TSA Bans Flight If You Refuse To Show ID

mytrip notes a CNet blog entry on the recent TSA rule change banning flight to anyone who refuses to produce ID. It's OK if you claim to have lost or forgotten your ID — you undergo a pat-down and hand search of your carry-on bag and you're on your way. The new rule goes into effect June 21. "The change of rules seems to be a pretty obvious case of security theater. Real terrorists do not refuse to show ID. They claim to have lost their ID, or they use a fake. TSA's new rules only protect us from a non-existent breed of terrorists who are unable to lie."

Yeah, about fake IDs

[suso (153703)]

I've always wondered about why people don't seem to get that fake IDs can be used for more than just getting into bars. And in that, far more serious things. I had my own experience with having to provide an ID in a case where it was not needed or useful to them. I bought an account with Hostgator once and they had a policy of not allowing you to use a shell account without providing a faxed copy of your driver's license. I argued with the system administrator there that it was a useless policy as it doesn't prove anything as IDs can be faked. And especially with the low quality of a fax, how could they tell. I could easily put in fake details using any simple image editor. He actually responded saying something like "If I can prevent one security breach, then the policy is worth it.". He didn't seem to get that it won't stop anything. Hackers see policies as obstacles to get over, not impassable walls. What's sad is that Hostgator isn't the only company with this very same policy. They probably don't realize how many malicious hackers they already have one their systems.

All that IDs provide is another hoop for everyone to jump through, including hackers and terrorists. They are useless as a security measure to anyone who doesn't have the authority to validate them.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[QuantumG (50515)]

There are no terrorists. You might as well be talking about the intentions and capabilities of magical elves.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[Idiomatick (976696)]

Yes but even if the magic elves DID exist the policy would do nothing.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[Alsee (515537)]

Just out of curiosity, are these male or female magical elves?

Female elves are sexy.

-

Terrorist elves are real!!

[Reziac (43301)]

I'm reminded of a story that came over the wires of United Press International, on September 10, 1980 (the teletype printed it during my shift while I was DJing, so I saw it with my own eyes):

========
Police in Laurel, Mississippi report receiving a call from a woman who told them she had been attacked by a band of elves. Investigating officers were dubious to begin with and the woman didn't help her credibility by pointing to a blank wall whenever she was talking about the window the alleged elves came through.

When one of the officers pointed out that there was no window where the woman kept pointing, she reportedly told them the elves had taken it with them.
=========

It appears the TSA believes that if we just get rid of all those windows, no more elves, er, I mean terrorists will come through them!!

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[billcopc (196330)]

They were terrorists the minute they started spreading terror.

When they boarded the plane, chances are they were just another passenger with a passport, like all the others.

The only thing ID verification does is show that you have a piece of paper with a picture on it. It could very well be someone else's piece of paper, with your picture schmoozed in. It could also be a complete fabrication, fresh off the dye-sub. It doesn't say "Terrorist!" or "Not a terrorist!", it says "This is a picture of Joe Random. If the person in front of you looks like this picture, you should refer to them as Joe Random."

It's not like Cletus the Rent-a-Cop is going to scrutinize every little detail, call three different unrelated people to check references, and actually care. Let's face it: if crazies weren't getting on planes in the first place, Cletus would be out of a job.

If I were to march into a crowded lobby tomorrow morning and spontaneously open fire on random civilians, I'd be a terrorist. Today, I have no criminal record whatsoever. Tomorrow I could be Canada's most wanted. Looking at my ID won't save anyone's life. If looking at someone's ID tells you they should be arrested, that person should have been behind bars in the first place.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[Sancho (17056)]

If I were to march into a crowded lobby tomorrow morning and spontaneously open fire on random civilians, I'd be a terrorist.

No, actually, your intent matters. If you were politically motivated (i.e. you're trying to instigate change by scaring people into complying with your wishes) then you'd be a terrorist. If you just opened fire for no apparent reason, you're just a mass murderer.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"The only thing ID verification does is show that you have a piece of paper with a picture on it. It could very well be someone else's piece of paper, with your picture schmoozed in. It could also be a complete fabrication, fresh off the dye-sub."

Ahh...but, you're forgetting about the "RealID" act....sure it is being held up a little, but, when it comes through, your brand new US National ID will be issued to identify and track you in all your movements. I'm sure you'll no long be able to go anywhere or do much of anything transaction-wise in years after it is all implemented. Travelling without it will be the least of your concerns then I dare to guess...

Maybe not..but, sure paints a scary picture doesn't it? That and I've yet to see a govt. law or rule that hasn't be abused and used past its intended original use later one by some creative politician or lawyer...

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[nmb3000 (741169)]

You believe that don't you?

This is why the US is fucked up.

I'm not sure if you're under the impression that the idea of terrorism is fantasy or if you're just trolling for Insightful mods by discounting terrorism as a real means to an end. Based on the fact that you haven't backed up anything you've said, I'm forced to guess the latter.

According Wikipedia (so it's official you see), "terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals". Based on this, I would surmise that if the guy did as he said, whether he's a terrorist or not depends on why he's doing it. If it's because he's a psycho nutjob who kills for kicks then I'd say no. If he's protesting some government action, trying to get the government to change it's policies, or doing it in the name of religion then I'd say he probably falls under "terrorist".

The whole point of terrorism is (as the name obviously suggests) to utilize fear and terror to achieve your goals. Indiscriminately killing unarmed civilians is a pretty good way to spread terror.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[Dun Malg (230075)]

What about 9/11? Weren't those guys (the Arabs that carried out the attack I mean) terrorists?

Yeah, but the trouble is, not a single policy enacted since that day was necessary to prevent a hijacking like those we had on 9/11. The hijackings that day were successful for one simple reason: surprise. Prior to that day, hijackings were classically "take me to Cuba" events, where the safest course of action was to comply with the hijackers instructions and wait for them to get whacked by Delta Force, or MI-5, or whoever after a couple days on the runway after landing.

9/11 raised the ante significantly. Now, all hijackings are automatically assumed to be attempted homicide. The first guy or guys that stand up and say "this is a hijacking" are going to get their nuts stuffed down their throats by fifty angry passengers who reasonably assume they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, regardless of the weapon brandished. Look what they did to Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Hell, look at what they did on United 93 on 9/11*. The stakes had been raised no more than a quarter hour before and the passengers caught on right away. Hijackings with knives and shit are over. Just plain fucking OVER.

But no, the TSA isn't about logic or reason. It's pure reactionary theater by a bunch of fucking tards. Take, for a prime example, the ban on liquids on quantities greater than 3oz. This was enacted because a ring of would-be terrorists was broken up and their plans included either the premade smuggling of or onboard mixing of a "binary component" liquid explosive, TATP. Trouble is, it's complete bollocks. No chemist with half a brain would do anything but laugh at the notion of people trying to synthesize TATP on a plane without someone noticing. Likewise, no sensible knowledgeable person would take seriously the idea of anyone successfully smuggling in enough pre-made TATP to bring down a plane without blowing themselves up. But do we get a reasonable analysis of the threat and a reasonable security response? No, we get blanket bans that are the equivalent of swatting flies with a 4X8 sheet of plywood.

* If you think the plane was shot down, please, just shut the fuck up. You're an idiot.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[ckedge (192996)]

I agree with everything you said, EXCEPT:

a) not a single policy enacted since that day was necessary to prevent a hijacking like those we had on 9/11

The stronger locked cockpit doors and the rule to not open it despite any demands or threats. Those would have prevented 9/11. You are correct that nowdays the violent group reaction is probably an even better counter - but without the 3000 dead of 9/11, no-one would ever do that.

There has never been any need to allow hijackers in the cockpit, just take them to where they want to go and do what they want you to do. The only reason the doors weren't put in before was cost.

b) the liquid explosive bit. No binary explosives might be a bit hard to do, but flat out and out liquid explosives HAVE been successfully used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434 [wikipedia.org]

AND I QUOTE:

"Yousef used one tenth of the explosive power he planned to use on eleven U.S. airliners in January 1995"
...
"The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid."

In fact, the ban on significant quantities of liquids came 10 years TOO LATE. It's amazing that no-one else thought of attempting it since then. Maybe because they caught this bomb master in 1995 and he wasn't around to teach anyone else how to do it. Maybe because you don't need to use liquid explosives, regular bombs get through just fine a decent amount of the time.

It's my understanding that since Lockerbie, baggage containers were constructed to resist the types of explosions that brought that aircraft down. Are they widely used? Technically the baggage screening should prevent stuff in luggage from getting on. I think we simply need to do enough to cause them to shift their targets elsewhere, and as such force them to try and hit less-easier more fluid targets.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

AND I QUOTE:

"Yousef used one tenth of the explosive power he planned to use on eleven U.S. airliners in January 1995" ...
"The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid."

Wikipedia is misleading, and you took the bait.

The part the article left out is that the nitro was soaked into cotton balls. It did not look at all like a liquid, it looked like wet cotton stuffed in a white plastic bottle. The reason it was soaked into the cotton balls was to stabilize it because liquid nitro is highly unstable, one sudden shock and it blows on its own. He would have been lucky to make it to the airport, much less get in the air, with unstablized nitro in a bottle.

Don't believe me - just google for the hundreds of websites discussing the details. [google.com]

Suffice to say, the liquid ban is still total bullshit.
In fact the TSA even said so themselves in their own blog:

In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet.
  TSA blog [tsa.gov]

Those are the TSA's own words explaining how the bogeyman of binary liquid explosives is essentially impossible. Which is what anyone with a clue has been saying since day one.

Of course, after realizing just how stupid they were to admit that, they've come up with a new story leaving out the whole 'mixing it up in the bathroom' part. Now its all about some super-secret concoction that does not need to be mixed up. Now its just a regular explosive liquid that somehow must be stored in a big jug and can't be in a bunch of smaller bottles put together. Wonder why they won't tell us what it is - after all apparently the terrorists already know all about it since it was their plan in the first place...

Terror is a response

[Shihar (153932)]

Here is what makes "terrorism" interesting. Terrorism on its own is close to harmless. The Spain bombings, 9/11, the London bombings... all of those bombings didn't even dent those nations. Even 9/11 was just a drop in the bucket. 4000 or so people dying in the US? It won't even register as a blip on US death rates for a year. A couple of knocked over towers? Those are a little costly, but they pale in comparison to even a minor hurricane.

The terrorist attack itself was a pin prick against a giant. The problem is that the giant in response decided to saw off its own hand to keep from ever being pricked again.

While the attack itself did minimal economic damage and a barely noticeable effect on the number of people living and dying in the US (especially next to such terrors as cancer or heart disease), our response to it did horrible.

I am not even pointing to the government response alone. The government did terrible damage to itself by implementing policies that make business harder, travel harder, and importing students and skilled laborers harder. Lets not even considered the more intangible damage done to civil liberties. Even worse, people's own reactions turned a minor disaster into a major disaster. Being terrified of airplanes despite the fact that you are vastly more likely to be struck dead in a car did terrible economic damage. Fear that lead to reduced spending did horrible economic damage.

My point is this. Terrorist are hardly worth mentioning for the acts that they commit. They rank far FAR below other dangers that are likely to kill you. McDonald's and swimming pools kill far more people than terrorist do in the US. Cars kill vastly more people, and yet we manage to soldier on in utter indifference. The only thing that hurts about a terrorist attack is our very own response. If we want to defend against terrorist attacks in the future, prevention isn't the answer. Snatching low hanging fruit, like reinforcing plane doors and telling passengers to kick the shit out of anyone trying to get into the cockpit is fine and relatively cheap. Where the REAL savings would come from is if policy makers could find a way to dampen their own and the publics responses to terrorism. The damage is done when we react by chopping our own limbs off. If we could find a way to not react so violently, terrorist attacks, while hardly a good thing, would be FAR less destructive.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[Zemran (3101)]

It was very convenient that the terrorists passport survived the fireball that the flight recorders did not survive. Nothing odd at all...

And the fact that they were not on the passenger list was obviously just an oversight...

I must be a crackpot :-)

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[Architect_sasyr (938685)]

QG I get what your saying man, but think the rest of the people have missed it. Feel free to correct me if I get it wrong but here's my take:

There are no terrorists, there is only the illusion of terrorism. I walk through airport security and get bomb checked all the time to no avail. I've walked through with a substantial amount of dinitrotoluene in my pockets before and never been stopped. Much like the illusion of terrorism, bomb checking is just one more avenue to provide us with the illusion of safety.

I'm not about to dispute the bali bombings or the 9/11 attacks, ignoring something like that is a measure of insanity my mind hasn't yet stepped down to, but what I will dispute is that they could have been stopped with better measures of security.

So they took guns and knives onto the plane, so what? What's to stop me from taking a stake and a slingshot? What's to stop a ninja (hilarity not intended) from breaking someone's arm and threatening to do it again, or even breaking into the cock pit and doing the same? Nothing. The illusion of safety is what people want and that is what they get. I'd be surprised if many people outside the geek community (let's face it we tend to see the larger ramifications of things) will actually complain about more than the inconvenience of this when they're going through the airport. Sheeple were named for a reason - when one of them is afraid they all are.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[zappepcs (820751)]

Perhaps I'm confused, but what he said made perfect sense. There are NO terrorists. As described, when they get on a plane, they are simply passengers with the correct credentials to fly. They are merely tourists when they wander around the lake that is your water supply dropping little vials of poison.

All of this airport security is misguided, confoundedly ineffectual, and does absolutely nothing (or very close to it, if not negative effects) to protect you from terrorists that want to harm you.

You might as well be talking about the capabilities of magical elves since by definition, you will NOT know where a terrorist is going to strike. That is sort of the point. You can guess, you can try to predict based on historical events, but since the 9/11 event was a one-off (as far as I know) it is STUPID to believe that this is the new and improved international terrorist mode of operation. Did I say stupid? Sorry, I meant FUCKING STUPID!! with lots of exclamatory punctuation marks.

For anyone that needs some schooling, terrorists, the originals, were the government. It has come to be used to describe those that would strike fear in an enemy with little use of resources, and attacks on the civilian population. Even the definitions used by government agencies is fubar. Check http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm [aeroflight.co.uk]
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.

Where in that definition does it say specifically and limited to airplanes? It doesn't. Where in the laws enacted in the USA (or other countries) since 9/11 have they accounted for terrorist acts not committed via air transportation?

Swap dunce cap for tinfoil hat. Why are they so hung up on air transport? If you control it, you can slow commerce and businesses to less than 1/10th of their current speed/capabilities, enabling extra taxation, control, and suppression.

Tinfoil hat off: It makes them look like they are doing something good while conditioning you to hand over your papers to travel between states. This BTW is prohibited in the USA.

Back to magical elves. What are their powers? Well, we also don't know the powers or intent of future possible terrorists. The really great part about that is that the US Government DID know what the intentions of the 9/11 attackers was. Did that help? No. Why?

No, this is not conspiracy, look at CIA documents to find more. Google it, I won't guide you.

Now, if they knew before 9/11, why do we need more air transportation laws and security?

To assume that any possible future terrorist (as if they actually exist) would use air transportation as the weapon of choice is to also assume that you know why they would not use something else to create terror, political advantage, and media prominence. So... why is it that they would not use something else? Perhaps kill the electric grid during summer heatwave. Maybe poison water supplies. Maybe poison food stuffs imported from a foreign country. Perhaps mail some anthrax around the country. Perhaps, gasp, disrupt the fuel supply BEFORE it gets to this country? How about a bit of anthrax and a fscking weather balloon?

Please please please tell me what these terrorists that your sure of are going to do, and why they are not going to do any of the other really easy acts of terrorism?

Since you don't know, I don't know, and the government doesn't know, we MIGHT AS WELL BE TALKING ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES OF MAGICAL ELVES.

I know I rambled a bit there, but you get the point. Just tell me what the terrorists are going to use as a weapon next time, why they will, and where these terrorists are and I will think about it, if it makes sense, I might concede that there ACTUALLY are some terrorists plotting to harm US Citizens.

Sleep well America... good night

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[Alpha830RulZ (939527)]

and those guys shooting at me in Afghanistan were all peaceful farmers and herdsmen defending their homeland from the imperialist invaders!

Um, were they in your back yard, or were you in theirs? I'm not dissing the original mission in Afghanistan, but it's not hard for me to understand why some folks that had nothing to do with the Taliban might resent our presence there. I wish we'd bring you and your buddies home. Soon.

Re:Yeah, about fake IDs

[jschrod (172610)]

Look - if you had ever held a security clearance and worked for some part of the military, you wouldn't be making ignorant statements like that. It's just *not* *true*. Yes, there are actual people, with actual faces and names, that actually plan to harm people for reasons that are largely religious in nature.

Ah, you talk about the "moral majority" in the USA! So, why don't they do something against them? If you're on this side of the pond, go ahead!

Seriously, this is the most stupid explanation of terrorism threat that I have read in a long time, and that tells something. If you really believe that the reason behind the current wave of global terrorism is "largely religious in nature", you're part of the problem.

Re:Conservative Fascism

[Tophe (853490)]

They're not called warrantless wiretaps - it's called Freedon Listening now. :D

Re:Conservative Freedom

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

It is my company, my pencil, and I can do with it what I will.

You are liable for the results of what you do with your pencil.
Corporations exist primarily as a means to shield owners from the liability that results from actions performed in the service of the corporation.
They aren't anywhere near the same thing.

Re:Conservative Freedom

[amRadioHed (463061)]

What a sad existence conservatism believes in if the rights you support don't even include something as basic as the right to do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

We can be monitored by the government every second of our lives and every action we take can be subject to government approval but as long as you can make money and complain about it's all good?

Huh? Didn't you get the memo?

[QuantumG (50515)]

"Trouble maker" and "terrorist" are synonymous now.

Stand in line.

Speak when spoken to.

Have your papers ready.

Real terrorists

[MikeRT (947531)]

Have already bought all of the fake IDs that they need to do their jobs because they are well-trained and financed. Nothing done here would capture the caliber of terrorists capable of actually pulling off another 9-11. All of the original 9-11 terrorists had their IDs in order.

Perception != reality

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

The whole purpose is for the TSA to make the traveller feel that they are being kept safe. Real safety has nothing to do with it.

Re:Real terrorists

[by Anonymous Coward]

Real terrorists don't have fake IDs. They have real IDs. For some reason though, their IDs do not say "terrorist" clearly on the front. Probably an oversight.

Re:Real terrorists

[2short (466733)]

Oh, give me a break. This isn't that hard to understand; even you can handle it:
They won't let you fly if you say "I don't want to show ID". They will let you fly if you say, "I forgot my ID". That won't stop a single bad guy ever. It doesn't solve any problem at all even a little bit, except for people expressing opinions the TSA doesn't like.

It would have stopped 9/11, right?

[Reality Master 201 (578873)]

After all, not one of the 9/11 hijackers had validly issued ID in their own names. Right?

Yeah. Maybe the next president will do something to fix the utterly idiotic "security" games the TSA insists on playing with airline travel. I'm not putting money on it, though.

Re:It would have stopped 9/11, right?

[TeraCo (410407)]

This isn't even about trying to make the population more compliant, it's about saving money.

If you assume that it takes X seconds to process a regular ID showing person, and 2-3 minutes to process a non-ID showing person and if you assume that a few thousand people each day can't show ID, it makes sense to reduce the number of people who don't show ID.

When this doesn't significantly reduce wasted time, watch for the 'if you forgot your ID you can't fly' policy.

Wrong

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

The change of rules seems to be a pretty obvious case of security theater....

Your first (wrong) assumption is that it has a damn thing to do with security. It has to do with the TSA wanting to be able to remove "troublemakers" (ie, anyone who thinks that demanding ID is unreasonable... can't have those free thinkers able to do what they want in our society).

Fuck DHS and the TSA. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. They're far worse (if they aren't yet, they will be, just wait) than any terrorist ever could be.

Sad part is, I'd move to another country if I knew of any better ones out there. Anyone know of a mostly English-speaking country that doesn't walk all over its citizens' rights? I know the UK is right out, and I hear Australia is pretty bad too.

Re:Wrong

[Ithaca_nz (661774)]

New Zealand, although I'm a native so I'm biased. Same copyright laws (you can format shift) and not much of a police state (slight nanny state, there's a law about not smacking your kids here, but it's not something that people pay much attention to). Must admit, I was travelling in the States a month or so ago with work, and realised when I came back home that it was easier to go through everything for an international flight in/out of NZ than it was to get on a domestic flight in the US...

This is terrible news

[by Anonymous Coward]

Good thing rising fuel costs will bankrupt the airline industry in a year or two.

Flying now equivalent to being arrested

[Reziac (43301)]

From a comment under TFA:

"Passengers who refuse to show ID, citing the rights" still will be accommodated if they "assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity." This is similar to the Fourth Amendment case law on ID, which is also widely misunderstood by the lay public. You have every right not to carry ID, but you do not have the right to withhold your identity from law enforcement if they have a legitimate reason for knowing it (e.g., because you've been lawfully arrested). The TSA is merely clarifying that, "you have no right to fly anonymously," not that "you no longer have the right to invoke your right to fly without ID.

[emphasis mine]

So... refusing to identify yourself at the airport is equivalent to refusing to identify yourself when you're arrested.

Let's stop piddlefucking around and admit that planes are now airborne maximum security prisons. Because that's exactly how their "security" is treating passengers.

Re:Flying now equivalent to being arrested

[Fallingcow (213461)]

More to the point, passengers in cars are not required to produce ID, and it's not so much the ID for the driver as it is the proof that they're licensed to operate the vehicle.

Meanwhile at the customs...

[brunokummel (664267)]

Imigration Officer: What's your name, sir?
Passenger: Batman...
Imigration Officer: Come again? Your last name, sir?
Passenger: Suparman ...
Imigration Officer: Funny guy ahn? Take him down, boys...

While the other officers beat the crap out of the poor fella, the Imigration officer checks his passport out [imageshack.us]

Re:Meanwhile at the customs...

[rabiddeity (941737)]

In my more adventurous days I encountered what seemed to be (but wasn't) a rather fun immigration agent when entering the US from my 6th or 7th international business trip that year, and was faced with the question (while the officer was flipping through my well-stamped passport): "Have you ever come to the US before?"

My first thought was 'well, duh, I live here (on a visa)' but I chose a nicer reply: "I can't remember but it ought to be in my passport."

He was not amused... Luckily this was pre-9/11...

There's actually a good reason for asking that question. It's a knowledge-based verification, to try to catch someone who might pickpocket a passport off someone else in line. It's not a foolproof security measure, but if you happened to see someone who looks like you in line and swipe their passport it might be difficult to memorize their birthday and their prior itinerary in the few minutes you have before you're next in line (if you try to steal it earlier your theft is less likely to go unnoticed). On the other hand, you'll surely remember your own birthday, nationality, and whether or not you've been to a given country, so the questions cause minimal inconvenience to those going through immigration.

well, it won't catch terrorists

[rpax9000 (916267)]

...but it will catch the real enemy of this administration and of the tsa - folks willing to think for themselves and unwilling to be scared into submitting to big brother.

i already take off my shoes at the airport. and, because my job requires me to fly quite a bit and get where i'm going, i produce id (passport, usually). and every time i take the baggie with my toothpaste and travel-size deodorant out of my carry-on, i throw up in my mouth a little bit.

but i keep doing it.

because i have to pay the mortgage.

i can't remember who said this, but someone once said the 20th/21st century equivalent to the nazi war criminals' "i was just following orders" line will be "well, i had a mortgage to pay"...

We could fly without showing ID, really?

[ugen (93902)]

Amazing - and I am saying this in all seriousness. I did not know this was even allowed. For the past number of years (and really prior to that as well) I know that every time I took a flight, security person at the beginning of the line demanded to see my ID and boarding pass. To the best of my understanding there was no exception to that, they were fairly clear that I would not be permitted to proceed if I don't show the ID.

That and really I wouldn't even get through check in without one - airline registration counter person demands your id first.

Anyone actually flown without going through this in recent years? How did you do that?

Re:We could fly without showing ID, really?

[chill (34294)]

I did, several times.

The following excuses work fine:

1. I lost my license.
2. I was in a hurry and left my wallet at home, including my ID.
3. My DL was suspended and the State confiscated it.
4. I live in the middle of a big city (Chicago, NY, LA, etc.), have never owned a car and never had need for a license or ID. I use public transportation or walk. (Follow up to "Why are you flying?" is "I'm attending a funeral.")

Be careful with #3 and #4. With #3, it should probably be true as a pissy TSA officer can probably verify that. With #4, you need to be able to think quick. For example... "My bank account? I've lived in the same city for 30 years. I was born there and everyone knows me. The bank manager just signed off on my identification, since he went to high school with my dad and has known me since I was born." ["Personally known" *is* an option for verifying identity on opening a bank account or having something notarized.]

Big Deal

[Javagator (679604)]

The government knows exactly how much I make. People can look me up on line and see where I live, and how much I paid for my house. Credit companies know if I am late paying my bills. My credit card company knows what kind of purchases I make, and calls me if I do something unusual. Amazon knows what kind of books I read. Netflix knows what kind of movies I watch. In my county, you can look up my name on line and see if I have an outstanding traffic ticket. So you think I am going to get excited about my "privacy" if I have to show an ID?

Federal court has ruled ID's arn't required

[ebrandsberg (75344)]

1. The TSA stated on Mar 21 2008 that there is no such requirement: http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tsa-080226-070-mocek.pdf

2. The requirement to present an ID was also found to not be required by federal court in the so-called "Gilmore" decision, in that someone could choose to subject themselves to additional screening. http://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDecision.pdf

3. If the TSA insists that "cooperative" fliers will be allowed through but fliers that simply do not provide ID won't be, this will be brought back to court, and the TSA will loose. They can't play with the rules like this, and if you read the TSA statement, they are basically saying FU to your rights that have already been upheld in court.

Re:Federal court has ruled ID's arn't required

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just try questioning anything at the airport:

Here's [hasbrouck.org] a travel writer and book author's account of what happened when some airport contractors asked to see his ID and he dared to ask them who they were. (Do you show your ID to anyone who comes up to you?)

Basically, they didn't like someone questioning their authority, falsely claimed to be federal TSA agents, then got the real TSA involved, who turned him over to police.

The travel writer later used FOIA requests to get the TSA's and police accounts of what happened. It's interesting to see what was in the reports and the way his behavior was described.

This is the new Amerika

[matt_martin (159394)]

When I was in school ( oh so long ago ), we were told that America was better than the Soviet Union because we were free.

"The Soviets don't let you travel without paperwork - we would never do that because we are a free nation."
"The Soviets tell everyone that the restrictions are 'for their protection', but it is a lie."
"The Soviets distort the news which is reported to the people."

Fast forward 25 years ... and here we are:
Being shaken down for "papers" and "inspected" by the powers that be when we travel (air, auto, borders) or sign up to do an honest day's work.
All while living under an administration which distorts information as a matter of policy, supporting war with lies.

Not only that but we are losing out economically to a nation which is officially Communist.

So what did we win in the "cold war", exactly ?

I'd move away, but that would be allowing them to win.
Lets make THEM move away and get on with the business of restoring our nation !

Hmm...this sounds familar

[Bob MacSlack (623914)]

This kind of thing reminds me of the recent immigration paperwork I had to do. They have a few questions you have to answer no to in order to get a visa to enter the country (ok, so it says you could still get one, but I highly doubt it). Here is the one that makes me groan ever time I see it:

Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?

Now who exactly are they expecting to exclude based on that question? If you have or are planning to do any of those, are you honestly going answer truthfully? Maybe it catches really dumb terrorists?

Conditioning For Compliance

[jmcarson (752753)]

This is not about terrorists. This is about control of the "difficult" people in the population and making an example of them for all to see.

Easy solution

[andyring (100627)]

My solution is easy, well, sort of easy. OK, so it's still just showing an ID. But I've found out a real good way to make the TSA people squirm a lot. I have licenses to carry a concealed firearm in multiple states (I am an ordinary citizen, not a retired police officer or anything like that). And of course those licenses reside in my wallet.

The requirement for IDs don't stipulate specifics, just that it be a "government issued photo ID." Well, the concealed carry permits are, technically, a "government issued photo ID" as they are issued by a state government. The TSA folk don't have a choice but to accept them as identification. But it sure does make them squirm!

Not from terrorists

[wonkavader (605434)]

"TSA's new rules only protect us from a non-existent breed of terrorists who are unable to lie."

This is silly and misses the point. They protect us from something far more dangerous to the regime: People who refuse to have their rights flushed away.

Re:idiots

[QuantumG (50515)]

What I find amusing is that you refer to the people creating these policies as "we". Like you've got any say in it.

Re:I would not have guessed

[rob1980 (941751)]

If you're traveling alone, yeah. Amtrak wants $250 to put me on a train to a city 1300 miles from where I live, and at $4 a gallon I'd spend that much in gas if I drove myself. That's one way, mind you.

Southwest wants $300 for a round trip ticket.

Re:Your papers, please.

[jgalun (8930)]

This is an inane argument. There is not a bit of evidence that Al Qaeda or any of the Islamic terrorist groups are trying to undermine America by eroding our civil liberties. You may not have noticed it, but Islamic terrorists are not exactly big libertarians. Religious fundamentalists tend not to be. The idea that they recognize the power of Jeffersonian ideals and are therefore trying to move us away from them is farcical.

If you want to argue that such erosion of civil liberties is bad for the United States, such a case can be made. But to argue that this was the terrorists' intent is to project your own beliefs onto them.

Re:The real enemy

[Jafafa Hots (580169)]

"I don't get it. When someone says, "May I see your ID, sir" and I show it to them, am I suddenly under their control?"

Absolutely not. By asking this question, you've demonstrated that you're ALREADY under their control.

And as far as what constitutional rights have been violated, you are ignorant and misunderstanding the bill of rights. The bill of rights is not an enumeration of what rights you have - it's merely a list of a few of your rights that the framers thought so important as to merit special mention.

In fact, some were against a bill of rights for the very reason that they felt that the ignorant would see them as your only rights. As a compromise, the ninth amendment was added to make sure people understood this fact:

Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

As you have demonstrated, it didn't fucking work.