Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government United States News Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Bans Flight If You Refuse To Show ID

Comments Filter:
  • by suso ( 153703 ) * on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:38PM (#23718449) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <> on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:43PM (#23718491) Homepage Journal
      There are no terrorists. You might as well be talking about the intentions and capabilities of magical elves.

      • by Idiomatick ( 976696 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:09PM (#23718729)
        Yes but even if the magic elves DID exist the policy would do nothing.
      • by Reziac ( 43301 ) * on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:20PM (#23718813) Homepage Journal
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DesScorp ( 410532 )

        There are no terrorists. You might as well be talking about the intentions and capabilities of magical elves.
        If you were simply trying to be witty and sarcastic about the truthers, you should have just added a sarcasm tag... a lot of people here are taking you seriously.
        • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:11PM (#23719281) Journal
          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 []
          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
    • by Anonymous Coward
      When Conservatives constantly pule about government being the problem, they are close to right: conservatives in government is the problem.

      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.
      • by pm_rat_poison ( 1295589 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:02PM (#23718661)
        It's also amazing how conservatives claim to strive for less state control by not regulating the market and by not taxing the rich and powerful, but they sure don't have a problem regulating the lives of the many by imposing "security measures" and by ignoring human rights in the name of national security. Isn't it weird? Conservatives don't have a problem with the government invading their personal lives, but they DO have a problem with the government invading the corporations' lives. In the free market state you Americans idolize, corporations and citizens should have the same treatment under the eye of the law. No more, no less.
        • by tjstork ( 137384 )
          Isn't it weird? Conservatives don't have a problem with the government invading their personal lives, but they DO have a problem with the government invading the corporations' lives.

          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
          • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:49PM (#23719095)

            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.

          • by amRadioHed ( 463061 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @12:22AM (#23720029)
            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?
      • by Tophe ( 853490 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:06PM (#23719219)
        They're not called warrantless wiretaps - it's called Freedon Listening now. :D
    • by DrYak ( 748999 )
      The ID faxing policy isn't even remotely related to security.
      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)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
        There they actually check your passport to some reasonable degree. If nothing else they scan it with their device which performs a number of checks for security features that aren't easy to fake.

        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
    • by Jafafa Hots ( 580169 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:18PM (#23719345) Homepage Journal
      and the hijackers on 9/11 didn't even have FAKE ID. They had LEGIT ID.

      How does a look at an ID card indicate to the looker that you're planning on killing people?

  • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <> on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:40PM (#23718467) Homepage Journal
    "Trouble maker" and "terrorist" are synonymous now.

    Stand in line.

    Speak when spoken to.

    Have your papers ready.
  • Real terrorists (Score:5, Informative)

    by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:41PM (#23718485)
    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.
    • by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:26PM (#23718895)
      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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:42PM (#23719023)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pete-classic ( 75983 )
      Why do they need fake IDs? The 9/11 guys didn't. Are we meant to imagine that the government has subsequently identified every potential terrorist and an alarm will go off if any of them present their ID?

      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
  • by Reality Master 201 ( 578873 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:45PM (#23718509) Journal
    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.

  • Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) * on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:48PM (#23718537)

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ithaca_nz ( 661774 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:59PM (#23718627)
      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...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jmv ( 93421 )
      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.

      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)

        Given the news I read about the UK's growing police state, it doesn't seem to me to be all that far off from "V For Vendetta"-style government. That's just from reading news on /. though, it may not be an accurate portrayal.
  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:48PM (#23718539)
    pushing down people that irritate them.

    As pointed out, since you can lie easily, this is really just about control and dominance.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yeah, you couldn't be more correct. The worst part is that the general population is stupid enough to buy the bullshit "security" excuse.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:49PM (#23718543)
    Good thing rising fuel costs will bankrupt the airline industry in a year or two.
  • by Chaxid ( 772696 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:49PM (#23718547) Homepage
    Assuming all of those new laws and policies are for the "terrorists". That's why they don't make sense to you. NOW SHOW US YOUR PAPERS!
  • by Reziac ( 43301 ) * on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:50PM (#23718555) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by compumike ( 454538 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:52PM (#23718569) Homepage
    In any big bueracracy, specifically government, there's really little incentive to be more efficient (or even more correct). Particularly with government, like the TSA, this is an example of people trying to secure jobs for themselves and their department.

    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! []
  • Refuse flight? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:53PM (#23718585) Homepage
    Only if you're an asshole and "refuse" to show your ID? Come on, how many people are really like that? If you're going to claim this policy for security reasons, don't allow an exception for "lost" or "forgotten" IDs. If it were for security reasons, ID would be required 100% of the time. Because it's for fascist reasons, they are willing to make a temporary exception to ease people into it. But, the 100% refusal to allow boarding without ID is coming. Mark my words. The time for action is now. I think I will somehow "forget" my ID every time I board a flight from now on.
  • by darinfp ( 907671 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:56PM (#23718613)
    There are thousands of people who get paid to make us safer from terrorists. I don't think they will be reducing the perceived risk any time soon. Announcements like this keep the terrorist threat in the news and make it look like they are doing something for their money.

  • by brunokummel ( 664267 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:00PM (#23718643) Journal
    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 []
  • by rpax9000 ( 916267 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:17PM (#23718789)
    ...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"...
    • by aeoo ( 568706 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:29PM (#23719431) Journal

      because i have to pay the mortgage.
      Well, that excuse is starting to wear thin. Is survival and even just maintenance of a domicile that critical in your value system? Think about it. Because if something like that is critical, that means you're going to sacrifice a lot of freedom, and you'd be OK with torturing your neighbors, and all kinds of things like that, just so you could keep persisting in your lifestyle.

      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.
  • by ugen ( 93902 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:19PM (#23718797)
    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?
    • by chill ( 34294 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:42PM (#23719603) Journal
      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.]
  • When is enough? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OMNIpotusCOM ( 1230884 ) * on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:25PM (#23718881) Homepage Journal
    I was listening on the radio to someone talking about how Americans don't protest anymore, and we're being taken advantage of because of it. This shit would not have flown 20 years ago. 20 years ago we would have gone to the streets and demanded the head of Bush, Cheney, or whomever we thought was responsible for the deterioration of our rights. I wonder, what's the last straw? When will everyone else stand up and say that this shit is too much?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      We won't, because we are too busy fearing for our jobs, gas prices, and other basic necessities.
      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)

    by Javagator ( 679604 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:25PM (#23718885)
    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?

  • by ebrandsberg ( 75344 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:30PM (#23718927)
    1. The TSA stated on Mar 21 2008 that there is no such requirement:

    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.

    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:14PM (#23719309)
      Just try questioning anything at the airport:

      Here's [] 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.
  • by matt_martin ( 159394 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:47PM (#23719075) Homepage Journal
    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 !
  • by Bob MacSlack ( 623914 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:49PM (#23719093)

    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)

      by BradMajors ( 995624 )
      These questions are there in case they find out later that you did one of the above activities; in which case your citizenship will be revoked for lying on the naturalization application.

      Your naturalization can not be revoked if you asked all the questions truthfully.

  • by jmcarson ( 752753 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:10PM (#23719261)
    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.
  • by marco.antonio.costa ( 937534 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:17PM (#23719337)
    The American citizen.

    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)

    by andyring ( 100627 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:31PM (#23719465) Homepage
    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!
  • doesn't the constitution grant free passage between states? I think this is pushing a bit far. We all know the TSA is nothing more than those same minimum wage flunkies as before, now with a shirt and four times the power.
  • by wonkavader ( 605434 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @01:15AM (#23720403)
    "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.

The relative importance of files depends on their cost in terms of the human effort needed to regenerate them. -- T.A. Dolotta