Slashdot Mirror


Damaged US Passport Chip Strands Travelers

caseih writes "Damaging the embedded chip in your passport is now grounds for denying you the ability to travel in at least one airport in the U.S. Though the airport can slide the passport through the little number reader as easily as they can wave it in front of an RFID reader, they chose to deny a young child access to the flight, in essence denying the whole family. The child had accidentally sat on his passport, creasing the cover, and the passport appeared worn. The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport."

141 of 624 comments (clear)

  1. Bad summary: the airline, not the government by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA states that it was an airline official who refused to allow the passenger to board, not an agent of the government. It's still galling, but let's express our discontent where it belongs.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does it really make a difference which incompetent and/or indifferent bureaucrat screwed this family over?

      Will it stop happening? Will these people be made whole without spending thousands of dollars and perhaps dozens or hundreds of hours fighting it?

      Let's face it, the default state of the American citizen and consumer is "screwed", and you must start from there.

      And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TFA also states:

      Ray Priest, owner of International Passport Visas in Denver, said your passport isn’t actually yours at all; it belongs to the US government.

      “To have a passport is privilege, it’s not entitled to you by citizenship,” Priest said. He said the issue may be with a microchip embedded in the back of all new passports. “They have no reason in the world to let you travel if it’s been damaged,” Priest said. “It’s like cutting your photo out or something if that chip doesn’t work.”

      These people wanted to leave the country. By no means should we ever prevent someone from exiting when they want to, passport or not. If you don't have a passport, just don't expect to return.

    3. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The guy who was talking all the smack, who said: "To have a passport is privilege, it's not entitled to you by citizenship," Priest said. He said the issue may be with a microchip embedded in the back of all new passports. "They have no reason in the world to let you travel if it's been damaged," Priest said. "It's like cutting your photo out or something if that chip doesn't work." is the same guy who is rated A- by the BBB for several complains. His contact info at BBB is at http://www.bbb.org/denver/business-reviews/passport-and-visa-services/international-passport-visas-in-denver-co-8845

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Funny

      If we just say "those fuckers," while leaving the antecedent deliberately ambiguous, we're good. Think of it like lazy evaluation of variables.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    5. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by sohmc · · Score: 2

      VERY important distinction. From what I understand, the US government cannot deny a citizen entry once the citizen has provided bona fides. The government may hold the citizen for questioning, but is afforded all rights and privileges provided by the constitution.

      IANAL...of course, we don't live in "Shouldland".

      --
      We don't live in Shouldland.
    6. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      “To have a passport is privilege, it’s not entitled to you by citizenship,”

      Hey, that's what the communist government in the 80's was telling us all along when they didn't want people to visit the West.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does it really make a difference which incompetent and/or indifferent bureaucrat screwed this family over?

      They think it does. It allows the various players involved to all abdicate responsibility by pointing fingers.

    8. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by n5vb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that airline officials or anyone else in charge of letting you get on a plane is apparently *allowed* to make a judgment call like this at any airport along your route. If I'm going to be stopped for some stupid random thing like this (and it is a stupid random thing), I'm going to be a lot less pissed off if it means I can't get on the flight at my home airport, and have a way home, than if it means I've gotten halfway across the country 500-1000 miles from home and then all of a sudden can't fly anywhere and I have no surface transportation home or shipping for my checked baggage. One reason I don't fly when i can avoid it is unpredictability of what will be flagged in security at any given airport, plus the ease with which it's possible for a social outlier like me to become a "suspicious person" and subject to all of the treatment that triggers.

      Now, that may be hard to avoid for international flights where the airport of departure from the country isn't my home airport, but if an airline official is going to pull a dickish move like this, the least he/she can do is refund my international ticket and comp me a *domestic* flight back home, plus waivers on any extra fees to route my checked baggage home as well. Not sure if they were offered that as well as the option to stay in a hotel while the passport snafu is straightened out, but I do wonder ..

    9. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does make a difference. For all the complaining that the corporations and the government are the same, it's a lot easier to get corporate policy changed than government. If this brings enough attention, the airline may choose to clarify its policy or retrain the individual who refused to accept the passport.

      There are times when the letter of corporate policy should give way to good customer service.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    10. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by j35ter · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. The RFID is optional. A passport is still a physical ID, and as such respected worlwide ... uh ... except in the us, of course.

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    11. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.

      How am I supposed to vote?!?!? Let me be clear: I voted for Obama because Obama promised to roll back the damage done by Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales to rights such as habeas corpus. Obama failed to keep his promises, choosing instead to continue in lockstep with those evil bastards. Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

    12. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it matter a great deal, especially when people still make the poor argument that "teh marketz R wize" and "gubmint iz bad". This was a case of a company (American Airlines, with a history of mistreating customers and PR issues - like most airlines out there) once again trampling on its customers. Its important to assign blame where it belongs.

    13. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by marcop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Their real problem is that they chose American Airlines. I travel frequently and AA's customer service is the worst. I avoid them as much as possible.

    14. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that the right to leave a country is one of those rights that the UN has officially declared sacrosanct -- no matter who you are, or which country you're a citizen of (or if you're not a citizen of anywhere), you have the right to exit whatever country you're in (unless you've broken that country's laws). If you're a US citizen who wants to head to China, the US government can't stop you; only the Chinese government can.

    15. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the worst part is, you and I need to vote for him next time, too, because Frothy isn't even pretending to want to restore our civil liberties, instead gleefully enumerating what new restrictions he wants to place on the American people in the name of a "better society" or whatever. (Seriously, the legality of contraception stopped being a topic of political debate in the late sixties. What the hell is going on?)

      Ahh, the sharp difference between "bad" and "worse". A two-party system has to be at least twice as good as one-party rule, right?

    16. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Informative

      That might be your ideal, but reality is the exact opposite.

      You can't be denied a passport in order to return the the US. You can be denied a passport in order to leave.

      It's a specific exemption on the criteria to deny a passport (22 C.F.R. S 51.70):

      A passport, except for direct return to the United States, shall not be issued in any case in which the Secretary of State determines or is informed by competent authority that:
      [list of criteria to deny a passport]

    17. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by wer32r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is exactly what I thought of as well. When owning a passport is becoming a privilege, you're on your way down a very slippery slope...

    18. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...except that didn't quite happen.

      Although "adding a computer" did cause this problem. It caused a simple bit of robust technology to suddenly become exceptionally prone to failure. It created a problem where one did not previously exist.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by retchdog · · Score: 2

      well, yes, it does. the popular sentiment evoked by this story is opposed to government, not bureaucracies in general. libertarianism won't fix the latter and could easily make it worse.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    20. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Choad+Namath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the information on a pre-RFID passport is sufficient for international travel -- which it presumably is, since I and millions of others still travel with them -- then an RFID-equipped passport with a non-functioning RFID chip that hasn't been otherwise defaced also has enough information. You could make the case that he should be prevented from traveling if it was obviously intentionally damaged, but it's certainly not lacking any necessary photographic or other identifying information if it's just the RFID chip that's damaged.

    21. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A damaged passport is unusable, period.

      Excellent example of using ", period" to mean "everything I just said only makes sense if you don't think about it at all so for the LOVE OF GOD please don't!"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    22. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by dbialac · · Score: 5, Informative

      Moreover, your passport explicitly states in plain writing that the chip doesn't have to be functioning for it to be a valid document.

    23. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, but they would argue that if the slightest bit of effort could read it anyway, it should have been done.

      A damaged passport is not NECESSARILY unusable any more than a car with a ding in the door should be sent to the crusher.

    24. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Leebert · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

      I'm sorry, but if you were foolish enough in 2008 to see him as anything but what he is -- yet another (Chicago, even!) politician, you're kinda gullible (or, at least, insufficiently cynical.) (Don't worry, I fell for Bush 2000 myself, so I'm right there with you in the gullible camp.)

      How am I supposed to vote?!?!?

      Well, you could start by figuring out how to vote in the Republican primaries and voting for Paul. If Paul isn't palatable for you, there are plenty of other parties and candidates; chances are very good that you can find someone that you pretty well agree with out there somewhere.

      To the sibling poster who claims that you "need to vote for him the next time, too", that's patently ridiculous. There are plenty of candidates for president who actually make a *credible* claim that they'll fight to restore our constitutionally-enshrined rights. Yes, they aren't likely to win, but I swear I'll go all medieval on you if you claim that I am throwing away my vote by voting for someone who believes as I do instead of voting for someone who I disagree slightly less with but is more likely to win.

    25. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yet, in our freedom loving country- the government has told us we can't go to Cuba.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    26. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.

      How am I supposed to vote?!?!? Let me be clear: I voted for Obama because Obama promised to roll back the damage done by Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales to rights such as habeas corpus. Obama failed to keep his promises, choosing instead to continue in lockstep with those evil bastards. Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

      You should vote against both Kang and Kodos.

      Voting anything but a 3rd party (or independent) is perpetuating the system.

    27. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Leebert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      American Airlines used to be my favorite airline

      Why, oh WHY on earth? Maybe it's because my experience with American is largely limited to flying into Haiti and coast-to-coast, but it's invariably a horrendous experience. Especially when compared to carriers like Southwest, who actually "gets" customer service.

      In fact, I flew American back in January, and my Facebook status briefly said: "I am not in any way surprised that American Airlines is in bankruptcy."

    28. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      If you don't have a passport, just don't expect to return.

      While the airline likely won't let you board their aircraft without a passport, it's not required to enter your nation of citizenship (not for the USA and Canada, anyway). If you manage to present yourself at *your own* nation's border, the agents will let you in once they've managed to confirm your citizenship via an alternate means. It might take a while, but if you're a citizen, they'll let you in. It's getting to that border itself that can sometimes be tricky.

    29. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And he's basically an idiot. My passport got pretty well trashed after a camping / climbing trip in South America. When I got back the customs guy said 'looked like you had fun'. The RFID didn't work (or the reader, it wasn't clear), so he looked at the passport briefly and let me through.

      I've had more trouble getting on the plane in Seattle.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    30. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      The governments you reference required special travel documents to be allowed to change postcodes. Meanwhile, you can cross six time zones from San Juan to Honolulu without having to tell anybody, let alone ask permission. Unless, of course, you're worried about the jackbooted thugs of the Department of Agriculture...

    31. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      Voting independent is worse than perpetuating the system. It's perpetuating the system while allowing the greater of two evils to win.

      You can't have third parties with first past the post voting. It doesn't work. It isn't politics, it's math. Two similar candidates that together have 51%+ of the vote when one alone doesn't will always do better to combine forces, and they always will, unless one of them is being irrational (like Ralph Nader), in which case that candidate becomes a pariah for handing the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" is not a slogan, it's a mathematical fact.

      If you want to change the system, vote in the primaries (and I mean for Congress, not just for President), before all the candidates worth voting for get eliminated.

    32. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Leebert · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I said, there will be plenty of candidates out there besides the nominees of the two major parties.

      To help you get started, the venerable Wikipedia has a list of some of them:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012

      Some of them are screwballs, some of them look fairly compelling, particularly for single-issue voters. None of them have a good chance of winning, but that's OK, your vote is so infinitesimally likely to make a difference in the race between the two parties anyway. Vote your conscience, that's the only way to be hold your head high and mutter "I told you so" in 2014. :)

    33. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're a US citizen, and go to a US-Canada border crossing, it's a Canadian official, not a US official, that checks your passport. The passport is to help you get permission from the Canadians to enter their country, not to get permission from the US to leave. The reason airlines check passports before boarding international flights is to prevent a situation where somebody flies from the US to, say, France, and then is denied entry to France and has to either turn around and go back or create a bunch of work for the nearest US consulate. It actually makes some sense.

      Of course, where this gets tricky is if the Canadians and Mexicans sign agreements with the US that say they won't let any US citizens over the border without a passport.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    34. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by PrinceAshitaka · · Score: 2

      A driving license is a privilege and can be taken away.

      To go where you wish is a right as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) and the USA is a signatory.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    35. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by residieu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's important because this should make you reconsider flying on American Airlines.They were the ones who disrupted the family's trip in this case (Luckily they were on their way OUT of the country. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to someone trying to come back in).

      But the American Airlines official was reacting to the general fears that the TSA and the Federal Government have been instilling in us the past 10 years, so I wouldn't call them without blame

    36. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. I refuse to recognize the right to private property over the right of public use. Ultimately we have one world, and we must share it, or contribute to our own extinction.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    37. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Go look on Santorum's website, on his "issues" page. The very first result is censorship of "obscene content" on the internet.

    38. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by SlippyToad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The federal government requiring Catholics to pay for their employees healthcare that they've already offered and that said employee has paid premiums towards

      I fixed that fucking dishonest piece of shit lie for you.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    39. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Leebert · · Score: 3, Funny

      And then you still get screwed when the 6 people who voted for the fringe guy are outnumbered by the 100 million who elect SantRomObama.

      Are you people not reading what I write? Oh right; of course not. I forgot this is Slashdot... Silly me. Let me respond to your statement by quoting what you replied to:

      None of them have a good chance of winning, but that's OK, your vote is so infinitesimally likely to make a difference in the race between the two parties anyway. Vote your conscience, that's the only way to be hold your head high and mutter "I told you so" in 2014. :)

    40. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by mutube · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I put mine through a washing machine and all the pages ended up melded together. I separated what I could (including the important back page) with a knife and then ironed it flat. (Interestingly it had washed out all the visa stamps so it looked like new).

      Got from one side of Europe to the other on that passport without a problem. Worst I got was a smirk.

    41. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      In theory, Ray Priest is *wrong*. This isn't like a driver's license privilege. There is a lot of current debate on the issue, but plenty of Constitutional scholars consider the right to travel a basic human right (it is Constitutionally protected domestically within the US borders). The right to travel was specifically mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, and one argument is that it is so fundamental that the Founding Fathers didn't even see it as necessary to add to the Bill of Rights.

      Historically the only valid reasons for denying passports were for "national security" or criminal activity of the applicant. Of course in today's climate, "national security" is clearly broad enough to deny a child who sat on his passport. It's amazing how in some ways conventional wisdom of the US government (and its citizens and corporations) has regressed to *pre* revolutionary times.

      And if you are *citizen* you have just as much (or more?) right to return the to the country as you do to leave, passport or not. You may have to *prove* you are a citizen, of course, but for most people that is not particularly hard (though it may take some time to get all of the documents sent to you).

      Of course, an airline is not the government - they do have the right to refuse travel on their planes, and one of the reasons they require valid passports, etc, is that they don't want to have flown someone to a country that will refuse them entry and somehow be responsible for getting them home.

    42. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Sporkinum · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    43. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Voting independent is worse than perpetuating the system. It's perpetuating the system while allowing the greater of two evils to win.

      In all presidential elections, the electoral college votes for my state will go to the Democrats. Same for the vast majority of the congressional elections - the seat for that district will go to which ever party it was gerrymandered in favor of. In rare cases where there is actually a close race, then voting for the lesser of two evils may make sense. The rest of the time your vote does nothing but send a signal about how strongly supported the winner is, and to whom they need to pander to win the election next time around. Voting third party sends a better signal than voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all.

      If you want to change the system, vote in the primaries (and I mean for Congress, not just for President), before all the candidates worth voting for get eliminated.

      I do, but the system is just as stacked against them as it is against the third parties. So after casting my token vote for the "fringe" candidates in the primaries, I cast another token vote for third party candidates in the actual election.

    44. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Mitreya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To the sibling poster who claims that you "need to vote for him the next time, too", that's patently ridiculous.

      Oh, but you really do. That's what Obama must be counting on. Have you even _heard_ what the (viable) Republican contenders are saying? Gingrich/Romney/Santorum must be walking close to (if not past) the mark of being declared clinically insane.

    45. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by marcop · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US can ban you from traveling abroad for many reasons.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

    46. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by SealBeater · · Score: 2

      OK, so you go out and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. He doesn't win. Maybe Santorum is the nominee. Now who do you vote for in the general election?

      You write in "Ron Paul".

      --
      -- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
    47. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Entropius · · Score: 2

      Yes, or at least its government is.

    48. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Dynedain · · Score: 3, Informative

      Assuming the Cubans will let you in, you can go to Cuba as an American. US companies aren't allowed to provide you transport, but you certainly could route through Jamaica, Mexico City, or Montreal and get to Havana with little trouble.

      Coming back, expect extra questions at customs about the Cuban stamp in your passport, but otherwise the US government isn't going to prevent you from going there.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    49. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by desdinova+216 · · Score: 2

      when is the last time that airlines did anything that resembled good customer service? The airlines seem almost as bad or worse as the **aa.

    50. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Stormin · · Score: 2

      American Airlines: The same company that decided to remove the baggage handling fee from the ticket price and charge it as an add-on so that even when you do pay it, you're forced to wait on the tarmac as dozens who tried to cheap out and not pay it try to squeeze an oversized bag into an already full overhead bin.

      American claimed when they did this that it was more "fair" since travelers who checked bags would pay for the service, and ones who didn't check bags wouldn't be subsidizing them. Of course most other major airlines followed with this nonsense.

      The reality in my experience has been I pay their overpriced check bagged fee, and then suffer because of those who didn't, but should have.

      I'd already decided because of their origination of that fee that I would never fly on an AA plane ever again. This behavior just reinforces how rotten AA is. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy would be too good for them.

    51. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by deapbluesea · · Score: 2

      To go where you wish is a right as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) and the USA is a signatory.

      Interesting right. I wish to go to Area 51, followed by a tour of all the Hollywood mansions (inside each one, not just a curbside view), then into a few bank vaults. How dare anyone usurp my right to do so!

      Seriously though, without a driver's license there are still ample means of going where I want to go within reason. I can take the bus, train, airplane, taxi, walk, or hitchhike. The main obstacle to my personal movement is the private property of others, which is rightly protected as well under article 17 (thus showing my previous paragraph to be utter fallacy for those too dense to understand sarcasm). The UN also acknowledges that countries can create and enforce immigration and emigration laws (they do talk about xenophobia and mistreatment of migrants, but their focus is on businesses and individuals versus governments). So in reality, that right isn't what you think it is.

      In this case, the family was restricted from leaving by the airline, not a government. Ostensibly, the reason is that the airline doesn't want to be responsible for them should they arrive in their destination country and be denied access due to a bad passport. I think it's a bad call on the part of AA, and they should be duly chastised by the public, but this isn't a violation of UN Human Rights.

      I leave you with a quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just to bolster my argument:

      To be born free means that all people have an equal right to freedom. But freedom does not mean that we can do anything we want, nor can freedom for some mean limiting the freedom of others. Though we are born free, we live in a community that functions because there is an understanding among its members; in other words, it has rules and requires responsibilities.

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    52. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by mcl630 · · Score: 2

      Almost everything this Ray Priest said in the article is incorrect. The state department's own policy is that a passport with a bad RFID is still valid, and will be handled the same as a passport without RFID.

    53. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's even worse. TFA claims:

      To have a passport is privilege, itâ(TM)s not entitled to you by citizenship

      Au contraire, it IS something you're entitled to by your citizenship. You don't get an American passport if you're, say, Russian, or vice versa.

      Of course, if you're MOSSAD, you can get a US passport, a Canadian passport, or pretty much any sort of passport ...

    54. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by scot4875 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm less concerned with the promises Obama made that are unkept than I am about the ones that McCain made that he might have kept.

      And Obama, despite his flaws, has actually done a pretty admirable job of keeping a lot of his promises. Particularly when you consider that it's in the face of historically unprecedented obstruction.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    55. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      You can't have third parties with first past the post voting. It doesn't work. It isn't politics, it's math. Two similar candidates that together have 51%+ of the vote when one alone doesn't will always do better to combine forces, and they always will, unless one of them is being irrational (like Ralph Nader), in which case that candidate becomes a pariah for handing the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" is not a slogan, it's a mathematical fact.

      You understand the math, but you suck at game theory. It is true the the two party system will prevail in winner-takes-all system, but that does not mean voting for 3rd party candidate does not have an effect. Your candidate will not win, but by threatening the balance between the two major parties you force the major parties to adopt policies form the 3rd party. For instance the democrats are now afraid to give give the green party too much space because of what happened in 2000, and the republicans are similarly letting Ron Paul be a candidate even though they despise the guy, just to avoid the threat of him running for an independent party stealing a possible win.. They doing that because they are threatened by people willing to vote for a losing candidate.

      In other words: By not being a swing voter, either leaning between the two major party or being a swing voter threatening to vote for non major party, you are no threat to the balance and have no consequences on the election in a winner-takes-all election.

    56. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by TechHSV · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.

    57. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by DanTheStone · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not excluding the US, according to the state department: http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#Fourteen

      What will happen if my Electronic Passport fails at a port-of-entry?

      The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

    58. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm sure all the Ross Perot voters thought that in '92. If 85% of those people had voted Bush and 15% had voted Clinton, Bush would have won. (I know it is unlikely, please bear with me) Your vote will not put Obama in office or keep him out but the sum of all the people influenced by Ron Paul and his supporters? Who knows?
      Feel fee to check my math. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=1992&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0/

      --
      "Long time listener, first time caller."
    59. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Voting independent is worse than perpetuating the system. It's perpetuating the system while allowing the greater of two evils to win.

      The greater of two evils is still evil. By not voting for the 3rd party you continue to grant the two main parties the power that keeps them as the two main parties. Many of those "good" candidates you see on the primary really want to run under other parties but they can't because nobody would pay attention to them. So even voting for Ron Paul in the primary gives the Republican party undeserved power. Much of this is psychology that must be broken.

      Less than half the eligible US population votes. If those lazy bums would just go out to the polls, close their eyes, and pick a candidate at random, we would no longer have a two party system. Those ignored, independent, irrelevant, 3rd-party candidates would be given federal funding! The media would be forced to pay attention to them, and so would the other candidates. Getting enough people to vote for those 3rd parties breaks the hold. Get enough of them in there, and we could have a constitutional amendment to change the first past the post system.

      But if you continue to "vote for the lesser of two evils" then you continue to give the power to those evils. The original poster wanted to get habeas corpus back. Voting Republican or Democratic in the general election will help him achieve this or send that message.

      Consider this: If you had two organized crime syndicates offering protection services, would paying one of them -vs- the other one somehow break the hold? No, you have to refuse. Their only power comes from the individuals who continue to support them.

      If you want to change the system, vote in the primaries (and I mean for Congress, not just for President), before all the candidates worth voting for get eliminated.

      By the time they get to my state, they have mostly dropped out. :-(

    60. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this is a large part of the reason I'm a Paul supporter -- he actually has a long voting history that almost invariably matches his rhetoric.

      I highly admire that fact -- if only we had more honest politicians like Ron Paul...
      But he is planning to eliminate IRS, Dept. of Public Health, public schools, etc. How far can one get with that plan? Having principles is good. Not being realistic is bad.

    61. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by xaxa · · Score: 2

      "Although the government of Cuba permits U.S. citizens to visit, the U.S. itself restricts its citizens from travelling there, except with a license issued by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control [1]. The specific restriction is against spending money in Cuba. However, U.S. authorities consider any visit of more than one day to be prima facie proof that one has spent money there. Furthermore, OFAC also holds that U.S. citizens also may not receive goods or services for free from any Cuban national, eliminating any attempts to circumvent the regulation based on that premise."

      From http://wikitravel.org/en/Americans_in_Cuba , although the citation is broken.

    62. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by rust627 · · Score: 2

      Vote for who you believe is the best candidate, not just for the lesser of 2 evils

      And encourage everyone you know to do the same

      Your vote DOES have a value

      Remember this , A landslide victory is made up of a lot of single votes.....

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
    63. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by airdweller · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations..."
      Catholic-affiliated. Not churches, but hospitals, etc. A person who works at a Catholic church has to be Catholic. A person who works for a Catholic-affiliated hospital - doesn't have to, and has the right for such a policy.

    64. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by stonedown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.

      I have less than zero sympathy, because I was forced to pay for the invasion of Iraq, with all the subsequent aftermath of at least 4 million people displaced from their homes, hundreds of thousands killed, worse living conditions than before, and women's rights brought down to the standard of other countries in the region.

      And I'm supposed to support Catholic organizations' mission to deny birth control coverage for their employees? Not gonna happen.

    65. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by cusco · · Score: 2

      Just an FYI, three seconds in the microwave with the cover open seems to kill the RFID without causing any obvious damage. Works on credit cards too, although five seconds will warp the card.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    66. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by zill · · Score: 4, Informative

      He plans to eliminate the Department of Education. In the 200 years before the Department of Education was established, the fine public schools of our country produced millions of brilliant scientists, artists, and freethinkers. I think our public schools will do fine without the Department of Education, considering that every state already has its own Department of Education.

    67. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Informative

      Last time I did that to an expiring credit card, the RFID chip literally smoked, resulting in very visible exterior damage. It might be possible to do this without scorching the chip, but I'm not sure I'd chance it. A careful blow with a hammer against something hard and flat would probably be a better way....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    68. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Informative

      How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.

      The original set of rules were already in place in California, and the Catholic Church attempted to fight a legal battle over it. They got all the way to the Federal District Appeals, and were shot down. The Supreme Court denied them a writ to hear the case.

      The actual original conditions require Catholics who are not hiring predominantly other Catholics, who do not service predominantly other Catholics, and a few other reasonable conditions to cover birth control for their employees. This means, that if a Catholic organization, goes out and hires atheists, protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and Wiccans, that they would have been forced (just like every other public employer) to provide birth control for those individuals.

      These Catholic organizations, which would have been required to provide birth control, do not feel that sharing their faith is necessary to be employed by them, so they should be treated just like any other employer. I don't care if your organization is "based on religious ideas", if you're practicing secular employment, then you cannot bring up your religious ideas to justify discrimination of those employees. You yourself have already chosen to eschew your religious employment grounds.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    69. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 2

      You may see it as a wedge issue. I see it as the most fundamental issue humanity faces. You see benefits in individual liberty, I see disaster if we cannot collectively manage the limited resources available to us. Even if the world were larger, or more bountiful, our exponential expansion of a species must at a time overrun our bounds. For this reason I see some form of socialist government as inevitable. There is no wealth gained in isolation; a world of riches profits not one who has no society with which to trade. Even more to the point, our species does not perpetuate itself in isolation.

      I believe that environmental issues are the most serious of those that confront us today. We have been enormously successful as a species, but economies, lifestyles, and worldviews predicated on exponential expansion are doomed to failure. If we had an infinite world, it might make sense for individuals to own as large of pieces of it as they liked. In practice, the degree to which individuals "own" their land is necessarily quite limited: governments may install infrastructure as necessary, and penalize the owners for ill conduct of the land, or even appropriate it wholly under the judicial principle of "eminent domain". Any philosophy that dispenses with these rights endangers the functioning of society.

      I do not hold that the individual has no rights, or that he does not have rights which should not be abridged by collective society. There is a balance of rights which should be maintained, in order to promote both the welfare of the individual and the group. To enshrine personal property along with life and liberty as inalienable is fractally harmful: a danger on all scales. The absolute onus is not laid on the individual to preserve himself, but on humanity to preserve itself. This is the foundation of all law and morality.

      to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    70. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2


      they are being required to pay for contraception

      if the patient requests it


      Why should an employer be able to determine what healthcare they do and do not wish to make available to me? My healthcare choices are my own choices. The employer can make their own moral choices about themselves, and I can make may own moral choices about myself

      I mean, christ, what a slippery slope. Should employers be allowed to not pay for AIDs treatments? Obesity treatments? Medical benefits that are associated with particular races/sexes?

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    71. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 2

      Well my religion states that killing is wrong but I still have to contribute to the enforcement of the death penalty, how does that work.

    72. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I get good customer service from airlines on a regular basis. For the most recent example, because TSA made us miss our flight by ten seconds (we were at the airport an hour before the flight and the door closed that long before we were able to run up to the kiosk), three United gate reps worked to get us booked on other Star Alliance flights (and even offered to go to other airlines at one point though the odds were no better). It took the better part of two hours to get things worked out and we flew standby twice, but they went far above and beyond what was necessary.

      I have also walked up to the gate when it's not crowded and asked if there were any better seats than I'd been assigned or even selected and been provided Economy Plus without extra charge on two or three occasions even without being a serious frequent flyer. My fiancee who has back problems and migraines from a military injury is regularly able to get handicap boarding on just her word, though she carries her placard and paperwork with her for backup just in case.

      I sympathize with the airline staff. They have to deal with surly customers who start with the presumption that the airlines are out to get them. I start with the presumption that the people behind the desk are just trying to do their job as best they can (usually right, sometimes wrong) and I get much further with that.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    73. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      For instance the democrats are now afraid to give give the green party too much space because of what happened in 2000, and the republicans are similarly letting Ron Paul be a candidate even though they despise the guy, just to avoid the threat of him running for an independent party stealing a possible win..

      That is exactly what I am talking about. Ron Paul is not running as a Libertarian, he is running in the Republican primary. Viable would-be Green party candidates can do the same thing in the Democratic primary (when there is one).

      There is also another alternative, specifically for presidential elections and elections in districts that lean strongly in one direction: If a third party (e.g. Ralph Nader) runs, they should only run in guaranteed districts. Greens are most viable in 80% Democratic Congressional districts anyway. Or put your name on the ballot for President in California and Massachusetts, but not Florida or Ohio. Then you can show how much support you have, and get yourself in front of a microphone, without changing the outcome of any elections to favor the greater of two evils.

      But that isn't a distinction people generally make when they talk about voting for third parties. If you have an election between two major parties that each have a significant chance of winning, voting for a third party is still voting against the major party most like them. If you know the election is going to be a landslide for one candidate, then vote for whoever you want because it isn't going to matter.

    74. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      There are a lot of things I disagree with Paul on, his list of departments to be closed is HIGH on that list, but the Department of Education is a HUGE waste of money. The PELL grants and federally subsidized loans can be handled by anyone including treasury or even block grants to the states, BUT the rest of that department, including no child left behind, is a HUGE waste of money, resources and IMO isn't even constitutionally sound let alone actually accomplishes anything. Education is reserved to the states, the feds shouldn't even be messing in it. All they've done since Nixon created the department has been to make effective primary education harder for the states.

    75. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Informative

      BTW, the Dems had both houses of Congress for most of Obama's first term. So I guess you can blame those damned dirty Dem Congress members too.

      I call bullshit. Democrats had 59 votes + 1 Lieberman (who is hardly Democrat). Every time Republicans chose to filibuster (which was nearly always), requiring 61 votes to push something through, the majority meant nothing.

    76. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by mikkelm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is most certainly not a privilege.

      The right to travel, the right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country are fundamental human rights defined by the UDHR. These rights may not be respected, but that doesn't change their nature as rights.

    77. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by rk · · Score: 2

      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it.

    78. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole problem is employers paying for health care at all. This whole nonsense got started because of a moronic tax policy that allowed both the employer and employee to not pay income on compensation in the form of certain benefits.

      So to lure to employees and doge some taxes employers started offering to pay for medial insurance. The insurance companies like that and encouraged it because it made their administration simpler and eliminated their need to go try and figure out how to market to individuals. To keep the practice intact they came up with this whole stupid system of groups rates etc etc.

      A better solution would be to all compensation is taxable as income (and lower the over all tax rate accordingly). That would remove the incentive for employees to seek employers offering health insurance and for employers to offer it. It would remove this whole issue of religious freedom, because once its your money its yours to do with as you like. You want to buy a policy that covers contraception great, you want one that does not cover it you find a provider who offers it.

      The final solution over all is force insurance companies to be insurance companies and end the heal management regime. You obligate medical practitioners (doctors) and providers (hospitals, nursing homes, etc) to publish a price book (prices can be whatever they like) on some periodic basis. Everyone MUST be charged the same rate. Big Insurance Inc cannot negotiate special rates where they pay $40 for a patient to receive a few stitches at the ER but if I show up without insurance and offer to pay cash the price is $1200 (true story). At that point insurance companies are forced back into the risk sharing game an could only add cost to the patient in terms of overhead to basic care / services. You reason for buying insurance would be the same reason you buy home owners, not because you want them to cut your law every week but because you want to be covered in the event something disastrous happens.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    79. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by bryan1945 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the way to do it, people. Generally, if you go to them with a positive attitude, explain your situation calmly, they'll try to help you. What you normally see is people flipping their shit at the very first sign of an inconvenience, which just sets up an adversarial attitude.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    80. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by fredklein · · Score: 5, Informative

      United Declaration on Human Rights is silent on the issue of travel.

      Um...

      http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
      Article 13.

              (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
              (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    81. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by The+Rizz · · Score: 2

      While you were typing this an altar boy remained un-raped.

      Did I miss one?

    82. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      Why be careful with the hammer? I mean, other than avoiding your other thumb...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    83. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by ediron2 · · Score: 2

      Funny thing, if we went to single payer or nationalized healthcare, this whole issue goes away.

      I've had employees. And I've never understood why healthcare that has no ties to employer isn't insanely popular among small business owners.

      I didn't / dont *WANT* to waste time researching, optimizing and otherwise managing employee benefit packages. I want to ship product. Ditto on time spent on byzantine rules about taxes, FICA etc.

      Legislators, here's a freebie: get rid of loopholes, make the tax law simple and progressive (no flat tax), and in general try to eliminate any need for 'tax prep services' and 'payroll management agencies' and anyone else that makes their profit off of incomprehensibility in laws.

      But then, I'm an engineer, not a Bain Capital vulture capitalist. Rearranging money is so much more valuable than my mere acts of science and technology.

    84. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by swalve · · Score: 2

      What credit cards have rfid chips in them?

    85. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by mikkelm · · Score: 2

      There aren't all that many articles of the UDHR. It's covered in article 13, but you would've found that in two seconds if you were at all interested in knowing what you're talking about. After the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative came into effect, you're legally required as a U.S. citizen to present a U.S. passport whenever you depart the U.S.

      If the freedom of movement is guaranteed by the UDHR, and a passport is required for movement, then either a passport is a right, or the U.S. is in violation of article 13. Take your pick; it doesn't change the outcome.

  2. FTFA by SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    “This is done for national security, for whatever reason they can’t make an exception, period,”

    They flew from Denver to Dallas without a problem, then were stopped in Dallas. If they can't make an exception, why were they allowed to get on the first plane?

    1. Re:FTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need a passport for flying within the US. Technically, you don't even need a passport for leaving the US, but if you don't have one, it becomes very difficult to re-enter.

      The proper way to handle this would've been to inform them that they need to get the passport repaired or risk facing excessive scrutiny on their return. Some officials involved and quoted in the article need to be replaced.

    2. Re:FTFA by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      “We started at Denver International Airport, where we checked in and all our passports were checked very thoroughly,” said Kyle Gosnell.

      Their passports were checked in Denver and they were allowed to board. The should have been stopped in Denver. WTFA.

    3. Re:FTFA by n5vb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      “This is done for national security, for whatever reason they can’t make an exception, period,”

      They flew from Denver to Dallas without a problem, then were stopped in Dallas. If they can't make an exception, why were they allowed to get on the first plane?

      The first plane wasn't leaving the country.

      Which comes back to my ongoing objection to airline security implementation in general -- there's no guarantee you won't get stuck in an airport far away from home with no way to get to your destination or back home, because someone halfway to your destination decided to throw a fit over some minor technicality. And in situations where that does happen, there's also no guarantee you won't become a "suspected terrorist" if, in the heat of the moment, you object to any part of the process a little too loudly. It's little consolation that that's rare if you're the 1 in 10,000+ whose luck just ran out.

    4. Re:FTFA by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You only need the Visa if you plan on working there. The passport's enough for a visit.

      That depends on the country. Many countries grant Americans an implicit visa to travel there for tourism for a specific period of time, but many others do not. India and Vietnam are two examples that immediately come to mind. Some countries will grant you a visa in the airport after you fill out some paperwork, while others require you to apply from outside the country in advance (and waiting periods vary).

      You should travel more.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    5. Re:FTFA by hawguy · · Score: 2

      There is definitely some info missing in this story that makes me question that all the facts are not being given.

      First, a "young child" does not need a photo ID of any kind to board a plane in the US.

      The article explains this -- the child's passport was questioned, but not denied, so this story has nothing to do with the child's passport:

      His (child's) passport was questioned, but not denied. It was Kyle Gosnell’s (the father) that was the real problem. It has a small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn.

      Second, why were they even showing an ID in Dallas unless they left the boarding area and have to come back through security again?

      On every international flight I've been on, the airline verifies my passport when I check in before leaving the country -- I don't know if this is a legal requirement or just an airline/airport requirement.

    6. Re:FTFA by RajivSLK · · Score: 2

      Depends on the country... There are a lot of countries that recognize each others driver's licenses as proof or that don't require any documents when traveling between them (see all of the EU). For a long time you could travel between Canada and US with only a drivers license or a birth certificate.

    7. Re:FTFA by INeededALogin · · Score: 2

      Either way, I've found a fairly decent area of the country to stay, for the last few years of my life, and see no need to go through any such hassles ever again. If I can't drive there, I'm not going.

      That isn't the geeky way to defeat the problem:-P

      Some geeky options:

      -- Pilots License/rent your own plane
      -- Hot air balloon
      -- Futurama tubes
      -- Gauss Gun
      -- Submarine

    8. Re:FTFA by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      On every international flight I've been on, the airline verifies my passport when I check in before leaving the country -- I don't know if this is a legal requirement or just an airline/airport requirement.

      Airline requirement (via legal requirement push-back). Many places will charge the airline depositing an illegal for the cost of deportment. "you brung em, you take em" So the airlines will make sure they don't have to pay to ship a person somewhere (as a deportment could be to somewhere they don't fly, i.e. a UK citizen with a criminal record should be denied entry to Australia, and if they flew in on Fiji Airlines from LAX with a stop in Fiji, Fiji Airlines would be responsible for flying them to the UK, costing them thousands of real dollars, not just a seat on a plane, as they don't fly to London). In fact, because of that, it's not unheard of to get stranded in a stopover for such a problem.

  3. Comparison of technologies by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Paper

    Can survive being crushed, sat on, folded, spun, submerged in water, thrown up on, run over by a car, heated to several hundred degrees, frozen to near absolute zero, exposed to intense radiation, and the data stored on paper can be read with no special tools under a wide variety of environmental conditions, or using simple tools like a 'lens', can be read at distances of up to several hundred feet or more.

    RFID

    Can be used with a scanner that has a range of only a few inches. If any part of the chip is damaged, the data is irretrievable. Costs more than paper. Can be destroyed in everyday use, including sitting on it, folding it, getting it wet, etc.

    Which one would you pick for storing sensitive information which, if made inaccessible, has the potential to prevent you from ever seeing your loved ones, your home, or any of your possessions again?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Comparison of technologies by ncttrnl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even without the RFID, I've watched them deny kids onto flights because their passport wasn't signed. It was interesting to watch the mother explain that her kids could barely write their name let alone be expected to have a signature that would ever be useful for identification. They finally made her hold her kids' hands so that each of them could sign their names. The whole system is flawed and RFID is just another expensive layer on top of it. I would have hoped RFID was implemented more like magnetic strips on credit cards. When they work, it speeds things up. When they don't, every business has an imprint machine or a place to type in your credit card number in their computer so they can still take your money. I guess there is more incentive in the case of credit cards to actually get it right for the consumer though.

    2. Re:Comparison of technologies by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can be used with a scanner that has a range of only a few inches. If any part of the chip is damaged, the data is irretrievable. Costs more than paper. Can be destroyed in everyday use, including sitting on it, folding it, getting it wet, etc.

      Contains electric circuits that can fail, rendering the RFID useless, even with no abuse.

    3. Re:Comparison of technologies by GodInHell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which one would you pick for storing sensitive information which, if made inaccessible, has the potential to prevent you from ever seeing your loved ones, your home, or any of your possessions again?

      Neither?

      Even if you intentionally light your passport on fire and fling it into the U.S. Embassy, you still have the right to return if you're a U.S. Citizen. (admittedly, probably after at least a few days in jail for lighting something on fire and flinging it into an occupied building.) I went to the Chzech republic once with some other students from the U.S., while we were there one of my friends made with the stupid and agreed to leave her passport with her hotel as a security deposit (do NOT do this). Naturally when she tried to retrieve it her passport was gone (stolen, they are valuable).

      Was she "prevented from ever seeing [her] loved ones, [her] home, or any of [her] possessions again?" Of course not, she went to the U.S. Embassy. They harangued her for being stupid and issued her a temporary passport to get back to Italy with. Once we were back in Italy the U.S. Embassy in Rome issued her a new permanent passport. Getting her Italian Visa replaced was harder.

      When you travel outside the U.S., you need to accept that you may not be able to keep to your schedule, plan for it. Book all your flights with a single airline (so that when Airline A screws up and you miss a connecting flight its their problem, not yours). Leave some vacation time (a day or two) on the return side of your trip. Don't try to sneak pot back out of Amsterdam (no, seriously, wtf are you thinking?). You have to take precautions.

      But what you describe, has no connection to reality.

    4. Re:Comparison of technologies by DanTheStone · · Score: 2

      There are 2 interests competing in this situation. One is you, wanting to avoid trouble. The other is the government, wanting to know you are who you claim to be. Paper doesn't have a challenge-and-response system. The government wants secure documents establishing you are actually the owner of the passport, and that the something-you-have is genuine, and they make all the rules.

    5. Re:Comparison of technologies by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What retard would do that?

      You are supposed to print the child's name and then sign it yourself with either "(father)" or "(mother)" after the signature.

      Congrats to the retard though, they've just invalidated the passport. Though of course since the parent didn't bother reading the very clear instructions I guess that's fair enough.

    6. Re:Comparison of technologies by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      When you travel outside the U.S., you need to accept that you may not be able to keep to your schedule, plan for it.

      Christ, yes. I remain thoroughly amazed that people expect to fly half way around the world, do something and fly back all within a 2 hour window of time. Historically those trips (if they were possible at all) took months or years and almost always were subject to delays perhaps lasting weeks.

      Slow down America! Enjoy the ride. The mess will still be there when you get back.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Comparison of technologies by sabs · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I was 12, I went to the Post Office to pick up a money order that was in my name. All I had on me for ID was my French Passport (not being a US citizen at the time). The lady said she couldn't take a foreign passport as proof of ID, and asked me to provide my driver's license.

      I mentally facepalmed, and informed her I was 12, and unlikely to have a driver's license anytime in the near future.

      Most people with a modicum of authority are idiots.

    8. Re:Comparison of technologies by fgouget · · Score: 2

      I had the same problem when I tried renting a tape at Hollywood Video in 1997. They refused my French passport. A French passport and a French driving license is all I needed to buy a car and drive away with it. But renting a VHS tape? No. That's serious business. That absolutely requires a California driving license!

    9. Re:Comparison of technologies by ToddInSF · · Score: 2

      You did read that she demanded a drivers license from a twelve year old child with a valid passport ?

      Some people have no business interacting with the public.

  4. Same thing has happened to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was traveling alone, but I've gotten similar crap from a AA rep with a bur up his butt or something. This was pre-chip passport, but my well traveled 9 1/2 year old passport was slightly bowed from being placed in my pocket. He said basically the same thing as the article, that it shows a disrespect for the document and that I should keep it in a necklace type holder or somewhere else other than my back pocket. This same passport was never questioned by a government official in any country I traveled too. I waited for the douche to go on break and then proceeded to check in without incident by another agent. He would probably be one to charge folks an excessive baggage fee if one of their bags was 1 oz over regulation as well.

    1. Re:Same thing has happened to me... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Disrespect for the document"? It's a fucking document, not a person. I have no reason to respect a document. Especially one that I bought and paid for myself, with my own time and money.

      As long as it's legible and you can see my photo, that's all that should matter. These people must be the ones who were teacher's pets in high school civics class, right? WTF is the world coming to?

    2. Re:Same thing has happened to me... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There seems to be some sort of fetish for 'respect', most commonly(but not entirely exclusively) exhibited by those people who've never deserved a dose of it in their lives. I don't know exactly why this crops up; but it definitely does. It's bad enough when those people demand respect for themselves regardless of desert and sometimes by force; but when they give up on that and hitch their self worth to a god or a flag or something they become truly insufferable.

  5. Kinda right, but not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The travel guy they interview has one thing right and one thing wrong...

    Not all passports have RFID chips in them. That didn't start until 2006. Mine has no such chip in it. No problems at all with it. Even without the RFID chip, the passport is machine readable (that's the barcode on the picture page). It won't be until 2016 that all US passports--that is, when the old ones all expire, finally--will be biometric/RFID. So I don't see why they should refuse someone who's RFID chip doesn't work, given that other people will be allowed on without one too.

    But he is right that the passport is property of the US government. It says that in the document somewhere.

    A colleague of mine had major problems with Delta and his visa. He was going to China, and had a return flight 60 days after he left. His visa was only good to stay 30 days. They refused to let him on the plane. Of course, he had planned to go to Hong Kong after 28 days, stay for 3, and then return to mainland China (possible with his multiple entry visa), all of which is fully legal. Delta didn't care and made him change his flight (and pay to do so). He then had to pay a second time to change it back once he got to China. His CC refunded the fees, but it was still unnecessary hassle.

    The major issue: airlines are NOT immigrations officials! They do have some responsibility, of course. They don't want people getting on planes without passports, only to have them sent back home immediately. Still, on judgment calls like validity of visa and travel plans, they should not have final say in the matter. That's not their job. They don't always get it right.

    The family may have made a mistake not immediately calling for a customs agent to get involved. The airline could easily take them downstairs, where there's dozens of immigrations officers, any of whom could make the judgment. There's also probably a supervisor there who gets final say. Why were those people not called in to decide the validity of the passport?

    1. Re:Kinda right, but not... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      A colleague of mine had major problems with Delta and his visa. He was going to China, and had a return flight 60 days after he left. His visa was only good to stay 30 days. They refused to let him on the plane. Of course, he had planned to go to Hong Kong after 28 days, stay for 3, and then return to mainland China (possible with his multiple entry visa), all of which is fully legal. Delta didn't care and made him change his flight (and pay to do so). He then had to pay a second time to change it back once he got to China. His CC refunded the fees, but it was still unnecessary hassle.

      Most countries that require visas also require a return ticket already purchased. This is done to help ensure that the person is not going to overstay their visa. If an airline sends someone without a visa, an invalid/expired visa, or if that person is in any way denied entry, the airline is usually fined and must return the passenger. And these are not small fines. They can be as high as $25,000 per person. And the cost of the return flight is of course not paid for by the country, the airline/passenger must cover the cost. Had he flown on to China, there is a very good chance he would have been denied entry because of the long time difference between his visa expiry and his return ticket.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  6. Terrible, terrible summary by Revotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this will go unheeded because it's what people don't want to hear, but the US Government had nothing to do with this case.

    The child was denied clearance by an airline employee, not an actual customs agent. And the person who claims that a damaged passport is "disrespect" to the privilege of holding a passport is some whackjob I've never heard of who owns a small business that specializes in... wait for it... passports and visas! The online ratings for this guy's business classify him as a Grade A jackass, as well.

    This is an overblown, almost-manufactured attempt at criticizing the government for its national security policies. It's really much more akin to blaming the local beef farmer because my steak was overcooked.

    1. Re:Terrible, terrible summary by Herkum01 · · Score: 2

      I disagree, the airline decided it could act like a government agency and validate a passport. A passport is a government document to used BY "THE GOVERNMENT"! When a airline decides it does not like your Drivers License, or SS card or your passport, well that is really outside the realm of business.

  7. Re:Can the RFID chips be read with the cover close by DanTheStone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You need to read the MRZ (machine-readable section of the page with the photo) of the passport as the key to unlock the encryption of the chip. You can't get that with it closed (unless you already know the owner's name, birth date, passport number, etc.).

  8. Strangely passive voice on that quote by steveha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFS: The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport.

    "The claim has been made", eh? Citation needed. Who made this claim? I RTFA and that line does not appear. I watched the video linked in TFA and that line was not spoken.

    If this is really a statement from someone in the US Government, then who said it, and when?

    My blood began to boil at the thought of someone in government saying such a thing. If this quote is true, this person is saying a passport is more precious than the flag of the USA, because there are at least some circumstances where it is legal to destroy a flag. But the whole passive voice thing and the total lack of attribution makes me wonder if this isn't just a made-up quote.

    If it's for real, give us a real cite. Let's get a tidal wave of negative publicity pointed at the person who said this.

    If it's not for real, let's not get all excited over nothing.

    P.S. TFA quoted some guy as saying that the government has "no reason in the world" to let you fly if the passport has a damaged chip. He likened it to a passport with the photo cut out. But I don't really know exactly who this guy is or why we should give his opinion any weight. I don't know what the actual government policy is on a passport that is clearly readable, with numbers and barcodes and such all intact but a damaged chip; it's hard to imagine that this is the actual official government policy. And if it is, I'd like a citation of that, please.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  9. Re:Does US hate its citizens? by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 2

    I can also hear people say it is only giving you problems when you travel.

    Is prison not mostly a limit to your ability to travel?

  10. What rubbish. by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport.

    Well, that's a stupid fucking claim. Saying that one should respect an easily (relatively) replaceable inanimate object or lose a fundamental right is just the most pants-on-head stupid thing I've ever heard.

    It's the kind of thing someone too stupid to understand abstract ideas views the world: "Oh, they want to burn the flag, that means they hate America" while being all the while unaware that prohibiting the exercise of free speech like flag burning is anathema to the founding principles of the US.

    It's also stupid on its face - what possible benefit is gained from RFID other than convenience for immigration officials, and in what universe does that minor convenience outweigh the rights of citizens to travel or not?

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  11. No, pretty accurate. by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the government had not have created this police state, then airlines wouldn't give a damn.

    --
    This is my sig.
  12. How is a having a passport a privilege??????? by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Informative

    "To have a passport is privilege, it's not entitled to you by citizenship," Priest said

    The law disagrees completely - http://law.justia.com/cfr/title22/22-1.0.1.6.33.5.5.1.html. Note there are grounds for denying a passport, but there are also grounds for puttting you in prison - that doesn't mean not being in prison is a priviledge.

    Or if you prefer statements made to the public of how the government interpretes the law:

    Every United States citizen is entitled to a U.S. passport provided that they, or an adult acting on a child's behalf, comply with all applicable requirements, and that there is no statutory or regulatory reason to deny the passport.

            - http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/family/family_864.html

    Heck it uses the word "entitled"!

    1. Re:How is a having a passport a privilege??????? by E_Ron.Eous · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The word entitled is used because travel is a right and has been recognized as a right as long as rights have been recognized. The right to travel is one of those rights covered under the 9th amendment.

  13. A bad chip is still a valid passport by Vaerchi · · Score: 5, Informative

    quoted from http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#One

    What will happen if my Electronic Passport fails at a port-of-entry?

    The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

  14. Re:who would want by Ana10g · · Score: 4, Informative

    Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

    1st world: United States and allies during the cold war.
    2nd world: Soviet Union, China, and allies during the cold war.
    3rd world: Any nation not listed in the above two categories.

    Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_world

    --
    just an analog boy living in a digital age.
  15. respect the fine document by mevets · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think its a cultural thing. Some cultures get in more of a knot over the sanctity of the tokens than what they represent. Religious texts, flags, UK football colours, to name but a few.

  16. Re:Can the RFID chips be read with the cover close by scorp1us · · Score: 2

    My $100 RFID reader can read my passport at a distance of about 4"

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  17. "disrespecting" the passport by Rogue+Haggis+Landing · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport.

    The last time I left the US I spent four weeks hiking around in the Dolomites and nearby. Everything I had was in my backpack, I stayed at night in mountain rifugios and hiked around most of every day. I had my passport on my person somewhere at every moment, because what else was I going to do with it? I fell a couple of times, nothing serious, but I did get a few scrapes and bruises, and I'll admit that I was a bit free in tossing my pack (which contained my passport) around.

    Now, if the RFID chip can be broken by a child sitting on it, there is an approximately 0% chance that mine would have survived that trip had I had the misfortune of having one in my passport. There would have been no way to avoid it, other than putting the passport in a box filled with bubble wrap and packing peanuts or something else equally absurd. Had I been staying in a hotel and wandering around a town I would have (as per Italian law) left it with the hotel. But this wasn't that sort of trip. There was no way, sort of building some sort of portable armored and padded shrine, that I would have been able to "respect" the passport enough to avoid wrecking the RFID chip, if it really is so easy to break.

    If the chip is that much less resilient than the paper that the passports are printed on, they need to come up with something better.

  18. THE CHILD WASN'T REFUSED by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 5, Informative
    Apparently people (including the submitter) are not RTFA very well. FTA

    Little Kye’s passport has a crease on the back cover, which Gosnell says came from him accidentally sitting on the passport. His passport was questioned, but not denied. It was Kyle Gosnell’s that was the real problem. It has a small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn.

    The child's passport was NOT denied, it was Kyle (presumably the father) who had the "overall weathered and worn" passport that was denied. It's hard to believe that his passport was so weathered and worn that it couldn't be read so this is probably still an issue of an airline employee with a stick up his ass but TFS is completely wrong and trolling everyone who comments on here enraged. TFA doesn't even say that the RFID chip had ANYTHING to do with his being denied. Parent is absolutely right that the person who is quoted has NOTHING to do with this situation. The local Fox team reporting on this probably Googled someone in the Denver area (not the Dallas area where this whole f'ing thing actually happened) and asked this nutjob for a quote for their story.
    PLEASE RTFA before commenting. Slashdot editors, PLEASE edit these retarded submissions before they get our collective panties in a wad.

  19. Re:Privilege? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

    Nope. It's a right that can be taken away in various circumstances, not a privilege that is granted at discretion. There is a difference.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  20. Try "a car without license plates" instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...if you're going for a car analogy.

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_1741.html

    Q:My passport has been damaged. Can I continue to use this passport?
            a:If your passport has been significantly damaged, especially the book cover or the page displaying your personal data and photo, you will need to apply for a new passport. You will need to submit the following in person (See Where to Apply):

                    The damaged passport
                    Form DS-11
                    All documents required by Form DS-11, including citizenship documentation (i.e. birth certificate)

            Water damage, a significant tear, unofficial markings on the data page, missing visa pages (torn out), a hole punch and other injuries may constitute "damage" requiring use of Form DS-11.

            Normal wear of a U.S. passport is understandable and likely does not constitute "damage". For instance, the expected bend of a passport after being carried in your back pocket or fanning of the visa pages after extensive opening and closing. In most cases of normal wear, you may renew your passport by mail using Form DS-82.

            Please remember, if you try to renew a significantly damaged passport using Form DS-82, you may be asked by the Passport Agency to apply again using Form DS-11 and incur additional fees./

  21. WTF? RTFA by blueforce · · Score: 3, Informative

    I R'd TFA.

    Apply little reading comprehension: It was Kyle, the FATHER, whose passport was denied. NOT the kid's.

    OP:

    "... they chose to deny a young child access to the flight, in essence denying the whole family."

    FTA:

    "Little Kye’s passport has a crease on the back cover, which Gosnell says came from him accidentally sitting on the passport. His passport was questioned, but not denied. It was Kyle Gosnell’s that was the real problem. It has a small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn."

    If we're going to infer things then let's infer that the dad's passport was old-school and didn't even have an RFID tag in it since it was described as "[having a] small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn.

    WTFF, Slashdot?

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  22. FTFY by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2

    A damaged passport is unusable, period.

    A passport not capable of being used is unusable. FTFY

    Damage without define what "damage" you are talking about, and doesn't infer usability.

    Is a small water stain on the cover damage? How about a dirty/dusty passport? What about a crease?

    --
    I8-D
  23. Re:who would want by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Clearly, you have no idea that the world and its use of language has changed since the Cold War.

    Hyperbole is fun, isn't it?

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  24. Re:Backpacking by PCM2 · · Score: 2

    Ever worked security at a bar or nightclub? Lots of Americans use their passports as their primary form of identification. Why, I could not tell you. Often there are no visa stamps visible in the passports; they just carry the passport instead of a state-issued ID. And I'd say about half the time, these passports are beat all to shit. Seriously, they look like old leather belts. I can't imagine that the RFID chip would work. From my experience, most Americans have absolutely no concept of this idea that you should "respect the document" of a passport. They don't treat them any better than they do their phone or their keys.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  25. Voting is a dynamic system by __aawzag621 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Politicians are rational : they don't adopt policies to entice voters unless there are such voters to be enticed. Socialists/Progressives have managed almost all signfiicant institutions in US and European societies for 50+ years. This despite the fact that the socialist parties in the US in the 1920s never got more than 5% of the national vote and never had more than 20 people in Congress. It was a consistent 5% of the vote, and so the other 2 parties adopted policies designed to capture that margin of victory. The consequence was a rapid shift of all politicians into the socialist end of the spectrum. If Libertarians have a consistent 5% of the vote, something that is beginning to be true, we will see an equally rapid shift of both parties to the Lib end of the spectrum.

    1. Re:Voting is a dynamic system by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Has someone been nationalising the means of production without the rest of us noticing?

      Yes. Capitalism can mean "control over the means of production" not just ownership thereof. I'd submit that the military industrial complex is socialist. The "control" (what gets made when by whom) is "owned" by the government, even if produced privately and profits concentrated in a few hands. We taxed our way into socialism, paying out lots of money to private corporations. Yes, the Republican party is socialist, moreso than the Democrats.

      The US is as "socialist" as China. The difference is China moved from socialism to capitalism by allowing private companies to form. The US moved from capitalist to socialist by having the corporations control the government. The government (or the people running it) control the production. That's socialism. The US is the most socialist country on the planet. Failing to support those in need doesn't contradict the requirements of socialism, and is therefore irrelevant.

  26. Re:Destroyed It Immediately by arkane1234 · · Score: 2

    ohhh.. you threw it on the GROUND!!! mannnnn

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  27. No legal standing to declare passport invalid by xeno · · Score: 4, Informative

    From http://law.justia.com/cfr/title22/22-1.0.1.6.33.html#22:1.0.1.6.33.1.3.1

    22 C.F.R. PART 51—PASSPORTS
    Title 22 - Foreign Relations
    PART 51—PASSPORTS

      51.6 Damaged, mutilated or altered passport.
    Any passport which has been materially changed in physical appearance or composition, or contains a damaged, defective or otherwise nonfunctioning electronic chip, or which includes unauthorized changes, obliterations, entries or photographs, or has observable wear and tear that renders it unfit for further use as a travel document may be invalidated. [ Note that this says MAY, and more to the point does not say IS... so a revocation judgement has to be made by.... ]

      51.4 Validity of passports.
    (h) Invalidity. A United States passport is invalid whenever:
    (1) The passport has been formally revoked by the Department; or [ ... ONLY IF, in the judgement of the State Dept, the mutilation warrants revocation ]
    (2) The Department has registered a passport reported either in writing or by telephone to the Department of State, or in writing to a U.S. passport agency or to a diplomatic or consular post abroad as lost or stolen.
    (3) The Department has sent a written notice to the bearer at the bearer's last known address that the passport has been invalidated because the Department has not received the applicable fees.

    Improper visas or clearly wrong authorizations is one thing, but the intrinsic validity of a properly issued passport to its proper owner is clearly not a decision delegated to airline staff. That judgement is for immigrations or passport officials to make, not some Jetway jockeys who've mistaken themselves for State Department employees. Seems to me that a lawsuit for injunctive relief is perfectly appropriate -- specifically to prevent AA or other airline staff from making legal declarations about the invalidity of a passport. And it's not like this would be burdensome, either: If Jetway Jane sees that you don't posses a passport or a visa for a destination that requires one, you've violated the terms on your ticket, and will be denied boarding because it's a ticketing issue. But If Jetway Joe thinks your passport might be invalid, he should call the resident officials at the airport to make a determination -- not try to impersonate them.

    --
    I think not...(*poof*)
  28. Re:Try "a car without RFID license plates" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

    "but perfectly visible and functional regular license plates"

    Seems like a non-issue to me. The FAQ you quote seems to agree by virtue of not mentioning the RFID in the list of things that constitute 'damage', or mentioning a requirement that the RFID chip work in the section on RFID. Seems like they mostly care about the printed components of the book.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  29. Weathered and Worn? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My current passport does not have a chip in it and is good for another year. It is also pretty damn beat up. It has stickers on the outside that French immigration has put on it. It has been bent and tweaked by a variety of national border control types, and no one has ever applied a visa stamp gently. It has also spent a lot of time in my pocket, because nothing says "Tourist here please rob me" like one of those dorky things hanging around your neck. As a result of being in my pocket, it has gotten sat on, sweated on, bent, etc. In short, it looks like the passport of someone who travels a lot, which I guess they don't see a lot at American Airlines in Dallas. I respect my passport enough that I don't leave it in hotel safes, don't hang it around my neck to get snatched, and generally try to keep it from getting stolen, which has resulted in it looking weathered and worn. The airline employee in Dallas is a tool.

    And get off my lawn.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  30. Who denied his passport? by lightknight · · Score: 2

    Was it our good friends, the TSA, or is this a private venture? I ask because there was an article, a while back, which mentioned that airports could provide their own security forces if they chose to; moreover, this article does not mention who, exactly, denied him an exit.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  31. Re:First world problem? by canajin56 · · Score: 2
    To quote the US Passport FAQ

    The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

    If your RFID fails you do not have to get your passport re-issued. It is a valid document. Period.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  32. Not true. by raehl · · Score: 4, Informative

    The federal government requiring Catholics to pay for other people's contraception.

    This is not true. The federal government is requiring ALL employers to offer health insurance or pay a fine, and all health insurance offered must pay for contraception.

    The federal government is not, however, requiring anyone to be an employer.

  33. Re:Shouting "fire" for no reason by psiclops · · Score: 2

    if you factor in the damage that would have been caused by not yelling fire then end results are different:

    Example A(no fire):
    Danger caused by yelling Fire: x
    Danger caused by not yelling fire: 0
    Net damage: x

    Example B:
    Danger caused by yelling Fire: x
    Danger caused by not yelling fire: y
    Net damage: x-y

    as x and y are both generally assumed to be positive values x > (x-y) therefore there is more net damage from yelling fire when there is no fire.

    --
    i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig