Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"Trouble maker" and "terrorist" are synonymous now.
Stand in line.
Speak when spoken to.
Have your papers ready.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Don't be so cynical. It's that our government is so idiotic that they don't know terrorists and criminals can and will lie. It's that they're protecting us from a much more serious threat... Those damn smelly hippies that refuse to go along with the pack and surrender all of their rights when asked in a confident voice by an authority figure.
It's just a good thing terrorists don't know how to pretend to be authority figures...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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.
hahah "honest terrorists" I love it. Sorta like how an engineer can't refuse to blurt out a flaw in a product sales pitch, terrorists can't use fake IDs.
What I find amusing is that you refer to the people creating these policies as "we". Like you've got any say in it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Also, an update from the Bush administration: We are not at war with Oceania. We have never been at war with Oceania. Miniplenty has upped the quality of their cigarettes this year by 30%, and has doubled our chocolate output! Hail, Big Brother!
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.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
pushing down people that irritate them.
As pointed out, since you can lie easily, this is really just about control and dominance.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Good thing rising fuel costs will bankrupt the airline industry in a year or two.
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!
This isn't to catch terrorists. It's to catch people who try to give the TSA lip. You don't give them respect, they don't respect you back.
Still silly, though.
[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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
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!
well only one solution then
embed everyone with RFID chips at birth
happy now? super secret encrypted RFID chips that will tell the "OMG GUBMENT" WHERE YOU ARE AN OF COURSE WHO YOU ARE AT ALL TIMES.
on the up side no more digging out your D/L at the airport woot.
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.
bash: rtfm: command not found
People can still afford to fly?
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
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.
It's not like *anyone* could have passed through the walls to enter the line and skip the first ID check. Heck, if I could do that, I'd skip the whole security check altogether. I still think that's a much more likely place for someone with a bomb to target. Get us so scared to queue up at the security points, and we'll never get on the planes.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
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 security check. I'm saying it's impossible - there's a whole black market to contradict such claims. I'm just saying that making a fake passport that could get one through customs at a time when a country is in paranoid mode and enforce strict control of everything, isn't within the technical skill of the US teen with the black marked and/or color printer wanting to get drunk and quickly shows a faked student ID or driver license to a pusher in a badly lit entrance. (specially given the fact that the pusher will hardly even be able to recognised the hundreds of different IDs issued by all different universities and states - at least on problem less with unique IDs).
But apart from that, I agree with you. An ID is not a magical bullet that will solve everything, specially not security.
Mainly, it's just a quick tool to quickly assessing the identity and age of the bearer, when convenience of speed is important and implications of misidentification are low.
(A teen passing out on booze isn't very likely to kill hundreds of thousands of victims. As of that matters, neither are terrorists. Natural catastrophe, on the other hand... )
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
And why shouldn't we? Anyone who wants to do damage on that plane has a very convincing fake set up anyway.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
but jesus christ I hope I don't get stuck behind you "why do i have to show my id ..it won't do any good anyways people" at security.
look buddy just show the nice TSA people your id and move along
cause I just want to get the hell home thanx.
if you don't like the policy write your congress person or something ..just don't have a hissy fit at the checkpoint and slow me down.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
You can't get a boarding pass without showing your physical photo ID (at least in the US, where TSA has jurisdiction). So how did you "lose" your ID from the point where you checked in and picked up your boarding pass, and the point where you got to the metal detectors and security checkpoints?
I call bogus on this. If this was really for security reasons, a photo ID would be required 100% of the time.
Security theatre indeed.
...which is a good thing, there being so few brains in TSA. Security theater at its best.
More than 60,000 Windows programs won't run on Linux.
.. why do they keep selecting grandmas for additional security screening?
Let's take the downward trend of the overall airline experience and extrapolate. We'll examine the state of airline travel in ten years. All of the following has been verified for accuracy by traveling to the future.
In ten years, this is what it will be like to travel across the country by airplane:
First, you'll buy your ticket online for prices starting at $1400 or so, plus a $200 security fee tacked on for every flight segment. This is for each direction; there will no longer be "round trip" fares. All fares will be nonrefundable and nontransferable, and being late for your flight means automatic forfeiture of your fare and ticket, as there will no longer be an option to wait "on standby" for another flight or to change your ticket if your plans change.
When you show up at the airport, the first thing that happens is that you're put through one of two processes. Most people will go through a general process, which will be as follows: You get in line at the check-in, where you are questioned as to where you live, where you work, where you're flying, the purpose of your flight, what you're carrying in your luggage and on your person, whether you've purchased any electronics in the past six years, including electronics that you're not bringing on board with you, how much you paid for them, and why. During this time you will present ID and be photographed and fingerprinted; these will be input into the agent's laptop, which will immediately search through a government computer network of known terrorists, known criminals, known fugitives, people who are delinquent on child support payments, people who owe taxes, people who have been arrested in the last five years (even if not charged or convicted), people who are on the sex offender registry, people who haven't showed up to jury duty, people with bad credit, people who didn't register with the Selective Service System, people of other than Mexican origin who are in the country illegally, or people with unpaid parking tickets on their record. A match on one or more of these results in your being taken to a special room for additional questioning. There will be many false positives, so you'll wait in line for hours before being admitted into the interrogation room. This will mean that you'll probably miss your flight without a refund of your fare and with no compensation or rights whatsoever. If, by some miracle, you are seen in the interrogation room before your flight takes off, you'll miss it due to the length of the questioning process.
If you were not pulled out of the check-in line for interrogation, you go to the next step, which is to be weighed; at this point, you'll pay a dollar for each pound that you and your luggage weigh, plus $100 for each piece of luggage, $50 for your carry-on, and $25 for your personal item that you'll bring on board. Checking in will be free, but to obtain your boarding pass, you'll have to pay a $10 printing fee. The routing labels placed on your luggage will cost $5 each, and tags to put on your bag with your name and address will be a dollar each.
Now it's time for security, which happens in several stages. First, you'll bring your checked luggage to the TSA luggage scanner, where they'll pile up bags for flights that are about to take off somewhere on the side while scanning and pushing through the bags going on flights that aren't taking off for another two hours. One out of every ten bags will be chosen randomly and moved to a holding area where it will be held for a month and then returned to the airport, which will try and search for the owner, a process that will be extremely backlogged and won't succeed very often due to shoddy record keeping. Of those bags that are not randomly selected, each bag will be scanned electronically, and following that, each bag will be opened to wrinkle up the clothing. Then the bag will be passed on to the baggage handlers, who according to the 2013 Airport Security Passenger Luggage Contents Protection and Loss Prevention Act will be required to produce proof of
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Used to work in the military producing ID cards. It was sometimes a lot to do, but often very little. Especially on evenings and weekends. This idle time was of course spent producing fake ISs for fun. We made IDs for ourself, our friends and pets. High rank (5 star admiral) with titles like 'T&A inspector' was most popular.
I am sure the guys over there are still cranking them out, and would be happy to give a few away for a few beers.
Oh sure you think this is bad, just wait till the anal probing.
Indeed.
Will people really feel safer in an "Ihre Papieren, bitte" society?
If so, there's something seriously screwed up with the people, not just the government.
Who? After all, those people who might find and correct it are probably the ones in charge of the department with the problems (or in charge of those who are in charge, etc.) Which means shrinking their budget. At some level you might be able to shift your savings to a different subdepartment, and the CEO certainly is aligned. But that's at the very top of the heap.
And that is only one area of corporate price insensitivity.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
How many times do I have to point out the obvious? This sort of eroding of civil liberties is precisely the mechanism by which terrorism seeks to overturn governments. And the sickening part is that these same governments are entirely complicit in this mass upheaval of basic democratic--nay, human--rights.
Put yourself in the terrorist's shoes. Compared to the state, you are vastly underfunded, have no legal recourse, and are entirely disenfranchised. What hope do you have of taking down an entity that is far more well-established than you? Of course, your only option is to subvert it by attacking the citizenry. The government's response is to enact more and more restrictions to "protect" the people, until one finds themselves living under a police state. Of course, the attacks haven't stopped--but now the people are either going to revolt, or the economy is going to collapse, or the government has become the real terrorists.
And the government is complicit because they believe that a fearful populace is one that is most controllable. It is not in their interest to educate the people to think for themselves and question authority--they ARE the authority.
History has shown us time and time again that it is not difficult to overthrow kingdoms, republics, dictatorships, or democracies. All it takes is an idea one is willing to die for. The so-called "war on terrorism" is not successfully fought with weapons, nor with diplomacy. It is fought with knowledge. It is for that reason that the United States is losing to a group of fanatics.
...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"...
This space intentionally left blank
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?
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!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Good thing I don't fly, or have much use in flying. The more passengers that the Airlines turn away, the more that the passengers will turn away and stop flying. Let them die. They charge too much anyways.
That ID is mandatory to checking your bags, getting through security, getting your tickets...
Why would you need to get through security and somehow not have ID? "Uh yeah I don't physically have any tickets, or any baggage, but I forgot my ID..."
Which btw, you still need to present your tickets to get through security, which goes back to that you needed your ID in order to pick them up at the counter.
Most airline employees can refuse to check you in if you donot have an ID. What good does not showing an ID to a TSA employee do unless you lose your ID between checkin and boarding ?
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?
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?
of suspected terrorists ? Should be straightforward to identify them.
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.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
...is that at Logon International (in Boston), at least, it is far faster if you say you lost or forgot your ID, get patted down, and then go right through, than it is to wait in the regular security lines which have always seemed endless there. Of course now that everyone here knows this, well...maybe the lost id line will get "slashdotted" ;).
How can they ban you if they don't know who you are from your ID? think about that...
Flamebait huh?
Well, at least *now* we know there are some sympathizers on Slashdot. In-fucking-defensible! I've seen it all...
Life is not for the lazy.
Despite this being a completely stupid TSA policy, is this even technically legal to refuse flight on refused ID? Would this pass muster in court?
Damn you 'security theatre' slashdot!
Command attempted to use minibuffer while in minibuffer
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.
The USA is becoming an Orwellian nightmare.
DETAILS
... Cuba's not too bad, and it's close too! North Korea, I hear, has some spectacular sights. Russia isn't too bad either.
Yup, plenty of free countries to go to, if you're willing to learn the language.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Why do airline-security-related articles on /. always attract the racist chest-puffing macho buffoons, anyway..?
Oh, yeah, that's right - it's the only place where said buffoons can feel tough and not get stabbed, shot, or punched out in the process.
Keep entertaining your hero fantasies, tough guy. Someday you'll find yourself looking down the business end of a real live gun, and I'll be standing off to the side laughing as you shit your pants!
Oh wait. THIS one goes in your mouth and THAT one goes in your butt.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
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. That is why, as a rule, you will see conservatives balk at any sort of proposed rule about what kind of car, house, medicine, or anything else that a person might own or buy.
Conversely, the liberal would legislate the federal right to ALL property, and impose regulations on ANYTHING. Liberals always complain about "conservative fascism", but, then, their solutions always involve creating ever more regulation (and thus, devaluing property). Liberals might make you free in the Khmer Rouge sense of the word, but, ultimately, they make you poor.
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.
Actually, we view corporations as distinctly less than the rights of citizens. However, corporations, via our shares, are our property, and therefor, we resist what the government would do with it. But, make no bones about it, in the eyes of a conservative, owning a stake in Exxon Mobil, or even the entire company, is no different than the legality of owning a pencil. It is my company, my pencil, and I can do with it what I will.
This is my sig.
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. Driver licenses there are tons of. In Arizona alone I can think of 6 different versions that you can currently find in circulation.
Thus it really isn't anything more than a "Does this guy have ID at all," check, which is useless. Passport checks aren't a magic bullet, but at least they are somewhat useful. It isn't that easy to get a fake passport that'll get through border security, and most nations do a reasonable job checking to make sure passports are legitimately issued (some like Canada get kinda silly with the amount of checks they do). It provides a reasonable way for countries to control their borders and who passes through them.
However this check is nothing more than "Security for show." There is no serious attempt made to see if the ID presented is accurate, and I've had times where they hardly glance at the picture, so long as it was the same hair colour and gender Id' probably get through. It is probably far less through than the check airlines do when you use an ID to get an e-ticket.
F--- it. If the Totally Stupid Administration, er uh, TSA, wants to turn airports into some sort of a gestapo land so that all their government union thugs can pretend they are doing something positive for the country, then, well, screw them. But until citizens of the USA have the right to petition and get the firing of any TSA worker, then, I see no reason to subject myself to these thugs.
This is my sig.
"Welcome, welcome to City 17. You have chosen, or been chosen to relocate to one of our finest remaining urban centers. I thought so much of City 17 that I elected to establish my administration here, in the Citadel so thoughtfully provided by our Benefactors. I've been proud to call City 17 my home, and so whether you are here to stay or passing through on your way to parts unknown... Welcome! to City 17. It's safer here."
It might be "just a game", but that world, and those words, seem to ring truer as time progresses.
From the movie Southland Tales why does interstate travel require a visa? Because this is 2008, in a timeline where three years earlier terrorists set off two nuclear bombs in Texas, bringing the War On Terror to American soil and precipitating World War III.
International travel has become more restricting to some past decade and pretty soon United States seem to be becoming to require Southland Tales style interstate visa. At least starting from foreigners, i fear. Unless i drive my own car, big brothers can track where i am from the records i leave behind, such as using airline, train, rental car around states. as soon as it becomes very efficient and cost effective to construct such data base, or Big brothers may have already began to contruct such system in order to track "terrorists". Travel visas to another country where it is required are not too difficult to get. It basically comes with your ticket from tour company. Asking for VISA is basically asking people to prepare the legal papers that show purpose of visit to the gov'nt even if you are well known in the area(even high ranking officers, celebrities are required). Requiring some kind of ID is much cheaper than to track down everybody's life. In North Korea, you are required permission to travel to the shop down the alley from the government. someday, US govn't probaly don't even need those from spying everything around us.
When I was in school ( oh so long ago ), we were told that America was better than the Soviet Union because we were free.
... and here we are:
"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 !
Lurking in the desert
March 7, 2008 Â Montana is one of several states that have balked at a federal law requiring states to issue tamper-proof identification cards to residents. Gov. Brian Schweitzer discusses his state's opposition.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87991791
Such a hoop may encourage a hacker to choose a target that is less troublesome.
Of course they also deter real customers.
Hence "domain validation only" SSL certificates. After wasting days going back and forth getting the relevant documentation for one cert for all subsequent purchases we just went for the easier (and cheaper) option with no real downsides.
Make something too painful for customers and they'll demand a less painful alternative. In the case of the article though the vast majority of people already carry ID and probably won't be terribly put out at producing it.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The summary contradicts itself. On the one hand, it suggests that the policy is not effective because real terrorists "claim to have lost their ID." But on the other hand, it says that people who claim to have lost their idea "undergo a pat-down and a hand search of [their] carry-on bag." I don't know - I think that a more rigorous search of terrorists would actually do a lot of good.
If the summary just said that terrorists would use fake IDs (which is what I would suspect they'd do), then the argument would hold water. I guess that Slashdot is so primed to dismiss everything TSA/the government does to fight terrorism that one doesn't even need to craft consistent arguments any more.
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?
Why do airline-security-related articles on /. always attract the racist chest-puffing macho buffoons, anyway..?
Because it's warranted, and I enjoy it. You gotta fucking problem with that AC bitch?!
Someday you'll find yourself looking down the business end of a real live gun, and I'll be standing off to the side laughing as you shit your pants!
FYI, I've been shot at a few times by someone high on PCP (they missed thank God). Not fun. But at least I can walk the walk.
Life is not for the lazy.
I believe that "Ihre" is the possessive for 2nd person plural.
I think, assuming that Papieren is feminine, that "Deine Papieren, bitte." would be more accurate.
To answer your question in short, yes, people will feel safer in such a society, where "safer" refers to "well managed." This is 100% Authoritarian personality.
But at the end of the day (sadly), people seem to desire authority, or at least settle for it. In the context of religion, for example, one is no longer "in the club" once he or she has challenged established doctrine. Religion is the ultimate example when discussing authority, as authority is not vested in a group, nor an individual, but a book - that has already been written - that will never change or grow.
Every established religion operates under the doctrine "we got it right the first time." Authority.
And people eat it up.
-- arstchnca
--
People want to feel safe. That's not the same as being safe, but hey, that's an unachievable goal anyway. So you strut and fret with your sniffer dogs and your M-16s, and everybody feels better!
Hey, did you know that California state employees are still required to sign loyalty oaths? These were invented 50 years ago to keep subversive elements out of government employ. I don't suppose they accomplished that purpose ("Sorry, my KGB control says I can't sign this!") but they do weed out the odd Quaker.
Will people really feel safer in an "Ihre Papieren, bitte" society?
If so, there's something seriously screwed up with the people, not just the government. I'm sorry, but people have had to show their passports when leaving the country for decades. Sorry, but I don't feel like I live in some type of tyrannical Papieren, bitte society.
Will someone kindly explain how this is somehow different? How making me show ID before boarding a plane will somehow strip me of my right to travel, speak freely or take advantage of any other Constitutional right?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I hear a lot of people here moaning about erosion of civil liberties, but not so many making suggestions. So what if they did NOTHING to stop terrorists getting on planes? Would you people be happy? What if they are putting this into effect at the same time as stepping up efforts to monitor those producing fake id (and I don't mean half-assed DIY stuff, I mean real professionals), in an attempt to catch terrorists before they get to the airport? Or if they are making people bring out ID to see who shows signs of nervousness while doing so? I'm no fan of airport security, but this is the 21st century, people.
I've flown without ID since 9/11, and it hasn't been a hassle before, and it won't be now. You just tell the TSA employee manning the metal detector line that you don't have any form of photo ID, they look at you funny, sometimes make a snide remark, pat you down, search your carry ons, and then let you go.
All of the airport ID checks are security theater, not just this recent change in regulation. Identity in very few cases conveys any sense of risk. If I know that a guy is named John Smith, and he's REALLY REALLY named John Smith, that doesn't tell me a damn thing about whether or not he's going to blow up a plane, or stab a flight attendant, or do whatever else gets to the Allah Virgin Merit Badge nowadays. Identity is only useful when you can correlate a person to a threat level. The "No Fly" list is, I guess, supposed to be a way to make that correlation, but it's obvious that it's a failure, and really, it'd be near impossible to create any kind of database that made ID-based security features meaningful without a far greater level of privacy invasion than the average citizen is used to, because it's not just enough to compile a list of bad guys, you have to compile another list of guys that are A-OK.
The implied constitional right to privacy?
But you wanted your name on your post, so you had to log in. IOW, you had to identify yourself
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
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.
Papiere, bitte.
Yes, I'm sure you can think of 19 people you don't want as passengers on your plane, and good job to the TSA for identifying them almost seven years later, and despite the fact that they're unlikely to be passengers on your plane right now.
how to invest, a novice's guide
You all speak of "Rights" like they should be automatic when walking through the doors of a public airport.
What "Rights" do you have removed when you walk into a Federal Building?
What "Rights" do you have removed when you enter any bank?
What "Rights" do you have removed when you step foot on a College campus?
Last time I checked, flying is not a "Right". You are a customer. They are providing a service. Either live with it, or learn to live without it.
And yes, for the record, mandatory ID check is a pointless policy. But don't sit here and bitch about your "Rights" like flying is some sort of Constitutionally protected Right.
Try the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
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.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
As to your simple FUD response, can you tell me which amendment in the Bill of Rights states that you are free to travel without ID?
Antwort, bitte
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
We can tell them what we think about it at
http://www.tsa.gov/contact_us.shtm
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
> Because it's warranted, and I enjoy it. You gotta fucking problem with that AC bitch?!
Not warranted; you just enjoy it because you're a blowhard chickenhawk. I'm AC because mods are typically on crack.
The point is, you don't actually DO any jaw-breaking, do you, honestly?
People who are ACTUALLY capable of winning a fight just DO it - they don't talk about it online, hoping to make people think they are tough. Actions speak louder than words, and people who are ACTUALLY strong don't give a rat's ass what other people think.
> FYI, I've been shot at a few times by someone high on PCP (they missed thank God).
Too bad for us, huh.
> Not fun. But at least I can walk the walk.
Uh, yeah, because you were lucky enough to get hit? If you had been hit, it wouldn't matter how tough you are.
Let me guess-- after the junkie shot at you, you broke his jaw and disarmed him, right?
Pissant.
easily done: Amendment 4 & 5. i suggest you start with these SC cases: Hiibel v. Nevada; Kolender v. Lawson; Florida v. Royer; and, U.S. v. Sokolow. and read every case cited therein. there now, i've done everyone reading this a small favor by telling you EXACTLY what to go read. use both wikipedia and http://supreme.justia.com/
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!
changeable domestic airline flight on miles: 25,000 miles, $10 in taxes
an extra round trip on the train to the airport: 2*5.65=$11.30
a few hours the day before your real flight date: free
getting banned from flying by government thugs just for the principle: priceless
...yiddles to alah...
(snicker)
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
That would be the Fourth Amendment which reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Being secure in my person and papers implies that you can't look at those papers unless I feel like showing them to you. No warrants without probable cause means that if you want to see my ID so bad, get a judge to tell me I have to show it to you because it's mine and mine alone that you want to look at since you think I've committed some crime or other.
You might not feel it's a right, but it's all spelled out pretty plainly.
Once again, the Bush Administration's leaders of the Crack Security Troops manning the perimeter have shown their complete inability to deal with a threat and to do it in a way that is most intrusive and disruptive to US air travel!
Any moron carrying a moiety of his or her marbles would have an ID on them if they wanted to board an aircraft, most especially if they wanted to do something Bad.
And the moron who did NOT have such an ID would most certainly attempt the old "my dog ate my ID" routine! Given the quality of the security protocols (not the people using them, who are, often, just trying to do a job under a very screwed up set of regulations with very little training and leadership that would drive St. Jude to violence) that are in place, the would-be do-badder would get his or her pat-down search, be left with his or her FOUR INCH KNIFE (now allowed under the "net and improved" rules!) and would board the aircraft with Intent To Commit Mayhem!
But the guy who says, "Screw you! This is the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave and I am a Medal of Honor winner and I will NOT show you jack because I fought and bled and my buddies DIED for the right NOT to 'haff to show your paperss' you (*^#*@!s!" gets refused and hauled off to Gitmo.
What's RIGHT with THAT scenario?
Especially when the Bad Guy with the fake (or even the REAL) ID gets to waltz on to the plane, ARMED with a KNIFE?!
TSA - Totally Senseless Administration.
... will never ask to see my papers! :)
I'm not sure if anyone took the time to tell you this, but I will.
You're a jackass that knows diddly-squat. Lay off the cock sucking will ya?
Another tough guy who's never been in a fight... bite me, pissant.
...but currently without reasonable articulable suspicion i don't have to answer.
it's called "at liberty" or BEING FREE. you have no legitimate legal authority to demand anything from me absent such a suspicion of crime afoot in which you suspect me and can articulate exactly why, other than your "hunch" or instant allegation in a court of law.
got that? see, as an american, i DO NOT have to prove my innocence to avoid more than a slight (Terry v. Ohio) detention and i DO NOT have to answer any questions, nor provide any specific ID or any at all, nor can i be punished for NOT answering/doing so.
try reading Florida v. Royer and U.S. v. Sokolow, BOTH were transporting drugs in an international stateside airport.
now, sir, until you get an proper hold on what t means to BE an american, may i humbly and with all due respect, suggest YOU STFU.
Next, the Fourth states "...against unreasonable searches..." If you are boarding a plane, then it is reasonable to ask you for ID, just as it is reasonable to pat you down or make you walk through a metal detector.
Seriously. You go the the airport and drop off your bags to an agent who asks you questions about them. Then you take your carry on to the checkpoint where another agent goes through your carry on bag and a third literally searches your person. I mean REALLY searches you, feels you up, does the metal detector wand thing, makes you empty your pockets and asks you about the pills you are carrying onto the plane....
AND YOU THINK SOMEONE ASKING YOU FOR ID IS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH?!!?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You're talking about two different things. Drivers licenses, library cards and fishing licenses are simply an acknowledgement you certified as qualified for a certain privilege. Additionally, you can only require that those items be turned over with a warrant.
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.
Seems to me, making up names was no crime, if you weren't trying to get away with anything. I imagine committing it to paper, however, is a problem.
I suppose producing "fake ID" for domestic air travel ID, in the US is a crime, even if you have no other motive than "privacy", right?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
...but currently without reasonable articulable suspicion i don't have to answer.it's called "at liberty" or BEING FREE. you have no legitimate legal authority to demand anything from me absent such a suspicion of crime afoot in which you suspect me and can articulate exactly why, other than your "hunch" or instant allegation in a court of law. Right. You are free. You are free to drive, walk, take the bus, train, hitchhike or use whatever method of travel your free ass desires. But to get on a plane, you must show ID. You are FREE to make your choice. got that? see, as an american, i DO NOT have to prove my innocence to avoid more than a slight (Terry v. Ohio) detention and i DO NOT have to answer any questions, nor provide any specific ID or any at all, nor can i be punished for NOT answering/doing so. And TSA has no legal obligation to allow you onto the plane. See how these things work? So you still have a choice. You don't have to show people shit if you don't want to. There, see, your rights are in tact.
Here is where your logic fails. Using your logic, until you do something wrong, like shooting a gun, then TSA has no right to stop you from carrying a loaded gun onto the plane. You have committed no crime, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is literally spelled out quite clearly in the Second Amendment. So are you implying that everyone should be allowed to carry on loaded guns?
Of course not. I'll assume you'll also say that it's OK for TSA to search your bags and person for bombs and/or other weapons. Is that not a violation of the Fourth? Why is it OK for TSA to pat you down and make you empty your pockets, but saying, "may I see your ID" is a violation!??!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Aside from the fact that waving someone through whenever they decide to be hypersensitive and refuse to show ID is obviously unworkable, the TSA would then be accused of incompetence.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
True, and I can be asked who I am. However, viewing an ID is a search.
Immigration contol reasonable requires this search.
The excuse is that driving is not a right. Some states take fingerprints and other biometric informaiton under this premise before issuing a license. I tend to disagree with that argument however.
Huh, I don't get this...
There is a need to control who fishes to maintain a proper balance of fishing and conservation.
Travel, including interstate travel, is a constitutionally protected right. Fishing is not. Library use may or may not (I dunno). Driving is not (but I disagree with this). Entering the country through immigration is not.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
That would be the fourth, prohibiting search in the absence of probable cause. Government agents are not permitted to demand your ID unless they've already stopped you for cause. They can ask, and most people (me included) don't mind just showing it in response to an even colorably polite request. But they're required to take "no" for an answer. That's kind of the definition of a free country.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Now, since the government officially (though in practice it can) doesn't issue the right to fly (it is assumed, except in the cases (which I still consider to be total BS) where they have decided to the contrary), they don't issue any form of license for it, so there's no reason to show any such thing. And unless flying now shows criminal intentions, there's no need for the government to get your ID for it either. Hence, unreasonable search and seizure.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
Because I'm a FUCKING AMERICAN CITIZEN, and I shouldn't have to prove who I am just to peacefully move around the country. Unless the authorities have some reason to believe I'm doing something wrong, I should not have to let anyone look through my private belongings.
I especially shouldn't have to produce easily forgable identification, to check whether my name is on some secret list of "dangerous people" who aren't going to be flying under their real name anyway.
I did skim TFA and don't recall anything where the TSA claims this would stop terrorism.
I think this is perfectly reasonable policy; don't waste people's time and clog up lines by refusing to show ID. If you forgot your ID, that's fine, they'll pat you down and send you through. But when hundreds of people are trying to make their flights, don't get all civil rightsy over nothing.
So you have to show a driver's license. So what. Until recently I had to show ID to buy a beer, and I'm 39. I just finally look > 35 because the hair that isn't falling out is turning gray.
You used your name when you bought the ticket, didn't you? Exactly what privacy do you think you're protecting?
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
seriously, the only thing keeping terrorists off planes now is the lack of a docile passengers willing to let them try the same trick again.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Thing is...you show your id to a lady going through the security gate, and she just looks at it..and that's it. It isn't like they actually run your ID through any kind of computer system to check it out against any no fly list....so, what good does it do?
Even if they did this..it isnt' like they do or can check the validity of said ID...a smart terrorist would have a fake id made with a safe name.
And...even if we do get RealID through..and make a national ID in the US...those will be cracked in no time, and again...showing id will be pretty much useless...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Someone asking you for your papers would be addressing you formally, so they would use Ihr, rather than dein. (Yes, confusingly, ihr can be either the 2nd person nominative plural pronoun, or the possessive of sie (she or they). Ihr (with the capital) is the possesive of Sie, which is the formal form of you (both singular and plural).
Um.. isn't that a SEARCH? Is that search not OK? So, if THAT search is OK, where they actually search you, then wouldn't asking for your ID be OK too?
I mean, if SEARCHhing you and SEIZing your luggage is not an is not unreasonable SEARCH AND SEIZURE, then how is asking for ID? The excuse is that driving is not a right. Neither is flying. There is a need to control who fishes to maintain a proper balance of fishing and conservation. There is a need to control who flies on a plane. Those "no-fly" lists aren't just for fun, you know. Travel, including interstate travel, is a constitutionally protected right. But the method of travel is not mentioned. You are free to leave your ID at home and walk wherever you would like to go.
Please don't even respond to any of this except the first point (how can you allow them to search you and then claim that asking for ID is a search?). I don't care to argue the rest of it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Wow...what airports do you go through?
The only time I get checked for anything really, is if I check luggage, otherwise I check in online and get my boarding pass printed out at home. If not checking baggage...the only person that sees my ID is the person at the security gate...and I dunno where they do these searches on you...I just throw my stuff in the xray machine...walk through the metal detector...and usually since I take off all metal and put it in my backpack going through xray...I don't beep, so I keep walking get my stuff and go on. I think only once in the last 3-4 years have they ever opened one of my carry on bags to look closer after xray...
You must fly at some pretty edgy airports man...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I've flown six times in the past year, and produced fake identification each and every time I did.
I'm not sure I get your argument here...flying on a plane is just another form of transportation, nothing special except is it usually faster than a bus, train or car. Why should you argue you are free to travel by all other means except for air flight? It doesn't make sense...
And there ARE rules that the govt is not supposed to be able to impede a US citizen from traveling amongst the various states...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Just because someone lambasts "conservatives" for "supporting" something doesn't mean that conservatives have to defend the thing they're deriding.
The fourth, second, and tenth amendments all contraindicate the very existence of TSA. What was ok for a private company to make a condition of sale is not ok for the federal government to demand on it's whim.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
All 9/11 terrorists used real IDs and Saudi Arabian passports to get on flights. One of them was even pulled over for speeding before he got to the airport and he gave the cop a real driver's license.
All of them passed background checks during 1994 when they entered the USA via Diplomatic Visas issued to Saudi Arabia by the Clinton Administration.
Supposedly they broke no laws, until September 11, 2001. So how exactly are we supposed to catch terrorists who have real IDs, real passports and don't break any laws until the day they commit an act of terrorism?
The only way I can figure is to trace the money from the terrorist network and see what accounts they are wired into. Al Qeada supposedly pays terrorists $2000 to $3000 a month as part of a salary and even includes holidays and sick days. So we look at the bank accounts used to pay the 9/11 hijackers and follow the money and see who else those accounts are paying. That should be enough evidence to get a court order to search their house for plans.
Another way is to use International law to get those bank accounts frozen because they fund terrorism. Then sue the holders of those accounts because they paid people to commit crimes.
Should work a lot better than just checking IDs at an airport. But then what do I know?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
much. The theocratic cesspools that spawn mass murders (hence, the whole reason for this thread) aren't f'd up, no, the US is. Go figure...
damaged by dogma
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.
They're using their grammar skills there.
"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.
To state that these types of terrorists don't exist is an assumption that is not based in fact. I have seen no statistics that prove that these terrorists are nonexistent. In fact I would expect these terrorists to be the first to be martyred as they would jeopardize the security of the rest of the terrorist organization if they continued to live.
Because I'm a FUCKING AMERICAN CITIZEN, and I shouldn't have to prove who I am just to peacefully move around the country.
If your rights really derive from your citizenship, then logically you aren't entitled to them until you prove your citizenship (and, therefore, your identity.)Otherwise, you should change that to "Because I'm a FUCK HUMAN BEING with HUMAN RIGHTS." Of course, so are the terrorists.
and I'll be standing off to the side laughing as you shit your pants! You know, not every person who says what he did is engaging in macho posturing. There's just no way to tell the difference over a text-only interface between the real thing and a 14 year old couch ninja. Bravery is also an interesting thing. Bravery is doing somewthing your every survival instinct is screaming at you not to do. It is strongest in those with a) a lot of discipline, and/or b) a certain degree of thick-headedness. So really, when you try to paint someone as a coward like you have, all you're saying is that they're intelligent and lacking in a certain category of professional discipline. The latter is likely true, but if you consider the people you meet on the street, how can you say with any surety that the former is true?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Well, you wouldn't do much damage ramming a bus or car into a skyscraper. If you could work out how to do it with a train, though, you'd definitely earn a place in the history books...
(Yes, they are all forms of transportation, but that obviously doesn't make them identical)
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
What part of "No Fly List" are you unaware of.
How we know is more important than what we know.
yep, this reminds me of visa application forms that were used by US Embassy in my country.
Among questions:
- Are you a terrorist?
- Are you a spy?
etc
It's really lucky then that constitutional rights don't derive from citizenship! Being in the country is enough. On domestic flights, there is no excuse.
First, I don't think it's reasonable. I believe that requiring ID to do anything other than execute a contract or license or other required registration is unreasonable. And if there were a commonly available way to anonymously authenticate people it would be overkill of licenses and contracts as well. Seriously, in order to drive I should only need to show that the person in the driver's seat has a valid license; I should not need to prove who that person is, or any other fact about them.
Second, even back when the FAA was only requiring simple metal detector searches the supreme court could hardly swallow it. Their ruling specifically noted that it was only reasonably if everyone was searched equally and they were only looking for things that posed an eminent risk to the flight.
My desire to travel anonymously is, at best, suspicious (and I'd argue it isn't even that) -- it certainly isn't evidence of an eminent risk to the flight. Therefore the search is unreasonable, even under the strained ruling that allowed pre-boarding searches in the first place.
First, the government is under an obligation to prove I am not a citizen, not the other way around.
Second, it is not necessary to prove your identity in order to prove your citizenship. It's entirely possible to build a system that can reliably identify citizens while providing anonymity. My name and birth date do not prove my citizenship. A card that said "US Citizen" and had the same sort of headshot you'd find in a passport would be equally secure and totally anonymous.
Finally, a manual visual comparison of an outdated, 1" headshot on commodity plastic card with limited, non-interactive anti-counterfeiting measures hardly proves my identity, let alone citizenship. If we're going to pretend the knowing someone's identity provides any valuable security we should at least solve the purely technical problem of reliably knowing that a person's credentials match their identity.
These are the same idiots who are hassling crew members for not having boarding passes when going through security... No kidding, I had one genius tell me to go back to the gate and get a boarding pass... I'm standing there in uniform, going through security to FLY THE PLANE... "A Boarding pass? I'm sorry, but the seat I'll be in DOESN'T HAVE A NUMBER!!!!!" It actually took calling a supervisor to get through the damn checkpoint... ID's are waaaaaay beyond the capabilities of these nutjobs...
If I am an Islamic terrorist bent on blowing up a plane and myself in the process, it won't matter that I show you an ID -- in a few hours, I will be with Allah and enjoying those celestial virgins. Remember that many of the 9/11 hijackers had legitimate IDs with actual personal information on them. If you are on a suicide mission, being able to ID you after the carnage doesn't do a fucking thing to make anybody safer.
OTOH, if I am a terrorist, and planning a non-suicidal attack, the last thing I am going to do is give you a legit ID that tells you who I am and where you can find me to come arrest me. Nor am I going to give you that information if I know I am on a watch list somewhere. No ID is secure or immune to counterfeiting -- the bad guys will find a way to beat the system. Records can be falsified, photos can be manipulated, chips can be cloned. If all the gazillions spent on security can't keep bombs, guns, liquid kablooie, or box cutters off a plane, an ID check is going to do nothing to help prevent it. I'm all in favor of better technology that can spot those things before they get airborne -- Barney Fife of the TSA looking at a tiny, badly shot photo on a little plastic card is useless if you have C4 in your underpants.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Frankly I don't understand why they can demand credentials even *with* cause. I mean, it's expedient, but I don't see how the justice system falls apart if you can't immediately ascertain someone's name and birthdate. In the modern era adults regularly carry government-issued credentials with them. But that wasn't always the case, and things seemed to work out okay.
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.
First, asking who you are is a search. And you're generally welcome to refuse such searches. Apparently just not at airports.
Second, fishing licenses, library cards, passports and driver's licenses do not need to prove your identity. They need to prove your authorization to fish, check out books, enter the country and operate a vehicle respectively. They may contain information about your identity as a matter of convention or convenience, but that is not their purpose.
When you're fishing the ranger only needs to check that the person with a line in the water is the person to whom the fishing license was issued. And when they are issuing the license they only need to check that you meet the requirement -- in most cases the only requirement that you're a real person, though you may get a discount for living in a certain jurisdiction, or being a certain age. It seems entirely plausible that the DNR could print a card that said "Licensed to fish until 2008-12-31. Serial number: A12-34-B56', and contained my picture, or some other piece of authenticating information (ideally something totally anonymous, like my public key). Then the ranger could validate that I am the licensee, and could even check the serial number against the database to be sure the authorization hadn't been withdrawn, or the card modified. And at no point in this process would anyone need to know my name, or any other identifying information.
So, if the TSA wanted to issue me a card that said "Not a terrorist, OK to fly" and had my picture on it, I'd be happy to show them that. But they don't need to know who I am, and they don't need to be able to tie me to any other databases or identifying information. The fact that I want to leave my immediate geographic area does not make me suspicious. Millions upon millions of people who aren't committing crimes (let alone flight-related crimes) travel every year; that by it's nature makes travel a "typical" behavior, which by definition is not suspicious.
Darn it! Now I can't scalp tickets!
If terrorist attacks were a real threat to America, don't you think US would have endured several ones since 2001 ?
Yes, I do.
Previous to this change, I had the option of show ID or get felt up. Now, really, how the hell do the two equate? Does showing an ID prove I don't have a gun, knife, or bomb? Conversely, does getting felt up prove I am who I say? No and no. There is absolutely no need to prove who I am in order to make the flight safe. And when the more intrusive pat-down search is an option declared when I refuse to show an ID, clearly it is used solely as a tool of intimidation.
With the change, the charade is essentially over. To travel anonymously now, I have to lie by saying I forgot my ID, then get the pat-down.
First, if the pat-down is really necessary for the protection of the passengers, et al, then they are admitting their equipment stinks. That being the case, we ALL should be getting the pat-down! The only search, the only reasonable search is for weapons to prevent hijacking and/or loss of life and limb.
Second, the ID requirement is a joke. Any kid can get a fake ID, so you know damn well someone with ill intent can do so. Any five year old knows s/he can lie to get past the ID requirement, so you know damn well someone with ill intent can do so. Moreover, the ID requirement is used for profiling, as admitted by the TSA. You provide your ID, they get access to your life. From this, they form a risk assessment, a number assigned to you by some algorithm of unknown quality with an unknown rule base. For most, it's not an issue at all. Most of us have a low threat score. "I have nothing to hide," say many. Wrong! The government has nothing to look for is my take on this. Innocent until proven guilty. This makes 'no fly' lists, 'watch' lists, and 'threat scores' not only illegal, but entirely unconstitutional. If somebody is a threat, form an active investigation. Then, with the legal system already in place, the authorities can go after them, or find a lack of evidence and back off. We have absolutely no need for special laws to protect us from terrorism. Treat terrorists like any common criminal with all the rights confirmed by the US Constitution. For those special cases not covered by the Constitution (visitors), human rights still apply and, frankly, so do most citizen rights. This preemptive strike for our security is a breach of the Constitution AND provides absolutely no benefit. It is so bad, it doesn't even fall under the old Ben Franklin quote, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one," since it utterly fails to provide any security right from the start!
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
If you're talking about optimizing the process, it takes absolutely NO TIME to NOT check id cards.
I remember when the ID requirements were just to keep people from selling each other unused tickets on the cheap.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
but i don't support the logic in the summary either
it presumes something: the perfectly rational terrorist. well, if terrorists acted rationally, they wouldn't commit terrorism
at some point, in the "logic" of someone who arrives at the conclusion that they should take over/ blow up an airplane, there is a failure in reason. you catch this failure in reason a number of different ways, most of which ways happen long before a terrorist gets anywhere near an airplane
however, there still exists a subclass (parent class?) of terrorists that are just insane. and that, in fact, would go to the airport without id. "no they wouldn't", you say "that doesn't make sense". and blowing up/ taking over an airplane does make sense to you? failure in reason is failure in reason. the idea is to catch the failure in reason in the most reliably way possible: profiling their irrational behavior. of course, asking for id, and having the request politely refused, is total bullshit
but so is the argument put forth in the story summary of the perfectly rational terrorist
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In crowded places, you can kill ~40 people with a bomb small enough to be carried by a single person if you have almost everything right.
That same bomb could be used to take down a mostly full, 200 person passenger plane.
If can get your hands on enough explosive to make a car bomb (hopefully a difficult thing to do now), place it close to a crowded, collapsable building, and you can kill >300 people. Timothy McVeigh was obviously unskilled, as he killed only 168 people with a 2,000 kg bomb. Granted, it was inferior explosive, but still; poor use of explosive.
And, Manhattan should be surrounded by nuke detectors, because a hiroshima style nuke would instantly kill a few hundred thousand there, but only a few tens of thousands of people instantly in your average city.
So, security is warranted on airplanes, because of the extra casualties one can inflict with a small bomb.
Well, let's play devil's advocate for a moment.
Giving people who forgot their IDs a pat down serves a purpose: it lets people travel after they had their IDs lost or stolen. It benefits any travel who might have his wallet stolen while he is on a trip.
Giving people who refuse to supply their IDs a pat down serves a different kind of purpose. It serves the desire of the individual passenger to feel free of scrutiny. That only benefits passengers who have that need. So logically, the cost of providing this service should be borne by those passengers alone.
In any case, the focus on IDs is silly. They don't need your drivers license to track you. So by insisting on NOT showing your ID, you are engaging in your own kind of security theater.
IDs are, of course, a security hole, but one that serves a purpose. It makes it possible to avoid patting down everyone. Since we aren't going to do that anyway, the primary line of defense should be random searches. IDs are secondary; given the current state of ID standardization in the US, they won't foil Al Qaeda, but they might catch a few homegrown Timothy McVeighs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There is a difference.
Where we are heading is closer to National Socialism than Comunisim.
I am trying to be careful with my phrasing because I am being serious, and trying NOT to trigger Godwin's law.
"Then there's that part of the speech, when you're flying, where they say if you are unable or unwilling to open the emergency door, you shouldn't sit next to it. Does that bother you? Unwilling? Now, who is the jerk who is unwilling to open the door of the burning jet and let us all out? I didn't even think a person like this existed, but they know he's out there, they wrote him into the speech. Not only that, they know he operates under a strict moral code, whereby he must confess if he is called on it. Ok, you got me."
When I read/hear about terrorists and wiretapping, I sometimes think of scientology's "SPs". Is the government similar to a cult trying to weed out trouble makers?
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.
Given that nobody's bothered to RTFA, you should realize that the new regulations do *not* ban flying without ID.
In fact, the procedures described in the new regs have been in use for ages now. At the very least, the TSA is cleaning itself up, by making sure that its rules are written down, and accounted for. This is a small, but very important first step in transforming the agency into one that actually functions properly, and goes after credible threats.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
but to an elf- you look like a native of Brobdingnag with pores the size of quarters....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The real reason behind it is the national ID program. First they require an ID, then they will alter it to require the national id or passport. This is how they plan to get around the states that refuse to comply with the national id act.
The Right to Travel
The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1858 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the "Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state.1859 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
speaking of ideologically inspired distortions..."Liberals might make you free in the Khmer Rouge sense of the word, but, ultimately, they make you poor." That may be a bit of a severe generalization, don't you think? Jerk wad....
For the TSA to succeed in their mission they must catch the bad guys EVERY time, for the bad guys to win the TSA needs to miss once. The purpose of "random" screening and id checks is to discourage the low funded bad guys from trying. The higher funded ones that have enough money to circumvent the security measures intelligence must be used. The system is not perfect but it is the best we have.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Security is now a huge business in the US and will remain so as long as everyone stays scared. If people start blowing off the TSA and their requests the idea will spread that the requests are just ineffectual window dressing. It's has more to do with their own job security than anyone's personal security.
"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."
If you accept this line of reasoning then you should also accept the thinking that says gun control only prevents the non-existent breed of criminals who will get a gun legally.
This post is interesting.
If I were a wealthier man and didn't have a mortgage, I would get a job with the TSA and do exactly that.
I would tell everyone:
Stand in line.
Speak when spoken to.
Have your papers ready.
I wonder if anyone would object or if I would get disciplined or fired.
But to get to the bottom of this, it's not that it is impossible to fly without and ID. You are free to gather several like minded individuals and charter your own flights, ID free. You can hire a pilot and rent a plane and travel pretty much wherever you like. You can even get your own license and buy your own plane and travel anywhere at any time weather permits, ID free. But if you want to fly on a national carrier, from a publicly owned airport, you must show ID. When the government owns something, the airport in this case, they get to make the rules. (This is why I'm against government health care). Those rules are made with the full support from the airline industry, who, if they wish, could easily walk you past security and onto your own plane, even at a public airport. But the airlines like security more than anyone, and fully support and pay TSA for providing it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
However, if you want to book on a national carrier and leave from a publicly owned airport, then you have to get searched and show ID. Of course, the airlines could easily whisk you past security and directly to you flight, but they won't unless you charter the flight or make some other special arrangements. Airlines are also free to set up their own airports or take off and land from rented space at a private airport where they could make the rules, but again, they don't. When the government owns something, like an airport, they get to make the rules (this is why I'm against government health care). You are free to use some other private forms of travel. Same goes for roads. The government owns the road, they make the rules. Don't like it? Build your own road and you free to travel as fast as you want with no laws whatsoever. And there ARE rules that the govt is not supposed to be able to impede a US citizen from traveling amongst the various states.. They don't. You are free to set up your own transportation. Set up a group of traveling libertarians like yourself and charter your own flights.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Being British I know one terrorist it would have caught - George Washington.
Wrong way around. I'm not the one claiming to be brave, it's DigiShaman who's "got something to prove."
And I'm definitely not claiming nobody can be brave - I'm just pointing out that those who brag about it are rarely the ones who really are. :-P
I promise I'm not flaming.
What actually is the problem with being stopped and asked who you are?
Sure if it's more than a couple of times in a day it would be a bit tedious. I tell just about every shop I buy things from, not only who I am, but also how much money I've spent there, how often I visit, what I like to wear/eat/listen to. The larger companies can trade those details to enhance their profile of me so they also know about my other spending habits.
If you go ultra capitalist and just consider government as a provider of services in return for taxes then they are being no more intrusive than most businesses.
Unless you use cash everywhere. Then it's only your bank that knows about your financial affairs (where you work/live, how much you earn, how much you spend).
I have more faith in our "representative" democracy (UK) than in nearly any business that I frequent (saving the local food co-op).
Perhaps it's coming from a village as a child (everyone, including the local policeman knows everyone else) but I really don't understand the desire to be anonymous _in_this_way.
"It's really lucky then that constitutional rights don't derive from citizenship! Being in the country is enough" Actually, existing is enough. It doesn't matter where in the world you are, the Constitution doesn't say anything about applying only in the US.
Because I'm a FUCKING AMERICAN CITIZEN, and I shouldn't have to prove who I am just to peacefully move around the country
Lemmy said it as well as I could. How do the ticket counter people know that you are an American citizen?Also, you are free to move about the country as you wish. Charter your own flight or rent a private plane and you can travel as you wish, ID free. I would have mentioned driving, but you need an ID to do that. Is that a violation of your rights? Also, requiring you to show ID does not stop you from traveling, unless, there is some legal reason that prevents you from traveling, you are a wanted criminal for example. Unless the authorities have some reason to believe I'm doing something wrong, I should not have to let anyone look through my private belongings. Are you saying that TSA has no right to go through your bags looking for a bomb or whatever? Sorry, but the day they stop searching luggage and carry-ons is the day that I stop flying. Many other people would stop as well. The airlines are aware of this, which is why they like the security provided by TSA. Airlines do, however, charter flights. You are free to charter one and board without having your luggage searched and without TSA asking for ID. I especially shouldn't have to produce easily forgable identification, to check whether my name is on some secret list of "dangerous people" who aren't going to be flying under their real name anyway. People are caught trying to fly every day that shouldn't be flying. The idea works to some degree. Sure, it's not full proof, but it is effective. Nothing is full proof. Are you saying we should do nothing?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Also, does the fourth and tenth prevent TSA from searching (either manually or via x-ray) your carry-on luggage? What about making you walk through a metal detector, waving the wand over you and searching your shoes? If these violate the fourth and tenth, then why all the bitching about showing ID? Showing ID is the least intrusive search the TSA does. Why all the hub-bub over it?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The policy actually protects us from the scariest class of person known to man. A sovereign person of a country with rights, a constitution, and a presumed right of movement, access, and liberty.
Nothing is more scary to a police state, an overreaching government, or a bureaucracy, who's sole purpose is to expand and justify themselves despite any evidence, experience, or theory, to the contrary.
...we may expect that there will be significant investments in "alternative means of flight".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Picture how this would play out in a security line:
TSA: ID, please.
Traveler: No.
TSA: What do you mean, no? It's required.
Traveler: Well, I refuse to show my ID.
[Soccer mom behind traveler starts to get nervous]
TSA: ?? Well... uhh... I'm going to have to consult a supervisor... I don't think this was in my 90 minute training video...
[Soccer mom behind traveler starts writing her Congressman on her Blackberry. Clearly this is scary and clearly needs to be illegal.]
It following dialogue would reassure many more passengers:
TSA: ID, please.
Traveler: No.
TSA: What do you mean, no? It's required.
Traveler: Well, I refuse to show my ID.
TSA: Sir, you have a choice. Either produce some government-approved identification, or step out of line. And don't get back into the line until you've changed your mind. NEXT!
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Hope the rest of your comment was better than the first sentence, because I stopped reading once you proved yourself to be full of shit.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I saw a documentary on portable windows once. Apparently, you can buy a special type of paint from a company specializing in various gadgets and novelty items. When you use this paint on a surface, it instantly becomes a hole. This hole can then be moved around easily. There was no mention of elves using this technology, but wiley coyotes use this invention quite frequently.
I have two things to say about terrorist and airports. you may not like it, but I think it's the truth and a reasonable person can't deny the truth 1) the terrorists won. not only in terms of 9/11 attack being carried out, but the repercussions of that event. it was the purpose of the attack to strike fear into americans and change their american ways of freedom. look where we are now. we have changed all this infrastructure and spent billions of trillions of dollars to prevent such another attack. if you analyze the dollar economics of terrorist attack on NYC, it was a very good investment on their behalf. they spent a couple of weeks in an small plane training course, took over a couple of planes with box cutters and plastic knives and proceeded to kamikaze into the enemy's central financial and political centers. they probably spent like...$10,000? $50,000? compared to how many dollars have we spent as a result? 2) airport security. as mentioned, it's such a scam. ppl aren't secure. you're not safer than you were before 9/11. you only think you're safer. you really believe that 20 extra police cruisers sitting at the entrance of the airport terminal is going to stop another terrorist from parking a van full of fertilizer like the 1993 WTC attack? come on people. traveling by airplane is no safer than it was before. NSA and FBI will probably come after me for saying this but....if anyone intelligent (like us folks here at /.) were to devise ways to bring down an airplane given current security measures, I will wager that we could come up with a handful by lunchtime.
We all know that there is no room for that Socialism and other Commie stuff in the US of A.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yes. Reasonable searches does not equate to a boolean. Search warrents, for instance, typically detail both the scope of what is being sought, and where the officers can search. Hence, while it may be considered reasonable to search you for weapons/explosives, it could still be unreasonable to search you for ID. (An intermediate concern is what turns up natrually as a side effect of the search for weapons. But unless they have reasons to suspect weapons inside your wallet, it is a moot point for now.) They also cannot search your home just because you want to fly.
Now, as much as you want to restrict the scope of the argument, this brings in how necessary there is a need to control who flies on a plane. Although I can see many reasons not to want some people to fly, I can think of no reasons that relate to security, except for maybe martial arts masters. But that's not of whom the no-fly list consists. What need is there?
Lastly, I would, for the sake of completeness, just state that the same is begining to apply at Amtrak and bus terminals. Thus, all commercial transit, as well as the ability to negotiate public highways and roads, is regulated by some ID requirement. I would think this violates your right to travel. After all, to claim that the method of travel not being mentioned implies walking as a fallback, is analogous to implying that because freedom of speech doesn't specify how, it applies only if you speak in a whisper... or Swahili.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Not only that, but the constitution provides protection from unreasonable search and seizure by the fourth amendment and explicitly includes papers as part of the search. Yes, that's in public too ("...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."). They can't ask for ID unless they've got a warrant, probable cause, or you've already recently committed a crime. And no, refusing to show ID CANNOT be deemed 'probable cause'.
They also allow them to put financial penalties(you lose your ticket in this case IIRC) on someone who knows their rights, and refuses to bow down to more security. It just targets the person who objects on the basis of conscience.
No contradiction. The current policy is that you can fly without an ID with an additional search. The point is that the policy hasn't changed for anyone willing to claim they lost their ID (which presumably terrorists are willing to do) -- they can fly just as easily under the old policy as the new one. The policy has effectively changed only for those who object to being required to furnish ID to travel around inside the US.
Since the airline industry is a private industry, not a part of the government (nor is the TSA), they can simply ban you from flying, forever. The option to fly is not a "Right" granted to us by the Constitution, fortunately or unfortunately.
It is no different from a Circle-K gas station kicking you out for loitering. It's their property and they can set their own rules and guidelines (within the boundaries provided to them by local, state and federal regulations, of course).
Sounds like someone doesn't understand the difference between a right and a privelege.
Being able to travel: that's a right, so yes, the passport system has become unconstitutional. Driving is a privelege, not a right, so a drivers license is ok. Being able to remove a book from a library is a privelege (however, you have a right to read it inside a public library), so a library card is ok. Being able to fish on regulated land... well that's a privelege, too, and it's done to prevent overfishing.
See where I'm going with the this? If the Fourth applies to ID here, then it has to apply EVERYWHERE!
Of course it applies everywhere. It should. And when you understand the difference between a right and a privelege, it all makes sense.
According to America, all people (not just US Citizens) have a right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. How does limiting a person's liberty somehow seem reasonable?
It's just another illustration of how radical and anti-American conservatives are. But seeing how their entire core beliefs were spelled out in Hitler's whiny puling book "Mein Kampf", it's not surprising at all how conservatives have been trying to change America into a fascist police state. As TFA noted, this is nothing more than "security theatre", since it doesn't fix a single problem. That's why not having your ID is ok, but refusing to present it is not: challenging the conservative police state will not be tolerated in fascist America.
-JSG
Wasn't there some push that the airlines would start only accepting RealIDs as forms of identification (or passports, which not everyone has)? Perhaps the terrorism line is off mark. Perhaps this is simply a change to support the boycotting states, before they have to. It'd actually be a surprising show of competence!
Keebler... but, I'll take ELVira....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
So if my wallet gets pinched when I'm on vacation in Hawaii, I should... what? Rent an apartment, wait to be mailed a utility bill at my new residence, establish my Hawaii residency, and be issued a Hawaii ID before flying back to Michigan? Take a boat and the greyhound? People HAVE to be allowed to fly without ID, or some people end up stranded.
"But," you will correctly point out "there is a difference between losing your ID and refusing to show it."
While this is true, it is not a *detectable* difference, and the only reason I can see that someone might choose to say they refuse, rather than simply lying and saying they lost their ID, is as political speech. It is not putting anyone in danger, so the government doesn't have the *power* to make this distinction.
Pretty soon, they'll be FASHION POLICE... "Elf-Recognition Handbook"
1. How to spot an elf: It pretends to be a normal human being by increasing its height. However, the dead giveaway is the stylish, long, pointed, tip-upturned shoes. Confirmation is established by seizing and destroying the elfins in the presence of the former wearer. Ultra confirmation may be deemed by the sudden production of a wand emitting stars or Tesla-like bolts of electricity.
See Appendix IV for coping with wands and Tesla wands... Exercise extreme caution first, and disband and disarm elves by first corralling them into the WNC: Wand Neutralization Chamber, disguised as an ordinary neutron/isotope/explosives sniffer booth. The puffer ports emit Clover-Leaf Extract molecularly bonded to cyanide Grade-4, and Essence of Itching Powder and Essense of Itching POWER, with 10 parts per hundred of Capsicum and Scent of Camay.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
THE GOD SQUAD
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That reminds me, one day I was sitting down trying to watch one of the few (and last) TV shows I was interested in. My mother asked me, from another room "Could you be considered an Information Technologist?" and because I was trying to watch my bloody show which I had no control over the playback of, I said "I guess so."
A few weeks later, my new passport arrives.
Job title: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIST
D'oh!
No more hostage flights. If people think they will be killed, they will prevent any sort of crashing into anything.
All the crowd has to do is walk to the front of the airplane. The weight imbalance will make it crash. They don't have to overpower anyone.
I'm willing to take that risk in order to be a free person living in a free country. I would gladly die a free man, rather than live in fear, like some kind of pants-pissing conservative.
Since you are willing to be terrified, as all conservatives are, nothing is going to change whether the TSA is there or not. Conservatives will just find something else to be terrified of. Like angry black men, or scary latino children, or people who talk differently, or... OMG... TEH GHAE!!! YOU MIGHT CATCH TEH GHAE!!!!
Honestly speaking, there's not a single thing on this planet conservatives aren't terrified of. I refuse to allow my freedom to be limited by their puling, shrill, bed-wetting view of the world.
Grow a backbone, and maybe someday you can aspire to be a strong and freedom loving liberal.
I had my wife's drivers license in my wallet because she forgot her purse when we were out and I accidentally handed it to TSA.. who subsequently waved me through...
Either way... i'm not too worried about anyone in that particular government agency becoming adept anytime soon, so maybe they have to rely on things like people who adamantly refuse to give out their ID. Its like a high profile game of spot the retard.
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
Replacing one's name with one's face doesn't change anything, really - it just changes the index from a text string to a graphic. If you wanted to get to the level of reliability that you have just suggested, then we're talking biometrics, which is more, rather than less invasive.
My point is that as soon as you make the "citizen" the important category for rights and privileges, you already have given the state the final word.
Also, does the fourth and tenth prevent TSA from searching (either manually or via x-ray) your carry-on luggage?
YES
What about making you walk through a metal detector, waving the wand over you and searching your shoes?
ALSO YES
Well they don't prevent them from doing it, as they're doing it. They contraindicate their authority to do it.
Power has been usurped here, without constitutional amendment, and that's the real tragedy: The more we find ways wrangle federal authority that is not specifically granted in that document, the less relevant that document becomes, until eventually it doesn't prevent *anything*.
The airlines are, as private companies, well within their rights to require security check before boarding. The federal government is not within their rights to be the security company.
There is bitching about ID, because if we don't bitch about it, they will assume that it's ok, and that is exactly the opposite direction from eliminating the federal agency.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Hey Erris!
Somebody spent a lot of mod points trying to shut us up or there's a bunch of of them here,
so we're obviously hitting a nerve. That's good
Wrong, wrong, wrong! The TSA IS a part of the government. It's part of the DHS. Sure, the airlines can ask for your ID, and bar you from flying if you don't show it, but the TSA CANNOT. And if it weren't a part of the government, it could ask for your ID, but then it would have no authority to prevent you from flying if you don't. This is exactly what the fourth amendment was designed for.
"How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror." - V, V for Vendetta.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
Yess! An anti-Nazi German grammar Nazi! You've just made my day.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Erm. Yes, they do, in fact, feel safer. I have met (in person, that is) people from the USSR who regret the good old days when all vagabonds, gipsies, jews and troublemakers were in jail, leaving the streets safe for "serious people".
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
And seriously, you got one flamebait mod on this article, probably for using scat humour. I don't see how you're "hitting a nerve" or people are trying to "shut you up".
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
All this does is penalizes the true citizens and rewards the terrorists for their actions.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/09/1731249
"He's already posting at -1 for trolling and sockpuppetry, so no."
/. He's got plenty of positive mods insightful/interesting.
... I think that's more mental flatulence blowing our way here.
Didn't see any indication of that going to his user page here on
I think there's plenty of people out there who will masturbate with you to the wikipedia "sockpuppetry" indignation arousal
fetish IN THE meme pool that came from: Wikipedia.
That I got the flamebait -1 ding for scat humor
I don't think any ecoscat coming from Al Gore or any other environ-mentalist should ever go unchallenged.
Comment Moderation
sent by Slashdot Message System on Wednesday June 11, @12:05AM
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs, posted to TSA Bans Flight If You Refuse To Show ID, has been moderated Troll (-1).
It is currently scored Troll (0).
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs, posted to TSA Bans Flight If You Refuse To Show ID, has been moderated Insightful (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (1).
Re:Yeah, about fake IDs, posted to TSA Bans Flight If You Refuse To Show ID, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).
It is currently scored Flamebait (0).