Slashdot Mirror
Flying Faster Without ID
jjh37997 writes "A Homeland Security's privacy advisory committee member finds that flying without a photo ID is actually faster than traveling with proper identification. According to Wired the committee member, Jim Harper, accepted a bet from civil liberties rabble-rouser John Gilmore to test whether he could actually fly without showing identification. He found that traveling without ID allowed him to bypass the long security lines at San Francisco's International Airport, and get in faster than if he had provided his driver's license."
Good thing he's white.
...I know people like to think that it's now so much more secure; but if you don't "look like a terrorist" (which usually means of middle eastern origin) you can get through pretty quick. I went from England to holland and never had to show anything but the colour of my passport (which is bugandy - the English colour) and the fact that I am white and middle class. That was all they cared about. I know a lot of people won't like that the world sometimes works like this (I don't), and I'm expecting people won't want to hear it either...
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Is saving 5 minutes in line REALLY worth the full cavity search????
For some it's the other way around, is the full cavity search really worth the cost of the flight. Esp on those flights from SFO.
If you're travelling with kids, then yes.
Most of the airlines these days lets you print a boarding pass at home up to a day in advance when using an e-ticket. Don't need ID for that.
From the article: There Harper was directed into the belly of a General Electric EntryScan puffer machine that shot bits of air at his suit in order to see if he had been handling explosives.
TSA employees wearing baby blue surgical gloves then swiped his Sidekick and his laptop for traces of explosives and searched through his carry-on, while a supervisor took his ticket, conferred with other employees and made a phone call.
I wonder how many people it would take to DOS that procedure?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
How does proving that I'm me make anybody any safer?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
There was a reporter watching and taking notes as he was searched by the TSA. I wonder how he would have fared if he were alone?
This proove the old adage that the world is not driven by reality but by the perception of reality.
I would argue that no one in their right minds would try to highjack an airplane again. In the past highjacking was a political statement. Usually the highjackers would fly the plane to a neutral airport and make demands. Often this would include the release of fellow members of their organization who were incarcerated. If you were an unlucky passenger, you would be an unfortuante pawn in a global chess-game. (Obviously there were exceptions.)
After the terrorist attacks on 11 Sept. 2001, no passenger will sit still and let a highjacker take over an airplane. Highjacking is now synonomous with suicide attacks. In my opinion, the real danger to airline travel comes not from highjackers but from explosives being placed on the airplane, e.g. Pan Am flight 103.
But the perception in the US is that flying needs to be protected, so the result is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Others have pointed out that if you are not white, have any kind of middle eastern origins, and you try to fly without an ID, you're pretty much screwed. And because the TSA has near absolute authority about whether or not you fly, they can deny you boarding simply because they feel like it.
The result of all this is that flying, IMO, is not significantly safer than before. We are concentrating our resources on "fighting the last battle." Making sure passengers have proper Identification doesn't make flying any safer. One could point out that some of the highjackers on 11 Sept. 2001 had valid IDs, after all they entered the country legally. As a society we should concentrate our efforts on preventing bombings or other bomb like devices. The "shoe bomber" Richard Reid in late 2001 probably represents a greater threat, yet checking to make sure he has proper identification isn't going to help.
I would argue that the checks they do at airports to check for explosives are worthwhile. But making sure you have an ID with you are not.
So what: a well-dressed polite white man gets through a shorter (yet more thorough) security line because of a lack of ID. First, the airlines have to account for people not having IDs. Wallets get stolen, IDs are lost or forgotten, in other words, shit happens. Second, this lack of ID is a rare occurence so of course the line will be shorter, and even if the actual screening takes 3-4 times as long than the "normal" screening you will get through faster.
Incidentally, a little politeness can go a long way when dealing with government workers, especially in places like an airport or the DMV. Just think: these people deal with complaining a**holes all day for crappy pay, you might actually make their day a little brighter by being polite, or, God forbid, almost friendly. The time for civil disobedience in not after waiting 2 hours in the DMV line.
Is this intended as a favorable or pejorative description of John Gilmore?
If John Gilmore is a rabble-rouser, then in my opinion the USA needs more rabble-rousers. If we had 100 million of them, the politicians would never have dared take away all our rights.
So, if I'm a terrorist
I get massive sympathy from her because I always get searched and "harrassed" by the "authorities".
Once we're in the air, I have access to her carry-on.
Any "profile" you setup can be defeated.
ever consider slowing down? thats really fast.
If everyone else is going 100MPH then you doing 100MPH is not fast or slow, its the safest thing for traffic.
It might be safer if everyone were to slow down but you can't control everyones behaviour, so it's best go to with the general flow of traffic - and if you aren't comfortable with that find a side road.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Its going to the extremes. I live in India, and in the past few years airline security has always been tight because terrorism is very very old over here. So what was the security. No ID bullshit. You walk into a metal detecter. If it beeps you are frisked. They ask you to remove keys, wallet, cell phone and keep them separately. Simple 1 min process which happened parallely to your bag in the X-Ray. Heck if you are carrying a camera bag you could give it to them and tell please check it by hand as you dont want your films getting spoiled. Simple and effective. Infact so effective that inspite of the very real threat of terrorism(bomb blasts on streets etc., are common in some parts of the country), there was one hijacking after 1990, and that too from Nepal(A neighbouring country). So nothing wrong with the security measures over here. Now lets contrast that with the US. Before 9/11 you could walk upto the plane to see people off as if they are boarding a bus! And after that they make you remove your shoes and what not. If they really want to learn how to secure airports and prevent hijackings, visit Israel, India or any country which has borne the brunt of terrorism for so long.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
You don't think that the TSA employee was intimidated into being kinder by the fact that there was a guy taking notes 5 feet away behind some plexiglass? By observing a thing, we also inherently change that thing. The test was completely invalidated by the presence of the reporter.
So I suspect that if everyone traveled without ID, today's TSA airport processes would fail big time.
What do you mean by 'fail'? Terrorists would take over a plane? Maybe nobody would be allowed to fly - bet the airlines would be keen on that scenario. If EVERYBODY defected business would go on as usual. No way the airline industry is going to stand for stopping large quantities of people from boarding planes.
Find coupons in Greeley
The sad truth is that in a situation where Arabs are a minority, and most terrorists are Arab (debate the truth of that if you like, but don't pretend the conclusion is invalid) you will statisitically have a better chance of finding terrorists if you search only Arabs. The reason we shouldn't do this, from a purely safety-oriented point-of-view is that we will guarantee that some terrorists do get through, we need a better way of searching. I don't think random checks are the best, but one possibility might be to determine what X percent of terrorists are Arab, and have X percent of your security watch them more, and have the rest watch everybody ELSE (i.e. the non-X percent of guards, etc. do not watch Arabs).
It would be great if your example were valid... but it doesn't hold up. "... you might argue that this does not reflect probabilities in the larger population, but... let me use this as an example, to make a mathematical pont." You aren't really making any point; your hypothetical sample is completely unrealistic. This is a real-world, not hypothetical, situation, and you must make arguments that are realistic. The chances of some 115 random people (in the US) including 100 Arabs is fatanstically low; generally speaking the chances that so many as 15 of them *are* Arab would be low. Similarly, you could easily go your entire life grabbing random groups of 15 non-Arabs without finding 2, let alone 5, terrorists in one group. So, while I agree with the point you are trying to make, I am worried that this is being held up as an 'insightful' argument on the topic.
It's a matter of percentages. I agree with essentially every post thus far that stated we shouldn't focus exclusively on Arabs, but your example is flawed, especially for US application.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...