Identity Matters", HAHAHAHAHA! Tell that to the White House Party Crashers, LOL!
it is funny reading the ignorance of people. use your heads please. it is simple to see ids are checked to make sure that you are the person that your boarding pass says you are. i have seen in the past where people have tried to use that trick to get through security.
Anon sez - "West, no shoe attacks against aviation anywhere on earth in the last eight years, regardless of whether or how shoes were screened, conclusively demonstrates that no one, anywhere, has any interest in using shoes to attack aviation. To say otherwise, as TSA does, is a rank lie."
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that means what you think it means". To state a fact, is be definition the opposite of a lie. Fact - Shoes can be used as a fairly easy, relatively inexpensive way to transport a small amount of explosives on your person. You can argue all that you wish, it is a fact, it has been proven, and the method has actually been used in a failed attempt to attack an aircraft. All of the above statements are facts, you can look them up in about .16 seconds on Google.
The definition I find for lie is as follows -
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
At no point have I indicated something under either phrase there. You consistently point out that the method has not been used in 8 years - you are correct. This does not mean that it is not a viable threat that needs to be considered, it just means it has not been used. You consistently point out that the method has not been used anywhere else in the world - you are correct. This does not mean that these other locations are not at risk from the method being used against them.
You can continue to call me out as a liar, and you will continue to be wrong. I present facts about the method and the capabilities, you keep stating "but it hasn't been used, therefore it isnt a threat". Not a very good arguement Anon, bring something new to the table and we will work forward from there.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said...
it is funny reading the ignorance of people. use your heads please. it is simple to see ids are checked to make sure that you are the person that your boarding pass says you are. i have seen in the past where people have tried to use that trick to get through security.
November 27, 2009 4:04 AM
......................
Anon tell us how the TSA TDC checking ID against a boarding pass makes anyone safer.
The screening for WEI is what makes us safer.
It is a trivial matter to change a name on a boarding pass if you print your boarding pass at home.
GSOLTSO said...
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that means what you think it means". To state a fact, is be definition the opposite of a lie. Fact - Shoes can be used as a fairly easy, relatively inexpensive way to transport a small amount of explosives on your person. You can argue all that you wish, it is a fact, it has been proven, and the method has actually been used in a failed attempt to attack an aircraft. All of the above statements are facts, you can look them up in about .16 seconds on Google.
West
TSA Blog Team
November 28, 2009 4:03 PM
West, a person detonated a weapon made from a small amount of explosives inserted in his rectum.
It was a relatively inexpensive way to transport a small amount of explosives his person.
So the odds of that are apparently the same as a shoe bomb, one known failed attempt of each.
How does TSA plan on mitigating the Rectum Explosve Device (RED) given it has the same deployment history of shoe bombs?
RB sez - "West, a person detonated a weapon made from a small amount of explosives inserted in his rectum.
It was a relatively inexpensive way to transport a small amount of explosives his person.
So the odds of that are apparently the same as a shoe bomb, one known failed attempt of each.
How does TSA plan on mitigating the Rectum Explosve Device (RED) given it has the same deployment history of shoe bombs?"
I believe that the RED (GREAT name and acronym! kudos!) is something that we are not going to consider seriously at this point. It is something that is not screenable in a simple fashion (like laptops or shoes). I think that this is a threat, but not a serious one simply because of the configuration of the body.
An internal detonation will absorb some of the energy (not all!) and greatly reduce the effectiveness f this delivery method.
On the other hand, the ability to secret the item in this fashion and then remove it from the cavity in a bathroom, bears thought.
Just not something that I can see the agency being able to screen for on a massive scale without some new miracle scanner or a huge influx of proctologists on the pay roll.
It is a simple matter of capability, we have the capability to screen shoes and such with ease. The internal contents of a human body.... Not so much.
I am NOT saying that this is not a possible threat, but that it sis something that goes far outside the realm of the agency to control.
West
TSA Blog Team
RB asked…
How does TSA plan on mitigating the Rectum Explosve Device (RED) given it has the same deployment history of shoe bombs?
-----------------------------------------
I honestly hope that they don’t. We get enough passengers with body odor problems as it is without actually having to go looking for them.
It is a simple matter of capability, we have the capability to screen shoes and such with ease. The internal contents of a human body.... Not so much.
I am NOT saying that this is not a possible threat, but that it sis something that goes far outside the realm of the agency to control.
West
TSA Blog Team
November 30, 2009 7:16 PM
...........
Both the RED and Shoe Bomb have been deployed an equal number of times.
Both are equal in degree of danger.
The RED actually detonated but no shoe bomb has ever been successfully deployed.
Screening shoes from the travelers point of view is not so easy. Plus the hazard of walking on unclean surfaces, juggling multiple items and trying to get items in bins and through the xray.
I clearly do not understand why TSA ignores a known threat yet concentrates on a one time failed event.
Undermines the reasons to keep checking shoes, eh!
"We get enough passengers with body odor problems as it is"
How are the new darker uniform shirts working for you? Can you wear them longer, dirtier and smellier than the light colored ones?
That was one reason given for the change, being able to wear dirty shirts longer.
"Undermines the reasons to keep checking shoes, eh!"
Indeed. There is zero reason for the mandatory shoe carnival, and TSA's protestations to the contrary are a lie.
"Baby formula, breast milk, and juice if a baby or small child is traveling"
This makes no sense!
So, if the liquid is for a baby or child, it is safe, but if it is for an adult it is dangerous?
Why? If a kid can walk through with juice from home, why can't an adult? What makes it being for a kid safer? A bit of double standards?
Screening shoes from the travelers point of view is not so easy.
WHAT!?!?! Thats absurd! Removing shoes is work? Boy, Americans have gotten flat out lazy over the years. If you're really that sensitive about germs RB, you could always bring your tiny sanatizing gel through and scrub your feet with it until you felt clean, but thats not your issue is it?
"WHAT!?!?! Thats absurd! Removing shoes is work? Boy, Americans have gotten flat out lazy over the years."
The shoe carnival is particularly burdensome on the elderly and those with limited mobility. Since shoes present zero threat to anyone, there is no need for this policy, and TSA is lying when it says otherwise. More generally, the amount of time it takes one able bodied person to remove and put back on their shoes may be a small one, but multiplied by millions of travelers it equals an enormous amount of time wasted for absolutely zero increase in security.
Anonymous said...
Screening shoes from the travelers point of view is not so easy.
WHAT!?!?! Thats absurd! Removing shoes is work?
............
Work was not mentioned.
Removing shoes while trying to organize everything else while standing and shuffling in a line can be difficult. More so for people with limited mobility.
Removing shoes is pretty much pointless, so much so that the United States is the only country that does so, and is a major waste of time and effort.
"As far as I know, your SIDA badge should not be accepted at other airports, only the airport at which it was issued.
I have traveled to other airports to work during emergencies, and even our SIDA badges don't get us anywhere.
The aiports that declined you are following proper procedure.
Unfortunately it's another issue that TSA needs to address. (Following correct procedure at all airports)
All I can do is say, if you get turned away at TDC for using your NEXUS card, or TWIC card, just use your ID, and contact their supervisor after. That way at least one more officer will be re-educated."
However, according to the TSA website - http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/acceptable_documents.shtm
"An airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)"
That would mean a SIDA badge is valid identification if it was issued under the approved plan, which should cover air carrier airports.
*Note: I have left the airports in question off intentionally.
The shoe carnival is particularly burdensome on the elderly and those with limited mobility.
I won't argue with that fact. However, when you go camping, do you bring camping gear? That would include tents, sleeping bags, hiking boots, etc. You do right? Thats because you prepare yourself for the trip your about to take. Makes sense right? Same steps should be applied when travelling by air. You know you;re going to have to go through security, you know that you're going to be asked to take your shows off to be screened for prohibited items concealed within the sole of the shoe. Why not prepare accordingly by wearing shoes that are comfortable and easy to remove? There are slip-on shoes and velcro. I even hear those crocs are popular too.
I begin to lose sympathy for those that make excuses when they do not explore reasonable solutions. In essense, you create your own problems. You can either make the security process pleasant, or problematic. Its your choice.
RB sez - "Both the RED and Shoe Bomb have been deployed an equal number of times.
Both are equal in degree of danger.
The RED actually detonated but no shoe bomb has ever been successfully deployed.
Screening shoes from the travelers point of view is not so easy. Plus the hazard of walking on unclean surfaces, juggling multiple items and trying to get items in bins and through the xray.
I clearly do not understand why TSA ignores a known threat yet concentrates on a one time failed event.
Undermines the reasons to keep checking shoes, eh!"
The RED is not something that is easy to screen based on the capabilities we have now, the shoes are.
Are you advocating for the agency to begin establishing a series of lanes with curtains up dividing them, with the current method of screening for entry to a correctional facility? I am certain that there are some gung ho folks out there that will recommend that, and even outline plans for the implementation of that particular type of screening - I am not one of them.
In order to screen for the RED, we would need either a "manual" search, or some new tech that I haven't seen mentioned yet (although I am certain that some sort of equipment along the same lines as an MRI or other system like it is out there and available). I am not medically certified to "manually" examine any part of someones internal systems (and at this point, I realllllly don't want to be). I am not Law Enforcement, nor do I work for the Department of Corrections, therefore I have not recieved instructions/training on how to "manually" clear someone for the RED.
Now, if you can produce some links to sites that have technology that CAN test for the RED in a somewhat non-intrusive way, I will read every word they have published. Like I have posted before, I would love to have the type of system that Ahnuld went through on Mars, where all it does is show a skeleton and alarm on things that are programmed as a threat - until then, we will have to rely on the layers of security that pipck up on someone that could be transporting an RED.
As for shoes, those that have difficulty removing their shoes (such as a medical condition that makes it difficult, or the passenger is elderly and it takes great effort to remove them), have the option to be screened in a different fashion. This has been in the SOP since the shoe policy changed. Anytime someone has trouble with removing the shoes (and I am not talking about the fact that you double knotted them and can't untie it, I am talking about someone that has a medical reason) and they are told to remove them anyway, ask for a Supervisor, as that is against the regs.
The points you make, do not undermine the screening of shoes. Shoes are fairly simple to screen (they just need to be xrayed). Shoes are a viable delivery method, and as such, should be screened. The only thing you have done is make a case for more stringent screening of the traveling publics person, in a very invasive method (unless you have a way to screen them with technology that is capable and that can be rolled out nationwide in a short period of time, hold up to the rigors of checkpoint usage, and make the case to Congress that we need to screen the innards of all traveling persons.... To start with, I am sure with some effort I can come up with some other things that would have to be done as well).
I understand the point you are making, but the agency has no effective/acceptable method to screen for this particular threat at this time. This means that (again) we have to rely on the other layers of security to pick up on persons that may be using this delivery method.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon sez - "The shoe carnival is particularly burdensome on the elderly and those with limited mobility. Since shoes present zero threat to anyone, there is no need for this policy, and TSA is lying when it says otherwise. More generally, the amount of time it takes one able bodied person to remove and put back on their shoes may be a small one, but multiplied by millions of travelers it equals an enormous amount of time wasted for absolutely zero increase in security."
I have actually explained the fact that those with difficulty removing the shoes (elderly, limited mobility, injury, etc) have the ability to be screened in a different fashion. Again, with the "lying"! This is incorrect, and I have refuted it, and even given you a text definition of the word lie to help you get past that. The agency is not lying, it has produced a well reasoned, logical explanation (as have I) as to why shoes are screened the way they are. The fact that you choose not to accept the explanation is entirely your right, but to refer to the information as a lie, and to further indicate that the agency is lying, is incorrect.
West
TSA Blog Team
I understand the point you are making, but the agency has no effective/acceptable method to screen for this particular threat at this time. This means that (again) we have to rely on the other layers of security to pick up on persons that may be using this delivery method.
West
TSA Blog Team
December 3, 2009 7:14 PM
..............
So we have two known methods to deliver an explosive, both having the same track record of attempted uses, and only one that was actually detonated yet TSA focuses on the failure not the successful weapon.
Seems the claim of Security Theater may be correct!
"You know you;re going to have to go through security, you know that you're going to be asked to take your shows off to be screened for prohibited items concealed within the sole of the shoe. Why not prepare accordingly by wearing shoes that are comfortable and easy to remove? There are slip-on shoes and velcro. I even hear those crocs are popular too.
I begin to lose sympathy for those that make excuses when they do not explore reasonable solutions. In essense, you create your own problems. You can either make the security process pleasant, or problematic. Its your choice."
TSA is the ones making the process problematic by insisting on a procedure that does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer. TSA is lying, we know you're lying, you know you're lying.
Well said West.
RB sez - "So we have two known methods to deliver an explosive, both having the same track record of attempted uses, and only one that was actually detonated yet TSA focuses on the failure not the successful weapon.
Seems the claim of Security Theater may be correct!"
I understand the point you are making, it is a valid one. The problem is the capability of the organization at this point. We have ways of screening shoes, bags, carryon items and the exterior of a person, these methods are tried and true and well distributed nationwide. The ability to screen inside of someone is not something that we have a ready capability to do at this point. As I have mentioned before, I am certain that there are technologies out there that allow for the internal screening. I am also certain that there have been discussions of using that tech in security processes before. I am also certain, that the tech costs a great deal more than the Nation is willing to spend on this particular equipment.
At this point, we have to rely on the existing systems in place (walk through, pat downs, WBI, BDOs and the other stuff in our system) to identify possible threats. It is not a perfect system, but it is pretty darn good and the layered approach is an effective way to scope out threats.
It has nothing to do with theatre, simply the limitations of the technical capabilities of the agency, as well as the fact that other layers are used to detect persons with ill intent.
West
TSA Blog Team
In order to fly you must comply; even if the rules sound disturbed. chances the TSO"s are clueless as well as everyone above...TSA is a corrupted agency and needs to be examined by internal affairs devison of DHS....
Troll Killer made an excellent point about IDs in many of the posts linked to by this post.
He was, of course, ignored.
So do any of the bloggers care to re-read how your claims were debunked and finally address them?
[part 2 of 5]
[1]: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/11/familyspecial-needs-lanes-coming-to-all.html
[part 3 of 5]
[2]: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/11/familyspecial-needs-lanes-coming-to-all.html?showComment=1226519100000#c1096789491755839838
TrollKiller sez - " All I am asking is for one statute that overturns Title 49 § 1540.5, § 1540.107, and §1560.105(c)."
I am late to this one, but I read most of this one, and this is the information I come up with:
1540.107
Annnnd this is what I find in there, that allows for the identification procedures by the agency.
"(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."
Then I went to 1560.3
Where I culled this out :
"Verifying Identity Document means one of the following documents:
(1) An unexpired passport issued by a foreign government.
(2) An unexpired document issued by a U.S. Federal, State, or tribal government that includes the following information for the individual:
(i) Full name.
(ii) Date of birth.
(iii) Photograph.
(3) Such other documents that TSA may designate as valid verifying identity documents."
Now, I have not had time to go through all of it, but this is what I found so far (please bear with me, I have had a long week and my research skills are at ebb right now!).
By what I am reading this actually covers what the agency does. Please enlighten me if I have misread what is there, or if I missed something (no sarc here, seriously, I like to learn). Take care I am off to the yearly yule gathering this weekend and will be back next week!
West
TSA Blog Team
In light of recent transportation security events, I wonder how different holiday travel will be in 2010. It is certainly challenging to secure a free nation with open borders, so my hat is off to the many hard-working people who are looking out for our safety. You ROCK.
excellent information and definitely worth remembering if you want to save a lot of hassle
Thanks
I think the best way is to ensure you take more than one form of proof of identity with you when travelling and keep them on your person in separate locations. It would be hard to lose both.
Thanks for the tips Bob. Got a few problems like that twice and had to go through some hard time!
This seems like a great way for shoes to get tangled up in the strips at the front and back of the unit, caught on stuff inside the machine, and possibly even lost or mangled. I forsee a lot more delays related to stopping of the belt and operators having to reach inside and fish stuff out. Have any tests of this been done with a random assortment of shoes, from light-weight flip flops and strappy heels to big heavy workboots with long laces, all interspersed (and not) with bins and larger luggage?
Post a Comment