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."
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.
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?
If you're traveling alone, yeah. Amtrak wants $250 to put me on a train to a city 1300 miles from where I live, and at $4 a gallon I'd spend that much in gas if I drove myself. That's one way, mind you.
Southwest wants $300 for a round trip ticket.
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.
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?
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.
I agree with everything you said, EXCEPT:
...
a) not a single policy enacted since that day was necessary to prevent a hijacking like those we had on 9/11
The stronger locked cockpit doors and the rule to not open it despite any demands or threats. Those would have prevented 9/11. You are correct that nowdays the violent group reaction is probably an even better counter - but without the 3000 dead of 9/11, no-one would ever do that.
There has never been any need to allow hijackers in the cockpit, just take them to where they want to go and do what they want you to do. The only reason the doors weren't put in before was cost.
b) the liquid explosive bit. No binary explosives might be a bit hard to do, but flat out and out liquid explosives HAVE been successfully used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
AND I QUOTE:
"Yousef used one tenth of the explosive power he planned to use on eleven U.S. airliners in January 1995"
"The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid."
In fact, the ban on significant quantities of liquids came 10 years TOO LATE. It's amazing that no-one else thought of attempting it since then. Maybe because they caught this bomb master in 1995 and he wasn't around to teach anyone else how to do it. Maybe because you don't need to use liquid explosives, regular bombs get through just fine a decent amount of the time.
It's my understanding that since Lockerbie, baggage containers were constructed to resist the types of explosions that brought that aircraft down. Are they widely used? Technically the baggage screening should prevent stuff in luggage from getting on. I think we simply need to do enough to cause them to shift their targets elsewhere, and as such force them to try and hit less-easier more fluid targets.
"Yousef used one tenth of the explosive power he planned to use on eleven U.S. airliners in January 1995"
"The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid." Wikipedia is misleading, and you took the bait.
The part the article left out is that the nitro was soaked into cotton balls. It did not look at all like a liquid, it looked like wet cotton stuffed in a white plastic bottle. The reason it was soaked into the cotton balls was to stabilize it because liquid nitro is highly unstable, one sudden shock and it blows on its own. He would have been lucky to make it to the airport, much less get in the air, with unstablized nitro in a bottle.
Don't believe me - just google for the hundreds of websites discussing the details.
Suffice to say, the liquid ban is still total bullshit.
In fact the TSA even said so themselves in their own blog: In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet.
TSA blog Those are the TSA's own words explaining how the bogeyman of binary liquid explosives is essentially impossible. Which is what anyone with a clue has been saying since day one.
Of course, after realizing just how stupid they were to admit that, they've come up with a new story leaving out the whole 'mixing it up in the bathroom' part. Now its all about some super-secret concoction that does not need to be mixed up. Now its just a regular explosive liquid that somehow must be stored in a big jug and can't be in a bunch of smaller bottles put together. Wonder why they won't tell us what it is - after all apparently the terrorists already know all about it since it was their plan in the first place...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.