New ID Requirements: The First 48
UPDATE: We're aware of reports that someone was asked their political affiliation to verify their identity and it is being looked into. Here's a response given to us by Kip Hawley: "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."
We're 48 hours into the new procedure and things have been smooth so far. Approximately 650 people have shown up to security checkpoints without ID and a total of 20 people have not been allowed to fly. That is .0005 percent of the approximately four million people that flew this weekend.
Of the 650 people that showed up without ID, it's taking us an average of 10 minutes to verify their identity and get them on their way. We're able to do this so quickly because of the close coordination of our officers at airports and our 24/7 ops center.
Our critics say this has nothing to do with security and it only affects people that want to exercise their rights to anonymous air travel (which Gilmore v Gonzalez ruled on) and terrorists that aren't good liars.
What these folks aren't getting is that by requiring ID, you're closing that old loophole that allowed (up until Saturday) anyone, good or bad, to show up with any boarding pass (theirs or someone else's), say they lost their ID, get a pat-down and bag check and be on their way. Now, no self respecting terrorist is going to subject him or herself to all the additional attention the new procedures brings. This includes: the possibility of interviews with behavior detection officers, calls about them to our national counter-terrorism ops center, unpredictable physical and bag screening and the real possibility of a chat with a local or federal law enforcement officer. No, now we're funneling people with bad intentions towards our expert-trained document checkers and behavior experts. Could a bad person produce an excellent fake ID and get past document checkers... sure. We know that no single layer is invulnerable, but forcing terrorists into what we want as opposed to what they prefer is just good security.
We'll continue to update the stats here and continue to thank the 99.9995 percent of air travelers that work with us to quickly and easily establish their identity.
Sterling
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Glen at
3:43 PM
Subscribe in a reader
184 Comments:
"What these folks aren't getting is that by requiring ID, you're closing that old loophole that allowed (up until Saturday) anyone, good or bad, to show up with any boarding pass (theirs or someone else's), say they lost their ID, get a pat-down and bag check and be on their way."
If they get a pat-down and bag check, who cares if they're on their way? This is the point you continually ignore as you lie to us about the supposed "security" this nonsensical policy change provides. In fact, you know as well as we do that this new policy does nothing to make anyone safer, and by diverting resources from things that WOULD make us safer, like screening cargo, actively makes us LESS safe.
Why does TSA insist on making air travel less safe?
June 23, 2008 4:26 PM
Now, no self respecting terrorist is going to subject him or herself to all the additional attention the new procedures brings. This includes: the possibility of interviews with behavior detection officers, calls about them to our national counter-terrorism ops center, unpredictable physical and bag screening and the real possibility of a chat with a local or federal law enforcement officer. No, now we're funneling people with bad intentions towards our expert-trained document checkers and behavior experts. Could a bad person produce an excellent fake ID and get past document checkers... sure. We know that no single layer is invulnerable, but forcing terrorists into what we want as opposed to what they prefer is just good security.
People with bad intentions? Just how do you know/veryify that? Chicken entrails? I-Ching? Ouija board? Psyco active drugs?
Security theater just added a new stage.
June 23, 2008 4:29 PM
Not like I'm surprised, but this doesn't explain why that process works when someone has "forgotten" their ID versus someone who refuses to show their ID, nor does it explain any of the other questions that came up in the previous thread.
June 23, 2008 4:32 PM
Here's a question: how many with ID were terrorist? You would argue 0, because no planes were high-jacked. I'd argue > 0. Just because they made in on the plane, with valid (or a good fake)ID, doesn't mean they weren't. And come on; in an average of 10 minutes, you were able to rule out each of those people as non-terrorists? I smell something fishy going on... As for those who were denied *they* terrorists? I call BS.
June 23, 2008 4:35 PM
Sterling,
Again, it's still easy to game this system. Mr. Bad Terrorist can produce a fake boarding pass with their own ID and get through the checkpoint, then use a boarding pass issued in someone else's name (presumably someone not on the no-fly list) to board an aircraft. Since you're not validating the legitimacy of the boarding pass, and you're not checking the no-fly list at the time of the document check, this threat still exists.
June 23, 2008 4:44 PM
How are you improving security by stopping people at a government checkpoint, then preventing them from passing your checkpoint simply because they assert their right to travel without first showing you their papers?
Let's consider four scenarios, two in which someone says he misplaced his credentials, two in which he politely declines to present credentials because it is his right to do so, two prior to the new rule instated by TSA on June 21, 2008, and two after:
Last week:.
scenario one:
traveler: "I'm sorry, I don't have any ID to show you, because left my ID in my other pants."
TSA agent: "That's okay. You'll be subjected to additional screening. Please step over there."
scenario two:
traveler: "I'm sorry, I don't have any ID to show you, because I know that I am not required to do so, and if we don't excercise our rights, we will lose them."
TSA agent: "That's okay. You'll be subjected to additional screening. Please step over there."
Today:.
scenario one:
traveler: "I'm sorry, don't have any ID to show you, because I left my ID in my other pants."
TSA agent: "That's okay. You'll be subjected to additional screening. Please step over there."
scenario two:
traveler: "I'm sorry, I don't have any ID to show you, because I know that I am not required to do so, and if we don't excercise our rights, we will lose them."
TSA agent: "Stop right there. You may not pass the checkpoint. You're not going to fly today."
June 23, 2008 4:46 PM
I cry for my country, my children and my grandchildren - we are done for with such agencies as DHS, TSA and "laws" such as The Patriot Act.
Can we ever reclaim what we had?
The terrorists have, indeed, won.
June 23, 2008 4:51 PM
Thank you for finally showing numbers, albeit this is the kind of situation in which they will always favor the TSA (after all people want to fly).
Could you please elaborate on those approximately 20 persons that weren´t allowed to fly?
I also would like to know why you are asking people what their political affiliation is to get clearance without ID.
June 23, 2008 4:51 PM
TSA: If the people on your blacklist are so dangerous that we must restrict their movement, why don't you send the police to arrest them and put them in front of a judge?
Instead, you plan to wait for these fugitives to show up in the airport so you can either turn them away or hassle them before they get on the flight for which they have paid? That is ridiculous.
Why is the Exectutive Branch, via TSA, acting as judge and jury, imposing the punishment of inclusion on your blacklist (and thus of restriction of their travel) with no chance for those whose liberties are being restricted to face their accusor or to defend themselves?
Fellow Americans: Why do any of you think it is appropriate for us to restrict someone's ability to travel within the country based on a secret list?
June 23, 2008 4:52 PM
So you're saying that you've been letting 10 people too dangerous to fly on planes each and every day since your misbegotten agency started?
June 23, 2008 5:03 PM
Sterling,
Some comments and questions:
1. Where is the privacy impact assessment for the new form and the obviously commercial datamining check? I don't recall seeing it on line, nor do I remember a public comment period. We wouldn't be breaking the law, would we???
2. Why would Hawley state on CNN that he was confident that his new policy would withstand a legal challenge if it weren't retaliatory in nature? Surely even he would know that it's unlikely that lawsuits are a known Al Qaeda tactic.
3. You must be really proud of the tally of 20 Americans you prevented from flying today. I hope at least one of them set you up for that lawsuit Hawley is confident he will win.
Our critics say this has nothing to do with security and it only affects people that want to exercise their rights to anonymous air travel (which Gilmore v Gonzalez ruled on) and terrorists that aren't good liars.
What these folks aren't getting is that by requiring ID, you're closing that old loophole that allowed (up until Saturday) anyone, good or bad, to show up with any boarding pass (theirs or someone else's), say they lost their ID, get a pat-down and bag check and be on their way.
Hawley, by his lawsuit comment, has stated, in his usual evasive way, that the whole purpose of this ID charade is retaliation against "people that want to exercise their rights to anonymous air travel..."
By the way, I DO "get it". I don't care who is on my plane as long as they have been screened for weapons.
Your agency and its leadership is truly pathetic. See you in court.
June 23, 2008 5:13 PM
OK, so now we know what kinds of questions travelers, even those who are lying, are asked when they say they "forgot" their ID, i.e., birthdate, previous address, political party affiliation, where are you getting the data from to ask such questions?
Can you verify that whatever data service you are using has "good" information?
Oh, shucks, I forgot: it's SSI. Silly goose.
June 23, 2008 5:24 PM
Which the Court ruled on in Gilmore? Come on, didn't Trollkiller already point out that you're wrong about that?
June 23, 2008 5:32 PM
Wintermute?
Haven't I seen you on TORC?
June 23, 2008 5:35 PM
"So you're saying that you've been letting 10 people too dangerous to fly on planes each and every day since your misbegotten agency started?"
Excellent point! Thank you.
and
"Your agency and its leadership is truly pathetic. See you in court."
It can't come soon enough!
June 23, 2008 5:38 PM
The average length of time for these ridiculous checks tells us nothing. What was the longest length of time you detained a citizen seeking to travel by air who did not have an ID? What was the shortest?
June 23, 2008 5:40 PM
"We'll continue to update the stats here and continue to thank the 99.9995 percent of air travelers that work with us to quickly and easily establish their identity"
TSA has never established my identity; TSA has only ever seen that the name on the ID I present matches that on the boarding pass I present. That TSA does not understand the difference between this and actual verification of identity, nor why verifying identity does nothing to enhance airport security, helps explain why the public hates TSA as much or more than it hates the IRS.
June 23, 2008 5:58 PM
Posted by Sterling: Could a bad person produce an excellent fake ID and get past document checkers... sure.
Sure... or they could Photoshop a boarding pass, which takes all of 30 seconds. This isn't rocket science, folks.
June 23, 2008 6:05 PM
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Dear TSA,
It is my sad duty to inform you that you have all violated your oath of office. You have betrayed the constition in your enforcement of this new rule.
Every member of the TSA, from Kip down to the guy who rummages through suitcases, are now traitors.
June 23, 2008 6:13 PM
What's that? It's raining in New York City? You say the Statue of Liberty is crying?
Your papers please.
I don't know which is worse-the self-righteous tone of this blog or the self respecting terrorist comment or that I have bad intentions because I don't believe I should be subjected to having to show additional identification.
And the judge was wrong in Gilmore v Gonzalez--there really aren't other travel options that are equal to that of flying. Sure--perhaps from Dallas to Houston, but New York to LA? Why does one think flying came about? It took too damn long to drive or take the train.
June 23, 2008 6:18 PM
The TSA has stopped even bothering to try and sell its ideas. They are just implementing increasingly more ridiculous security theater. This is honestly the most distrubing part. This facism (yes it is enablers, look up the definition) is amazing.
Not to mention you might have at least thought about filtering out the political affiliation question. Yes we know...blah blah blah...its only for ID purposes, but seriously its all about appearances (just like your security procedures)
June 23, 2008 6:51 PM
UPDATE: We're aware of reports that someone was asked their political affiliation to verify their identity and it is being looked into. Here's a response given to us by Kip Hawley: "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."
Kip, I don't care if it's your policy or not. Someone on your staff did it! And, you condoned this whole unconstitutional process. Don't you bloody get it?
June 23, 2008 6:58 PM
The question a passenger received about his/her political affiliation serves to highlight the potential for abuse.
Blacklists are unAmerican, especially when the process for the creation of the so-called "No-Fly List" is not transparent.
June 23, 2008 6:59 PM
With all of the financial issues with the domestic travel market right now this is going to cause more issues. maybe TSA will get its wish and the airlines fail so there wont be a threat, but then you will be out of a job.
Well I see that Lexis-Nexus made another sale.
Well considering the information they have on most people is incorrect this calls into question the info thats being checked. good example is my report that i pulled (along with a few others) and here is the list of errors it has on it.
Aliases - It has 5 listed for me, none of which have ever used.
associates: lets see it spelled my mothers maiden name wrong, and my fathers name is listed as john Doe. then there are names on that list i have never known. the only correct one on this list is a person i went to 1st grade with and havent talked to in 15 years.
addresses: well it has the address i live at is on i havent lived at in 8 years and have moved 5 times since then and none of those are listed.
my favorites from the report is that fact that i have a mortgage for a house in a state i have never lived for over $700K, as well as being married to someone i have never met. ROFLMAO
as for political affiliation how is that any of your concern, but in this case it has mine wrong as it says republican but Im certainly not considering what this damage this administration has done in the last 8 years.
basically 95% of the info on L-N on me is incorrect, and your going to take info as the truth? if so the number of false positives is going to go through the roof. What a great way tp waste the 9/11 security fees even more without any tangible benefit
as for the where looking into statement from kip that translates to "not a chance", and will be swept under the rug. Typical government, redirect,confuse, obsificate.
TSA you have pushed the boundaries with stupid rules for to long and now its over the edge. I hope you have time to be drug in front of congress because there are gonna be alot of letters going out to my state congress critters as well as those that provide your funding because this is beyond stupid but into the realm of retarded.
FINALLY SOMEONE FROM TSA PLEASE ANSWER ME THIS ALONG WITH MY QUESTION IN THE LAST BLOG POST ABOUT ID'S IN REGUARDS TO MY GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID THAT YOU SAY ISNT VALID. how is checking IDs add anything to security when they are not compared to any list. Also dont give me the line about expert document checkers because that doesnt fly as that skill takes years of training and experience and from reports TSAs class is very short (ie look at these samples and this info). Then If the people on the NO FLY list are so dangerous why havent they been arrested yet and gitmo'd??????? huh probably because there not.
Thats ok TSA stay the CURSE, because come January I hope congress and a new president not only neuter, but removed this circus from the earth and sends the ashes into space. That if someone doesnt challenge this in court and prove you wrong infront of the whole world.
June 23, 2008 7:31 PM
Kip Hawley: "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."
1. And we should believe you?
2. What guarantee do we have that it will NEVER be repeated?
3. And most important, What will happen if it does happen again?
We have already started to slide down the slippery slope, and we are only 24 hours into this nonsense.
June 23, 2008 7:52 PM
UPDATE: We're aware of reports that someone was asked their political affiliation to verify their identity and it is being looked into. Here's a response given to us by Kip Hawley: "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."
And the employees who did so will be reprimanded how, exactly?
And you will apologize to the victim of this ridiculous interrogation how, exactly?
June 23, 2008 7:58 PM
Approximately 650 people have shown up to security checkpoints without ID and a total of 20 people have not been allowed to fly.
What became of the 20 people that were considered "too dangerous to fly"? Arrested? Let go?
I can bet if they played your game, and produced ID, they would have flown. So just because they did not show ID, they were considered dangerous. OK, so next time they do show ID, the screener glances at their papers, all in order, and they fly. What now makes them less dangerous.
I can almost bet, those same 20 people have flown sometime after 9/11, and they were NOT considered a threat then. What now makes those people a threat?
In all seriousness, can you not see just how stupid this all is?
June 23, 2008 8:09 PM
I'm going to give Kip the benefit of the doubt here because I'm certain he had no idea political affiliation could be one of the verification questions.
However, the issue, in my mind, is that when you start a procedure such as that you open the door precisely to such things.
What's amazing to me is that we've gone down the entire "slippery slope" in the first 48 hours of the policy. I almost feel sorry for TSA that this happened so quickly, but it's exactly the sort of reason why this policy is hopeless.
I trust everybody understands that we're no longer talking about issues such as First Amendment subleties, but that the "ball was just knocked out of the park".
There are various thresholds that can be met that would allow a government to be able to "violate" some provision of the First Amendment, but there's absolutely no way you can have a situation where a representative of a government can ask somebody what political party they are registered with as a condition to do anything, whether it's ruled a "right" or a "privilege".
I think this incident has fatally damaged this entire procedure.
June 23, 2008 8:16 PM
What's so wrong with eliminating the treat to America from political parties? Certainly there are elements in both parties that seek to change the course of this great government.
Root them out!
June 23, 2008 8:22 PM
UPDATE: We're aware of reports that someone was asked their political affiliation to verify their identity and it is being looked into. Here's a response given to us by Kip Hawley: "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."
Why was this allowed to happen in the first place? What sort of clown training are you providing your TSOs when even a single one of them thought it was permissible to ask someone's political affiliation?
I hope you, Kip, that you are reasonable enough to find that person who was asked about their political affiliation and profusely apologized to them over and over again.
Otherwise, I have no doubt that these stories will continue to filter out.
June 23, 2008 8:37 PM
While the TSA is enacting yet another useless security procedure Sea-Tac Airport (Seattle, Washington) is letting people on the air field without a physical escort and isn't doing ID nor vehicle screening. See news article.
Tell the TSA to stop wasting time on security theater and to protect our air ports, planes, and the American public from attack. Just because Sea-Tac hasn't had a problem resulting from their almost non-existent security procedures for their air field doesn't mean they won't.
TSA: if someone gains access to Sea-Tac's air field and kills 200 people it's going to be your fault. If it happens it'll be proof you don't care about the safety of your fellow flying Americans.
June 23, 2008 9:14 PM
The court review of this "papers please" policy can't come soon enough.
And, once again, TSA has shown that it can't follow its own (often secret, unpublished) policy.
Treason, I say.
June 23, 2008 9:25 PM
Ayn R. Key said...
Which the Court ruled on in Gilmore? Come on, didn't Trollkiller already point out that you're wrong about that?
Why yes I did Ayn R. Key, I thought I had made a logical argument on why the TSA is wrong on Gilmore and tried to open up a dialog. I guess all the lawyers on the payroll were not up to the challenge.
I think for now I want to concentrate on the fact that the two sections of 49 C.F.R. PART 1540--CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES that the TSA cites does not grant the TSA the authority or right to demand ID as a condition of granting access to a sterile area.
In fact the sections they cite when read properly with the definitions for Part 1540 limits the TSA to screening for weapons, explosives and incendiaries as the sole criteria for granting access to a sterile area.
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, THROUGH the screening of persons and property.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
I don't see ANYWHERE in those definitions that say a word about ID. The TSA is right we must submit to SCREENINGS, they are WRONG if they think the law included ID checks and the denial of access on the unwillingness to show ID.
Kind people please excuse the following rudeness, I just want to make sure there is no chance of it not being seen. I have asked several times for them to address this issue.
ONCE AGAIN, I CHALLENGE THE TSA TO PROVE THE TWO SECTIONS OF 1540 THAT THEY CITE (§ 1540.107 & § 1540.105 (a)(2) ) GIVE THEM ANY AUTHORITY OR RIGHT TO DEMAND AN ID AS A CONDITION OF ACCESS TO A STERILE AREA
June 23, 2008 10:06 PM
Can anyone say McCarthy?
June 23, 2008 10:07 PM
Would you so kind TSA types please let me know which political parties are ok to belong to?
Also while your at it please let us know which religions are acceptable to the TSA Controllers.
I sure wouldn't want to belong to the wrong one and have my patriotism challenged.
In another post that was censored by the Blog Operators a Blog Rep indicated that TSA lawyers were ok with this ID BS.
I stated that Hitlers Generals were ok with the systematic elimination of a whole people.
The point being that the beginnings are very simular. Control the people more, and more, and more.........
TSA has made a major error with this policy.
I call for the arrest and trial of DHS/TSA leaders responsible for this illegal policy. They are in fact traitors to the United States.
June 23, 2008 10:10 PM
Apparently, this website doesn't like what I had to say or TSA's getting slammed now because it wouldn't take my original comment.
So 20 people were denied boarding because they wouldn't show an ID. How many of those were arrested? I'm guessing 0 ... else TSA would have been trumpeting it as a success rather than being thrown into damage control by asking someone his political affiliation.
How many of these people were so dangerous that they couldn't be allowed to board a plane yet not dangerous enough to be arrested? Again, I'm guessing 0.
Dave Nelson's exactly right. It doesn't matter if Kippie's against this or not. HIS decision to implement this program allowed this to happen. HIS decision allowed such a information service vendor to be contracted. HIS lack of management did not allow for proper training of the TSO's in the process. There is no excuse for NOT knowing what questions were going to be asked and what information is going to be available. If he had no clue, he that's poor management and makes me question (even more than I do now) his leadership and acumen for security.
"Do you want to fly today" has a new meaning: don't assert your rights or you won't get to fly.
This is an assault on our rights, plain and simple. This nothing but a punitive measure directed to those who would assert their rights.
TSA was probably setup today by a legal challenge. Hopefully it was the man who was interrogated today. I hope this goes to court and is struck down. It can't come soon enough.
I can't help but think about a quote on our doors at work from Abraham Lincoln: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." This is what's happening right now ... and TSA's in the middle of it. America is the middle of destroying itself while Osama sits and laughs in a cave. He probably never thought it would be this easy to take America down. Do we really need to completely destroy the village in order to save it?
You must be proud, Kip.
May God help us all.
Robert
June 23, 2008 10:10 PM
I always show my ID when asked, even with the TSA. But why should we show government officials documents to fly domestically? If the airlines have such a policy, I understand because they are private entities, but the government should not ask for ID for domestic travel. A passenger in just about any other mode of transportation doesn't have to show ID to a government official on a domestic trip, so why should airplane passengers? I cooperate because I want to fly with minimal hassle but the policy should change.
Again, if the airlines need to verify whether the person boarding the plane is the correct person, they could ask for ID at the gate. But why get the government involved in this?
June 23, 2008 10:30 PM
So it only took 48 hours before the first reported instance of a question about political affiliation being required.
I'll make two predictions:
1) The TSA employees who did this will never be reprimanded in any serious manner; the worst thing they will face will be some additional "training".
2) The poor passenger who was questioned will never receive a face to face apology from the questioners, the supervisors or any of Kip's minions.
The fact that this traveler was questioned at all about his politics clearly demonstrates that either A) this policy is clearly aimed at deterring citizens from exercising their right to travel without ID, or B) was so incompetently planned that no one happened to think that political affiliation should be a topic that is off-limits.
On second thought, it could be both.
T-the-B at flyertalk
June 23, 2008 10:35 PM
Just out of curiosity, do you guys run my credit report if I show up with no ID? That's the only way I can think of you'd be able to validate I am who I say I am. Every time I request a copy of my credit report online, they always ask me "validation questions". While hopefully all the inquiries won't lower my FICO score, who else besides the credit bureaus collect and maintain vast amounts of information on everybody? Maybe you should do this as a standard practice, since a photo ID really validates little.
"There are good people with bad papers; and bad people with good papers." - Bertolt Brecht
And, with "Secure Flight" or whatever comes after that, will I need a certain minimum FICO score to fly? Would make sense; the government already checks credit scores before issuing DOD security clearances.
June 23, 2008 10:46 PM
Question about the 20 people that were denied the constitutional right to travel freely within the United States.
Since all 20 must have been considered a hazard to the safe operation of the aircraft were they all arrested and charged with a crime?
If not why were they not allowed to travel.
Not about control you say, I raise the BS flag.
Enforcers of the ID policy must be charge with civil rights violations.
TSO's, you ready for what is coming?
June 23, 2008 10:53 PM
Geeez. Only a few hours and 40 negative comments. Seems like even TSA supporters aren't buying this one.
This is a HORRIBLE policy that is all about control and nothing about improving security. Heck, even the strip search machine has a little to do about security. This just plain stinks.
June 23, 2008 11:30 PM
Senator McCarthy (Sorry I mean Kip, my apologies for putting the wrong name on my black list...but you have no recourse), an apology is not appropriate. Stopping the policy until you can guarantee it won't happen again is barely satisfactory.
What should happen is you and your useless boss should publicaly apologize to the American people and cancel this absurd policy permanently and with a great deal of shame.
This is far from the only thing wrong with it, however I am more than willing to bet it will catch a whole lot more publicity.
And BTW none of this "if it happened" bs the person who originally posted it had no problem with the question and no reason to lie...however many others will
June 23, 2008 11:33 PM
Does this mean I can no longer use my Federal Prison ID Card?
June 23, 2008 11:44 PM
UPDATE: We're aware of reports that someone was asked their political affiliation to verify their identity and it is being looked into. Here's a response given to us by Kip Hawley: "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."
How do you get around with your nose growing longer and longer with every new comment?
June 23, 2008 11:52 PM
You guys are so full of crap I can't stand it anymore. This entire blog is nothing but a series of demonstrations that you think we are all stupid. We're not, and we all can see that you are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to keep us safer.
June 24, 2008 1:30 AM
"It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation."
A point no one is making yet...
Why do your "badged" "officers" have access to information like that?
What "other sensitive personal" information is now in their hands?
You appear to have provided one more area where our personal information is vulnerable.
Heck of a job Kippy.
Thanks.
,>)
June 24, 2008 5:44 AM
Blog guy Sterling said: "We're 48 hours into the new procedure and things have been smooth so far. Approximately 650 people have shown up to security checkpoints without ID and a total of 20 people have not been allowed to fly. That is .0005 percent of the approximately four million people that flew this weekend."
And twenty people too many denied their basic right to travel by the best available method within their means. Your BS "ID-Security Theater" policy has violated their rights, and those of the other 630 who complied with your stupid "requests" for verification/identity theft, even more egregiously than it has the 4 million people who've complied with your fascist "Papiere bitte!" demands.
Blog guy Sterling said: "Our critics say this has nothing to do with security and it only affects people that want to exercise their rights to anonymous air travel (which Gilmore v Gonzalez ruled on) and terrorists that aren't good liars."
Don't know what the latter part has to do with the former... But the critics are *RIGHT*.
Blog guy Sterling said: "What these folks aren't getting is that by requiring ID, you're closing that old loophole that allowed (up until Saturday) anyone, good or bad, to show up with any boarding pass (theirs or someone else's), say they lost their ID, get a pat-down and bag check and be on their way. "
And if the check shows that they aren't carrying what Blog Guy Chris referred to as "pointy objects", and the rest of us call "items which can actually be used to threaten the safety of the aircraft", then they're as safe to get on the plane as the meekest, most-submissive person to go through with ID in hand ready to hand to the screener.
Blog guy Sterling said: "No, now we're funneling people with bad intentions towards our expert-trained document checkers and behavior experts."
Oh, thanks, I really NEEDED a good laugh! "Expert-trained"? Who exactly do you imagine you're trying to fool, really?
Blog Guy Sterling said: "We'll continue to update the stats here and continue to thank the 99.9995 percent of air travelers that work with us to quickly and easily establish their identity."
While I, and every other American who's NOT in favor of Nazi-style fascist crap like your new "Papiere bitte!" regime, thank the twenty people who were wrongly denied their right to travel by your new policies and the other 630 people who did not have ID, for showing how ridiculous said policies are.
June 24, 2008 7:33 AM
Just a couple questions:
DHS/TSA have you no shame?
What makes you believe that you can contiue down this slippery slope of Constitutional violations while breaking other federal laws?
Stop the security theater and concentrate on what your original mission statement was. You've proven that you put half baked plans into action while neglecting to consider the full ramifications of those plans. You write inconsistant documents and post those same documents on the web and don't even bother to correct those documents when people point out those inconsistancies. Your contempt for the rights of American people is monumental.
June 24, 2008 7:50 AM
I don't know what to say that hasn't already been said. This policy is horrible, and I hope the courts overturn it quickly. Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to contact your congressional representative and senator about this matter. I know I certainly will.
June 24, 2008 8:27 AM
Anonymous @ 0548 said:
A point no one is making yet...
Why do your "badged" "officers" have access to information like that?
What "other sensitive personal" information is now in their hands?
You appear to have provided one more area where our personal information is vulnerable.
Heck of a job Kippy.
If Kippie and the TSA had any inclination to obey the law of the land, they would have answered both of your questions -- and many others -- in a web-based Privacy Impact Assessment. Federal law requires federal agencies to publish PIAs anytime they create or change a system of records.
So, without publication of a PIA and the requisite public comment period, the TSA and its leadership are committing a felony or two or three as of June 22.
June 24, 2008 9:09 AM
What a disgusting abuse of federal powers under the disguise of safety. It's been said by many others, but let me add my voice to the chorus, TSA's implementation of ID checking does nothing to increase our safety.
My sincerest hope is that the ma & pa Kettles of this once great country of ours are finally waking up to the fact they're giving up their civil liberties one by one and in return all they're receiving is the allusion of security.
It is a sad day in Amerika. Papers Please! Those that ignore history are destined to repeat it.
June 24, 2008 10:08 AM
UPDATE: We're aware of reports that someone was asked their political affiliation to verify their identity and it is being looked into. Here's a response given to us by Kip Hawley: "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."
I don't see, and have not seen elsewhere, wher it said a TSO asked the question. It might have been an LEO who was brought in to talk with the passenger who refused to show an ID, just a thought. And no I'm not saying that that makes it right, asking those types of questions are way off base.
June 24, 2008 10:08 AM
Like an anonymous poster above me, I think this policy is treason. Those all along the chain, from Kip on down to the TSO who was stupid enough to ask for political affiliation, should be tried as traitors to the United States of America.
When I joined the USAF, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. What am I supposed to do when part of the executive branch of the US Government acts like the enemy that I'm sworn to protect against?
(And to Ayn R. Key; Sorry. Wrong Wintermute. Kinda a common handle, but I've been using it around 20 years now... Kinda late to change.)
June 24, 2008 10:48 AM
Still have not received the DHS/TSA approved list of political affiliations or religious groups.
Would you please get it posted to your Information for Travelers pages so we may kowtow properly?
Thanks.
June 24, 2008 11:14 AM
"What these folks aren't getting is that by requiring ID, you're closing that old loophole that allowed (up until Saturday) anyone, good or bad, to show up with any boarding pass (theirs or someone else's), say they lost their ID, get a pat-down and bag check and be on their way."
Actually, the only loophole it closes is the one that got Gonzales and the TSA off the hook in Gilmore v. Gonzales. If this policy had been in place when Gilmore attempted to fly without ID, he would have prevailed in court.
"... now we're funneling people with bad intentions towards our expert-trained document checkers and behavior experts."
Now you're funneling patriots who are standing up for their rights to free assembly and free speech through government harassment.
ID proves nothing because the no-fly and watch lists are not and cannot be effective at identifying bad guys. False positives and false negatives are both way too high. The lists can, however, be altered by those in power to harass and restrict travel of innocent political targets without fear of detection.
This is exactly the type of government power the framers of the Constitution were trying to prevent.
Furthermore, the policy is completely ineffective because a terrorist doesn't need to create a fake identification card (which may be hard), he only needs to create a fake boarding pass that matches his real ID (which is trivial). The watch-list check happens when you purchase the ticket not at the checkpoint. You can use a stolen credit card to purchase the ticket in a clear name and flaunt your real, on-the-list name at the checkpoint all you want.
This sheer brokenness of this new policy proves that the TSA's motives are something other than security.
June 24, 2008 11:26 AM
The below quote says it all, taken from Confessions of a TSA Agent
Trust me, you don't want to take on the federal government when a TSA agent is abused, assaulted or intimidated.
Also note that the Federal Government can fine you $5000 - $25,000 for "abusing" a TSA agent, BUT you cannot fine the government when THEY abuse you.
The "interrogations" of ID-less passengers will only escalate. The current administration views torture as a viable means to combat terrorism.
Is this the America thousands have fought and died for?
June 24, 2008 11:33 AM
Could a bad person produce an excellent fake ID and get past document checkers... sure.
And a bad person could produce an excellent fake boarding pass that matches their actual ID and get past document checkers.
To get 20 mules past your checkpoint, the bad guys would only need to buy one cheap clean ticket and photoshop it 20 times.
TSA ID checking only makes sense for the pure commercial reason of making it harder for passengers to resell their tickets--it makes money for the airlines.
And this new ID policy of refusing dissenters but not losers is pure political discrimination.
June 24, 2008 11:45 AM
According to a poster on FlyerTalk, there are even more interesting changes coming soon to your local checkpoint or boarding area. Just wonderful. What other acts are they going to add to the dog and pony show?
June 24, 2008 11:46 AM
What is the safe answer when a badged and uniformed TSA federal officer asks: "What is your political affiliation?"
"Let me talk to your supervisor."
or:
"Supporting TSA is supporting the troops! Sir!"
June 24, 2008 11:57 AM
Government doesn't trust it's citizens - that's obvious.
And it wonders why the citizens don't trust it?
The new program smacks of McCarthyism.
Y'all are making the process worse, not better.
June 24, 2008 12:09 PM
How can anyone gripe about an ID requirement? The world is a dangerous place. With a war resolution about to be passed in both the House (Res 362) and Senate (Res 580) next week, we can expect some sort of terror attack at any time. Iran is not going to take a blockade quietly.
This ID check comes none-too-soon. I just hope TSA rachets up security everywhere.
June 24, 2008 12:39 PM
After filling out the affidavit, Laurie called a service to verify my address. The service needed me to then correctly answer three questions about myself, which Laurie relayed to me. The first was my date of birth, the second was a previous address (which I only got right on my second try), and the third was "You are registered to vote. Which political party have you registered with?" I got all three right, and only then did Laurie clear me to go through security.
June 24, 2008 12:51 PM
Dear TSA,
Can you please inform us when you plan to start improving our lives and making it LESS of an ordeal to board a plane? When will you start using technology and intelligence to generate less inconvenience to passengers? When will you stop harassing millions in the name of security with absolutely no proof of effectiveness, much less cost/effectiveness?
It seems to me a new annoying "rule" is added every month, and we have no choice but to obey, or we can´t get where we have to be. I have yet to see an inconvenience removed, except perhaps for the prohibition of nail clippers, which was absolutely completely ridiculous in the first place.
June 24, 2008 1:18 PM
So, what is the major SOP that is coming soon to airports?
June 24, 2008 1:21 PM
Has there been a mass exodus of lawyers at the TSA?
Surely by now you guys could have found one lawyer that can answer my simple question about the legality of demanding ID and requiring it as a condition of access to a sterile area. Just to make it easy here are the questions again;
Does 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 & § 1540.105 (a)(2) allow for the demand of ID by the TSA and the willingness to show ID by the passenger as a condition for granting access to a sterile area when § 1540.5 appears to limit the screenings to strictly a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries as the only requirement for granting access to the sterile area?
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, THROUGH the screening of persons and property.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property FOR weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
I know there is at least one person at the TSA that would love to put Trollkiller in his place. Now is your chance. Don't make me double dog dare you.
June 24, 2008 2:31 PM
I would bet that with this ID equired civil liberties violation that TSA has earned the distinction of being the least respected/trusted federal agency.
Good tie breaker Kip!
June 24, 2008 2:44 PM
If my ID is stolen and I have to fly out of town, why would I feel comfortable signing an affidavit giving my home address to a local TSA screener?
It's common knowledge that a small minority of TSA screeners are thieves. I would be foolish to give my address to a TSA screener. He/she would then be aware that I am out of town and could burglarize my home.
June 24, 2008 2:55 PM
Great. A government checkpoint where someone demands to see your papers. That used to be a cliche example of something so fundamentally anti-American that no one would ever think about doing it here.
I believe you are a greater threat to our freedom than the terrorists.
June 24, 2008 3:03 PM
Of the 650 people that showed up without ID, it's taking us an average of 10 minutes to verify their identity and get them on their way. We're able to do this so quickly because of the close coordination of our officers at airports and our 24/7 ops center.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
First off, checking ID at all is a violation of ones rights.
Two, since you say the average time to clear a person with no ID is just ten minutes, what was the longest time a person was detained? If the average was 10 minutes then the longer period of time must have been a good bit longer than 10 minutes.
June 24, 2008 3:19 PM
Not a single pro-TSA comment. Even the usual chorus of "you want the terrorists to win because you won't trade liberty for security you crybabies" hasn't appeared.
Moreover not a member of the blog team have shown up to answer any comments, even with token non-answers. Even the TSOs who comment here who aren't part of the blog team are refusing to touch this one.
Perhaps you did go too far this time?
(Wintermute - now I know you aren't the same one. The one I know used to say I wasn't in the military because I was only in the USAF.)
June 24, 2008 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...
This ID check comes none-too-soon. I just hope TSA rachets up security everywhere.
Then you should have NO problem in allowing the US government to permanently station an agent in your house, to ensure you are safe and that you are never a threat.
Life has risks, the government is NOT responsible for protecting us from every threat that MAY happen.
June 24, 2008 3:49 PM
where are my other posts? Its been almost 48 hours since the first and over 24 since the second...clear the backlog its not gonna help your situation at all.
June 24, 2008 4:01 PM
"Anonymous said...
According to a poster on FlyerTalk, there are even more interesting changes coming soon to your local checkpoint or boarding area. Just wonderful. What other acts are they going to add to the dog and pony show?"
- 311 will be laxed greatly. The officers' judgment will finally be allowed instead of arbitrarily taking away all liquids.
- You get as many tries through the x-ray as necessary.
- The goal is for the biggest airports to all have an average peak wait time that is less than 10 minutes (and smaller airports to have less) I think...
Miami is batting at 7 minutes average peak time already...
I guess all the new changes are actually more convenient...
June 24, 2008 4:25 PM
Quote from anonymous: How can anyone gripe about an ID requirement?
Because it does nothing for security and barring probable cause for a commission of a crime, the government has no reason to know who I or anyone else is.
It's called privacy. Or with TSA, lack thereof.
Reminds me of the movie Dr. Zhivago (for those that don't know, it takes place during the Russian Revolution) where Dr. Zhivago is picked up and used as the Reds think necessary. They tell him there's no such thing as a private life.
Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Supporting measures like TSA's ID requirement is a step in that direction.
The world is a dangerous place.
And it was before 9/11 and will always be. Does that mean we should give up everything to be "safe and protected"?
With a war resolution about to be passed in both the House (Res 362) and Senate (Res 580) next week, we can expect some sort of terror attack at any time. Iran is not going to take a blockade quietly.
And an ID check will stop this how?
This ID check comes none-too-soon. I just hope TSA rachets up security everywhere.
If we really want air travel to be safe, let's ratchet it up all the way. Keep planes on the ground. That way none will fall out of the sky.
With regards to airport screening for the 40 some-odd years before 9/11. There were very few incidents. Were we just lucky all those years or did terrorists just suddenly appear? Were we any less safe because people didn't show ID? I don't think so.
Robert
June 24, 2008 4:35 PM
Anonymous said:
"How can anyone gripe about an ID requirement? The world is a dangerous place. With a war resolution about to be passed in both the House (Res 362) and Senate (Res 580) next week, we can expect some sort of terror attack at any time. Iran is not going to take a blockade quietly.
"This ID check comes none-too-soon. I just hope TSA rachets up security everywhere."
Where do you get your Kool-Aid from?
June 24, 2008 4:37 PM
Oh thank you so much, anonymous TSA apologist, as no one here never realized that a terrorist could attack at any time.
More seriously, I'm statistically as likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack, yet I refuse to fear storms. Why, exactly, should I fear a terrorist attack? Especially when these treasonous ID requirements have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with fascism?
(As an aside, I bet Prescott Bush would be so proud of his grandson for the fascism he has brought to the United States, while he had failed in doing so.)
June 24, 2008 4:54 PM
TSA,
Like so many others have echoed, you've gone too far this time. I do thank you for being partway honest and at least addressing this issue and allowing comments on the blog.
However, why don't you study this new policy and see exactly how it enhances security. Maybe it enhances your vision of security (keeping bad-named people off planes), but it doesn't enhance our vision (dangerous items are key, not people - I don't care if a murderer is next to me, as long as he doesn't have a knife or gun on him) of security.
Question 1: You repeatedly claim this helps improve no-fly list enforcement. As we have told you over and over again, the ID checkers aren't checking names against a list. They're just comparing the name against the boarding pass, and the face to the ID. So, how exactly does this new policy enhance the NFL enforcement?
Question 2: What exactly was wrong with the old policy (claim you have no ID, you get a SSSS and you're on your way)? We technically can still do that, and remember when there's a will, there's a way. There's no such thing as perfect security.
Question 3: Why are you targeting those who simply refuse to show ID? Some people refuse to show ID because of: identify theft concerns; religious reasons; self-privacy reasons; and/or their own principle. We are free people here in the USA, and we have a right not to show ID. People can lie and say they lost their ID, and get by, but those truly wanting to stand up for their rights will be punished. Is there a political connection to this? I think it's blatantly obvious what your purpose is here, TSA.
Well, I hope you at least have the courtesy to answer my questions (and others, too).
My suggestion is a compromise, which some people may not like, but will work better than this. Revert to the old policy (no ID, go get SSSS, but that's it), BUT add more BDO's to checkpoints. Asking people for their political affiliation, asking to verify their information, and/or calling in the cops is way too intrusive, especially for domestic travel. It wastes time, money, and resources, and is mission creep.
Thank you for listening, and I truly hope you will acknowledge this and at least take it in consideration.
Andrew
June 24, 2008 5:08 PM
Sandra,
When the resolutions in the house and senate to blockade (a blockade is an act of war) Iran pass, it is only a matter of time before hostilities begin in the Persian Gulf. In this new war, we can expect to be attacked on US soil.
Now, I don't know if checking an ID will save anyone, but it can't hurt. We should have larger fish to fry than complaining about ID checking. We are going into another war.
June 24, 2008 5:24 PM
So you approve my comment complaining about where my other comments went, but not the comments themselves.
You guys are pathetic, truely pathetic. The reason theres no justification from the bloggers is because they know this is unjustifiable. If your PR response is HIDE then your cause is truely lost and you really owe the american people more than just a reversal of this absurd attack on our civil liberties.
You owe the american public an apology
June 24, 2008 5:49 PM
Phil said:
"Fellow Americans: Why do any of you think it is appropriate for us to restrict someone's ability to travel within the country based on a secret list?"
Chris Boyce said:
"I don't care who is on my plane as long as they have been screened for weapons."
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Why do we let the word "terrorist" scare us into abandoning all that our great country was founded on? How is a "terrorist" any different from a mass murderer, a serial rapist, or an arsonist? Yes, there are bad people out there, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our fundamental principles of due process, innocent until proven guilty, and freedom of travel.
I don't expect the government to protect me from sitting next to a criminal, let alone next to someone with suspected but unproven "bad intentions." Good grief, all I ask is that the person next to me has been screened for weapons and doesn't smoke! If you never want to sit next to a criminal or crazy person on a plane, there is only one thing to do: never fly!
The illusion that we CAN be totally safe is dangerous. The price we pay to maintain that illusion is too steep. THIS IS AMERICA!!!
June 24, 2008 6:23 PM
Anonymous, the bills you refer to have been referred to Committee, where they will die on the vine. They will never make it to the floor.
June 24, 2008 7:06 PM
I find your lack of response to a simple legal question disturbing.
I would like to keep this on a friendly basis so I am giving you a chance to respond before I exercise my option of contacting the Office of Inspector General.
From the OIG web site.
If you have knowledge of fraud, waste, abuse, or allegations of civil liberties or civil rights abuses, or mismanagement involving Department of Homeland Security programs or operations, you can:
DHS OIG Hotline: 1-800-323-8603
Fax DHS OIG Hotline at:
(202) 254-4292
Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov
Or write:
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Attn: Office of Inspector General, Hotline
June 24, 2008 7:55 PM
Quote from Anonymous: Now, I don't know if checking an ID will save anyone, but it can't hurt. We should have larger fish to fry than complaining about ID checking. We are going into another war."
So your idea is to implement a half baked idea to make you feel better then. Wonderful.
Yes, it can hurt and is hurting now. No bigger fish to fry? Abandoning freedom at home with policies like this is the BIGGEST fish to fry!
What TSA and DHS are doing now with this is just an appetizer. Let's send the meal back before they get to the main course. If we don't, we'll get force fed something we don't like and it'll be too late then.
Robert
June 24, 2008 7:57 PM
Kathy wrote:
"Why do we let the word "terrorist" scare us into abandoning all that our great country was founded on? How is a "terrorist" any different from a mass murderer, a serial rapist, or an arsonist?"
In the eyes of the law in this country, someone is a mass murderer, serial rapist, or arsonist after he has been found to be guilty of one of those crimes by a judge or jury. The popular meaning of these terms is similar, though many people feel that if they think he has committed the crime -- regardless of the outcome of any court case -- he is a criminal.
With "terrorist", in the eyes of the law, you are one if our president or military says you are (and that is rapidly coming to mean anyone who actively opposes any policy of the United States government), and the popular definition includes anyone who seems likely to want to commit an act of terrorism.
It is ridiculous that we put up with the Department of Homeland Security telling us that they have a list of people who are so dangerous that they should not be allowed to travel from one state to another via commercial air, but are of so little danger that we have no crime with which to charge them.
We have a process for restricting people's movement when the need arises: a judge sentences those people to imprisonment or house arrest.
June 24, 2008 8:00 PM
Trollkiller wrote:
I know there is at least one person at the TSA that would love to put Trollkiller in his place. Now is your chance. Don't make me double dog dare you.
You already know I find your logic undeniable on that one.
Though I find it interesting that all of the blog team seems to have vanished.
June 24, 2008 9:28 PM
ACLU is now involved. This should get rather interesting (as in the ancient Chinese cure - may you live in interesting times).
June 24, 2008 9:40 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Anonymous said...
According to a poster on FlyerTalk, there are even more interesting changes coming soon to your local checkpoint or boarding area. Just wonderful. What other acts are they going to add to the dog and pony show?"
- 311 will be laxed greatly. The officers' judgment will finally be allowed instead of arbitrarily taking away all liquids.
- You get as many tries through the x-ray as necessary.
- The goal is for the biggest airports to all have an average peak wait time that is less than 10 minutes (and smaller airports to have less) I think...
Miami is batting at 7 minutes average peak time already...
I guess all the new changes are actually more convenient...
June 24, 2008 4:25 PM
Actually it's not that you get more chances through the xray. Because people do not walk through the xray, they walk through the walk through metal detector. The new policy will reduce the amount of hand wanding and speed up the process for everyone. Someone walks through and alarms the metal detector steps back and removes the belt and keys, comes back through and alarms again, they get as many chances as it takes to get them to clear without being handwanded unless they have metal implants or some metal that cannot be removed.
The other changes that will speed up the process are mostly things that simplify procedures for TSO's and align the smaller airports that have tended to have a very strict interpretation of the SOP with the larger airports. The digging inside the bag for one tiny bottle of eye drops that are medical and allowed anyway should stop. That doesn't mean the rules regarding the liquid restrictions have changed, just that minimizing bag checks and hassle for allowable liquids is a wise move and gets the smaller airports in line with the rest of the country.
June 24, 2008 9:44 PM
I do not see how the requirement to show valid ID that proves that the person holding the boarding pass is the person able to fly on the ticket makes TSA the enemy. ID's have been checked since the TSA took over and people without boarding passes couldn't go through. Now that rule has just been more thoroughly enforced to prevent gaming the system. It's not against the constitution to require ID or it wouldn't have been allowed all this time folks. If it's unconstitutional it would have been struck down oh so long ago.
June 24, 2008 9:51 PM
I think the sudden silence from TSA and its Bloggers tells us all just how much backbone they as an organization have.
Of course no one can defend the undefensable actions that DHS/TSA has brought with this insane ID policy.
I suggest everyone with a concern for civil and constitutional rights contact the OIG and your congressmen to lodge your opinion regarding this matter.
June 24, 2008 11:11 PM
I do not see how the requirement to show valid ID that proves that the person holding the boarding pass is the person able to fly on the ticket makes TSA the enemy.
Read some history. When the government begins asking questions like "you are a registered voter. Which party are you registered with?" you can rest uneasy knowing that they are in the process of stripping away fundamental rights. If you don't have an ID on you, say you lost it then you get the SSSS treatment. You say you have an ID but refuse to show it you get turned away for refusal to 'cooperate' with the security theater. TSA just denied you the right to travel because you stood up for your Constitutional rights. They did this without a court, judge or jury. They passed judgement and sentence on you.
ID's have been checked since the TSA took over and people without boarding passes couldn't go through.
No ID meant SSSS treatment. No ticket/gate pass meant no entry - that isn't the question here.
Now that rule has just been more thoroughly enforced to prevent gaming the system.
No, they allow people with no ID who cooperate with TSA passage. It is still possible to 'game the system' if you follow TSA edicts.
It's not against the constitution to require ID or it wouldn't have been allowed all this time folks.
You're on thin ice there. Is your name on the no fly list? If it is then how did it get there? If you are such a threat to airline travel that you can't fly then why aren't you either indicted or arrested. Slippery slope there.
If it's unconstitutional it would have been struck down oh so long ago.
Got to have a court case and a judge to rule on it. Read some old civics books.
June 25, 2008 7:45 AM
Red China is looking for good agents to control the movement and behavior of their people.
Looks like TSA is fully qualified to fill those positions.
June 25, 2008 9:18 AM
Anonymous said: Now, I don't know if checking an ID will save anyone, but it can't hurt. We should have larger fish to fry than complaining about ID checking. We are going into another war. (emphasis mine)
There is no bigger fish to fry than a fascist government at home attempting to curtail our rights. So yes, make no mistake. There is another war. It is being fought by the commenters here who refuse to kowtow to these ridiculous and illegal ID requirements. (and remember, the courts did NOT rule in favor of ID requirements. Gilmore lost because, in the court's flawed logic, he had other options to showing ID. Those options have been removed.)
June 25, 2008 9:24 AM
Anon said...
It's not against the constitution to require ID or it wouldn't have been allowed all this time folks. If it's unconstitutional it would have been struck down oh so long ago.
Um, actually the government does things that are unconstitutional fairly frequently. That's why the Judicial Branch of government was created by the founding fathers.
This requirement to identify yourself to the government prior to travel within the United States may very well be found to be unconstitutional. At the least it should be a concern to all citizens.
Finally, I'm glad the ACLU is now talking about this policy.
June 25, 2008 9:35 AM
Quote: I do not see how the requirement to show valid ID that proves that the person holding the boarding pass is the person able to fly on the ticket makes TSA the enemy. ID's have been checked since the TSA took over and people without boarding passes couldn't go through.
Until fairly recently, this was done by contractors. This is largely a revenue protection scheme for the airlines that say you can't make changes to a ticket, give it to someone else, blah blah.
Now, TSA is responsible for the airlines' revenue protection and using the guise of terrorism to take that control. The airlines won't object as it's one less expense for them in a time when they need every penny for fuel.
Now that rule has just been more thoroughly enforced to prevent gaming the system. It's not against the constitution to require ID or it wouldn't have been allowed all this time folks. If it's unconstitutional it would have been struck down oh so long ago.
I think this shows ignorance of how the legal system works. A law will stand until it's challenged ... unconstitutional or not. Judges don't routinely review laws just because. You seem to be saying "it must be constitutional because it's still there. That's like saying "I've been robbing banks for years and haven't been arrested. So it must be legal."
In Gilmore, the courts found that ID wasn't required as long as he submitted to a secondary. IMO, this affirmed the right to travel without ID. Had TSA implemented this rule when Gilmore was being tried, the court may have struck ended the practice. Instead, since there was another means to get past security without ID, the court really didn't rule on it.
Now, that's essentially gone. I don't think interrogations or "you just won't fly if you don't want to show ID" is going to fly this time and it's ripe for a challenge.
Just because something hasn't been challenged in court doesn't mean something isn't illegal or unconstitutional.
Robert
June 25, 2008 11:01 AM
"I do not see how the requirement to show valid ID that proves that the person holding the boarding pass is the person able to fly on the ticket makes TSA the enemy. ID's have been checked since the TSA took over and people without boarding passes couldn't go through. Now that rule has just been more thoroughly enforced to prevent gaming the system."
You are misrepresenting both the change in TSA policy and the objections to it. Prior to the current policy, if you had no ID or expired ID, you would get a pat-dowm and a bag check to determine if you were OK to fly. Setting aside the dubious merits and usefulness of ID checks, this was a pretty decent policy -- it only took a few minutes and as long as you don't have anything dangerous on your person or in your bags, there's no problem with your getting on a plane. And TSA has identified not a single incident which suggested that this policy needed to be changed.
The current policy, instead of determining whether someone has anything that makes them dangerous to their flight, is more invasive (as seen by the passenger interrogated about his political affiliation), wastes TSA's time, wastes the time of citizens traveling by air, and provides absolutely no additional security. Furthermore, the policy is clearly aimed at punishing the vanishingly miniscule percentage of citizens seeking to travel by air who object to showing ID, since anyone who says they lost ID is permitted to fly after the new invasive and pointless identity verification, while anyone refusing to show ID -- even if they're willing to undergo the newly invasive secondary screening is refused.
In other words, citizens who have done nothing wrong other than getting mugged or leaving their ID in a pair of pants that's in a checked bag are being subjected to lengthy and invasive interrogations that do nothing to make anyone more secure -- just because TSA wants to "get" people who object to showing ID. TSA is, in this instance, the enemy of common sense and genuine security.
June 25, 2008 11:01 AM
If TSA was in the wheat milling business, they couldn't separate the wheat from the chaff. We are having these rules shoved down our throats because they really are clueless about how to root out criminal intent without suspecting everyone. Face it folks, the best and the brightest are off doing other things, TSA has had to make do with poorly thought out and badly implemented policies. If I didn't drive, I wouldn't even carry a picture ID that the TSA would recognize, and why on earth should I carry ID at all when I fly within the US? There is no law that forces me to carry ID, unless I am driving.
June 25, 2008 11:47 AM
HSVTSO Dean said...
Trollkiller wrote:
I know there is at least one person at the TSA that would love to put Trollkiller in his place. Now is your chance. Don't make me double dog dare you.
You already know I find your logic undeniable on that one.
Though I find it interesting that all of the blog team seems to have vanished.
Maybe they all took a 12 day weekend to celebrate the 4th of July.
June 25, 2008 1:18 PM
So.... in the second 48 hours how many citizens were hastled/detained because they didn't have their ID. How many were ultimately refused entry into the secure area? Any arrested because they were dangerous?
I'd really appreciate you adding this statistic to your "Week at a glance" web-page.
June 25, 2008 1:24 PM
I'm astounded at the unmitigated gall exhibited by the TSA. Do you not realize that anybody with half a brain can see the foolishness of this policy? I asked by 5th grade son what he would do if he were a bad guy trying to get on a plane (in light of the new policy.) He said, "Easy, I'd make sure I had some kind of ID so they would ignore me." So now we waste resources that could be used for real security for some charade a fifth grader could beat, apparently to punish those "evil-doers" who dare challenge your authority.
"Papers, please, comrade." I weep for the America I once knew and I miss Her dearly. My sincere hope is that we wake up in time for my children to live in that same America instead of only hearing about it in sad stories about the good old days.
June 25, 2008 1:40 PM
NoClu, I was getting ready to ask the exact same thing. How many have been refused? How many of them are now in jail? On what charges? Has the TSA stopped any "terrorist" from flying, ever? I doubt we get answers, because no one is home at the TSA... But apparently, someone with the blog team is at work. Who else is approving the comments? My guess is that they are not allowed to comment on a pending case, and they've already been sued over the new requirements. One can hope, anyhow...
June 25, 2008 1:55 PM
Blogger Sterling posted the First 48 hours article.
Who is Sterling? Sterling is not listed in "Meet the Bloggers".
Is Sterling a guest blogger from the legal department or some other office?
Secondly, of the people who have not been allowed to gain access to the secure area of the airport and prevented from their travels how many were arrested and charged with a crime.
What court determined that they could not travel freely and associate freely as our constitution provides for? What court restricted their civil rights?
When did TSA become Judge and Jury and Executioner?
The DHS/TSA silence is quiet remarkable.
June 25, 2008 2:14 PM
Congratulations, mods - I have now lost any shred of respect for you and your agency that might have remained due to your censoring of multiple posts in the last couple of weeks, NONE OF WHICH VIOLATED YOUR COMMENT POLICY IN ANY WAY. I know it's not just a case of posts being caught in a backlog, either - posts timestamped today made it, while mine from yesterday didn't? No backlog issue there, for certain - someone's conveniently "losing" posts.
Guess it's easier to just "disappear" inconvenient posts than to actually place them in a public forum where they'd allegedly need to be responded to. But then, such an act of government-sponsored censorship is in fine company with the new "Papiere bitte!" policy you've just instituted, and which you are CONTINUING to lie about with every comment any of your PR types make about it. "It's not about control." - but you'll let people through who are sufficiently meek and submissive to your agency's unreasonable and unConstitutional demands, while punishing only those who dare to stand up for the right of Americans to travel domestically without asking permission from a government official (which is what showing "appropriate ID" at a government checkpoint is, make no mistake about it).
Your violations of the rights of innocent Americans is a far-greater threat to our nation than any terrorist could ever hope to be. And you have the gall to be PROUD of your actions, as well.
June 25, 2008 3:11 PM
Maybe they all took a 12 day weekend to celebrate the 4th of July.
More likely a late observence of May Day
June 25, 2008 3:47 PM
Now that TSA is requiring all travelers to identify themselves and be cooperative (TSA term)
how long before the purges start?
June 25, 2008 4:17 PM
Anyone get the feeling that TSA doesn't want to talk about this anymore?
June 25, 2008 4:18 PM
What makes any of you guys think TSA's security theater is subject to review by a legitimate court of law? We now have secret courts (which are puppets of the executive branch), military commissions to try "unlawful combatants" (watch the definition of that term to expand in the coming years), expanded warrantless wiretaps and searches/detentions, suspension of Hebeas Corpus (the principle that guarantees your RIGHT to appear in court), Gitmo, "Secure Flight"/CAPPS II, and of course the Patriot Act to back it all up. That's what you and your elected representatives asked for in the knee-jerk reaction to 9/11; that's what you got. Our rights are gone, or nearly gone, and it's too late to get them back, because the bottom line is that 99.9995% of us refuse to rock the boat through fear, ignorance, or both. Freedom is not free, and even if you do catch a terrorist, it won't be worth the expense of the liberties we've lost. To the decent people of the Transportation Security Administration, do you see what America is becoming, and does any of this bother you in the least?
June 25, 2008 4:48 PM
"Anyone get the feeling that TSA doesn't want to talk about this anymore?"
What, just because they're too gutless to attempt to defend this fiasco?
June 25, 2008 5:44 PM
I always get a good laugh when I hear the belly aching that most of you tsa haters make. What have any of you (besides those actually fighting for the freedom of this country) actually done to "deserve" this right of travel and whatever else you feel is your God given right? So you have to take your shoes off and show your ID... you could be starving in an overpopulated country swarmed with diseased carrying flys and everything else under the sun. Be grateful for what you have and try to help the situation at home rather than bitch and moan. Cant you see that DHS/TSA is trying to keep you safe from another attack??? how many of occurred since TSA arrived??? thank you.
ps. i look forward to your responses :D
June 25, 2008 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...
More likely a late observence of May Day
More like Mayday... Mayday...(.wav)
Man I loved that movie.
June 25, 2008 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...
Now that TSA is requiring all travelers to identify themselves and be cooperative (TSA term)
how long before the purges start?
I started purging the second I saw the new forced ID check.
June 25, 2008 6:41 PM
Anonymous said...
Anyone get the feeling that TSA doesn't want to talk about this anymore?
The Blog Team's job is support the TSA in all its policies. I have the feeling the Blog Team knows that the TSA's position on this is indefensible.
The Blog Team has a choice of either trying to defend this farce by their employer and take the brunt of our collective displeasure or just keep their mouths shut.
I think we have seen what course the Blog Team has decided to take.
June 25, 2008 6:52 PM
anonymous @ 4:18 pm 6/25
I was thinking the same thing.... what will the next blog post be about? Puppies again? TSA kittens? Bob trying his hand at writing a few security-related haikus?
At least give us one reply here, TSA bloggers. Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
June 25, 2008 7:16 PM
Seriously, what happens if you are a physically disabled person and you've never had an official, government-issued photo ID made because you don't drive or use other services that require such ID? I know of several people with seizure disorders and severe dyslexia who have never gotten a state ID because they simply didn't need one. Their sole photo IDs were their college IDs - nothing official or certified.
Furthermore, Lexis-Nexis is only as good as it records correct information, and has any record at all. The same people who are unlikely to have official ID are also unlikely to have a verifiable L-N record.
TSA, get off my rights!
June 25, 2008 7:41 PM
the TSA is in the buisness of PREVENTION not APPREHENTION.
June 25, 2008 8:50 PM
Somehow I am not surprised they are considering loosening other rules now. The rules were only a smokescreen for this insanely and completely unconstitutional policy. Now that they have the policy they want in place, they will start to dismiss the other parts of security theater and only maintain the part that is illegal as opposed to the parts that are just a nuisance. Then most of the travellers will rejoice in no more shoes off.
Don't get too excited though! Just like the ID rule was really a ruse to help airlines, 3-1-1 will stay to help the airport vendors.
June 25, 2008 9:57 PM
With the total silence by TSA representatives I can only surmise that TSA leadership is unable to defend the ID policy instituted on 6/21/2008.
Absolutely no remarks from TSA since the update.
I am left in wonder at the cowardly behavior of TSA leadership.
June 25, 2008 10:42 PM
I think it makes more sense that airlines should be the one to check the identification of their passengers and make sure that no one flies on somebody else's ticket (but really why would it even matter??)..
After a passenger is second screened and determined to not have weapons.. how can he still be a threat??
I wonder how many of those 20 people are really terrorists.
June 26, 2008 1:01 AM
I have seen the TSA go from an 'are' organization to a 'were' organization.
They were worthy of respect for doing a job that no one appreciated them for.
They were presenting logically valid solutions to security problems.
They were attempting to ensure security to an ungrateful public.
They were attempting to react logically to evolving threats.
They now prove that they have no idea how to understand what needs to be fixed or even how to determine that it is broken.
They now prove that they have no concept of what their job actually is.
They now prove themselves worthy of being disbanded, and possibly prosecuted.
Congratulations on losing the misplaced support of one of the few readers here who felt you deserved it.
June 26, 2008 1:50 AM
I agree -- more TSA crap. The sooner y'all are simply arrested for violating our rights, the happier I'll be.
June 26, 2008 2:19 AM
"New ID Requirements: The First 48":
Is it workable? what is the major reason of doing this? In my opinion this will be more miserable situation
June 26, 2008 2:37 AM
Not only have the TSA folks disappeared, messages are also not coming in!
Maybe this blog lost its supporting staff, since so many of the officers who post here admitted they did not agree with the new ID policy.
June 26, 2008 4:38 AM
sickofyourcrying said...
"I always get a good laugh when I hear the belly aching that most of you tsa haters make. What have any of you (besides those actually fighting for the freedom of this country) actually done to "deserve" this right of travel and whatever else you feel is your God given right?"
So, it is our God given right to hate TSA, is that what you are saying?
"So you have to take your shoes off and show your ID... you could be starving in an overpopulated country swarmed with diseased carrying flys and everything else under the sun."
Sounds like the aftermath of Katrina... Another botched job .
"Be grateful for what you have and try to help the situation at home rather than bitch and moan. Cant you see that DHS/TSA is trying to keep you safe from another attack??? how many of occurred since TSA arrived??? thank you."
Be grateful that other people exercise their right to freedom of speech. We all have the right to agree OR disagree with the activities and policies of our government. If you think that this type of discourse is is laughable, I can't help but feel very sorry for you.
You can be a cheerleader for the TSA if you want to be... I'll help you out, Rah, Rah, Rah...
June 26, 2008 8:40 AM
Why are so many people venting their spleens at employees of a government agency? Don't government employees just do what their position descriptions tell them to do? Does anyone believe the blog personnel actually control TSA? If you do, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Employees, managers and executives for an agency do what they are told. The agency exists to fill the needs perceived by Congress. You got a complaint? Write your elected representatives. They're the ones causing the problems you perceive. Better yet, get off your keyboard and support candidates that promise the liberty you claim to need. We vote people into our government, why not vote the failures out?
We have a great system of government. If only we would use it...
June 26, 2008 9:12 AM
sickofyourcrying, some of us have identified ourselves as veterans. And each of us who have would probably argue that we fought to give the others the rights that you so easily dismiss. You have the right to call it crying because we defended that right. We've lost our brothers-in-arms defending that right. And for what? A fascist government using the guise of terrorism to take it all away? It really is enough to make one physically ill.
I've also noticed that the blog team is approving comments out of order. I suspect that they do this in order to attempt to bury the more critical ones.
June 26, 2008 9:40 AM
Well, the system must be working. After all, we haven't had a terrorist attack since they started checking ID!!!!!!!
Also, I haven't been attacked by tigers, since I put this shiny rock on my desk. I have therefore concluded that I am impervious to tiger attack due to my magic rock. I'll be visiting the National Zoo this afternoon to acquire more data on this subject.
June 26, 2008 9:44 AM
@sickofyourcrying-
As my mother said, if you keep comparing yourself to those below you, one day you'll find yourself down there.
So stop looking down there and start looking upwards. This goes for the TSA too, since they seem to be so dead-set on dragging America down from its pedestal.
June 26, 2008 9:54 AM
Cant you see that DHS/TSA is trying to keep you safe from another attack???
How does showing ID keep me safe from an attack? No one seems to be able to answer that question.
If I have been scanned, searched and screened and have no bombs, knives, guns or 4 oz. bottles of Coppertone lotion, what difference does my identity make when I get on that plane?
June 26, 2008 10:11 AM
Blog Team:
its really sad when you (who's job is PR aka spinning this) can't even post somme made up justification for why this is legal and good.
Your original post is a lie, you aren't investigating anything regarding what happened and you have simply CUT AND RUN. remember that one?
unfortuantely given the lack of publicity on this, this continued trend towards lose of rights, and the brainwashing of a good portio nof the american public that this is all acceptable; I honestly believe things will get worse before they get better.
And as for the commenter who said "we're about to go into another war" No were not and heres why
1) Bush doesn't whave the support in the military to attack Iran
2) A unilateral attack by the president on another coutnry is not a war
3)we can't go into 'another war' until we are in one in the first place.
We are not at war. Despite what one Justice on the Supreme Court would tell you. To say that is unfathomable coming from the man who claims to be all about a 'close reading'. Stop using war as justification! Scalia and Bushie and the TSA shoudl all go read Youngstown v. Sawyer and the reaction such a claim got during the 'Korean War'
June 26, 2008 10:49 AM
Jim said....
I asked by 5th grade son what he would do if he were a bad guy trying to get on a plane (in light of the new policy.) He said, "Easy, I'd make sure I had some kind of ID so they would ignore me."
He is exactly right, there are individuals smarter than a fifth grader who are always trying to figure things out except they are not so nice. I wish there were some foolproof way to weed out the bad guys. I do not like to be thrown in the same pot as everyone else. Until someone comes up with a plan to identify those with ill intent not just at airports but all over the world we just have to keep watching the news and shake our heads as to what some individuals are capable of. I can only account for my intentions. Until then I will show my ID just as I do when I write a check, cash a check, make a credit card purchase and even many more things. I hope the people sitting next to me are not smarter than a fifth grader.
June 26, 2008 10:49 AM
Is it the 3rd 48 hours of TSA's anti-dissenter policy yet?
June 26, 2008 11:06 AM
Dunstan said...
If TSA was in the wheat milling business, they couldn't separate the wheat from the chaff. We are having these rules shoved down our throats because they really are clueless about how to root out criminal intent without suspecting everyone.
Would you be willing to stand up and vouch for anyone next to you in crowd? Let's put you on plane with 149 people, you who were not challenged in any fashion. Don't forget their luggage is also on board. How would you seperate the wheat from the chaff?
June 26, 2008 11:07 AM
It's generally accepted that blogs get read and receive regular comments when updated frequently. The moderators may want to up their presence or this just turns into a lame PR vehicle.
June 26, 2008 11:07 AM
sickofyourcrying said
What have any of you (besides those actually fighting for the freedom of this country) actually done to "deserve" this right of travel and whatever else you feel is your God given right?
You mean other than purchase a ticket? You mean other than being a free person who deserves the right because he is a free person instead of a serf or slave? You mean that our rights are conditionally granted from a higher government authority and they must be earned?
sickofyourcrying said
Cant you see that DHS/TSA is trying to keep you safe from another attack?
No, I cannot see what isn't true.
June 26, 2008 11:41 AM
anonymous said
Not only have the TSA folks disappeared, messages are also not coming in!
Maybe this blog lost its supporting staff, since so many of the officers who post here admitted they did not agree with the new ID policy.
That would explain the new blogger, blogger Sterling. He's not part of the old team. That would also explain the lack of a Wednesday posting, given that they usually post on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Perhaps if nothing is posted tomorrow we'll know the truth. Or perhaps TSA administration realizes that this blog is hurting them more than helping them and they've stopped posting.
June 26, 2008 11:45 AM
"Employees, managers and executives for an agency do what they are told."
Of course they do. None are self-employed (though, I admit some may think so at times). I agree the problem lies with our elected officials. This blog (as all blogs) only serves those that would rather critique than change. Whiners, not people of action.
I'm curious as to how many bloggers vote, much less work for a political candidate?
June 26, 2008 12:16 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Why are so many people venting their spleens at employees of a government agency? Don't government employees just do what their position descriptions tell them to do? Does anyone believe the blog personnel actually control TSA? If you do, you're barking up the wrong tree."
No, we're not barking up the wrong tree "venting our spleens" here. This is exactly the place it needs to be done. TSA created this place for feedback about their policies. That's exactly what they're getting.
"Employees, managers and executives for an agency do what they are told.
Who's making the decisions then if executives and managers aren't?
"The agency exists to fill the needs perceived by Congress. You got a complaint? Write your elected representatives. They're the ones causing the problems you perceive. Better yet, get off your keyboard and support candidates that promise the liberty you claim to need. We vote people into our government, why not vote the failures out?"
This argument is based on the assumption that many people here aren't doing these things. I know some of them and I know that they are. I am. I've written my Congresscritters, filed complaints, vote for civil rights friendly candidates (though they're becoming fewer and further between).
Your argument is ignorant, pompous and arrogant to assume that people here are doing nothing but typing on this blog.
"We have a great system of government. If only we would use it..."
We are using it ... it's called free speech. TSA gives a means for feedback, and we're using it.
We're also trying to preserve that form of government by standing up against unconstitutional crap like this.
Robert
June 26, 2008 12:40 PM
sickofyourcrying said...
"I always get a good laugh when I hear the belly aching that most of you tsa haters make. What have any of you (besides those actually fighting for the freedom of this country) actually done to "deserve" this right of travel and whatever else you feel is your God given right?"
I am sadden when I read comments like those made by "sickofyour crying".
Apparently this person did not pay attention during their history classes.
Let me try to explain it for you;
Our founders created a couple of documents. Many, many people, both military and civilian have given their lives to protect the concepts captured in those documents. It's our heritage and worth defending against the likes of TSA.
Being an American citizen gives me all of the rights those docements provide for. I need do nothing else to deserve those rights.
The fact that I spent 23 years defending this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, makes the protection of those rights a little personal when someone trys to take them away.
I suggest that you educate yourself, you certainly do not understand what is a stake.
June 26, 2008 12:51 PM
The way checking ID keeps us safe from attack by terrorists seems so simple to me. I do not get the idea that keeping, guns, knives, and bombs off planes is all there is to security. Besides you innocent Americans try to get through with prohibs every darned day. Well you say I don't intend to shoot anyone with my gun so I should be allowed to let it through, or like a fellow the other day told us: I'm a soldier and you just took that knife from a soldier. We TSO's are between a rock and a hard place.
I agree with the ID policy and at our airport we TSO's have been checking them pretty much since the TSA took over due to the airport not wanting to pay for that job, so the change last Dec didn't change anything for us. This new change only adds to the checking we already were doing. Keeping terrorists from flying from city to city, plotting future attacks, probing our system for holes seems like a good idea to me.
June 26, 2008 12:58 PM
Hey, just thought about this... How are you going to deal with foreign passports? I've already heard of someone having to go through a secondary because the TSO at an airport didn't recognize his Dutch passport. He had to go through a secondary (even though he had valid ID). So what happens to those people (especially if it's someone that doesn't speak English very well)?
June 26, 2008 2:14 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
June 26, 2008 2:17 PM
Quote from Anonnymous: The way checking ID keeps us safe from attack by terrorists seems so simple to me. I do not get the idea that keeping, guns, knives, and bombs off planes is all there is to security. Besides you innocent Americans try to get through with prohibs every darned day. Well you say I don't intend to shoot anyone with my gun so I should be allowed to let it through, or like a fellow the other day told us: I'm a soldier and you just took that knife from a soldier. We TSO's are between a rock and a hard place.
Not really. No one's really disputing that some things don't belong on a plane. Knives are arguable as they're on planes anyone and are provided by the airlines.
I agree with the ID policy and at our airport we TSO's have been checking them pretty much since the TSA took over due to the airport not wanting to pay for that job, so the change last Dec didn't change anything for us. This new change only adds to the checking we already were doing. Keeping terrorists from flying from city to city, plotting future attacks, probing our system for holes seems like a good idea to me.
And how does ID determine who's a terrorist and who isn't? Do terrorists have a special mark on their licenses that say terrorist on them? Do they have "terrorist" or "criminal" written on them?
Do you really think a terrorist needs to fly from place to place to plot an incident? How do you know what the intent is of someone traveling? All you're doing is comparing a name and a boarding pass. They match ... so what?
Thank heavens the TSA is there to protect the airlines' revenues with ID checks!
Screen the passengers. If someone doesn't have ID or wishes not to show it, secondary them if you must (though I think this pushes unreasonable too). Beyond this is just harassment and is unnecessary for security.
Robert
June 26, 2008 2:41 PM
[edited & reposted to fix typos]
Someone, claiming to be a TSA agent, anonymously wrote:
"The way checking ID keeps us safe from attack by terrorists seems so simple to me.
Then you should be able to explain it. How does it do so? I doubt that it can, but I'd like to hear alternative viewpoints. Maybe I'm missing something.
"Keeping terrorists from flying from city to city, plotting future attacks, probing our system for holes seems like a good idea to me."
The problem is that neither you nor I knows who "the terrorists" are. You may be referring to people whose names are on the Department of Homeland Security blacklist, but why should we trust that list? We have a list of people who someone, somewhere believes should be hassled or barred from traveling via commercial airline. We're not allowed to know who maintains the list, why names are put on it, or how people can get off the list.
If we really had a list of known or suspected terrorists -- and by "terrorist" I mean someone who has performed or has attempted to perform an act of terrorism -- wouldn't we go arrest these suspects or fugitives and charge them with a crime?
Anonymous TSO: Do you really believe that we should punish the people on that list just because someone anonymously put them on the list? Are you familiar with the American system of justice whereby judges and juries -- not anonymous members of the executive branch of government -- determines guilt and imposes punishment?
June 26, 2008 2:42 PM
If the 9/11 hijackers had been checked to see if they were on terror watch lists they wouldn't have been able to perpetrate what happened on that dreadful day. They were on watch lists and obviously they should have been. This is the type of people we are checking for folks. I know you'll say the airlines are the ones that check the names against the list, but if they don't have a valid ID they are being checked by TSA now. I'm sure it won't be long till the ticket checker has a computer in which to enter names due to this being too important to leave up to the airlines.
June 26, 2008 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...
The way checking ID keeps us safe from attack by terrorists seems so simple to me.
So you say, but then you fail to explain exactly HOW it is so simple. If it's so simple to see how it protects me, why doesn't someone explain it using red herrings and straw men?
Speaking of red herrings and straw men, yes, I vote. And I write my congress-critters on a fairly regular basis. Though it doesn't exactly get you anywhere when the mass majority of Americans can't be bothered enough to care. And the typical reply from the congress-critter is along the lines of "it's still in committee. I'm not on that committee."
June 26, 2008 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...
The way checking ID keeps us safe from attack by terrorists seems so simple to me.
If it is so simple for you to understand then please explain it to the rest of us.
No one so far can come up with a valid reason!
June 26, 2008 3:31 PM
@sickofyourcrying:
" So you have to take your shoes off and show your ID... you could be starving in an overpopulated country swarmed with diseased carrying flys and everything else under the sun. "
I could also be trying to come up with a legitimate argument as to why people shouldn't complain, rather than creating a strawman as you did. What does living in an underdeveloped country have to do with showing ID at airports? Hint: NOTHING.
"Be grateful for what you have and try to help the situation at home rather than bitch and moan."
At one time, "Close your eyes and think of England" was considered valid advice...but that doesn't mean it was good advice.
June 26, 2008 3:36 PM
Is this about control? No. It’s about knowing who is getting on the plane. It’s about shifting our focus towards people instead of items on a list. You know as well as we do that you can make a weapon out of anything. The naked human body of someone skilled in martial arts is far more dangerous than most people with a weapon. We know that and we’re shifting towards that line of thought. It is going to be a huge change in our culture, but I and others firmly believe this is the proper evolution path for security. -- Blogger Bob
It is too about control. Control of people's minds and thoughts, rather than of deeds and items. I like the pre-TSA culture of the United States of America, freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty, security in our papers and persons, etc., and don't want TSA to 'evolve' our culture into a "security" state.
June 26, 2008 3:57 PM
Anonymous said... Not only have the TSA folks disappeared, messages are also not coming in!
Ayn R. Key said... Or perhaps TSA administration realizes that this blog is hurting them more than helping them and they've stopped posting.
iNoClu said... It's generally accepted that blogs get read and receive regular comments when updated frequently. The moderators may want to up their presence or this just turns into a lame PR vehicle.
Appreciate the concern. A couple of forces have been at play this week, one is that Bob was off for a few days. Whenever he is off, it reminds the rest of us just how much work he does with the blog. As has been noted before, those of us who help moderate have many responsibilities that we keep up with and sometimes those pull us in other directions. I agree about the need to keep the blog updated and to stay engaged. As soon as I get some free time, I will start working on a post about puppies.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 26, 2008 3:58 PM
Thanks, Jon, for letting us know what's going on at your end of things. And can you make the next post about kittens instead of puppies for us cat lovers??
(For those who didn't get it, Jon made a joke, so please don't give him grief. I for one appreciate the human connection and the proof that he read our posts.)
June 26, 2008 4:14 PM
"This new change only adds to the checking we already were doing. Keeping terrorists from flying from city to city, plotting future attacks, probing our system for holes seems like a good idea to me."
And yet this ID policy does absolutely nothing to prevent would-be terrorists from flying from city to city. Each and every one of the 9/11 hijackers had a valied ID, so this policy would do nothing to keep them off of a plane. The ID checks themselves tell you nothing about an individual or their intentions, save that the name on their ID matches that on their boarding pass. And TSA has not deigned to explain any rationale for this change in policy from the previous policy of simply giving those without ID a pat-down and bag-search to establish that they did not have anything dangerous on their person or in their bags. Instead, all we've seen is that the new policy wastes the time of citizens who have lost or forgotten their ID and that of TSA employees. Do you think interrogating citizens seeking to travel by air about their political beliefs enhances security somehow? If you do, you may be up for a promotion.
June 26, 2008 4:37 PM
Yes, Kathy, Jon did make a joke. But why? To deflect from the issue at hand.
(OK, I'm only half-serious. I appreciate the human connection as well.)
June 26, 2008 4:50 PM
"I will start working on a post about puppies."
Sigh
Defending neo America from terrists is not always about puppies.
You simply can't have a dog and pony show without ponies.
Bring on the dancing horses.
Unless you are just going to turn the blog iinto a carnival or circus?
You already have your staff selling snake oil.
,>)
June 26, 2008 4:51 PM
Well, someone finally stuck their head in the door but had nothing of any value to say except to make excuses for not responding to any concerns.
Of what are you so afraid that you refuse to address this issue?
June 26, 2008 5:05 PM
Quote from Jon: "Appreciate the concern. A couple of forces have been at play this week, one is that Bob was off for a few days. Whenever he is off, it reminds the rest of us just how much work he does with the blog. As has been noted before, those of us who help moderate have many responsibilities that we keep up with and sometimes those pull us in other directions. I agree about the need to keep the blog updated and to stay engaged. As soon as I get some free time, I will start working on a post about puppies."
Thanks for the update Jon.
I'm a bit disappointed to hear that the lack of response from TSA has been that someone's been on vacation rather than someone's been researching the issues. This seems to indicate, at least to me, that TSA's going to sweep this under the rug and go back to its usual tricks.
Robert
June 26, 2008 5:27 PM
Wait.... You just said that the supreme court had ruled on the topic, but then in your link it's noted that the reason why the ruling was against Gilmore was because "there was no constitutional violation because air passengers can still travel without identification if they instead undergo the more stringent "secondary screening" search."
And now you're removing that screening. So, if the reason that lawsuit failed was because you were doing what you have just stopped doing, why isn't there going to be a lawsuit on this in like a month?
June 26, 2008 6:29 PM
So posting a link to Fark.com about this madness is now forbidden by the need to know rules to post on this site? Shameful.
June 26, 2008 6:45 PM
"I know you'll say the airlines are the ones that check the names against the list, but if they don't have a valid ID they are being checked by TSA now."
No, they aren't. No one checking ID at a checkpoint has access to a watch list, and the watch lists have repeatedly been shown to be useless because they contain the names of many thousands of innocent Americans who pose no threat to anyone anywhere. And as long as a passenger presents an ID whose name matches that on a boarding pass, the passenger gets through screening without a problem.
All of this is beside the valid point which TSA is unable to refute, that ID does nothing to enhance security. As long as someone doesn't have a weapon or bomb, it doesn't matter who they are, and TSA should stop lying to us and pretending that it does.
June 26, 2008 8:16 PM
Also, it should be noted that reports from passengers being put through TSA's new pointless ID screenings indicate that if you don't have a valid ID, a COSTCO MEMBERSHIP CARD would be enough to get you past the invasive interrogation screening. So any terrorist trying to get on a plane without a valid ID can rest assured that his Costco membership card will get him past an interrogation. Gee, I feel safer. Maybe you people should go screen some cargo and stop wasting our time on this latest round of nonsense.
June 26, 2008 8:18 PM
This is the complaint I have filed with the Office of Inspector General. If you have the same concerns I do, please file a complaint.
--------------
I would like to bring to the OIG's attention, and file a complaint against the TSA for operating illegally in regards to the new mandatory ID requirement for gaining access to sterile areas.
I have posted repeatedly on the TSA blog (tsa.gov/blog) in an attempt to get the TSA to clarify their position that the forced ID check is legal. As of yet they have either been incapable or reluctant to do so.
According to the TSA's web site as of June 21st, 2008 http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/enhance_id_requirements.shtm
only those that submit to a forced ID check or only those that willing cooperate in the establishment of their ID will be allowed to enter the sterile area to board their flights.
The TSA says that 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 & 49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2) allow for this new requirement for granting access to the sterile areas. When those two sections are viewed with 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 (
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title49/49-9.1.3.5.8.1.10.3.html )
it is plain to see by the definitions imposed on that statute the only legal requirement to gain access to a sterile area in order to catch a flight is to be screened for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, THROUGH the screening of persons and property.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property FOR weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected FOR the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
Unless there is a law that is unknown to me, and the TSA spokespeople, that allows for the mandatory identification requirement, the TSA is breaking the law.
I personally do not want to see tax money wasted in an attempt by the TSA to defend this illegal practice, please put a stop to it.
I look forward to your reply.
Michael Cummings AKA Trollkiller
June 26, 2008 9:23 PM
This is the type of people we are checking for folks.
Pure rubbish.
If the goal had been to check the no-fly list against an ID, that would have been done long before 2008, nearly seven years AFTER 9/11.
Instead, the no-fly list has stopped the following threats to airline safety:
Sen. Ted Kennedy;
Rep. John Lewis;
Daniel Brown, a Marine returning from Iraq after his service;
Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army;
Patrick Martin, a Canadian journalist;
James Moore, an Emmy-winning television journalist;
Walter F. Murphy, a professor at Princeton;
David Nelson, an actor in The Ozzie and Harriett Show;
Nelson Mandela.
There are nearly a million names on the no-fly list and some of them are common names like John Smith or Dave Jones.
That's not a list. That's a widely cast net that hopes to catch... something.
That's not American.
June 27, 2008 12:00 AM
Phil said... The problem is that neither you nor I knows who "the terrorists" are. You may be referring to people whose names are on the Department of Homeland Security blacklist, but why should we trust that list? We have a list of people who someone, somewhere believes should be hassled or barred from traveling via commercial airline. We're not allowed to know who maintains the list, why names are put on it, or how people can get off the list.
Actually you are allowed to know who maintains the list. The U.S. government’s Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center
which is part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. TSA uses the center’s information to determine both Selectees and No Fly individuals.
The Secure Flight Program
will bring the watchlist-matching process inside government which will help address passenger “false positives.”
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 27, 2008 8:41 AM
Jon, do you really expect us to believe that there are 1 million terrorists -- 1 in every 300 people -- in the United States?
If you really have a list of one million terrorists, why have these people not been arrested and charged with crimes?
Do these questions being to make you realize why TSA is a joke?
June 27, 2008 8:54 AM
"TSA uses the center’s information to determine both Selectees and No Fly individuals.
The Secure Flight Program
will bring the watchlist-matching process inside government which will help address passenger “false positives.” "
Can you please elaborate on how the false positive problem will be addressed? I am currently on the Selectee list (and fed up with it) and want to know how soon this madness will end.
June 27, 2008 9:04 AM
Now we're into the 4th 48 hours of the new anti-dissent procedure with no "continue to update the stats" activity evident.
3 days later, Jon updates us with: "Appreciate the concern. A couple of forces have been at play this week, one is that Bob was off for a few days. Whenever he is off, it reminds the rest of us just how much work he does with the blog."
Why did Sterling or Glen post that they would "update the stats" and then not do it?
My tinfoil-hat theory is that the other force Jon alluded to was that the TSA is realizing they've stepped in another self-made pile, and the lawyers are telling them to shut up and "post about puppies."
June 27, 2008 9:35 AM
Anonymous said... Now we're into the 4th 48 hours of the new anti-dissent procedure with no "continue to update the stats" activity evident.
3 days later, Jon updates us with: "Appreciate the concern. A couple of forces have been at play this week, one is that Bob was off for a few days. Whenever he is off, it reminds the rest of us just how much work he does with the blog."
Why did Sterling or Glen post that they would "update the stats" and then not do it?
My tinfoil-hat theory is that the other force Jon alluded to was that the TSA is realizing they've stepped in another self-made pile, and the lawyers are telling them to shut up and "post about puppies."
I wouldn’t extrapolate that from what I wrote. As I noted, Bob was off for a few days and those of us on the blog team have other job responsibilities, which for me didn't leave much time devote to the blog this week. And as is the case with HSVTSODEAN, my wife also frowns when I spend too much of my time at home in front of the computer monitor.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 27, 2008 9:55 AM
And Jon comes in to comment again but completely ignores the issues. Again. While I appreciate knowing that the FBI is so incompetent that they think a million or so Americans are terrorist, it doesn't really address the issue at hand. How does checking ID make us safer? My tinfoil hat theory is that the TSA knows it doesn't and have given up any pretense of spin control.
June 27, 2008 10:06 AM
I wouldn’t extrapolate that from what I wrote. As I noted, Bob was off for a few days and those of us on the blog team have other job responsibilities, which for me didn't leave much time devote to the blog this week. And as is the case with HSVTSODEAN, my wife also frowns when I spend too much of my time at home in front of the computer monitor.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
Jon it is not about quantity it is about quality, we just want some quality time.
You know that quality time where the TSA lawyers explain how a law that restricts the criteria for entering a sterile area to searching for weapons, explosives and incendiaries somehow magically allows for the forced ID check.
Or maybe that quality time where the TSA explains how Gilmore vs. Gonzales still holds water when the secondary screening option has been removed.
It is a crying shame that I had to file a complaint, in order to attempt to remedy this blatant overreach by the TSA, when the TSA has lawyers on staff that should be able to explain how 49 C.F.R. § 1540 allows the forced ID check. Seriously if you can not convince a bunch of rubes on the interwebs how in the world can you expect to convince a judge and jury?
How much money will the TSA waste, that could have been spent on REAL security, defending this outrage in court?
This whole thing is starting to look like a Scooby-Do episode. We have discovered the ghost is really a guy in a diving suit covered with seaweed and luminescent paint. I am just waiting for Kip to mutter "I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids"
June 27, 2008 11:41 AM
Jon, you should be paid to maintain the blog, not have to use personal time to do so.
One of my co workers is on "The List" It would be nice to know how someone can get off of it.
Of course a 65 yr old Sicilian grandmother could be a threat to aviation.
P.S. how about an in depth discussion of that list. I'd like to hear how it got so screwed up in the first place. It sure seems like a widely swung dragnet of names.
June 27, 2008 11:52 AM
WHO OR WHAT IS STERLING?
June 27, 2008 1:44 PM
For Trollkiller,
May I use your complaint for submission under my name?
June 27, 2008 2:21 PM
If they have no weapons, why does it matter WHO they are?
June 27, 2008 2:42 PM
"Keeping terrorists from flying from city to city, plotting future attacks, probing our system for holes seems like a good idea to me."
Lets see-
19,000 airports and airfields in the US that anyone can use. Plus a number of really private ones that are off limits, except to their owners and guests.
Then there is area 51...
450 airports where ID is checked by TSA.
Why doesn't the above quote make any sense to me?
June 27, 2008 3:20 PM
"lulu said...
Dunstan said...
If TSA was in the wheat milling business, they couldn't separate the wheat from the chaff. We are having these rules shoved down our throats because they really are clueless about how to root out criminal intent without suspecting everyone.
Would you be willing to stand up and vouch for anyone next to you in crowd? Let's put you on plane with 149 people, you who were not challenged in any fashion. Don't forget their luggage is also on board. How would you seperate the wheat from the chaff?"
Lulu;
The major issue is still professionalism and training. A couple of hundred hours doesn't seem to be nearly enough. Our military gets a lot more training before they are entrusted with their buddies lives. Why should TSO's be any different?
Don't forget there is a lot of unscreened cargo aboard. Don't forget there are over 18,000 airports where you don't go through any security screening at all, and those airports have had no security issues either.
June 27, 2008 3:37 PM
Jon, since you seem to be the only Blog Op working at all I have a simple question.
Have you been given direction to not respond to any questions regarding the ID policy?
This seems to be the case. I would like for someone, legal type preferably, to discuss how they feel that 49 C.F.R. § 1540 provides for the ID check now being down.
Surely someone at TSA would show a little backbone and participate here.
June 27, 2008 3:39 PM
"Our rights are gone, or nearly gone, and it's too late to get them back, because the bottom line is that 99.9995% of us refuse to rock the boat through fear, ignorance, or both."
You don't have to go back very far to find one stubborn little lady who refused to move to the back of the bus. Sometimes that's really all it takes, just saying NO. Out of Rosa Park's defiance came rights for millions of her fellow citizens.
June 27, 2008 3:53 PM
sorry noclu that needs to wait for another time...At the moment this is more important, getting them off track is a really bad idea.
Jon, I'm sorry but if you don't like your job quit. Just like if we don't like your rules we get told not to fly. The fact that your wife doesnt like your job seems to be a personal problem unrelated to the tax payer funded salary you receive.
You have now made three posts without adressing any of the issues here. no one else from the blog has actually said anything. Bob may be on vacation but this thing called the internet most likely exists there to. How bout Sterling? He posted your selfagrandizing pat on the back, have him address the criticism.
Fellow commenters...don't let them off the hook with words, make them adress the issue at hand.
June 27, 2008 4:06 PM
Jon: I don't mind that you and Bob have lives, my issue is with Glen or Sterling and their statements in the original post. They shouldn't have promised updates that they obviously haven't done.
Maybe Sterling and Glen were wrongly committing you and Bob or the rest of the blog team do the promised updates. But your statement isn't making that clear either.
Are you bloggers just blowing smoke and lying like the airline pilots and cabin attendants when they use 'just a few more minutes before takeoff' to keep us pacified?
Maybe I should just remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
June 27, 2008 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...
For Trollkiller,
May I use your complaint for submission under my name?
You can use the points made but please put it in your own words so the OIG does not think it is one person making multiple complaints.
June 27, 2008 5:44 PM
Trollkiller said...
Ayn R. Key said...
Which the Court ruled on in Gilmore? Come on, didn't Trollkiller already point out that you're wrong about that?
Why yes I did Ayn R. Key, I thought I had made a logical argument on why the TSA is wrong on Gilmore and tried to open up a dialog. I guess all the lawyers on the payroll were not up to the challenge.
I think for now I want to concentrate on the fact that the two sections of 49 C.F.R. PART 1540--CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES that the TSA cites does not grant the TSA the authority or right to demand ID as a condition of granting access to a sterile area.
In fact the sections they cite when read properly with the definitions for Part 1540 limits the TSA to screening for weapons, explosives and incendiaries as the sole criteria for granting access to a sterile area.
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, THROUGH the screening of persons and property.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
I don't see ANYWHERE in those definitions that say a word about ID. The TSA is right we must submit to SCREENINGS, they are WRONG if they think the law included ID checks and the denial of access on the unwillingness to show ID.
Kind people please excuse the following rudeness, I just want to make sure there is no chance of it not being seen. I have asked several times for them to address this issue.
ONCE AGAIN, I CHALLENGE THE TSA TO PROVE THE TWO SECTIONS OF 1540 THAT THEY CITE (§ 1540.107 & § 1540.105 (a)(2) ) GIVE THEM ANY AUTHORITY OR RIGHT TO DEMAND AN ID AS A CONDITION OF ACCESS TO A STERILE AREA
6. Fraud and Intentional Falsification $2,500-$6,000
(49 C.F.R. § 1540.103) Plus Criminal Referral
June 29, 2008 10:28 AM
I have a possible explanation for some of the incidents seen on the blog about TSA officers not recognizing some IDs properly. Someone in management decided that twenty eight dollars is too much money to spend for up to date information.
Last week, after the new ID requirements went into effect, I flew out of MacArthur Airport in Islip NY. As I approached the first security checkpoint, the TSA officer was holding a book with the words "ID Guide" on the cover and saying to another officer about how this "should be updated so we all know about it". The other officer said that they wouldn't be getting a new book because "he doesn't want to spend twenty eight dollars for a new book".
June 30, 2008 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller said..
ONCE AGAIN, I CHALLENGE THE TSA TO PROVE THE TWO SECTIONS OF 1540 THAT THEY CITE (§ 1540.107 & § 1540.105 (a)(2) ) GIVE THEM ANY AUTHORITY OR RIGHT TO DEMAND AN ID AS A CONDITION OF ACCESS TO A STERILE AREA
6. Fraud and Intentional Falsification $2,500-$6,000
(49 C.F.R. § 1540.103) Plus Criminal Referral
Please if you are going to cite a section at least read it first. NOTHING in 49 C.F.R. § 1540.103 has anything to do with showing ID at sterile area checkpoint.
Title 49: Transportation
PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES
Subpart B—Responsibilities of Passengers and Other Individuals and Persons
§ 1540.103 Fraud and intentional falsification of records.
No person may make, or cause to be made, any of the following:
(a) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any application for any security program, access medium, or identification medium, or any amendment thereto, under this subchapter.
(b) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or report that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with this subchapter, or exercise any privileges under this subchapter.
(c) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any report, record, security program, access medium, or identification medium issued under this subchapter.
July 1, 2008 12:14 AM
I am someone who always used to show ID even when the policy was that it was up to me whether or not to show it. When this was enacted I did a test. I decided to use a fake ID I had while in College, one that never worked at getting me into clubs and that the liquor store laughed at. This is an ID I paid $50 in NYC, one anyone can buy for use in a movie or whatnot. Clearly fake is my point. And still, I got through with no problem. If I am someone with ill intentions, the last thing I am going to do is try to go through the security line without an ID.
About the comment you made regarding using a boarding pass with someone else's name on it, this is another issue easily tackled by someone of little technical skill. Let me give you an example. I was supposed to travel to Florida once but something came up and I couldn't make the flight. My brother wanted to go though, so I simply changed the name on the printed boarding pass from my name to his and voila, my brother had no trouble getting to Florida. While your intentions are good, your implementation of those intentions are not.
July 2, 2008 9:27 AM
Who is Sterling?
July 7, 2008 8:01 PM
ID check cannot be a surity for security. Instead a better way to have security is to have finger print verification.
July 9, 2008 2:31 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home