Why is ID Important for Security?
Last week we announced on our Web site a plan to begin REQUIRING ID from travelers on June 21st. This plan includes enabling our officers to refuse entry into the area beyond the security checkpoint to anyone who does not cooperate with us to establish his or her identity. The exclusive reason to do this is to ensure people are who they say they are and are not gaming the system by using a boarding pass with a fake name; a well-known endeavor of professionals and college kids alike that could potentially circumvent the no-fly list.Does that mean that if you lose your wallet in the cab on the way to the airport you’re going to have to walk home?
Absolutely not…this rule is solely focused on the passenger who simply will not provide ID or help us establish their identity.
So for the security experts in the crowd (and you know you’re out there) you might be asking yourself a few questions, like:
So if a terrorist shows up and says his dog ate his ID, you’ll just let him go?
The answer is a simple and clear NO. Under today’s rules, you show up, say you lost your ID, get a quick pat down, have your bag searched and you’re on your way. One enterprising fellow has even advocated it as a quicker way through security in the past.
Starting June 21, that person could be subjected to a range of options, including interviews with behavior detection officers and local and/or federal law enforcement, enhanced pat-downs or other options. By increasing our options, people with bad intentions don’t know what exactly to plan against, have to beat multiple layers at the checkpoint and need to be ready to face any number of obstacles to their plans.
Why would a terrorist show up and say he has no ID when he can just show a fake and breeze right through?
Ah hah, that’s where layers of security really come into play. TSA has deployed thousands of highly-trained document checkers to identify fake IDs. We’ve caught everything from Spring Breakers with terrible IDs to fraudulent passports. Our officers are very adept at finding fake documents and work closely with behavior detection officers on a daily basis. The old story of the airline contractor not even looking up at a person while checking IDs is long in the rear view mirror.
This is just an assault on my personal freedoms and security theater.
The only reason we’re doing this is to make sure people are who they say they are and not someone who is a known threat to aviation.
Also, our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence communities work tirelessly to identify potential threats to aircraft. Enhancing our ID requirements further enables TSA security officers to ensure that individuals are who they say they are when they enter the security checkpoint and not individuals who may pose a threat.
And for all the legal eagles out there, it is my constitutional right to fly without ID.
Under the law that created TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the TSA administrator is responsible for overseeing aviation security (P.L. 107-71) and has the authority to establish security procedures at airports (49 C.F.R. § 1540.107). Passengers who fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight (49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2). Additionally, in Gilmore v. Gonzalez, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff’s constitutional challenges to a passenger identification policy.
This initiative is simply a way for us to better enforce the no-fly list and ensure the safety of the traveling public. No secret motives, no hidden agendas, just a security enhancement aimed at people trying to game the system.
For more information, go here.
Christopher
EOS Blog Team
Update: 6/14/08
Just a quick note… Our ticket checkers found a fraudulent ID at JFK. Just thought some of you might be interested.
At New York Kennedy Airport (JFK) on Thursday, June 12, a passenger was interviewed by police after attempting to enter into a security checkpoint with a fraudulent ID.
A TSA Travel Document Checker noticed a passenger trying to use a fraudulent New York driver’s license and notified the Port Authority Police Department who came and interviewed her. The Port Authority Police Department released the passenger after issuing a Summons to Appear.
Travel Document Checkers are TSA officers that are specially trained to detect fraudulent IDs and boarding passes to help keep our airports safe and secure.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: legal issues, mission, policy
posted by Bob at
5:19 PM
Subscribe in a reader
158 Comments:
sounds a lot like Nazi Germany to me... Where are your papers?? If the security systems actually worked then there would be no need to check ID. This is just another attempt to control the American people and steal more and more of our rights. We need to take back some more essential liberty. Thank you TSA for continuing to trample on the Constitution and then mock those of us who care. AWESOME job.
June 11, 2008 5:36 PM
I think that if you had truly good security it should not matter who flies.
How long before we get mandatory strip searches?
June 11, 2008 5:53 PM
C'mon people, you had to know by now that the TSA's word supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America.
Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated many, many times before, it's much too easy to design fake boarding passes that look 100% real, even to these so-called trained inspectors (See: Boing Boing). My last set of boarding passes were printed on paper that felt like a cheap Wal-Mart receipt.
Additionally, the terrorists from 9/11 were in the country legally and had valid IDs (see: open a newspaper), and were these "laws" in place on September 11th, 2001, those planes would have still been hijacked.
Wake me up when the TSA actually does something that actually increases airport security! (Although I still stand by the opinion that if someone ever tries to hijack an airplane ever again, every person on that plane will stand up and beat that hijacker into a bloody pulp.)
June 11, 2008 5:59 PM
As Bruce Schneier said, I now feel well protected from the threat of terrorists who can't lie.
June 11, 2008 6:01 PM
Too many holes in this feeble attempt to say that it enhances security. Show me just ONE terrorist that you have apprehended. Or maybe you can use the argument that they are scared away. Like in the previous article, a comment was made that the 9/11 terrorists ALL had valid ID's and used their real names. Yes, you have caught numerous criminals, but none caught, would have caused a "security" problem on an airplane. This is just to get the public used to one more "requirement" to fly, so that the next round of requirements will come easier. Like the frog in the hot water experiment. I think you will have a hard time really convincing us this promotes security.
June 11, 2008 6:09 PM
Let’s think about this:
Making sure the guy sitting next to you on the plane isn’t a terrorist is about as basic as security gets. Ensuring that people on the no-fly list don’t get on board is as important as using the metal detector. To do that, you have to be able to identify people. This new requirement is meant for the person that simply won’t produce ID nor work with us to determine that they’re not someone that poses a threat to that flight.
Instead of allowing anyone without an ID to show up, go through a quick pat down and bag check, circumventing watch list matching, we’re now opening up the options to include interviews with behavior detection officers and law enforcement; options no real terrorist is looking forward to and ones that legitimate passengers will find quicker and more convenient than today’s process.
“If the security systems actually worked then there would be no need to check ID.” You really mean to advocate searching exclusively for pointy objects and not individuals that may pose a threat? If so, we’re at a philosophical divide that no amount of discussion is going to change.
One need look no further than the ongoing trial in London to see the dangers of looking only for things. The London plotters were going to use items that weren’t on the prohibited item list at the time but would have blown up 7 airliners over the Atlantic. As the 9/11 Commission said, “the policy challenges were linked to this failure of imagination…”
“This is just another attempt to control the American people and steal more and more of our rights.” Actually, it’s an effort to keep people that pose a threat to aviation off airplanes and keep you, your family and mine safe.
And I sincerely hope you do not feel that anyone at TSA is mocking you. We value this opportunity to discuss important issues with the traveling public and cherish the opportunity to communicate directly with you.
Christopher
EOS Blog Team
June 11, 2008 6:11 PM
Under the law that created TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act,
Is the act itself constituional?
Seriously, though, you people seriously messed up. You need to train your agents to say "papers please" when they ask for ID, because that's what this is. The agenda is to ensure that everyone has their papers in proper order. This would be security theater if you did this for the purpose of catching the bad guys, but for that to be true you need to be doing this to catch the bad guys.
BTW, an unanswered question from way back - what about the states that do not conform to READ ID? I think I get it - none of them will be allowed in the sterile area.
What's really funny (not) is that you claim you're not preventing anyone from flying, you're only preventing them from entering the sterile area. Show me how to fly without entering the sterile area and I will agree with you.
You people need to goosestep over to the constitution and read it. You obviously haven't a clue.
June 11, 2008 6:14 PM
From now on I'm carrying a pocket constitution with me. Whenever the TSO asks for my ID I will hand the pocket constitution to the TSO.
June 11, 2008 6:15 PM
Yes, Christopher, I do feel you are mocking me. I neither need nor want the service you offer in lieu of security. I resent having to pay to have my rights trampled by TSOs who make up rules on the spot and having to pay for bureaucrats to imagine new ways to remove what is left of my constituional rights.
After re-reading the London bomber plot, do you know what I noticed? I noticed that sniffers could have detected the bombs. Concentrated H2O2 is detectable.
You gained credibility when you actually addressed the mmw and 3-1-1 issues. You've lost it again with this. It seems the TSA wants to be hated.
And you still refuse to address the states that don't conform to REAL ID. Will it be 100% pat downs or 100% denial into sanitized area?
June 11, 2008 6:21 PM
You have completely failed to explain how requiring people to identify themselves to government agents prior to traveling within the United States will improve transportation security.
You wrote that beginning June 21, you will require passengers to present ID. Then, beginning with the following paragraph, you explained that some passengers will not be required to present ID. The truth is that you are not requiring ID, but plan to continue to coerce people into voluntarily showing ID and also to harass travelers who wish to exercise their right to travel and associate without interference from their government.
You wrote, "This plan includes enabling our officers to refuse entry into the area beyond the security checkpoint anyone that does not cooperate with us to establish his or her identity. The exclusive reason to do this is to ensure people are who they say they are and are not gaming the system by using a boarding pass in a fake name; a well-known endeavor of professionals and college kids alike that could potentially circumvent the no-fly list."
This will not ensure that people are who they say they are. Anyone with sufficient determination will acquire a fake ID or steal someone else's identity and get a real ID with that person's identity and his own photograph. In fact, your system will allow a criminal organization to probe your system by sending people on innocent trips, noting which ones are flagged for additional screening, then send the other people on a real mission later.
It's interesting to note that most of the instances of passengers being caught with falsified ID cards and passports that are described on TSA's "Travel Document Checker (TDC)" Web page (under "Travel Document Checking Success Stories") were arrested on charges of immigrations violations, possession of illegal drugs, or credit card theft. None of them is described as having been found to be carrying anything that, had he brought it onto his flight, would have put other passengers or crew at risk.
June 11, 2008 6:22 PM
How does catching "Spring Breakers with terrible IDs" fall under the scope of increasing transportation security?
June 11, 2008 6:29 PM
While flying out of Kansas City last year, I saw TSA signs at the airport stating that travelers must present government-issued photo identification. I knew that wasn't true, and I didn't show ID. I neither caused trouble nor slowed things down for other travelers when I asserted my right to travel without checking in with the government by identifying myself; I was taken out of line to be screened along with other "selectees".
After returning home, I filed a complaint with TSA. I received a response from Jeanne Oliver, Associate Director of TSA Office of the Executive Secretariat. She did not indicate that TSA would fix the problem, but did confirm that if a traveler is "unwilling or unable to produce a valid form of ID, the traveler is required to undergo additional screening at the checkpoint to gain access to the secured area of the airport." People who show ID receive a less-thorough screening. Any time saved when people volunteer to show ID comes at the cost of less effectively checking them for dangerous items.
We're being lied to about federal air travel policies by airport security at KCI and other locations, and it's not making us any safer.
Government agents requiring people to show ID before boarding a flight wouldn't make air travel any safer. It's relatively easy to get a fake ID, and regardless of how much technology we put into ID cards, a criminal will be able to purchase a fake one or steal someone else's identity and get a real ID with his picture and the other person's name.
We can and do call upon TSA to ensure safe air travel by preventing people from carrying dangerous items onto flights. TSA's current practice of allowing people who show ID through security with less screening than other people receive contributes to a false sense of security, breeding complacency among passengers, crew, and TSA agents.
I acknowledge that the inconvenience of showing ID is trivial. My concern is that a requirement to show ID would allow the government to monitor and restrict our travel. Our courts have established that people in this country have the right to travel and associate without being monitored or stopped by the government unless they have been convicted of committing a crime or are suspected -- with good reason -- of having committed a crime. They have ruled that we cannot set up roadblocks and checkpoints to stop everyone who passes just to catch the few who have done something wrong, or to find the few who are suspected of intending to do something wrong.
Recent Congressional testimony suggests that over 900,000 names are now on the United States' so-called "terrorist watch list". Many people who have found themselves on the list are U.S. citizens who have no ties to any terrorist organization. There is no appeals process for those who have been blacklisted. We are not allowed to know who is on the list, who put them there, or why they were put on it.
If these people pose a danger to others, why don't we go arrest them instead of waiting for them to present themselves at the airport, then hassling them or preventing them from flying before sending them on their way?
Even if we could prune the list so that it included only people who actually pose a "known" threat, potential terrorists could probe the system by sending people on innocent trips, observing which ones were subjected to additional screening, then later sending the other people on a real terrorist mission. Restricting travel based on an ID check simply cannot improve security.
People can show their ID to whomever they want, whenever they want to do so, if it makes them feel safer. My doing so doesn't make me feel any safer. When a government agent asks me to show my papers or searches me, I feel *un*safe. It reminds me of descriptions of life in the former USSR, where identification was required upon demand, movement was restricted, and people either kept quiet and did as they were told, or risked disappearing into the night, never to be heard from again.
When I see security guards in airports wearing what look like police uniforms and demanding identification, and police on our streets wearing what look like military uniforms, driving DHS-grant-funded armored vehicles, marching in riot gear with machine guns, pepper-spraying and Tasing peaceful demonstrators, it makes me feel like I live in what is approaching a totalitarian state.
June 11, 2008 6:30 PM
None of your reasoning makes sense. If I lie about who I am, but aren't carrying anything to pose a threat to an airline, what does it matter if I fly within the United States?
If I'm a college student attempting to fly on a ticket with soemone elses name on it, how is that a threat to homeland security or an airplane?
How about I just tell you my name to establish my identity. It works for law enforcement.
"Enhancing our ID requirements further enable TSA security officers to ensure that individuals are who they say they are when they enter the security checkpoint and not individuals that may pose a threat." I call redundant argument and respond with redundant arguement. BS Having a name on a piece of plastic match a name on a piece of paper doesn't improve security and takes time away from processes that might. Consider...Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but Names will never hurt me. Prohibit dangerous items from being taken on airplanes, don't worry about peoples names.
Of the 900,000+ names on your no fly list, how many really belong to terrorists? Has your agency ever caught a terrorist with the assistance of the no-fly list? I've heard of a lot of 5 yr olds, grandmothers, and others hastled, delyed, SSSSearched and annoyed by the process, but few or no big fish caught by your agency.
Thanks for posting the subject though, I'm sure you'll get quite the response.
June 11, 2008 6:30 PM
Christopher said:
"Making sure the guy sitting next to you on the plane isn’t a terrorist is about as basic as security gets."
If the guy next to me has been properly screened, then explain to me how he plans on bringing the plane down. He'd have to be one tough terrorist to do it with his bare hands.
Christopher also said:
"Instead of allowing anyone without an ID to show up, go through a quick pat down and bag check, circumventing watch list matching, we’re now opening up the options to include interviews with behavior detection officers and law enforcement; options no real terrorist is looking forward to and ones that legitimate passengers will find quicker and more convenient than today’s process."
So, I noticed the last time I flew, that the ID checker used a black light and loupe (sp?) on my Passport when matching the names. I'm curious, though. What memory techniques are you teaching your TSOs that allow them to memorize the monstrous no-fly list so that they can match my name against it in their head?
It seems your rational is such: "Everyone who enters an airport is a threat until we determine them not to be." That sounds a little like the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty."
Again, you are continuing to dance around how ID = Security.
June 11, 2008 6:32 PM
There are lot of people in large cities who don't drive and don't have ID. Are they going to be "harassed" each and every time they decide to fly?
June 11, 2008 6:36 PM
Some papers please reading.
Straight to the issues:
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
Anecdotal and personal:
Papiere Bitte by Doris Colmes
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/colmes1.html
Gute Nacht allerseits.
June 11, 2008 6:44 PM
I always show ID when asked - don't think it is a big deal although I understand who doesn't want to show it. It is the addition of a new rule and the whole "layers of security" talk that worries me.
First computers had to come out of bags. There was no Science to prove that X-rays can't see through fabric, but we still had to follow the rule. Then in was shoes, then it was fingerprinting and photographing, then nail clippers (now back), then no fly and "suspicious" persons lists then liquid limitations, then having to take hooded sweatshirts off (beware! unwritten rule!), then transit visas, then puffers, then virtual strip search machines, and now ID or Psycho Super Screener grilling you Guantanamo style (better described as ID "or else").
How many new rules, all unjustified and unproven, will we have to subject to? When does this stop?
June 11, 2008 6:46 PM
Christopher of the EOS Blog Team wrote:
"Making sure the guy sitting next to you on the plane isn’t a terrorist is about as basic as security gets."
No. If he is a terrorist, he is probably in prison. If you want to take action based on the fact someone will someday become a terrorist by committing an act of terrorism, you will need to check your crystal ball. In the United States, we are innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.
If you have a list of terrorists and suspected terrorists, don't wait for them to show up at an airport and identify themselves to you; hand your list over to the police so they can go arrest those people and get them in front of a judge. Doing otherwise puts us all in danger.
"Ensuring that people on the no-fly list don’t get on board is as important as using the metal detector."
No. Best we can tell, plenty of innocent people are on your blacklist. You will not allow us to know how they got there or how to get off of it.
"To [restrict travel based on our secret blacklist, we] have to be able to identify people."
Agreed. However, we should not restrict travel based on your blacklist, and you simply cannot identify people who are determined not to be identified.
"This new requirement is meant for the person that simply won’t produce ID nor work with us to determine that they’re not someone that poses a threat to that flight."
Exactly. You're going to punish patriots for standing up for their rights. Those people who are willing to simply lie to you, helping to convince everyone else that it is okay to ask for permission from their government before traveling within their own country, will be unaffected by your new rule.
"Instead of allowing anyone without an ID to show up, go through a quick pat down and bag check, circumventing watch list matching, we’re now opening up the options to include interviews with behavior detection officers and law enforcement; options no real terrorist is looking forward to and ones that legitimate passengers will find quicker and more convenient than today’s process."
You have that option now, prior to implementation of your new rule. This statement is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
"[Someone wrote:] `If the security systems actually worked then there would be no need to check ID.' You really mean to advocate searching exclusively for pointy objects and not individuals that may pose a threat?"
I believe that it is ridiculous for you to allow thousands of security guards to determine on-the-spot whether someone "may pose a threat" based on anything besides whether or not that that person is carrying a dangerous item onto a flight.
Paraphrasing words of The Identity Project: No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
June 11, 2008 6:55 PM
I take the liberty of offering the words of one who has read, researched, reasoned and conributed to the discussion here. As trollkiller said:
"Anonymous said...
You can all thank, with weepy eyes, activist John Gilmore who took the U.S. government to court in 2004 over showing ID to fly. Gilmore refused to show ID to TSA and also refused to undergo the more thorough "secondary screening" search. He eventually lost his case before the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals which recognized that persons have the right to travel, but not necessarily by airplane. So through Gilmore's activist actions intent on undoing ID requirements to fly, he did the exact opposite and compelled one of the most liberal activist courts in this country to reject his claim and create the case law that this requirement will be based upon. Don't forget this little tidbit of authority taken directly from tsa.gov:
Under the law that created TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the TSA administrator is responsible for overseeing aviation security (P.L. 107-71) and has the authority to establish security procedures at airports (49 C.F.R. § 1540.107). Passengers that fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight (49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2).
If a lawyer at the TSA signed off on this based on the Gilmore vs. Ashcroft (now Gonzales) case, they need to find another profession.
For those that want to play along at home, here is the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals ruling. (PDF Warning)
The MOST important aspect of the Gilmore case is Gilmore refused to show his ID to the AIRLINE employees.
The Gilmore case hinges on the fact that he could fly without ID if he allowed himself to be subject to a secondary screening. (Reasonable) Gilmore chose not to allow it.
The case also hinges on the fact he could leave instead of being searched. (Reasonable)
The 9th Circus also ruled that his travel was not restricted because he did not prove to them that the same ID requirement was in place for buses or trains. (Lazy)
With this new policy in effect it requires you show your ID to a Government agent and removes the choice of a secondary screening. If the passenger decides to uphold his right not to present papers the TSA can invoke penalties.
I have been working on this post for two days, I was trying to be fair, and just present the facts. I can't, this idiotic new rule has my blood boiling. Reading the court decision that will bolster this new ID requirement and the asinine reasoning the 9th Circuit used to back their ruling is about to make my head explode.
Take this part where they say denying a person the ability to fly is equal to denying a person the ability to drive. Bolding mine.
III. Right To Travel
[11] Gilmore alleges that the identification policy violates
his constitutional right to travel because he cannot travel by
commercial airlines without presenting identification, which
is an impermissible federal condition.10
We reject Gilmore’s
right to travel argument because the Constitution does not
guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.
Because Gilmore lacks standing to challenge anything but the identification policy’s impact on air travel, his sole argument
is that “air travel is a necessity and not replaceable by
other forms of transportation.”
Although we do not question this allegation for purposes of this petition, it does not follow
that Defendants violated his right to travel, given that other
forms of travel remain possible.
This circuit’s decision in Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202
(9th Cir. 1999), is on point. In Miller, the plaintiff challenged
California’s requirement that applicants submit their social
security numbers to the DMV in order to obtain valid drivers
licenses.
The plaintiff alleged that this policy violated his fundamental
right to interstate travel and his right to freely exercise
his religion. In affirming the district court’s dismissal
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we concluded that
“by denying Miller a single mode of transportation—in a car driven by himself—the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller’s
right to interstate travel.” Id. at 1204.
Although we recognized
the fundamental right to interstate travel, we also acknowledged
that “burdens on a single mode of transportation do not
implicate the right to interstate travel.” Id. at 1205 (citing
Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs,
Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir. 1972)).
[12]
Like the plaintiff in Miller, Gilmore does not possess a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel for him.
Moreover, the identification
policy’s “burden” is not unreasonable. See Shapiro v.
Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969) (noting the right of all
citizens to be “free to travel throughout the length and breadth
of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement”), overruled in part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,
670-71 (1974).
The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification OR be subjected to a more extensive search.
The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and
“consistent with a full recognition of appellant’s constitutional
right to travel.”
SOMEONE, anyone please explain to me how denying someone the ability to OPERATE a car equals the ability to deny someone access to a vehicle they are NOT operating? If I am not driving the thing I DON'T need a license.
Thought processes like this is one of the reasons the 9th Circuit gets overturned on a regular basis.
By this fouled up reasoning the authorities could in all Constitutional righteousness deny you EVERY form of travel except walking. After all denying you a mode of transportation does not equal denial freedom of travel.
To sum up if the TSA is going to use Gilmore as its case law to back this new ID requirement it will need to understand that
1) Gilmore refused to show ID to an AIRLINE employee, not the TSA,
2) Gilmore had the OPTION of a secondary screening.
3) Gilmore was not sanctioned for refusing to show the ID,
4) Gilmore was free to leave
The TSA's new ID requirement does not pass the test that allows us to free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.
It is an unreasonable burden"
It took me a few hours to do reaserch that trollkiller distilled into a single posting.
Thank you.
,>)
June 11, 2008 7:08 PM
Internal passports for travel--Sounds like the Soviet Union.
June 11, 2008 7:17 PM
"Circumventing watch list matching" is a joke and will remain a joke even after the implementation date.
Speaking of watch lists and no fly lists, if someone is dangerous enough to be on a watch list or a no-fly list, shouldn't they be dangerous enough to be arrested and/or prosecuted and convicted in a court of law? However that is exactly what does not happen in the overwhelming majority of cases where a person with a name on the watch list or no-fly lists attempts to travel and does NOT attempt to "circumvent the watch list".
All such administrative requirements from the TSA are very much like what the Nazis and Soviets did, the very things that our parents and grandparents in uniform fought against in the Second World War and during the Cold War: "Your papers!", government permission to travel domestically, etc.
Did we lose the Second World War and the Cold War only to adopt the ways of our enemies? History books say America won, but it looks like the TSA is intent on adopting the same kind of means of control that were favored by the Nazis and the Soviets who were on the losing side of history.
June 11, 2008 7:20 PM
So help me out here. Is the TSO:
(a) Checking to see that the boarding pass is valid, and
(b) Running the name on the ID through the no-fly list?
Because right now, all one has to do is print their own fake boarding pass (e.g., use an old boarding pass and change the name, date, and flight number with graphics program and reprint it) that matches their ID. However, they've actually had a squeaky clean accomplice make the flight reservations, so when the board the airplane they use their real boarding pass.
If you're not doing a and b you fail. And as far as I know, the TSOs have no way to validate the boarding pass.
Note that even if you fail at a and b, a terrorist organization can still trivially defeat any ID checkpoint by using the "carnival booth" algorithm (google for more details).
June 11, 2008 7:22 PM
Christopher, I think that you need to reread Gilmore v. Gonzalez, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006). In Gilmore, the Government said that producing ID was not required to travel and you were only subjected to a secondary search. It was on that foundation that the court rejected Gilmore's challenge. By requiring the equivalent of an oral ID, the Ninth Circuit might not see it the same way this time.
As for the London bombers, I think you need to review the current testimony of just what was planned and what was to be used. Your statement doesn't comport with what I have read.
June 11, 2008 7:39 PM
Christopher said...
Let’s think about this:
Instead of allowing anyone without an ID to show up, go through a quick pat down and bag check, circumventing watch list matching, we’re now opening up the options to include interviews with behavior detection officers and law enforcement; options no real terrorist is looking forward to and ones that legitimate passengers will find quicker and more convenient than today’s process.
_____________________________
If these new options are in addition to the old process of a
"quick pat down and bag check", how will I find this to be "quicker and more convenient"?
June 11, 2008 7:40 PM
All of the 9/11 terrorists had valid identification. So what gives? Please stop using senarios from Hollywood when you make decisions.
June 11, 2008 7:43 PM
This is simple to understand.
Carry and show your id and u will not have any problem with this policy.
if you forget your id, just tell them.
if you dont have one, then just go to the BMV and get a state id card ( u need one to get a ticket at the counter or ligitimitly drive to the airport anyway)
June 11, 2008 8:02 PM
Welcome to the United States of East Germany. Your papers please?
Seriously, did any of TSA leadership take a civics class or even elementary social studies in the US? When I did (in the 1980s), we were taught that a key difference between the USA and the USSR and Eastern Bloc was that we didn't have to have permission from the government for domestic travel, and didn't have to show ID papers on demand.
My dad spent 23 years in the Cold War Air Force to keep the Communists from taking over. My grandfathers both fought in WWII to keep the Nazis from taking over. Seems to me that we're getting closer to that all being a waste.
This is yet another example of TSA mission creep, and yet the American people put up with it.
And it's another excuse for TSOs to badger and harass innocent people who forget their ID, now that they can be officially denied travel based on a subjective judgment of "cooperation."
How very sad. :(
June 11, 2008 8:10 PM
Ayn R. Key said...
"From now on I'm carrying a pocket constitution with me. Whenever the TSO asks for my ID I will hand the pocket constitution to the TSO."
Then you can either produce the ID, or turn around and explain to the others waiting to go somewhere why your act of revivalist 60s numbskullery is interfering with their "right" to travel. By the way, you wanted to know how one can fly without entering the sterile area? Fly your own jet, or charter one. If you truly will stand on your principle, you will....if you don't and simply rant for rant's sake, I'll see you in the sterile area with your pocket constitution and valid government issued ID.
June 11, 2008 8:27 PM
Ensuring that people on the no-fly list don’t get on board is as important as using the metal detector.
You mean the no-fly list that contains nearly one million names?
Or the no-fly list that was revealed to have kept sky marshals off planes?
Or the no-fly list that Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff said indicated caused one major carrier to have 9,000 false positives on any given day.
Wow. I feel safer already!
June 11, 2008 8:48 PM
I must reiterate, as I've said over and over. I don't care who the person next to me says they are. I want to know if they are a threat. Identifying who a person is does absolutely nothing to identify their intent. This farce of ID's at the checkpoint is merely a revenue protection mechanism for the airlines -- it allows them to charge exorbitant change fees and cancellation fees.
This has absolutely nothing to do with security and the sooner you drop the farce, the happier we will all be.
June 11, 2008 9:22 PM
Don't get too upset, everyone -- the industry is unsustainable as-is anyway (see articles like http://www.kpho.com/news/16577581/detail.html), so we should only have to deal with this for about another decade or so (depending on how many bailouts at taxpayer expense the industry gets before collapsing completely).
June 11, 2008 9:24 PM
If a person is not carrying anything that is capable of harming an airplane, they are not a threat to the flight. It's that simple. You don't need to know who I am.
Never mind that the no-fly-list has been shown to not be an accurate list of "threats" to aviation.
This is just another dragnet to try to justify TSA's existence, and turn us into a police state.
Papers Please? Not in my country.
June 11, 2008 9:26 PM
Thank you TSA for keeping Ft Lauderdale safe from Spring Breakers with fake ID's. We can all rest easy now.
June 11, 2008 9:42 PM
I can't help but wonder how DHS/TSA hired all the out of work communist from the old USSR!
What DHS/TSA is doing in this case is wrong.
Anyone working for DHS/TSA is causing harm to the United States if you permit this rule to go into effect.
In my humble opinion this Present ID requirment is a crime and will be dealt with in due course.
For you TSO's to just say I was following orders won't cut it if the order was unlawful. You will be as guilty as your leaders and just as accountable.
I suggest that all TSO's walk away now before your found guilty of a crime against the United States.
AS you know when the blame starts getting passed around the ones on the bottom will take the most heat.
Are you ready for what is coming?
June 11, 2008 10:33 PM
Actually, it’s an effort to keep people that pose a threat to aviation off airplanes and keep you, your family and mine safe.
And I sincerely hope you do not feel that anyone at TSA is mocking you. We value this opportunity to discuss important issues with the traveling public and cherish the opportunity to communicate directly with you.
Christopher
EOS Blog Team
...........................
Pure BS
I have to wonder, are you an American or what?
June 11, 2008 10:36 PM
Remember, in Gilmore v. Gonzales, Gilmore did not possess government-issued photo identification. (His driver's license was revoked when he was diagnosed with epilepsy.) He used and gave his real name, yet he was prevented from making his flight (in order to meet with his congressional representative). This rule discriminates against those without identification. (And the court ruling was simply wrong. Secret laws cannot be constitutional.)
ID has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control.
Your agents may be trained to recognize fake IDs, but what about fake boarding passes? I can print my real boarding pass and an identical copy with a different name. Use one to get through security and one to board the flight. This prevents NOTHING.
The no-fly list is a disaster. It has prevented exactly zero terrorists from flying. It has, however, stopped peaceful activists from getting to planned demonstrations and congressmen from flying home to meet with their constituents. Is has inconvenienced hundreds if not thousands of innocent people from legitimate travel because of a near match on a name. There are far too many names on the list to be effective.
A passenger is either a threat because they have a weapon or they are not. Whether their name matches one of thousands on an ever-growing list is irrelevant.
The airlines support these measures, because it sells more tickets. If the name on your ticket doesn't exactly match the name on your ID (e.g., Bob v. Robert), you can be forced to purchase a new ticket.
In California, you have the right to use any name you wish, as long as you are not doing so to commit fraud. In other words, the state of California has the common sense to recognize that it's your behavior, not your name, that counts.
These policies are hurting the economy by decimating tourism.
People making up these ineffectual rules should be fired for incompetence and sent back to civics class to understand what makes (er, used to make) America such a great place to live.
June 11, 2008 11:33 PM
Can you please describe just when the Document Checkist compares the name on the ID/Boarding Pass to the No Fly list?
Since keeping people who are the No-Fly list off the flights this must be accomplished or no reason exist for this procedure.
June 11, 2008 11:35 PM
Um, the passenger controls the lock (the boarding pass) and the key (the ID). So what exactly does this prevent?
Maybe, if the TSA was checking IDs against an airline database of issued boarding passes (or perhaps directly against the no-fly list), then MAYBE you could make an argument that this could, maybe, potentially possibly make a difference.
The only point of the new rules is to train us not to question the authority of the government (which derives from us). Want to visit grandma this summer? Then don't try to stand up for your rights.
I have plenty of safety. Let's try working on freedom for a while again.
June 11, 2008 11:46 PM
My driver's license is a license to drive. Period. I keep it in the car with my registration and proof of insurance.
If I'm going on a trip, I shouldn't have to remember to take it out of the glove compartment to board an airplane.
June 11, 2008 11:48 PM
Christopher -- I hope you didn't write this post yourself. Your defense of this new "policy" is completely indefensible and should be embarrassing to you.
Did you know that a cop can only seize your license and run a check on you at a traffic stop? Did you know that a cop can only force you to identify yourself when he/she can articulate reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed?
Enough other Americans have ripped apart your agency's notion that ID= any measure of security. I will focus on Hawley's flimsy justification and his completely unsupported rationale.
You tried to impress us by quoting a single law and a CFR that implements it. Let's look at just a couple of aspects of it, shall we?
From the law itself:
‘‘(l) REGULATIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary is authorized to
issue, rescind, and revise such regulations as are necessary
to carry out the functions of the Administration.
‘‘(2) EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law or executive order (including an executive order
requiring a cost-benefit analysis), if the Under Secretary
determines that a regulation or security directive must
be issued immediately in order to protect transportation
security, the Under Secretary shall issue the regulation
or security directive without providing notice or an opportunity
for comment and without prior approval of the Secretary.
(B) REVIEW BY TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OVERSIGHT
BOARD.—Any regulation or security directive issued under
this paragraph shall be subject to review by the Transportation
Security Oversight Board established under section
115. Any regulation or security directive issued under this
paragraph shall remain effective unless disapproved by
the Board or rescinded by the Under Secretary.
‘‘(3) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—In determining whether to
issue, rescind, or revise a regulation under this section, the
Under Secretary shall consider, as a factor in the final determination,
whether the costs of the regulation are excessive
in relation to the enhancement of security the regulation will
provide. The Under Secretary may waive requirements for an
analysis that estimates the number of lives that will be saved
by the regulation and the monetary value of such lives if
the Under Secretary determines that it is not feasible to make
such an estimate.
1. Did Hawley determine that implementing this procedure was an "emergency" under PL 107-71? If it wasn't an emergency, I would like for you to publish the following documentation:
1. Chertoff's approval of this new procedure, and,
2. A formal approval of the Transportation Security oversight Board.
For the life of me, I couldn't imagine that Chertoff and Hawley would not have followed the law of the land to the letter. So, all of this justification and approvals documentation must be right at your fingertips.
It's insulting to the American people that you use college kids with fake IDs as justification for a "regulation or security directive must be issued immediately in order to protect transportation security." (Yep, that's in the law also.)
Now, how about actually reading the Gilmore decision, OK? Here, I'll help you:
John Gilmore (“Gilmore”) sued Southwest Airlines and the
United States Attorney General, Alberto R. Gonzales, among
other defendants,1 alleging that the enactment and enforcement of the Government’s civilian airline passenger identification
policy is unconstitutional. The identification policy
requires airline passengers to present identification to airline
personnel before boarding or be subjected to a search that is
more exacting than the routine search that passengers who
present identification encounter.
An entire Federal District Court bench based the Gilmore decision on this assumption. For you to dismiss the entire Gilmore decision as not relevant is laughable and insulting to the American people.
And finally:
This initiative is simply a way for us to better enforce the no-fly list and ensure the safety of the traveling public. No secret motives, no hidden agendas, just a security enhancement aimed at people trying to game the system.
How can you blatantly lie like this and sleep at night? This is pure & simple retaliation by a cabinet member with no regard for the Constitution he swore to protect and serve. It's pure and simple retaliation for not getting his way with REAL ID. And, it's pure and simple retaliation against Americans who choose to travel anonymously.
June 12, 2008 12:33 AM
If you are going to blow smoke at least light the cigar first.
I am very very glad you cited the Gilmore case as the legal rational to require ID. As you may have noticed on the other page, I have been looking into the Gilmore case.
First and be VERY CLEAR on this, what lost Gilmore his case were these facts.
1) he refused to show an AIRLINE employee his ID.
2) he had the OPTION to take a secondary screening instead of showing his ID.
3) Gilmore was not sanctioned for refusing to show the ID,
4) Gilmore was free to leave.
Look at the court's opinion on the Freedom to travel issue. My inline comments in bold text.
III. Right To Travel
[11] Gilmore alleges that the identification policy violates his constitutional right to travel because he cannot travel by commercial airlines without presenting identification, which is an impermissible federal condition. 10
We reject Gilmore’s right to travel argument because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.
True the Constitution does not explicitly cover the right to travel, common law does.
Because Gilmore lacks standing to challenge anything but the identification policy’s impact on air travel, his sole argument is that “air travel is a necessity and not replaceable by other forms of transportation.”
Although we do not question this allegation for purposes of this petition,
it does not follow that Defendants violated his right to travel, given that other forms of travel remain possible.
Translation: the court did not bother researching the question pertaining to the nessecity of air travel. If this had happened in Hawaii would the "other forms of travel" argument be viable?
This circuit’s decision in Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202
(9th Cir. 1999), is on point. In Miller, the plaintiff challenged
California’s requirement that applicants submit their social
security numbers to the DMV in order to obtain valid drivers
licenses. The plaintiff alleged that this policy violated his fundamental right to interstate travel and his right to freely exercise his religion. In affirming the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we concluded that “by denying
Miller a single mode of transportation—in a car driven by
himself—the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller’s
right to interstate travel.” Id. at 1204.
This is one of the reason's the 9th Circuit gets overturned on a regular basis.
The denial of a driver's license due to lack of documentation DOES NOT equal denial of air travel.
Although we recognized the fundamental right to interstate travel, we also acknowledged that “burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel.” Id. at 1205 (citing
Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs,
Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir. 1972)).
[12] Like the plaintiff in Miller
Gilmore is NOTHING like Miller. The "one mode of transportation" in the Miller case is strictly the operation of an automobile. Unlike Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Miller is still free to use the roads as a PASSENGER.
, Gilmore does not possess a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel for him. Moreover, the identification
policy’s “burden” is not unreasonable.
Note the "Moreover, the identification policy’s “burden” is not unreasonable." Very true the ID requirement in the Gilmore case was not an unreasonable burden because Gilmore could have OPTED for a secondary screening instead.
See Shapiro v.
Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969) (noting the right of all citizens to be “free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement”), overruled in
part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,
670-71 (1974).
Note the court affirms it is the RIGHT of citizens to travel uninhibited by rules, regulations that are an unreasonable burden or restrict movement.
The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and
“consistent with a full recognition of appellant’s constitutional right to travel.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973).
Notice the "either or" part of that statement. Either you show ID OR you get extra screening. Most people find that reasonable. Under your new order, the passenger has no choice. (please look up what the court considers an order)
Because of this lack of choice, the ID order creates an envioroment that is diametrical to the right of all citizens to be “free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement".
[13] In Davis, an airline employee searched the defendant’s briefcase as part of the airport’s preboarding screening procedure.
Although we remanded for further consideration of whether the defendant consented to the search, we held that airport screening searches of potential passengers and their immediate possessions for weapons and explosives is reasonable so long as each potential passenger maintains the right to leave the airport instead of submitting to the search. Id. at
912.
In so holding, we considered several airport screening procedures, including behavioral profiling, magnetometer screening, identification check, and physical search of the passenger’s person and carry-on baggage. Id. at 900.
We see little difference between the search measures discussed in
Davis and those that comprise the “selectee” search option of
the passenger identification policy at hand.
The court reaffirms the reasonableness of a secondary screening
Additionally, Gilmore was free to decline both options and use a different mode of transportation.
Gilmore had options, he had to decline BOTH options before being refused.
With the new order, we have no options. Unless this is all a farce.
In sum, by requiring Gilmore to comply with the identification policy, Defendants did not violate
his right to travel.
The ID policy in place at the time of Gilmore was, show ID or get a secondary screening. This new policy does not allow those simple options.
Denial of access is now PUNITIVE in nature due to the fact the passenger is required to genuflect in order to be allowed a secondary screening instead of the presentation of an ID.
Lack of options and a punitive nature makes the new ID order a burden that unduly restricts travel.
Gilmore was very specific in the scope of the ruling. Under the old ID requirement, Gilmore lost. Under the new ID requirement I am not so sure he would.
Whew I bet it took as long for me to mark that up as it did for them to write it.
What we need to happen is someone will have to be a test case for this new requirement. I would do it but I lack cash for a legal team. The test case needs to happen where air travel is the only real choice of travel. Someplace like Hawaii or Alaska.
If anyone wants to pony up the dough, I could use a Hawaiian or Alaskan vacation.
If you got the money honey, I’ll do the time… We'll go honky-tonkin'
And we're gonna have a time. (sorry for the ear worm)
June 12, 2008 1:39 AM
Then you can either produce the ID, or turn around and explain to the others waiting to go somewhere why your act of revivalist 60s numbskullery is interfering with their "right" to travel. By the way, you wanted to know how one can fly without entering the sterile area? Fly your own jet, or charter one. If you truly will stand on your principle, you will....if you don't and simply rant for rant's sake, I'll see you in the sterile area with your pocket constitution and valid government issued ID.
Seig heil. Since the USA is founded on liberty, loving the USA means loving liberty. Think about that while you advocate that we trade essential liberty for temporary false security.
June 12, 2008 2:14 AM
Wow! Never caught a terrorist and now you are looking more and more like STASI. Papers for domestic travel are a travesty.
June 12, 2008 2:14 AM
Dear TSA,
You disgust me.
June 12, 2008 2:53 AM
Ummm before anyone takes too much stock in what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has to say, look at the quality of their judges.
Granted he did not rule on the Gilmore case..... but... come on now.
June 12, 2008 3:09 AM
This is a good policy. How am I suppose to know the name matches on the ticket? BTW, all of these bloggers claiming they'll NEVER show the ID to the TSO. Once the police comes and interviews you, watch how submissive you'll become.
June 12, 2008 4:02 AM
Honestly.
First of all, I'd like to show my appreciation for making a blog entry about this. That's a kudos on your part.
This policy really bothers me, however... why waste people's time by interviewing them if they forgot their ID? While the old policy (just SSSS'ing them, giving them a pat down) is admittedly pretty easy and non-intrusive, it's what makes sense. People won't appreciate being interviewed by police if they forgot their ID - they'll feel like they did something wrong. That gives way to a police state feeling, which is unAmerican.
I understand your ID checking revune needs...however, why don't you have the airlines do it? It's their responsibilty, not yours. This just creates an additional, unnecessary dragnet and will consume people's time...all for nothing. The key to airport security is that someone doesn't have dangerous items on them. Simple as that. Let true, centuries-old intelligence agencies (FBI, NSA) do the work.
This is a true cornerstone of mission creep...and I don't like it. While the liquid policy is stupid, pointless, and silly, it's somewhat reasonable compared to this ID policy, especially for domestic travel. You're responsible for ensuring the safety of people flying on planes--and safety means physical items. I think others have said it all.
Keep in mind this will greatly inconvenience people, but especially those who are Deaf, mute, has religious beliefs, and those who are autistic.
I've always tried to respect your side, TSA...but in this instance, you've gone too far, creating a "papers please" environment (even though it may not be intentional), and it's not necesssary nor is it American. Nix the interviews and give us our pat downs, but keep it at that.
I hope you'll at least take my suggestion in consideration, since I'm a mere citizen... but take it from me, you guys are going too far this time.
Sincerely,
An ex-TSA fan
June 12, 2008 4:16 AM
The TSA should continue to allow refusal to show ID without enhanced visible screening. This way the TSA could launch an emergency secret investigation of anyone who doesn't show ID.
So lets say as soon as I came up to a ID checkpoint with "No ID" written on my boarding pass, the officer would immediately contact his supervisor. That supervisor would then start dispatching undercover officers and investigators. So while the undercover officers observe me as I walk through the airport, investigators would be pulling up video of me from airport cameras and as much other information that they could find.
This gives authorities the chance to discover I'm actually a terrorist and have me attested without me knowing that they were investigating me the whole time.
June 12, 2008 5:12 AM
"This initiative is simply a way for us to better enforce the no-fly list"
The no fly list can easily be gamed using valid id. This hole is well known and has been widely discussed.
Play it out:
Someone is on the no fly list. Their buddy is not. Buddy buys a ticket. They modify the ticket to bear the name of the someone on the no fly list.
They show up at the airport and present the doctored ticket and an ID that matches.
The people examining him and the documents have _no_ idea if that name is on the no fly list. They pass him into the 'secure' area.
"This initiative is simply a way for us to better enforce the no-fly list"
Do you have a plan to begin checking our names against the lists at your checkpoints?
If not, then it seems to me your statement is at best disingenuous.
June 12, 2008 6:37 AM
After getting SSSS boarding passes 15 times in a row, I have come to the sad conclusion that my name must be on a "watch list". Why this would be so is beyond me, but it works as good personal proof that the lists are fundamentally flawed.
In fact, these lists have an outrageous number of false positives. They have grounded infants, all John Smiths in the country and even air marshals! If your justification for requiring ID is to see if the person is not on a watch or no fly list, you first have to show us that these lists make sense!
June 12, 2008 7:09 AM
The fact is: the TSA jurisdiction is limited to 5% of the airfields in the country, and then again limited to the commercial side at those locations. Anyone who wants to can fly in private aircraft, without showing ID, luggage searches, or being delayed for bottled drinks, personal appearance, choice of clothing, or other trivial issues.
June 12, 2008 8:00 AM
I knew Comrade Chertoff years ago. He had hissy fits then if he didn't get his way and he's still having hissy fits, this time because he's not getting his way with REAL ID.
ID DOES NOT EQUAL SECURITY
As Hawley himself said, only the dumb get caught; sophisticated terrorists are NOT DUMB.
June 12, 2008 8:14 AM
Christopher in the column said:
"This initiative is simply a way for us to better enforce the no-fly list and ensure the safety of the traveling public. No secret motives, no hidden agendas, just a security enhancement aimed at people trying to game the system."
Tell us, Christopher, how you personally would be able to identify if a passenger were on the no-fly list? You can't do it and neither can the ID checkers, other than checking for an SSSS.
And yes, there is a hidden agenda: The TSA knows it can't deny people without ID from taking a flight so instead you will not allow them in the boarding area. Can't access the boarding area, can't get on your plane.
Another poster wrote to the effect of: "How do you sleep at night after spewing forth the claptrap that is this blog?"
God help this country.
June 12, 2008 10:58 AM
Big fat meh on this entry. Your response to the constitutional right to travel freely within the U.S (ID or no ID) is: "Too bad for you, legal eagle. By the way, we don't have a secret agenda."
Well, whether that is true or not, you are still contributing to a climate of oppression. The more rights that are taken away from average people, the worse things will get. A compliant and docile populace isn't in anyone's best interest! (Except maybe the government's) Also, when do you stop making up new rules and restrictions? At what point is the process "good enough" or can we count on the rules getting more and more byzantine and nonsensical with each passing year?
Meanwhile, I find it curious that you don't address the fact that the ID check is essentially useless if the terrorist does have valid ID. I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of terrorists out there that aren't on any no-fly list, and if they were getting on a plane, there would be nothing stopping them from using their own perfectly valid ID. At that point, we're back to the detection of dangerous items in baggage. THAT is where you should be concentrating your efforts. Not on more useless rules that punish free thought and civil disobedience.
If I were you, I'd be taking a good long look at some of our concerns about the dumping of hazmat in open trash cans in public areas. That and the fact that no one is allowed to see the "G-Rated" MMW images. If they're so innocent, put them out in public. (Have the screens viewable by the people in line at the checkpoint) Frankly asking me to trust that those low-res images that were put up are what the screeners see is asking a lot. Why should I believe anything I read on this PR blog again?
June 12, 2008 11:00 AM
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court."
From SCOTUS' decision that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in US Courts. (See today's NY Times.)
So, it seems that prisoners at Gitmo have more rights than some poor schmuck trying to get on an airplane.
You should be ashamed of yourselves, TSA.
June 12, 2008 11:24 AM
An Anonymous person wrote:
After getting SSSS boarding passes 15 times in a row, I have come to the sad conclusion that my name must be on a "watch list". Why this would be so is beyond me, but it works as good personal proof that the lists are fundamentally flawed.
Just an observation:
I once spoke with a passenger who was designated as a selectee (or, as some people put it, "singled out for haraSSSSment") who was... hm - quite upset with the fact. He claimed to have flown over twenty times in the past two years, and that he was a selectee for every single round-trip flight.
Sounds a bit like your situation.
I asked him a few questions in regard to how he flew - without exception, he was flying on business, as is the case for most of the travelers that leave out of Huntsville. I asked him if his company got the travel arrangements themselves, or contracted it out to someone else. He told me that a third-party arranged the travel plans, and issued them to his company.
The next question cinched it as far as I was concerned. I asked him how far in advance did they make the travel arrangements.
Turns out, the third-party that handled all of the company's travel arrangements typically made said arrangements within twenty-four hours of the flight.
There was no 'false positive' on any watch list. The third-party company that handled his travel arrangements fit, 100% of the time, into the CAPPS profile for what it desigates as selectees.
Just an observation. Please, continue burning my employer at the stake now.
June 12, 2008 11:47 AM
And again, how does ID = Security? Oh that's right, IT DOESN'T! You people continue to disgust me with your communist policies.
Wake up.
June 12, 2008 12:35 PM
Just who would have a fake ID folks? Criminals? Terrorists, Illegal aliens? Would you want someone sitting next to you that is wanted for murder and armed robbery? You don't need a knife or gun to kill someone as someone with the desire can do so with a pen. We are screening for weapons as well as those intending evil to the plane and/or passengers and crew of the plane. It's not just about weapons folks.
If you have never watched the reality tv program airline I'd advise you to do so. The airlines deny boarding to drunk passengers all the time. Those people can't bring down the plane by being drunk on the plane, but they can and often do disrupt the flight, the airport environment, the other passengers, and everyone around them. Because of this they are a danger to the flight and are denied boarding. The TSA doesn't become involved unless the behavior is shown in the checkpoint, but it's not just what you are carrying but who you are and how you behave that matters when traveling by air.
June 12, 2008 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...
This is a good policy. How am I suppose to know the name matches on the ticket? BTW, all of these bloggers claiming they'll NEVER show the ID to the TSO. Once the police comes and interviews you, watch how submissive you'll become.
You don't know me very well do you? I am that person that requires a police officer to have clear probable cause before allowing a search of my vehicle.
I am the person that on more than one occasion have told a police officer they need to settle down and stop yelling.
I am the person that in open court has told a judge that he is running a kangaroo court and should be ashamed of himself.
I am the person that will not allow a police officer to review the images on my camera.
I am not submissive to overbearing authority.
I am submissive only to proper authority.
If I don't have my ID and you request extra screening, no problem as that is reasonable. If I am entering a secure area and you want to search my vehicle, no problem as that is reasonable.
If I will not grovel for a law enforcement officer, judge or boss, you can rest assured I will not grovel for a tin star security guard.
June 12, 2008 12:56 PM
To just change the name on the boarding pass and have an ID match that would not work 100%. TSA also checks to see if the ID is authentic and that person imitating a no-fly list person would have a fake ID then. So the check does help the no-fly list not get gamed.
June 12, 2008 12:57 PM
Sad to see of what became of the "Land of the Free" in just a few short years. I just put myself on a "no fly" list.
June 12, 2008 1:35 PM
I think this policy is wrong and in no way improves security one iota.
I have tolerated TSO's up till now but will not do so any longer. Any mis-step, abusive behavior or any other action that I feel violates my civil rights by anyone working for TSA will be met with maximum effort complaints.
It is a sad day but I think I know who the real terrorist are now!
Sieg Heil
June 12, 2008 1:41 PM
I've always defended TSA against it's more rabid critics. Frankly, most of it's critics are ill informed and just plain wrong. Now though? I can no longer defend TSA. If not unconstitutional, it is at a minimum unenforceable and stupid. TSA already lost a similar case once, why try again? I hope the next administration makes some serious changes.
June 12, 2008 1:43 PM
Which is exactly why I refuse to fly any more except in a dire emergency.
It is clear that the inmates are running the asylum -- and that you guys are making this stuff up as you go along.
It is all theatre. Nothing more, nothing less.
June 12, 2008 1:49 PM
"The legislation that enacted the program gives the federal government open-ended authority to include biometric information, like a person’s retinal scan, fingerprint and genetic information, said Perry, R-Kaplan.
“The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either,” Perry said, quoting one of the nation’s founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. “I think it’s very dangerous for what we’re moving to.”
(The above is from 2theadvocate.com)
Louisiana, as did Arizona recently, is moving to reject REAL ID.
Get the message, Chertoff, WE THE PEOPLE are no longer going to put up with your antics and your bullying.
June 12, 2008 1:54 PM
Time to stop flying. The whole process is just too demeaning. Whether it is the electronic strip search or the high school drop out "security professional" that will interrogate you, your spouse and your children for hours because he/she can; the only response possible by the people is to abandon commercial airlines as a travel option.
June 12, 2008 2:05 PM
"Wake me up when the TSA actually does something that actually increases airport security!"
TSA has never done ANYTHING to improve airport security. Every American knows this, and so does TSA, and so do the poor wretches tasked to lie to the American public via this blog. This ID policy is rank nonsense, up there with 3.4-1-1, since it presumes that no terrorist is capable of saying, "I lost my ID."
I'd love for TSA to explain just how many 9/11 hijackers this policy would have caught. Here's a hint: The answer is zero.
June 12, 2008 2:18 PM
When the TSO checking my ID can properly recognize my ID as being valid without asking me what it is, I will recognize them as being properly trained and deserving of respect. Until then, their skills are unsatisfactory and I shall notify their supervisors of the need for retraining. At the same time, I will not berate them for being members of the American Stasi or similar, for they are just trying to do their poorly defined job.
When the TSO looking at my bags via an X-ray machine can recognize the difference between a flash drive and a knife, I will recognize them as being properly trained and deserving of respect. Until then, they are playing with equipment they don't know how to use and their supervisors shall notified of the need for retraining. I will not be a smart*ss and hand the TSO the printed copy of the x-ray machines operator manual.
When the TSO that checks my bags by hand can properly unpack, inspect and repack the equipment I carry, or is smart enough to ask me how to do it, I will thank them, recognize them as being properly trained and of being deserving of respect. Until then, they will be politely instructed on how not to break things. If they do not accept instruction, I will immediately request to speak to their supervisor without getting out of line or attempting to repack my bags.
When the TSO I encounter is courteous, polite, and professional in behavior, I will recognize them as being deserving of respect. Until then, they are but costume-wearers looking for a free donut. I will pity them, but I will not berate them, for they are unaware of how poorly they fit their job description.
When every TSO is well trained, and knows how to do their job properly, I fully expect that the TSA will immediately change all the rules for some poorly thought out and undefined 'security reason.'
June 12, 2008 2:23 PM
Christopher, are you going to at least make an attempt to defend your position on Gilmore vs. Gonzalez?
Also please explain how the residents of the 10 States that refuse to comply with the onerous Real ID will be handled by the TSA.
Oh and remind Matt I am still waiting for the section of law that limits the amount of real estate the TSA can place under its control at the airports.
June 12, 2008 2:39 PM
Oops, I accidently put my ID in my checked luggage with my 4-oz can of cheeze-whiz.
TSA is absurd.
June 12, 2008 2:42 PM
HSVTSO Dean said...
Just an observation. Please, continue burning my employer at the stake now.
I've brought marshmallows, who has the sticks.
June 12, 2008 2:49 PM
Dear hsvtso Dean,
Thank you for the information regarding possible reasons for haraSSSSment (love the term). I do not fit in: made all reservations myself, well in advance, round trips. I also do not have looks or a name that could be considered "suspicious" (whatever that is). Probability laws point out to my being on a watch list (ridiculous, since I have absolutely no connection that could be regarded as remotely "worrisome").
Besides that, I still do not understand how getting a boarding pass marked SSSS then being allowed to wonder freely within the airport before subjecting to haraSSSSment improves security.
June 12, 2008 2:49 PM
"highly-trained document checkers"? I usually have bouncers at bars look at my ID more closely (and I'm in my mid-30s!) than TSA officers. On average anyway, there are TSA folks who look more closely but many seem to give the ID side of things just a cursory inspection at most.
June 12, 2008 2:49 PM
Why are you citing case law which doesn't apply, in both the present circumstances along with outside of the 9th district court's jurisdiction?
Gilmore had the option of leaving.
Gilmore wasn't required to provide ID to a federal employee. He only had to present it to an airline employee/contractor.
Gilmore had the option of taking an SSSS if he chose not to present ID.
Gilmore can not possess a drivers license for medical reasons, though arguably could possess other government ID.
I appreciate the topic finally being given some consideration on the blog.
June 12, 2008 2:58 PM
Someone using the handle TwoShort posted the following comment in reponse to a related BoingBoing post ("TSA outlaws flights to those who refuse to show ID", by Mark Frauenfelder, June 9, 2008):
"All arguments about why it is reasonable for TSA to check ID are irrelevant.
"You cannot fly if you say "I don't have ID because I don't think I should have to show it to you". You can fly if you say "I left it in my other pants". There is no difference in security, only in your willingness to express an opinion the TSA doesn't like.
"How is that remotely defensible?"
Good question.
June 12, 2008 3:41 PM
"to the constitutional right to travel freely within the U.S"
I have recently had my eyes opened and I have much more to learn but...
It does not seem as if there is a "constitutional right to travel freely within the U.S."
It seems that our rights to free travel derive from the constitutional rights to association and assembly.
June 12, 2008 4:24 PM
"Starting June 21, that person could be subjected to a range of options, including interviews with behavior detection officers, local and/or federal law enforcement, enhanced pat-downs or other options. By increasing our options, people with bad intentions don’t know what exactly to plan against, have to beat multiple layers at the checkpoint and need to be ready to face any number of obstacles to their plans."
This is beyond moronic. In your quest for all-but-nonexistent "people with bad intentions" you will harass and interrogate and waste the time of thousands and thousands of citizens guilty of absolutely nothing more than forgetting their wallet or having their purse stolen on a business trip. All without any justification whatsoever for the new policy (just as the 3-1-1 nonsense has no basis in fact): Did someone "with bad intentions" slip through the current no-ID procedure and bring down a plane without anyone but TSA noticing?
You people are a pathetic joke that's long since ceased to be funny.
June 12, 2008 5:32 PM
Two more quick points:
1. Arizona today rejected RealID.
2. For more insightinto TSA future plans, read: http://www.gsnmagazine.com/cms/features/news-analysis/820.html
June 12, 2008 6:02 PM
Do you remember the President telling us in the months after 9/11, about how "we" must not allow "terrorists" to erode our freedoms and destroy "our" ways of life?
Well, I guess he was right. We haven't allowed the terrorist to erode any of our freedoms, it is our OWN government that has accomplished that task.
June 12, 2008 11:23 PM
The people who want to hurt us will always find a way around it. We will weed out the dumb ones....but the smart will keep on going.
June 12, 2008 11:28 PM
So it boils down to this: If you want to travel anonymously or heaven forbid, protest the ever increasing silliness perpetrated by the TSA, you can't fly.
But if you just lie, say you lost your ID and then answer some questions (which you may have to answer even if you do have your ID), then you'll be allowed on board.
It sure is a good thing that terrorists won't lie and can't pass a behavioral interview.
Seriously, this is rapidly moving from security theater to clown-car security.
June 12, 2008 11:53 PM
It does seem a little extreme. I think that America is really doing the best that they can. We have to remember that we really are dealing with human beings here. Hopefully, they will eventually get it a pace that will work... KC
June 13, 2008 1:17 AM
Hope you all have jobs lined up for after Jan. 20.
June 13, 2008 3:12 AM
I don't believe TSA is going anywhere.
June 13, 2008 10:38 AM
"This initiative is simply a way for us to better enforce the no-fly list and ensure the safety of the traveling public.""
Please describe exactly where in the ID viewing process that the NO-FLY list is referred to. The ID Checker does not have a copy. The WTMD Operator does not have a copy. TAhe Xray Operator does not have a copy.
I find the quoted statement by TSA to be false. The only time one is checked against the No Fly List is by the airline when tickets are purchased.
Why does DHS/TSA continue to tell the public things that are simply not true?
DHS/TSA cannot be trusted and prove it everyday.
June 13, 2008 11:57 AM
Um, why do you people have such problems with IDs and security? Seriously, what is the big deal? As an avid flier, I want to make sure that the John Doe sitting next to me is really John Doe. I understand the argument that the 911 terrorists had real IDs. But you have to understand that this new ID phenomenon probably has a trickle-down effect. As the intelligence people become more intelligent and the law enforcement peeps plus local and state govies become a little more picky about the id rules in general, don’t you think it’s going to be a little bit harder for terrorists to obtain real ids in the first place? I do, especially with this behavior detection stuff going on. Give it time, people. This will eventually cause a light bulb to go off.
June 13, 2008 12:27 PM
Being on the no fly list doens't even mean you can't fly. One of my colleagues NAMES, or a derivitive of her name, is on the list. She just gets extra hastle, can't print a boarding pass at home, or check-in electronically.
If the purpose of checking ID is to check it against "The List" then you have a virtually pointless and futile process in place.
June 13, 2008 12:37 PM
"don’t you think it’s going to be a little bit harder for terrorists to obtain real ids in the first place? "
Money can buy anything, absolutely anything. Anyone who is serious about blowing a plane out of the sky is going to have the means to obtain either a legitimate ID from the states or will be provided with a legitimate passport from a foreign country.
June 13, 2008 2:08 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"why do you people have such problems with IDs and security? Seriously, what is the big deal?"
I haven't seen anyone express a "problem with IDs and security", but assuming you meant something like, "Why are you people so opposed to the idea of security guards and government agents demanding that people present ID upon demand?": Because what is being established is a government checkpoint at which we are required to identify ourselves and wait for permission to proceed. It is a restriction of our right to travel, and thus of our right to associate. These rights are crucial to a free society and we are unwilling to relinquish them.
"As an avid flier, I want to make sure that the John Doe sitting next to me is really John Doe."
Why do you want to do that?
"As the intelligence people become more intelligent and the law enforcement [people] plus local and state [government] become a little more picky about the id rules in general, don’t you think it’s going to be a little bit harder for terrorists to obtain real ids in the first place?"
No, I don't think so. If someone is a known terrorist, I doubt he's going to walk into a government office to request an ID. Do you think so?
This might make it a little bit harder for them to get a fake ID, but matter how much technology we put into identification cards, a criminal will be able to either get a false ID or "steal" someone else's identity and get a card with his picture and the other person's name.
For more on this topic, please read "What's Wrong With Showing ID?" at The Identity Project.
June 13, 2008 2:10 PM
Maybe this ID rule is a make-work program for the BDOs: If they can pick out liars on the ID issue they can score more 'wins' in their job performance statistics.
TSA is full of pointy-haired management geniuses: Actual enforcement of this new rule might increase their sham terrorist detection metrics, but as Bruce Schneier noted, it is all about control: "That's right; people who refuse to show ID on principle will not be allowed to fly, but people who claim to have lost their ID will. I feel well-protected against terrorists who can't lie."
And according to Daniel Solove, it may be an example of first amendment discrimination: "Although the First Amendment doesn't restrict the TSA from requiring IDs in order to board an airplane, it does restrict using the ID requirement to penalize people who engage in expressive conduct. Because the TSA requirement seems to be targeted to this kind of expressive conduct (hence the exception for lost or stolen IDs), it may run afoul of the First Amendment."
As for your "By increasing our options, people with bad intentions don’t know what exactly to plan against," justification, you really do seem to be going for the Keystone-Cops terrorist detection plan. What is next? Will you have the BDOs draw a Trivial Pursuit card and make all us potential terrorists react to a stupid question?
June 13, 2008 4:37 PM
And WHEN are you going to answer my question about REAL ID?
The TSA says that we have to show valid ID to fly or we can't get in, even with a pat-down alternative.
The TSA says that soon REAL ID will be the only valid ID.
Several states say they won't conform to REAL ID.
Are residents of those states going to be forbidden to fly?
June 13, 2008 5:19 PM
And WHEN are you going to answer my question about REAL ID?
The TSA says that we have to show valid ID to fly or we can't get in, even with a pat-down alternative.
The TSA says that soon REAL ID will be the only valid ID.
Several states say they won't conform to REAL ID.
Are residents of those states going to be forbidden to fly?
They won't be able to fly without SSSS. They won't be allowed entry into federal buildings. They won't be allowed many things.
Hats off to Chertoff and Hawley for bringing about a Stasi like environment. Hats off to the security at any cost folks as you've given up Constitutional rights for the sake of a nanny state.
Happy? You sure won't be when you bump into a petty bureaucrat who reads the poorly worded regulations differently than anyone else.
Life, itself is a risk. You can't eliminate all risks. You stay in bed and your risks for some forms of death increase dramatically. Get up and your risks for death from other factors increase.
Message to the government: Follow the Constitution, stop trying to be a nanny, and obey what the founding fathers wanted this country to be.
June 14, 2008 8:57 AM
So you found a bogus ID and the person was such a threat that the cops gave her a ticket and let her go?
That does not help your case Bob.
At least try to give the ID program a good spin by saying that you are trying to catch criminal alien ID thieves.
June 14, 2008 1:00 PM
Regarding the "update" re: a woman at JFK with fraudulent documents:
WHO CARES?
Was she a threat to aviation? Obviously not because she was allowed to go on her way.
If you have to dip this deep into the barrel to find something to crow about, it says a great deal about how deep you have to troll in order to find something to crow about.
I'm less than impressed. As a matter of fact, I'm laughing at your efforts to impress any Kettles who might be reading this blog.
June 14, 2008 5:27 PM
Ayn R. Key said...
"Seig heil. Since the USA is founded on liberty, loving the USA means loving liberty. Think about that while you advocate that we trade essential liberty for temporary false security."
Very romantic notion, but showing ID to a screener is far, far, far from losing an "essential liberty". Try again...and please, find a new mantra instead of cheapening one with actual meaning.
June 14, 2008 6:41 PM
Bob@TSA wrote:
"Our ticket checkers found a fraudulent ID at JFK. [...]
Travel Document Checkers are TSA officers that are specially trained to detect fraudulent IDs and boarding passes to help keep our airports safe and secure."
Safe and secure from what -- fraudulent paper cuts as opposed to legitimate ones?
June 14, 2008 9:53 PM
Sandra said...
Regarding the "update" re: a woman at JFK with fraudulent documents:
WHO CARES?
Was she a threat to aviation? Obviously not because she was allowed to go on her way.
If you have to dip this deep into the barrel to find something to crow about, it says a great deal about how deep you have to troll in order to find something to crow about.
I'm less than impressed. As a matter of fact, I'm laughing at your efforts to impress any Kettles who might be reading this blog.
Troll? did you say troll?, where? I will kill it. Oh "troll" as in fishing... ok never mind, carry on.. ;)
June 15, 2008 1:59 AM
Anonymous said...
Very romantic notion, but showing ID to a screener is far, far, far from losing an "essential liberty". Try again...and please, find a new mantra instead of cheapening one with actual meaning.
You are absolutely right, showing an ID to a screener is NOT losing an essential liberty.
Being REQUIRED to show an ID to the screener or risk being denied the RIGHT to travel and the RIGHT to free trade IS losing essential liberties.
Our Founding Fathers felt that the right travel was such an undeniable RIGHT, and the courts have agreed to this point, that is was not necessary to include it as part of the Constitution.
Just in case you think this important issue just "slipped their minds" the right to travel between the States has been a Right since the Articles of Confederation, the first Constitution, that created the United States of America.
The Articles of Confederation
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.
If foundation documents are not enough to convince you of the right to travel validity maybe the latest legal brick will. From the Gilmore vs. Gonzales (previously Ashcroft)
Although we recognized the fundamental right to interstate travel, we also acknowledged that “burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel.” Id. at 1205 (citing
Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs,
Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir. 1972)).
[12] Like the plaintiff in Miller, Gilmore does not possess a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel for him. Moreover, the identification
policy’s “burden” is not unreasonable.
See Shapiro v.
Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969) (noting the right of all citizens to be “free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement”), overruled in
part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,
670-71 (1974).
The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and
“consistent with a full recognition of appellant’s constitutional right to travel.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973).
Hopefully you will notice above what the TSA is refusing to acknowledge. Even though the above ruling strengthened the reasonableness of having the OPTION to show ID OR submitting to a secondary screen, it DID NOT weaken the right of all citizens to be “free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.
Before you go "ah ha", the single mode of transportation denied Miller was his DRIVING a vehicle because he refused to give his SS number to the DMV. Mr. Miller is still free to ride in a car, bus, train, or plane. I don't know about you but all I want to do is ride the plane, not drive it.
Just in case you are curious about the MONARCH TRAVEL SERVICES v. ASSOCIATED CULTURAL CLUBS case cited;
ACCI was in the transportation business thinly disguised as a club. The district court correctly decided that it was an indirect carrier.
ACCI argues that the statutes and regulations it violated are unconstitutional restrictions on the right to travel because not everyone can afford to pay the higher fares on regular flights to Europe. No unconstitutional restraints on anyone's right to travel is imposed by the challenged statutes and regulations. The persons regulated are carriers. Of course, higher air tariffs will limit travel of those who cannot pay the price. A rich man can choose to drive a limousine; a poor man may have to walk. The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional.
I think we can all agree to the last part. I don't think anybody wants to ride a Welfare Airline.
In summary, the TSA has no right to demand an ID and restrict the travel of free citizens that refuse to capitulate.
Trying to use the case law they have admitted to as the basis for their new found foolishness, would be like me arguing the use of a take a penny, leave a penny cup at the convenience store gives me permission to stick my hand in the till.
I know if I tried to stick my hand in the till, Ali or Muhammad would make sure I pulled back a nub. That is what will happen to the TSA if they continue to push this unconstitutional restriction of travel. Either the courts or the legislators will be sure the long arm of the TSA is shortened.
Before anybody gets all bunched up, yes the names of the guys that work the convenience store by my house are really named Ali and Muhammad. They are originally from Bangladesh and are here for the freedom and opportunity. Nice guys but try to steal from them and they take it personally.
When the TSA or ANY Government agency tries to steal my liberty, or my rights, I take it personally.
June 15, 2008 3:35 AM
Need to apologize for my somewhat disorganized post on Bob's "big catch" addendum.
The dog was barfing and I hit "post" before hurrying to get him out the door.
Trollkiller, rather than "lighthearted" threads there should be a general notice to the effect that comments will take longer to get posted for a while because Bob needs some rest.
As well, as you said, others need to pick up the slack.
June 15, 2008 8:38 AM
So DHS/TSA makes new rules, eh? They can't even write documents on their own web site that show any consistancy at all (i.e. 3-1-1). The whole ID given or claimed to have lost = okay to fly, but refusing to provide an ID = no fly today, smacks of retribution on the part of TSA.
I'm waiting for someone in government to do a smack down on DHS/TSA for not exercising some common sense and failing to obey the basic tenets of our Constitution. Security at any cost is a dismal failure. Drop the shoe rules and the 3-1-1 insanity. Do it quietly and no one will notice.
June 15, 2008 9:26 AM
Since my first attempt at posting this particular comment was shot down by the moderators despite no violations of the Comments Policy of ANY kind (I've checked three times now), I'm taking another stab at it with a couple of minor edits. The one thing I've given TSA *ANY* credit on since this blog's establishment has been the fact that you did not appear to be afraid of posting comments which are openly and strongly critical of your agency - it would be a shame for you to reveal that there truly are NO redeeming qualities to it at all...
[TSA blog guy]Christopher said: "Making sure the guy sitting next to you on the plane isn’t a terrorist is about as basic as security gets."
No, making sure that passengers aren't carrying anything which is a threat to the aircraft is as basic as security gets - and it's what you're SUPPOSED to be doing, and according to your latest published results, you’re all failing MISERABLY! But hey, at least you're looking at everyone's driver's licenses now, too, just in case you weren't already overwhelmed!
[TSA blog guy]Christopher said: "Instead of allowing anyone without an ID to show up, go through a quick pat down and bag check, circumventing watch list matching, "
Do you REALLY need us to throw the BS flag on this, Christopher? You *AREN'T* checking the No-Fly list (an odious concept in and of itself in which someone too innocent to arrest is too dangerous to fly, and which contains numerous children while deliberately excluding known terrorists. Yeah, way to go there, guys...). You're comparing the boarding pass to the ID, both of which are being handed to you by the passenger you're allegedly checking. Others have pointed out how ludicrously easy it is to defeat this so-called "security check", so I see no need to elaborate further.
[TSA blog guy]Christopher said: "You really mean to advocate searching exclusively for pointy objects and not individuals that may pose a threat? If so, we’re at a philosophical divide that no amount of discussion is going to change. "
Yes, I do mean that, and if *YOU* don't as well, then you REALLY ought to pull your head out. If they don't have the "pointy objects", in your terms, THEY CAN'T HARM THE AIRCRAFT. And again, you aren't doing all that well just looking for THOSE things. Adding still more unnecessary distractions can only further endanger the aircraft and passengers.
Oh well - at least your disgusting unConstitutional efforts are discouraging ever-larger numbers of passengers from flying, so there are fewer people to suffer the results of your failures.
[TSA blog guy]Christopher said: "Actually, it’s an effort to keep people that pose a threat to aviation off airplanes and keep you, your family and mine safe."
By destroying fundamental rights? YOU are the threat, far more than some mad-bomber terrorist. Stick to actually looking for THINGS which can threaten the safety of the aircraft, and come back and talk to us again after you can consistently get an exemplary grade (let alone a PASSING one, which you're nowhere near).
[TSA blog guy]Christopher said: "And I sincerely hope you do not feel that anyone at TSA is mocking you. "
Are you kidding me? *OF COURSE* TSA is mocking us - why else would they be backlashing against those travelers who've been standing up for their right to travel without showing a government official their identification papers? Why else would you have this blog at all, where you attempt to justify each and every new injustice and idiocy handed down by your bosses in the holy name of "securitys aginst teh TERARIZTZ!!!!1!" Please...
As I said before - "Бумаги угождают, камрад," or "Papiere bitte, kamerade." Either one's entirely appropriate now. You're definitely getting a stiff-armed salute and the appropriate response in German (“Jawhol, mein herr!”), if I ever am forced to stoop to air travel by a family emergency (which is the only thing that would EVER get me to put up with your agency's violations).
June 15, 2008 9:34 AM
MSC said: "I think that if you had truly good security it should not matter who flies.
How long before we get mandatory strip searches?"
You've seen the new virtual-strip-search scanners, right? Mandatory use is right around the corner, I'm quite sure - if they truly think they can get away with "Papeire bitte!", it won't be long at all till we hear "Get in the scanner, comrade - do you want to fly today?"
June 15, 2008 9:37 AM
I, for one, am glad the TSA is there watching out for my safety.
It is OK with me that I give up some of my Constitutional Rights for the bigger picture.
I am an idiot.
June 15, 2008 12:23 PM
Sandra said...
Need to apologize for my somewhat disorganized post on Bob's "big catch" addendum.
The dog was barfing and I hit "post" before hurrying to get him out the door.
Now that IS dedication. Hope the dog is alright.
June 15, 2008 1:36 PM
While I believe that the integrity of travel documents is vital, when I handed my European passport containing a US visa to a trained document checker at SDF on Friday, she told me that she was unable to verify the photo on my visa, and asked for secondary ID, since she was unable to see a photo in my passport. Doesn't exactly instill confidence to have a trained person assume that some passports are issued without a photograph.
June 15, 2008 2:28 PM
Chris responded to one comment:
“If the security systems actually worked then there would be no need to check ID.” You really mean to advocate searching exclusively for pointy objects and not individuals that may pose a threat? If so, we’re at a philosophical divide that no amount of discussion is going to change.
Yes we are. If a terrorist has no weapons, no bombs, no knives, no way to damage the flight why should we care who he is? It's time that our government stops throwing law abiding citizens into the same category as terorists. Anonymous travel is a right in this country. I don't want the government tracking anything I do. That stinks of totalitarian governments, not the United States.
I personally hope the TSa continues to find weapons and real dangers, but I cannot support it's ever expanding scope of trading liberty for so-called security.
June 15, 2008 4:10 PM
this is totally disgusting. we're becoming akin to communist russia or eastern germany. papers, please.
June 15, 2008 6:07 PM
Y'all need to CHILL OUT!...u people have too much time in your hands to sit in ur computers and do all this ridiculous blogging....the constitution is waaaaayyy too old to reflect the modern/changing times, you can't deny this....when they wrote people have a right to "bear arms" they didn't meant anybody could buy a gun to kill the first person they see on the street, did they?...Again CHILL OUT!...if it's such a problem PLEASE DON'T FLY!!
June 15, 2008 6:17 PM
Okay, so if I object to the ID requirement I won't be allowed access to secure areas, but if I forget it's okay? This is proof positive that the ID requirement is NOT about security; it's about control, pure and simple.
Sorry, TSA, you fail the straight-face test on this one.
June 16, 2008 1:00 AM
Blogger Bob posted breaking news on 6/14/08
At New York Kennedy Airport (JFK) on Thursday, June 12, a passenger was interviewed by police after attempting to enter into a security checkpoint with a fraudulent ID.
A TSA Travel Document Checker noticed a passenger trying to use a fraudulent New York driver’s license and notified the Port Authority Police Department who came and interviewed her. The Port Authority Police Department released the passenger after issuing a Summons to Appear.
***********************************
Blogger Bob, seriously, THIS is the TSA's idea of a 'big catch' worthy of a blog update on the weekend???
BTW-I noticed there was no mention of the role, if any, the TSA's SPOTniks played in this 'big catch'; were they off for the weekend or did someone skip one of Kip's security layers?
As has been pointed out previously, both on this thread as well as others, if those on the TSA's assorted 'watch lists' are so dangerous, they should be arrested, charged, & tried in a court of law.
June 16, 2008 11:18 AM
It's not about the WHO. It's about the WHAT.What difference does it make to me if a terrorist is sitting next to me so long as he doesn't have a weapon? TSA should focus its efforts and resources on its true purpose of preventing weapons on airplanes and stop harrassing innocent or even not-so-innocent people who are not a threat to safety.
June 16, 2008 12:00 PM
Boy what a bunch of ninnies. I can't believe I'm reading some of the post here. If I'm not mistaken, you would rather the TSA not catch terrorist if they don't have "pointy things" on them at this moment. I mean what the hell, if osama or Mohammed just want to case the joint out, you know test the system, then it's okay with you. Please tell me I'm dreaming. When the Federal Government is trying it's damndest to catch the islomafascist terrorist from killing us all you bitch that you might have to show an ID. Well then BOHICA. The next flight you are on just might be THE last if you complainers get your way. I say Bravo, check everyone for ID and do it now!!!!
June 16, 2008 1:21 PM
re:Just a quick note… Our ticket checkers found a fraudulent ID at JFK. Just thought some of you might be interested.
...........................
Bob can you tell me how this person compromised the safety of that flight?
Did this person carry any contraband that was prevented from getting on the airplane? Any weapons?
Did anyone think that this person could have been one of the almost 1 million people on your NO Fly List that had done absolutey nothing wrong other than getting on the list by some unknown means and was attempting to fly without being abused by the TSA?
If I was going to pick an example of how important ID'ing everyone is I think I would have passed on this one.
TSA looks like the Keystone Cops, and as you know they were fools!
Congratulations!!
June 16, 2008 2:29 PM
Why is I.D important for security?
It's not. And if you guys at the TSA don't see the logical fallacies in your ID policy, you really ought not to be in charge of anyone's safety.
There are altogether too many TSA rules that just totally defy common sense. Your agency is, judging from the available evidence, clumsy and slow to act, totally unable to balance safety and customer service, in a PR free fall you've been trying (and failing) to get out of since your inception due to your numerous public screwups. Your ground-level staff are uneducated and poorly paid, and when they're not making up rules on the spot they're improperly and inconsistently enforcing the ones that do exist. And there are newer and stupider rules being created all the time.
Meanwhile, this blog, created to foster dialog between us and you is just another venue for you guys to show how poorly you understand the business you're in. You ignore valid questions, post meaningless PR drivel, and insult us by spinning your screwups as triumphs.
I haven't flown into or out of the states for about a year now, and I'm not going to fly again until at least the moronic 3-1-1 rules are rescinded or you stop dumping our dangerous and explosive shampoo in public trash bins.
Listen, liquids are hazmat or they're not, you need to publicly show the MMW screens, teach your staff some manners and common sense (and lose the faux-cop uniforms), and for god's sake stop making up newer and dumber policies and start examining your weaknesses honestly. I a lot more afraid of having my rights violated by some ego-inflated TSO than I am about my plane being hijacked.
June 16, 2008 4:29 PM
To Anonymous at 1:21 PM....The point here is that ID checks do NOT catch terrorists.As I see it, the TSA's main function is not to catch them anyway, it is to prevent highjackings by keeping weapons off of airplanes.ID checks at the checkpoints accomplish nothing toward that end.
June 16, 2008 5:30 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"If I'm not mistaken, you [commenters] would rather the TSA not catch [terrorists] if they don't have "pointy things" on them at this moment."
TSA's job is to ensure transportation safety, not to catch criminals. Setting up a checkpoint at airports to stop everyone just to find the few criminals is un-American, and probably unconstitutional.
Our courts have established that people in this country have the right to travel and associate without being monitored or stopped by the government unless they have been convicted of committing a crime or are suspected -- with good reason -- of having committed a crime. They have ruled that we cannot set up roadblocks and checkpoints to stop everyone who passes just to catch the few who have done something wrong, or to find the few who are suspected of intending to do something wrong.
This is really simple: If someone is so dangerous that he shouldn't be allowed to travel within the country, we should send the police to arrest that person and get him in front of a judge -- not wait for him to show up at an airport, then hassle him or turn him away. If he's not believed to be of sufficient danger to have him arrested, then we should let him go about his business.
It is not the duty of the TSA or any other part of the Executive Branch to judge guilt and impose punishment. Those are reserved for the Judicial Branch.
June 16, 2008 6:29 PM
The trouble with so much of this criticism is the lack of understanding by people outside the security field. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has a deep understanding of terrorists. His mother worked for Israeli EL Al. As an attorney in New Jersey he represented defendant clients of Al Qaida. This man knows the depth of the threat.
To second guess the agencies under his control is foolish.
June 16, 2008 7:27 PM
In your blog, you indicate the exclusive reason is to ensure people are who they say they are and not gaming the system using a boarding pass with a fake name. Unless TSA boarding pass/ID checkers at the security checkpoint are tied in to the no-fly list, the system can still be gamed, in the same manner as originally publicized by the graduate student who authored the DIY boarding pass website.
Let's say I am an evil-doer named John Badman, and I have a state driver's license issued under that name, and I am on the no-fly list. Now I buy a ticket with a fake name such as John Cleanname which is not on the no-fly list. Prior to my flight, I check-in online, and print the boarding pass for John Cleanname. Then I fake up my boarding pass and change the passenger name from John Cleanname to John Badman.
At the security checkpoint, I present my fake boarding pass, and my authentic, government issued ID for John Badman. My ID matches my boarding pass, and the TSA agent would wave me through. Unless the TSA agent is able to clear my ID against the no-fly list at that point, the system does not work as intended. On one hand, it is true that TSA with its visual inspection of ID and boarding pass has corectly verified that I am indeed who I claim to be (John Badman), on the other hand, the TSA agent has no idea that John Badman is someone who shouldn't be allowed to fly.
Later, when I get to the gate, I present to the gate staff my real boarding pass issued to John Cleanname so that my boarding pass matches their passenger manifest. One might argue that the gate staff should do a secondary match to make sure that I have and ID that matches the boarding pass, which in turn matches their passenger manifest. That in turn can be defeated by determined evil-doers by the production of a fake ID with a matching name. To counter this, DHS must then escalate and put all airline gate staff through the same law enforcement/TSA training to spot fake credentials.
If TSA is indeed intent on solving this loophole, the security checkpoint must be tied-in to the no-fly list and the airline reservation system.
Learn from what other countries have done. In several foreing airports, there is an initial security screening done at the beginning of the secure zone as it is currently done in US airports. Secondarily, there is another comprehensive security screening at what's called the gate-hold area. Every passenger is screened twice: once to get into the secure area of the airport, another time to get into the specific waiting lounge for the gate.
June 16, 2008 7:51 PM
The trouble with so much of this criticism is the lack of understanding by people outside the security field.
So what is there to assess? Cost vs Risk? That isn't a difficult concept to grasp. SOP vs known risks? Again not a difficult concept to grasp. Please try again.
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has a deep understanding of terrorists.
He might have a 'deep understanding of terrorist' but he lacks management skills.
His mother worked for Israeli EL Al.
So hire his mother.
As an attorney in New Jersey he represented defendant clients of Al Qaida. This man knows the depth of the threat.
So he's an attorney. Big deal. I want someone who posesses much better administrator skills than he apparently posesses.
To second guess the agencies under his control is foolish.
Not questioning an out of control agency, managemnt, policies, etc results in the current trampling of our Consitutional rights.
June 16, 2008 8:45 PM
Y'all need to CHILL OUT!
Why?
...u people have too much time in your hands to sit in ur computers and do all this ridiculous blogging
So who are you to comment on our behavior or how we spend our time?
....the constitution is waaaaayyy too old to reflect the modern/changing times, you can't deny this
I both can and do deny this.
....when they wrote people have a right to "bear arms" they didn't meant anybody could buy a gun to kill the first person they see on the street, did they?
WTF are you trying to say?
...Again CHILL OUT!...if it's such a problem PLEASE DON'T FLY!!
Seek professional help as soon as possible. It might be possible to save whatever was your first personality.
June 16, 2008 8:50 PM
Anonymous said:
The trouble with so much of this criticism is the lack of understanding by people outside the security field. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has a deep understanding of terrorists. His mother worked for Israeli EL Al. As an attorney in New Jersey he represented defendant clients of Al Qaida. This man knows the depth of the threat.
To second guess the agencies under his control is foolish.
First of all, Chertoff doesn't have time to know "the depth of the threat". He and Hawley have demonstrated absolutely zero desire to arrive at that understanding. If they did, the entire DHS would look entirely different and the TSA would not exist.
Second, and most importantly, "To second guess the agencies under his control" is NOT "foolish" -- it's AMERICAN!
June 17, 2008 2:48 AM
"the constitution is waaaaayyy too old to reflect the modern/changing times"
Yes, the constitution is just another 'quaint' concept that is outdated.
It has no place in neo America.
June 17, 2008 5:42 AM
This epidemic of fake ID toting Spring-Breakers is a menace to my security and must be stopped - and I'm willing to sacrifice the Constitution to do it! Heil TSA!
June 17, 2008 8:11 AM
Checking IDs is essentially useless. There are so many ways that terrorists can get past this new plan requiring valid idenfitication to travel. Instead, the TSA should focus on improving the search for dangerous items in luggage. If a terrorist has no weapons that can be used, then there’s no way that the terrorist can harm the passengers or the aircraft.
June 17, 2008 10:08 AM
The process will never be "good enough". TSA will continue to come out with more and more restrictive policies and give their "officers" more power. It's how a government bureaucracy justifies it's existence.
June 17, 2008 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...
The trouble with so much of this criticism is the lack of understanding by people outside the security field. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has a deep understanding of terrorists. His mother worked for Israeli EL Al. As an attorney in New Jersey he represented defendant clients of Al Qaida. This man knows the depth of the threat.
To second guess the agencies under his control is foolish.
Wow, just wow.
Michael Chertoff's mother was a stewardess at El Al, his father was a Rabbi, and he was a prosecutor.
How does that make Michael Chertoff uniquely qualified to be the security expert beyond reproach, a person so in tune with the threats that face this country that not even the agencies under his control should be questioned? It doesn't.
If the agencies under his control are any indication of the man, he is poorly qualified for the task at hand. Let's look at just two of them.
FEMA, an agency under the control of Michael Chertoff, absolutely FAILED during Katrina's aftermath. The agency was unable to do the simple task of moving supplies from point A to point B.
TSA, an agency under the control of Michael Chertoff, absolutely FAILS at its given task. Cargo is still unsecured, screeners FAIL to find test bombs 70% of the time, and theft of passenger items run rampant.
Now the TSA, in an unconstitutional and un-American move, REQUIRES my federally approved Government issued ID in order to travel.
Maybe the fact that Michael Chertoff is an Israeli citizen makes the idea of presenting travel papers appealing to him. Maybe he envisions מחסום being set up not only at the borders but in random areas. You know we must keep the Palestinians.... er I mean the Terrorists under control.
This is NOT Israel, an by God it will not be Israel if I have anything to say about it.
June 17, 2008 2:39 PM
Chris wrote:
"Checking IDs is essentially useless. There are so many ways that terrorists can get past this new plan requiring valid [identification] to travel."
Note that the new TSA rule that will become effective June 21, 2008, does not require potential airline passengers to present credentials (i.e., to "show ID"); that will still be optional, and will still help people avoid a more thorough secondary screening. The new rule will require passengers not to be honest about any intention to travel without checking in with the federal government. Those of us who wish to do so will need to convince agents at government checkpoints that our credentials were simply misplaced, not withheld on principle.
"Instead, the TSA should focus on improving the search for dangerous items in luggage."
I agree.
"If a terrorist has no weapons that can be used, then there’s no way that the terrorist can harm the passengers or the aircraft."
Generally, yes, although many things can be used as a weapon (e.g., a plastic knife, a door handle torn from the lavatory, or bare hands) by anyone who wishes to use them as such. But restricting travel -- based on the opinion of someone who guesses that a particular traveler might want to do harm, or based on the anonymous opinion of the some maintainer of a blacklist -- is just plain wrong.
Requiring us to request and receive permission to travel within our own country does nothing to improve our safety, although TSA repeatedly states without explanation that it does. Punishing us for asserting our rights, as TSA has stated intent to do beginning four days from now (making crystal clear that this is no longer about ensuring safety, but about exerting control), just sends us further down the path towards life under a totalitarian regime. It's good for those who want to maintain control over the public and bad for everyone else.
This country was founded by people who were previously living under a government that abused its power. Let's not set ourselves up for more of that which many of our ancestors fought to escape simply becuase some of us were so frightened by a horrendous crime (one that clearly could have been avoided) that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution is being subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous to the average person than was Communism during the Cold War.
June 17, 2008 2:46 PM
So, after 9/11 I had to remove all my pointy objects that used to be OK.
Then some idiot failed to hurt anybody and I had to take off my shoes.
Then they turned up the sensitivity on those devices and even my belt buckle set off the metal detector, so now I have to take off my belt. (And the answer to your next question is "No, I don't have one of those ostentatious belt buckles.")
Then they got word from the British that our beverages are threats to security, so we all had to reduce the liquids that we carry on. (I remember the previous time that the British tried to foist rules on us in regard to tea...)
Now I not only have to show my ID, I have to remove it from the clear plastic carrier in my wallet.
Every year they add another rule. The undercover inspectors continue to get guns and explosives past the TSA, but every year my hassle increases.
If I'm not polite at the checkpoint, perhaps it's because you guys keep increasing the number of hoops for me to jump through without actually making me any safer.
June 17, 2008 7:12 PM
Checking IDs to try to find terrorists is useless because of the low number of terrorists, and the false positive rate of using ID checks as a proxy for terrorist intent.
In the updated post, you tout finding another non-terrorist as a 'success': "The Port Authority Police Department released the passenger after issuing a Summons to Appear." If you are trying to catch terrorists, this is another *false alarm*.
If this is your best example of how document checking keeps us safe, TSA is hopeless.
Suppose 1 false ID per 3 days is normal, and your document checkers found a hundred 'sucesses' like this one during the last year. Then 100 times out of 100 a document checking success lead to no terrorists being caught. By this, odds of someone that TSA catches by fake ID being an actual terrorist is less than 1% and the odds that TSA is wasting time is nearly 100%. And on the miniscule chance that TSA actually does notice a real terrorist with one of these checks, they will likely treat them the same way as they do with the other 99.9999% of false positives.
The low rate of terrorism, and the false positives that TSA touts so loudly make it clear that TSA is huge waste.
Try working through this page with terrorism as cancer, 2,000,000 people per day, and any TSA "detection" program you can think of.
If we were truly serious about transportation safety, we would be better off putting all the TSA personnel to work fixing bridges and roads: A 10% improvement in road safety would save 4200 lives per year
June 18, 2008 11:23 AM
I think the majority of you making your comments in here need to stop wining. You remind me of every other typical American who has forgoten about 9/11. Did you people forget that there are terrorist out there who are desperate to destroy our country and kill the American people? This is just another form of security to protect all of YOU! from this happening. So be grateful, is it so hard to be at the airport a couple hours early, and go through extra measures of security to ensure YOUR FAMILIES SAFETY!!. If we started letting anyone through and the terrorist attacked, then you would blame the security for not doing their job. So eather way the security at the Airport are darned if they do and darned if they do not by people like all of you.
June 18, 2008 12:57 PM
I know Christopher is a busy lad, but is he ever going to come back and try to explain how the Gilmore ruling allows this unconstitutional restriction to our right to travel freely?
June 18, 2008 1:11 PM
The trouble with so much of this criticism is the lack of understanding by people outside the security field. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has a deep understanding of terrorists.
"We are too deep for the rest of you. We are beyond your comprehension. Ergo, we are beyond the obligation to be held accountable for our actions," is classic narcissism.
To second guess the agencies under his control is foolish.
To second guess and hold in check wanton power grabs by the government, its agencies and my countrymen who abet them is my right as a citizen. Liberticide is not an option.
June 18, 2008 3:31 PM
Quote from anonymous: "I think the majority of you making your comments in here need to stop wining. You remind me of every other typical American who has forgoten about 9/11.
I haven't forgotten 9/11. I also choose not to let the terrorists win by giving our our way of life and cowering in fear of them. Security is one thing. What TSA isn't doing is security, it's fear mongering.
If you, sir, choose to buy into that, I can't help you.
Did you people forget that there are terrorist out there who are desperate to destroy our country and kill the American people?
One could successfully argue that this is what our government is doing already. We could argue that with the war on terror that we've spilled more American blood and wasted more money than the terrorists have cost us. We've wasted more money and life standing in these ridiculous lines and being subject to TSA's stupidity than we lost on 9/11.
We are destroying our country from the inside by constantly trading freedom for "security." Ben Franklin is attriubuted to saying "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." So with Kippie's latest ID farce, he's essentially trying to quash dissidence. If you forget your ID, you're ok. If you dare to stand up for your rights, you will not fly. This isn't freedom. It's communism.
We're doing exactly what the terrorists hoped to do: destroy America. No, they knew they could never take us on in military might, but they knew they could get us to implode from the inside. Even Abraham Lincoln said that's how American would destroy itself ... from the inside. And that's exactly what we're doing with every stupid thing TSA and DHS require now. Osama's probably laughing his tail off in his cave.
Even J. Edgar Hoover said in his study of communism that that communist governments require internal passports for traveling. What's happening now?
I was at the Holocaust Museum a few weeks ago and in "Daniel's Story", the boy told about how they needed papers to do anything and were subject to inspection of those papers and goods at any time. They couldn't travel freely. I couldn't help but see how the exact same thing is happening in this country today. And people like you are letting it happen and in fact welcoming it! Wake up!
America used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. We're less free than we used to be and we're certainly not brave anymore.
This is just another form of security to protect all of YOU! from this happening.
And please tell me how these ID checks are keeping us safe. The TSO doesn't compare it against the no fly list. The no fly list doesn't contain names of the most dangerous terrorists because the government doesn't want to tip them off that we're on to them. The no fly list inconveniences thousands of people everyday even ones with common names like Robert Johnson, David Nelson, and so forth and does nothing to prevent a terrorist to get on a plane.
Please tell me how it succeeds in keeping us safe? People already have debunked that myth on here so I'm not going into it again.
I'll give you a hint: TSA has to trot success of busting college kids with fake ID's to look like it's doing something. If this were really stopping terrorists, wouldn't they be catching them?
So be grateful, is it so hard to be at the airport a couple hours early, and go through extra measures of security to ensure YOUR FAMILIES SAFETY!!.
Yes, it's hard. It's hard because all the extra hassle is show and does nothing to enhance security! And arguably, TSA is making us LESS safe by focusing on fake ID's, shampoo and toothpaste and letting things like bombs and guns thru.
If we started letting anyone through and the terrorist attacked, then you would blame the security for not doing their job.
No one is saying that we shouldn't have security. That's a straw man and a sign of a weak argument.
Guess what? When the terrorists attack again, I will hold TSA accountable. I will hold them accountable for wasting billions of dollars and time, subjecting us to all this crap and it not making a lick of difference. Security didn't fail on 9/11. It was cooperating with the hijackers and letting them take control of the cockpits that caused it. Those holes have been closed.
So eather way the security at the Airport are darned if they do and darned if they do not by people like all of you.
TSA wouldn't (or shouldn't) be held to account if they actually did security right. Unfortunately, they're going to be scapegoats no matter what because when something happens again, Congress will get up in arms about it. I'd rather have TSA be able to throw in Congress's face that they did security RIGHT with risk based policies and there was nothing they could have done to prevent it rather than put on the dog and pony show that they do now to try to put on the illusion of security when the facts show that our checkpoints leak like a sieve and other vulnerabilities are left wide open.
June 18, 2008 5:13 PM
anonymous said...
"I think the majority of you making your comments in here need to stop wining. You remind me of every other typical American who has forgoten about 9/11."
Thanks SuperAmerican I'd forgotten 9/11. I really do need to forfeit all of my rights as a Citizen.
"This is just another form of security to protect all of YOU!"
The problem is that ID doesn’t equal security.
"If we started letting anyone through and the terrorist attacked, then you would blame the security for not doing their job."
Beat you to it, we're blaming the TSA for not doing their job because they are not doing their job. They are coming up with wasteful, ineffective and oppressive procedures that affect millions of Americans on a daily basis while doing little to provide safety. They are actively drifting their mission while not doing a good job of their primary mission. They are working on PR blogs and new uniforms with shiny badges while not checking air cargo. They are triple checking boarding passes and confiscating water from passengers while some people with airside access receive limited checks.
Damn straight I’ll keep holding government agencies accountable. They should be responsive to Citizens.
June 18, 2008 6:31 PM
I think the majority of you making your comments in here need to stop wining.
So who died and appointed you nanny? We all have our opinions of the quality of work TSA does on a daily basis. IF, and only IF they went back to making sure bad stuff doesn't get on board the planes, then I would shut up. The mission creep they've been engaged in concerns me deeply.
You remind me of every other typical American who has forgoten about 9/11.
While the memory isn't as good as it once was I can tell you when I first heard about it and where I first heard about it. I remember my son's comments about his flight over the WTC remains around midnight on 9/11. Suggest you put away your broad paint brush. It doesn't do fine detail very well.
Did you people forget that there are terrorist out there who are desperate to destroy our country and kill the American people?
No, and I hope that our military keeps those terrorists off of US soil.
This is just another form of security to protect all of YOU! from this happening.
SoRry, bUt TsA dOeSn'T dO mUcH tO pRoTeCt uS fRoM TeRroRiStS!!!!!! The CIA, NSA, FBI, military, etc do much more to protect us than TSA would ever be able to do in 20 lifetimes.
So be grateful, is it so hard to be at the airport a couple hours early, and go through extra measures of security to ensure YOUR FAMILIES SAFETY!!.
I fly for business reasons. My family, when they travel, drive so as to not subject us to the security theater called TSA.
If we started letting anyone through and the terrorist attacked, then you would blame the security for not doing their job.
Nothing that happened on 9/11 as to screening violated any of the protocals, then in place. How many terrorists has TSA detained, referred to LEO for arrest, or detected since their inception? Clue the number is less than 1.
So eather way the security at the Airport are darned if they do and darned if they do not by people like all of you.
I want TSA to focus, concentrate, and improve on their original mission statement. Instead they've become distracted and lost what focus they may have ever had in the first place.
June 18, 2008 9:39 PM
I am always wondering why I have to be asked three or four times to see my passport and boarding pass in a matter of moving merely 50 feet in a security check line? Is it because there is no faith that the first person did their job correctly? Is it so that the overpaid underworked person has job security? Please explain this as I am confused?
June 19, 2008 4:02 AM
Dingdongrb:
I am always wondering why I have to be asked three or four times to see my passport and boarding pass in a matter of moving merely 50 feet in a security check line? Is it because there is no faith that the first person did their job correctly?
I have two theories about this myself.
Theory #1:
This caused by one thing being added while another thing wasn't taken away in our operating procedures.
Ergo, a hypothetical scenario:
On the first day, we're told to verify the presence of the boarding pass when the passenger comes through the walk-through metal detector.
On the second day, we're told to take over the travel document checking role previously held by contracted airline personnel. We're told to do this, without the procedures from the first day being rescinded.
On the third day, we're still checking the boarding pass at both locations.
On the fourth day, we're still checking the boarding pass at both locations.
Ad nauseum.
You get the idea.
Theory #2:
It could also be intentional on grounds of redundancy. If, for example, the TDC checker missed that they were a selectee, then the TSO at the WTMD could catch it.
June 20, 2008 12:22 PM
“This is just another attempt to control the American people and steal more and more of our rights.” Actually, it’s an effort to keep people that pose a threat to aviation off airplanes and keep you, your family and mine safe."
Whether we want you to or not. Papers please.
How on *earth* do you sleep at night?
June 20, 2008 9:12 PM
Airlines love it: tickets cannot be resold; TSA loves it: they can now boast for catching false IDs used by under-aged.
Why don't they arrest people who are "threat to aviation." More security theater.
TSA: Thousands Standing Around
And we pay for it. It's a job-creation program sold as "security" paid by tax payers and the flying public.
June 21, 2008 8:54 PM
I am always wondering why I have to be asked three or four times to see my passport and boarding pass in a matter of moving merely 50 feet in a security check line?
I have two theories about this myself.
Theory #3: Perhaps incompetent leaders couldn't buy a clue if they were available.
You gonna censor this one also Blog Ops?
June 22, 2008 11:39 PM
extremely important these days!
June 23, 2008 2:47 PM
I don't see the big problem here. If you really need to get to where you are flying to, just follow the rules and regulations. I work at LAX and passengers always act surprised like they don't know the process. When you buy your ticket it saids go to whatever website and read the rules, but people don't take time out to read them for whatever reason. I say if you don't like the process then maybe you should drive. It's passengers that don't wanna go with the flow that miss their flights and then have the nerve to blame TSO's like myself. I don't make the rules, but I have to follow them just like every one else. STOP complaining because people easily forget about what happened on 9/11 and after that tragic event.
June 23, 2008 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...
I don't see the big problem here. If you really need to get to where you are flying to, just follow the rules and regulations. I work at LAX and passengers always act surprised like they don't know the process. When you buy your ticket it saids go to whatever website and read the rules, but people don't take time out to read them for whatever reason. I say if you don't like the process then maybe you should drive. It's passengers that don't wanna go with the flow that miss their flights and then have the nerve to blame TSO's like myself. I don't make the rules, but I have to follow them just like every one else. STOP complaining because people easily forget about what happened on 9/11 and after that tragic event.
You don't make the rules but you did take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The TSA has become the domestic enemy. Will you uphold your oath? Or was the oath just empty words to you?
June 24, 2008 12:47 AM
Someone claiming to be a TSA agent wrote:
"When you buy your ticket it saids go to whatever website and read the rules, but people don't take time out to read them for whatever reason. [...] I don't make the rules, but I have to follow them just like every one else."
Your employer makes rules that we are required to follow but we are not allowed to read. Please look into Gilmore v. Gonzalez if you're not familar with this situation.
"STOP complaining because people easily forget about what happened on 9/11 and after that tragic event."
I don't think most people have forgotten that. The traitor presently in control of this nation reminds us of it every chance he gets. Unfortunately, people have forgotten that this country was founded by people who fled a government that severely abused its power, and that the protections that some of us are trying to stand up for were put in place to avoid having such a situation recur. Some remember but were so frightened by a horrendous crime (one that clearly could have been avoided) that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution is being subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous to the average person than was Communism during the Cold War.
June 24, 2008 1:03 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. 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 9:59 AM
Someone claiming to be a TSA agent wrote:
"When you buy your ticket it saids go to whatever website and read the rules, but people don't take time out to read them for whatever reason. [...] I don't make the rules, but I have to follow them just like every one else."
Your employer makes rules that we are required to follow but we are not allowed to read. Please look into Gilmore v. Gonzalez if you're not familar with this situation.
"STOP complaining because people easily forget about what happened on 9/11 and after that tragic event."
I don't think most people have forgotten that. The traitor presently in control of this nation reminds us of it every chance he gets. Unfortunately, people have forgotten that this country was founded by people who fled a government that severely abused its power, and that the protections that some of us are trying to stand up for were put in place to avoid having such a situation recur. Some remember but were so frightened by a horrendous crime (one that clearly could have been avoided) that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution is being subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous to the average person than was Communism during the Cold War.
June 24, 2008 6:49 PM
Anonymous said...
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.
Before June 21st, 2008 the ID check was NOT a requirement to be granted access to a sterile area.
If a citizen refused to show ID they were given a secondary screening, something that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated in the Gilmore decision was Constitutional.
Under the new rule showing ID IS a requirement to be granted access to the sterile area. In the Gilmore case the court ruled Gilmore's rights were not violated because Gilmore had the OPTION of a secondary screening. The TSA has removed that option in not only an unconstitutional move but a blatantly illegal move based on the limits in 49 C.F.R. § 1540.
June 24, 2008 9:19 PM
Trollkiller wrote:
"Under the new rule showing ID IS a requirement to be granted access to the sterile area."
I think you misread the press release.
It states:
"This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity.
"This new procedure will not affect passengers that may have misplaced, lost or otherwise do not have ID but are cooperative with officers."
According to this, under some circumstances passengers who have not shown ID will be granted access to the sterile area.
June 25, 2008 10:52 AM
Phil said...
Trollkiller wrote:
"Under the new rule showing ID IS a requirement to be granted access to the sterile area."
I think you misread the press release.
It states:
"This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity.
"This new procedure will not affect passengers that may have misplaced, lost or otherwise do not have ID but are cooperative with officers."
According to this, under some circumstances passengers who have not shown ID will be granted access to the sterile area.
You are correct I should have written "establishing your ID" or something to that effect.
June 25, 2008 1:05 PM
Trollkiller wrote:
"You are correct I should have written "establishing your ID" or something to that effect."
This confusion stems from the unfortunate misuse of "ID". ID stands for identification. Identification is a process -- the process of identifying someone, of determining his or her identity. The cards we typically refer to as "IDs" are not an identifications (which doesn't even make sense), they are credentials -- things that are used in the process of identification.
What TSA is really asking us to do is to present our credentials so that they can identify us. Prior to June 21, 2008, passengers were required neither to present credentials nor to assist government agents at the checkpoint with determining identity of the passengers. Now, passengers are still not required to present credentials, but are required to assist with identification.
And of course, the troublesome part is that we are not allowed to pass this checkpoint without identifying ourselves in a manner that is acceptable to the government agents there, then waiting for permission to proceed. I fear that if we accept this at airports, we'll soon be accepting it elsewhere.
Many Americans thought we'd never see the day that, like people living in cold-war USSR and under other totalitarian regimes, we would be stopped by government agents at a checkpoint and required to identify ourselves & get permission to proceed. Unfortunately, many younger Americans have been so conditioned to presenting credentials (usually a driver license) to private parties that they fail to see the risk of being required to do so in order to pass government checkpoints.
Papers, please!
June 25, 2008 2:27 PM
On a recent flight, my husband and I went through security separately. Upon meeting up at the gate, we realized that we each had gone through security with the others boarding pass. The TSA screeners did not notice that the ID presented did not match the names on the boarding passes! Anyone could have picked up my identification and gone through security as me! The TSA can come with a million new requirements/guidelines/restrictions, but I will not feel more secure until I have confidence in the TSA and its agents
June 30, 2008 12:42 PM
Straightforward question:
Bob -- do you or do you not support the idea of having an independent passenger obmudsman?
if not, why not?
July 1, 2008 2:16 PM
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin
August 13, 2008 1:38 AM
I don't know what the big fuss is about adding extra security. Everyone in America thinks this is a big deal, and that oh my gosh.... our rights are being taken away. Everybody just relax please. Let these people do their jobs. Sometimes implementing new policies and procedures helps them figure out what is working and what is not, so they can make better changes in the future. So lets hold them to high standards, but give them a chance to do their jobs.
September 9, 2008 9:37 PM
Apparently you haven't read much of the discussion here. No one is complaining about "adding extra security". We're complaining about adding intrusive procedures that add little or no security.
No where in this post did Bob explain how an ID check enhances security.
See Bruce Schneier's August 28, 2008, Los Angeles Times op-ed, "The TSA's useless photo ID rules" for more.
In it, Schneier writes:
"Anyone on the no-fly list can easily fly whenever he wants. Even worse, the whole concept of matching passenger names against a list of bad guys has negligible security value.
"How to fly, even if you are on the no-fly list: Buy a ticket in some innocent person's name. At home, before your flight, check in online and print out your boarding pass. Then, save that web page as a PDF and use Adobe Acrobat to change the name on the boarding pass to your own. Print it again. At the airport, use the fake boarding pass and your valid ID to get through security. At the gate, use the real boarding pass in the fake name to board your flight.
"The problem is that it is unverified passenger names that get checked against the no-fly list. At security checkpoints, the TSA just matches IDs to whatever is printed on the boarding passes. The airline checks boarding passes against tickets when people board the plane. But because no one checks ticketed names against IDs, the security breaks down.
"This vulnerability isn't new. It isn't even subtle. I first wrote about it in 2006. I asked Kip Hawley, who runs the TSA, about it in 2007. Today, any terrorist smart enough to Google "print your own boarding pass" can bypass the no-fly list.
"This gaping security hole would bother me more if the very idea of a no-fly list weren't so ineffective. The system is based on the faulty notion that the feds have this master list of terrorists, and all we have to do is keep the people on the list off the planes.
"That's just not true. The no-fly list -- a list of people so dangerous they are not allowed to fly yet so innocent we can't arrest them -- and the less dangerous "watch list" contain a combined 1 million names representing the identities and aliases of an estimated 400,000 people. There aren't that many terrorists out there; if there were, we would be feeling their effects.
"Almost all of the people stopped by the no-fly list are false positives. It catches innocents such as Ted Kennedy, whose name is similar to someone's on the list, and Islam Yusuf (formerly Cat Stevens), who was on the list but no one knew why.
"The no-fly list is a Kafkaesque nightmare for the thousands of innocent Americans who are harassed and detained every time they fly. Put on the list by unidentified government officials, they can't get off. They can't challenge the TSA about their status or prove their innocence. (The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this month that no-fly passengers can sue the FBI, but that strategy hasn't been tried yet.) "
September 10, 2008 11:52 AM
This is so against constitution and the people who are in favor are also agreeing that the government is violating our civil rights!!!!!!
January 5, 2009 6:56 PM
This is so against the U.S constitution. People who agree on this particular term might as well agree on the government violating our rights.
January 5, 2009 7:03 PM
i agree
January 5, 2009 7:03 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home