TSA Bans Flight If You Refuse To Show ID 734
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Funny)
Female elves are sexy.
-
Terrorist elves are real!! (Score:5, Funny)
========
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, 9/11 had no effect whatsoever on the World.
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, you'd be a criminal, guilty of multiple homicides.
To be a terrorist, you'd have to have some specific political agenda your action is trying to push. This word "terrorist" has gotten so overused, it's beginning to become meaningless. We need to fight that trend.
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
"Overreaction is what governments do best!"
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:4, Interesting)
But hey, if ya wanna talk about terrorists trying to make nuclear bombs and smuggle them into NYC in a backpack, I'll happily state my opinion that there's none of them either.
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
The liquid explosive deployed on Philipine Airlines 434 was already complete when it was brought on board, it just hadn't been assembled into a bomb. Nitrates are quite sniffable by current detectors so this shouldn't work now.
Real binary explosives exist in the commercial world, but terrorists don't seem to be able to produce them. In such cases perhaps they can be made more detectable and in any case they require detonation.
There are discussions and fears about the production of non-nitrate based explosives. However this would require that a terrorist prepare a non-trivial reaction in a confined space over an extended period of time. I would like to think someone would notice if a toilet is occupied for the many hours necessary to complete the production or that certainly the fumes would be noticed.
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
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:
TSA blog [tsa.gov]
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, al-qaeda conspiracy = likely, government conspiracy = unlikely. See how that works out?
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Conservative Fascism (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering all their core principles are right out of Mein Kampf... developments like this are hardly surprising. Warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, citizens being held in secret and without trials: brought to you by either Nazi Germany or Conservative America. Take your pick.
Re:Conservative Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
Conservative Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
What a classic set of liberal distortions!
Conservatives, for the most part, do not want the government to enter our lives. However, we value the following rights as tantamount to freedom: a) free speech, b) freedom of commerce, c) the right to hold property and d) the right to get income from the investment of that property. T
Re:Conservative Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Conservative Godwin (Score:4, Insightful)
See where I'm going with the this? If the Fourth applies to ID here, then it has to apply EVERYWHERE!
Now, I understand that we don't want federal police officers asking us for ID at every corner. (Not that they don't have better things to do) I think it has something to do with the fact that you wanting to travel makes it reasonable.
Re:Conservative Godwin (Score:4, Informative)
The Supreme Court ruled a few years back that asking a person's name if they are at a Terry Stop is constitutional. A Terry Stop is a limited form of confinement where an officer has "a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has, is, or is about to be, committed." However that is the limit of what an individual is compelled to do. You are allowed to refuse to show an ID. You may not be arrested for that refusal. If you refuse to show a driver's license at a traffic Terry Stop, your license priviliges may be rescinded but you aren't required to turn over the ID itself unless you're arrested.
The TSA isn't asking who you are. They are requiring you without reasonable suspicion to turn over your property to get onto a plane.
Re:Conservative Godwin (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Conservative Godwin (Score:4, Interesting)
Moreover I think it's absurd that your driver's license contains anything other than a number that can be used to tie your original test results to some sort of authentication system (we currently use a picture, there are better and more anonymous alternatives) and to tie driving-related court records to a specific licensee. In a traffic stop the cop needs to know that the person driving has been authorized to do so, and that the authorization has not been withdrawn. He does not need to know my name, birthdate, or any other identifying information.
And after the traffic stop, even if I am citied, the government does not have a legitimate need to track any additional information in relation to my traffic violation. You should not be able to determine where I live, when I was born, what personal or real property I own, or lookup other non-traffic convictions simply by knowing my driver's license number. We've allowed this to happen because it's convenient for law enforcement, but that's a pretty weak defense against the potential (and demonstrable) abuse.
It's not just drivers licensing either. if you're arrested for any reason, even if you are never charged and are released within minutes of being booked, the police will keep your fingerprints, DNA, and anything else they can get their hands on. They'll tie that information to your real and personal property registrations, your address, name, birthdate, drivers license, social security, and phone numbers. In some jurisdictions you can request that these records be destroyed, but it doesn't happen automatically. And in most jurisdictions you have no way to remove all this tracking information from law enforcement databases. There is simply no need for the government to keep those records; they are collected and stored simply as a convenience to law enforcement, to make prosecution more efficient. Not more just mind you -- I could tolerate some of the tracking if I believed it improved justice -- just more efficient.
Re:Conservative Fascism (Score:5, Funny)
Coverring their ass (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about covering their asses.
It won't prevent a big screw up, *BUT* in case of big screw up, they can show up the fax, and ask their phone company to confirm they actually did receive a faxed document (and didn't fake it quickly in MS-Paint which would be about the same quality) and thus claim "see, we did our part, we're innocent, you can't sue us".
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.
Fake IDs are a little bit more difficult to fake with good enough quality to pass strong securi
Well customs ya (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem with TSA checks is they aren't nearly so good. You show your driver license or passport to the guy, and they mark that you are ok on your ticket. Well they don't check real well, and as a practical matter it'd be hard to. Passports are somewhat standardised among nations, and there's only so many of them. Dr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that you don't want it coming back to YOU if it all goes to shit and you have to drop it and run.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Didn't you get the memo? (Score:5, Interesting)
Stand in line.
Speak when spoken to.
Have your papers ready.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Perception != reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Real terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there are two things at work.
First, this is meant to remove the doubt over whether it is okay to travel without papers. Can't have trouble makers of the Samuel Adams stripe running around asserting their rights.
Second, the law enforcement mentality is predicated on the infantile presumption that
Re:Real terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Australia's got a bit better now that Howard got booted out. Canada used to be better before Stephen "whatever you say Mr. Bush" Harper became PM. Still, none of those where ever remotely as bad as the US in terms of being police states. Don't know how UK compares.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Continuing a long trend of officers (Score:4, Insightful)
As pointed out, since you can lie easily, this is really just about control and dominance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is terrible news (Score:5, Funny)
Silly American . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Flying now equivalent to being arrested (Score:5, Insightful)
[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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sucks regardless. What's next, Komrade -- ID papers required just to set foot on the public sidewalk? Because after all, you COULD be carry
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Facetious as the comment is, I've watched America change during my lifetime, from "who I am, where I go, and how I get there is none of your damned business" to "Komrade! Your papers please!!" for public transport, gov't buildings, and what's next? ID required for children entering a public schoolhouse?? some already r
Big bueracracy means people need to justify jobs! (Score:3, Insightful)
This can happen in the corporate world, too: feeling the need to spend one's entire budget just so that it won't get cut in the following year. But at least there's likely to be someone who might find and correct that inefficiency. In government, there's incentive to keep it growing all the way up to the top.
So the next time you see some policy that doesn't make sense, think about who just got to keep their job because of its existence.
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! [nerdkits.com]
Refuse flight? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the point anymore... (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile at the customs... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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"...
Re:well, it won't catch terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
People of this generation have no notion of freedom and of sacrifice. They cling to their lives and to their families not realizing that clinging to your own life and clinging to the lives of your loved ones is precisely what endangers those lives. It's that clinging that allows others to grab you by your balls and tell you to do as told.
I like that we are a peaceful people. I think that's wonderful! But peaceful people should still have warrior qualities such as the ability to sacrifice one's own life and a degree of non-attachment to life's pleasures and assurances. (Gandhi comes to mind...)
People have died to give us this freedom, but we are losing our freedom because we have to pay mortgage. It's kind of strange that to gain freedom, we have to die, but to lose it, all we need to do is to put our mortgage first on the list of priorities.
I am not calling for any extreme and/or thoughtless actions. I just hope this can be food for thought.
We could fly without showing ID, really? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.]
When is enough? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maslow's hierarchy (is the name correct?) states that people go for self-actualization only if their basic needs of safety, acceptance, income, are met.
We are pushed to the bottom of the pyramid: fear of losing our jobs, worry about Gas, income and inflation, etc., So we have been crudely pushed down the hierarchy so that self-actualization never comes to us.
20 years ago we were almost self-actualized. Call me a
Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal court has ruled ID's arn't required (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your naturalization can not be revoked if you asked all the questions truthfully.
Conditioning For Compliance (Score:5, Informative)
Showing the real target of the "War on Terror"... (Score:3, Informative)
Terrorist carrying a hidden razor and shaped charge:
- "Oh Officer, I forgot my ID, Sir. Of course I'll be cooperative, I am an upstanding citizen with no reason to be disrespectful to authority.". Boards plane. Maims, murders, yadayadayada.
Upstanding citizen:
- "I don't have to show ID to board a plane. I'm a free man with inalienable constitutional rights." Tasered. Told to put your hands behind back, can't because of tasering, tasered again harder. Handcuffed. Trialed for treason, hung, yadayadayada.
Easy solution (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
isn't this a violation of free passage to states (Score:4, Interesting)
Not from terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. In fact, most of the e-Ticket kiosks only need your confirmation number that you were e-mailed to get your boarding pass. No proof of ID required.
Re:The real enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
that refuse to go along with the pack and surrender all of their rights when asked in a confident voice by an authority figure.
Bingo. They could not have made the intention any more transparent. It's not about security - otherwise why is pat-down good enough for people who just make up an excuse? It's about control and making the population submissive. We learn to bend over at the airport and it makes it easier to do it at the checkpoint, the federal building, the state border, or while jogging in a neighborhood in which they think you don't belong.
Re:The real enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
that refuse to go along with the pack and surrender all of their rights when asked in a confident voice by an authority figure.
Bingo. They could not have made the intention any more transparent. It's not about security - otherwise why is pat-down good enough for people who just make up an excuse? It's about control and making the population submissive. We learn to bend over at the airport and it makes it easier to do it at the checkpoint, the federal building, the state border, or while jogging in a neighborhood in which they think you don't belong.
I'm sorry, I can't keep up that charade any more. If you lose all self control because someone asks you for ID, you are fucking idiot and you shouldn't be leaving your town anyway.
Seriously, WHAT CONSTITUTION RIGHT IS INFRINGED ON BY HAVING TO SHOW ID?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely not. By asking this question, you've demonstrated that you're ALREADY under their control.
Nope, I can turn around and walk out, or I can show them my ID and board the plane. I have a choice, and thus, I am in control. However, you must give up SOME control before boarding the plane. You can't demand that you get to land the damn thing. You also give up control when you ride in a cab, bus, train, or drive your car. So, yeah, you give some control to TSA and the airline, the whole thing wouldn't work otherwise. But just because there are rules that must be followed, doesn't mean that you ha
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I would not have guessed (Score:5, Informative)
Southwest wants $300 for a round trip ticket.
Re:Your papers, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Your papers, please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually yes, there is.
As your post correctly says, it would be ridiculous to suggest they directly care about or are motivated by any issue of our civil liberties. However they do indeed consider it part of a means to an end.
From Sun Tzu's Art of War:
Bush (and his entire administration) has a simplistic cartoon image of the enemy. The administration has declared that any coverage of what bin Laden as been saying is giving him free airtime and is giving aid to terrorists, has even played any such coverage carring coded instructions for an attack. And thus the media has been cowed into self censoring any such coverage. No coverage of what he's actually saying and no media analysis of what he actually wants and no media analysis of the terrorist whys and hows.
This is why The War On Terror has been so badly botched. The administration has a cartoon image of the enemy, and the public has little-to-no understanding of the enemy. Bush blindly did exactly what bin Laden wanted him to do.
Why did bin Laden instigate the 9/11 attack? What was the logic behind it?
Most people can't answer that. Saying bin Laden is evil is a hollow cartoon explanation, that evil people do evil things is a useless insightless answer. Saying "They hate our freedom" is a total fiction, a convenient administration soundbite to rally the public.
There was a chain of logic behind 9/11. It was an evil and tortured logic, but an identifiable and comprehensible logic. One must understand that logic to properly understand and fight that enemy, to understand not to unwittingly do what the enemy is hoping you to do.
First, what do bin Laden his cohorts ultimately want? What is the ultimate intent? A pan-Arab Caliphate. To unite the entire Arab world under one Islamic theocracy. That is bin Laden's utopia, that is his perfect answer that will supposed solve all the problems he sees of the world. bin Laden fundamentally doesn't give a shit about the Western World, he's perfectly happy for the rest of us to (figuratively and literally) go to hell.
So bin Laden's notion is that with the aid of Allah all Muslims should and would rise up and overthrow all of the corrupt Arab governments (and yeah those governments are generally pretty corrupt) to institute one unified Islamic rule. Of course bin Laden has gotten nowhere with that, and he decides that the only reason this plan has fails is because the Evil Western Nations have been protecting and propping up those corrupt Arab governments. And yeah, we have been protecting and propping up the Saudi Royal Family. And yeah, Saddam Hussein was all ours, he was a brutal dictator but he was a completely secular ruler and we gave him HUGE material support as a counter point to Iran. And we have been propping up other such governments for oil stability and other strategic interests. He doesn't "hate our freedoms", he hates us for stabilizing the Mideast and for working to keep Arab governments from collapsing in chaos, because he has the notion that such collapses and chaos would lead to an Islamic Utopia.
bin Laden's tactical and strategic ideas are based on his Afghanistan fighting against Russia, and his view of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. His view on rallying fighters to the cause is to provoke the enemy to overreact, to provoke the enemy to brutality, so that the enemy loses support and so that the enemy creates bin Laden's army for him. What is the purpose of the terrorist attacks on Israel? To provoke Israel to strike against the terrorists, and to provoke
Ever heard of posting as AC? (Score:3, Insightful)
But you wanted your name on your post, so you had to log in. IOW, you had to identify yourself
Re:So what do you suggest? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. After 9/11, nobody is going to sit back and wait while the hijackers "take this plane to Cuba". Anybody tries anything funny, like light their shoelaces, and if the passengers don't kill them, they'll get duct-taped to their seat for the remainder of the flight.
Meanwhile, the terrorists are looking for a weak spot. Someplace where law enforcement has overlooked. If we take some responsibility for our own security, there won't be any weak spots, regardless of TSA oversights.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)