Unable to travel because he refuses to present a government-approved ID #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
It strikes me that the crux of his argument isn't the fact he's asked for ID, it's the fact that he can't read the law/regulation requiring it, and thus can't decide if it's constitutional or not.

This whole discussion harks back to thread that was running on THR last year about airline security and things screeners were allowed to snatch ... errr, "confiscate." A person joined in the discussion claiming to be a TSA honcho, and stated that the regulations grant screeners unlimited discretion. (In other words, the rules say there are no rules.)

When asked for the text of this regulation, the self-proclaimed TSA supervisor told us they were classified and could not be viewed by the peons ... errr, public (us, in other words, the unwashed masses).

That is what this argument is all about. A government "of the People, by the People, and for the People" should not prevent the People from seeing the laws and regulations to which they are subjected.
 
I doubt that the "law that they won't show" allows them to sexually molest someone in the name of public safety.
I'm sure you're right. They'll just redefine the terms.

Suddenly "sexual molestation" ceases to be "sexual molestation" and becomes "essential security screening procedures (to include brief but necessary manual examination of sensitive areas including a female's breasts, genitals and posterior and a male's genitals and posterior) for passenger safety".
 
Well you know what would solve all these identity problems?

They should just have everyone one of us, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, receive a mark on our right hand or on our forehead, and as long as we receive this mark, we can travel wherever you want to travel.

Of course terrorists will not be allowed to have this mark.

How's that for a plan?
 
Last edited:
I always worry that I will get put on restricted list every time I fly. I am normally shaking my head at stupidity. Or calling them on crap. So far so good. (course the good part is most of time I didn't WANT to fly so was actually kinda hoping to get bumped. This time I do want to go..... So have to TRY to be nice sheep. (I plan to have a pack of matches since lighters not allowed) :)
 
This is why our government HATES rich people. We don't teach 'em to be that successful, we teach 'middle of the road' so you make $66k a year, and spend your 35 years or so of useful production leveraged to the hilt, paying taxes, and then you die (ideally.)

We tax the pants off the rich, to try to make them poor again at up to 50% or more, and then we cater the banking industry to lend everyone only a litttttle bit of money.

(It's easy to get a home loan for your first house. Dozens of 'leg up' programs 0% down, etc. Somewhat easy to get a 'vacation home loan' for your 2nd house in Tahoe too. Then it's "Investment property" for #3 and more. Uho, now that's really hard to get all of a sudden. I wonder why?)

Rich people are very scary to an oppressive gov't. They have the time, money, and generally attitude, to challenge the status quo, to stand up for themselves and their fellow citizenry against injustice. As they are not worker-bees, the beeker's smoke of taxes and threats of prosecution suddenly have no effect.

They are very very very dangerous to a tyranical government! (and oddly enough, no threat at all to a government actually by, for, and of the people.)
 
Sue the bastards!

Seems to me I read somewhere that there is a federal law that says you can sue ANYONE, for violating your civil rights. Since TSA personnel are now, most of em anyway, federal employees it strikes me that you could in fact sue them for harassment and abuse for putting you on the trouble maker list. Lets see the feds dodge that one. Now all I need is a rich lawyer :cool:
 
Several years ago before my father died various family members were going with me to visit in eastern Oregon. On one return trip we had turned in the rental car and proceded to the ticket desk to check in our luggage.

The female airline clerk smiled that sacharin smile and asked me the three questions that the airlines believe to be the answer to their security needs.

"Did you pack your luggage yourself?"

"Has your luggage been out of your sight?"

"Has anyone asked you to carry anything in your luggage?"

I answered "No" to all three and then I smiled my sacharin smile and asked this question of the airline employee.

"Do you realize how these questions sound? If someone answers no to all of them and they lied how would you know if they were being truthful?" I also asked just what was the point of such ridiculous questions?

I could see her sweet smile turning to a questioning, almost fearful look and her hand was starting to reach under the counter for the alert call button. I already had my government issued ID and badge in my hand and I proffered it to her. Upon seeing the ID and badge for all of three seconds she got her composure under control and removed her hand from under the counter and smiled again, visibly relieved.

We proceded to the TSA checkpoint and I removed my bolo tie with the silver eagle medallion as well as the badge case and placed them in my hand carried item. As the valise went into the machine the operator stopped the belt and adjusted the screen to a closer view. She called a supervisor and I heard her say something about "..this guy has something thatlooks like a badge!" She actually looked somewhat frightened IMO. I looked across the spce between us and said something like , "Wow, could it be because it IS a badge?"

They peered at it for a moment and agreed that it was a badge and then passed my carry-on through the machine.

This whole TSA thing is causing many people to not fly anymore. maybe that is the purpose!

"
 
The point being made here is "where does it say that in the law"? Anything else is beside the point. I'm old but I hope to live long enough to see people have to present an official Govt I.D. to use the Airport bathroom. I'm sure there are some here that would think it would be OK because "they ain't got nothing to hide". What a joke. :barf:

Papers Please! Your papers are not in order! Come with us! :uhoh:
 
the last time I flew interstate to NYC out of boston I was shaken down and accosted just like everyone else... being as it was important business I had to submit like the rest of the sheep.

one thing I notice that irked me (and I say this without meaning any offense to any minority members here) that every security personnel looked like a black high school kid. I was dressed in white collar attire, with my beautiful wife to be and business partner. the very manner in which they spoke was pure ebonics, the F word and Sh_t were used liberally.

my business partner was harassed for a good 20 minutes over his laptop, and I saw them physically place their hands on him more than once... I have a real problem with people invading my "bubble" so to speak, but he is a very techy looking guy and looks and sounds like an easy target to bully. he was nothing but courteous, he said a very polite word (I can't recall what it was) and was then laughed at by the afro clad worker who said "what was that word you just used? I like that sh_t"

it was so unprofessional, and these are the people "keeping the skies safe" so to speak. I only fly out of necessity, the whole papers please mentale and all the crap that goes with flying these days... I try to do it as little as possible.
 
"Basically what they want is a show of obedience."

Don't underestimate this as a factor in the governments actions. Those with authority usually relish it, and demand that it be recognized --- if not, they will take their revenge if they can.

See -- 'contempt of cop' as a good example.
 
Cool Hand Luke, excellent link, thanks!
Looks to me as though the case comes down to measuring the government's compelling interest in providing for security of air passengers against an individual's right to remain anonymous, coupled with whether or not asking for one form of photo ID is "burdensome."

While it's clearly ridiculous that the government cannot provide for everyone's scrutiny the text of all these laws, it would seem that it'll be difficult to overcome the prerequisite to identify one's self ...

Don't underestimate this as a factor in the governments actions. Those with authority usually relish it, and demand that it be recognized --- if not, they will take their revenge if they can.

Doesn't it make it tougher to go through life with such a jaundiced view of all those who work for the government?
 
Ah, secret laws, finally we're getting somewhere! :rolleyes: Do you feel safe yet?

Why does an airline need to know who you are in order to give you a ride?
If they don't know who you are then how can they charge you extra for a transferrable ticket? Regularly priced tickets can't be transferred to another person, and if they don't ask for some id, how can they be sure?

During my last trip to California (I have family there) from NY, the TSA crew got their panties in a bunch over my car key. Yes, my car key. It's one of those new VW keys where the key folds into the little box with the door lock/unlock buttons on it. You press a little button and the key pops out the side (it's neat, and it makes it real compact in your pocket). You'd think it was a hand grenade the way they all flipped out.

All these "security measures" are just meant to make us feel like safe little sheep, not to actually make us safe. The illusion of safety is alot easier than actual safety, but really neither is possible in a truly free society. By the way, Bruce Schneier has some great thoughts on airplane "security"...
 
We proceded to the TSA checkpoint and I removed my bolo tie with the silver eagle medallion as well as the badge case and placed them in my hand carried item. As the valise went into the machine the operator stopped the belt and adjusted the screen to a closer view. She called a supervisor and I heard her say something about "..this guy has something thatlooks like a badge!" She actually looked somewhat frightened IMO. I looked across the spce between us and said something like , "Wow, could it be because it IS a badge?"
Hmmm ... Perhaps there IS a useful purpose for those idiotic "Concealed Weapons Permit" badges after all. Just pop one into your carry-on bag.

Wait -- then they might take it out, read it, and start looking for the gun. Maybe the badge that says "Private Investigator" or "Security Officer." They can't even claim you're trying to impersonate an officer, becayse YOU never pulled it out, flashed it, or in any way intimated that you are an officer. If they ask, tell them cousin Sally is planning a costume party and the badge is part of your costume.
 
Doesn't it make it tougher to go through life with such a jaundiced view of all those who work for the government?

Yes it sure does make it tougher. However in over half a century of observation, I have found that someone who will stoop so low as to feed at the public trough probably has numerous other unsavory habits as well, and deserves watching.
 
...someone who will stoop so low as to feed at the public trough ...

[sarcasm]Yes, those firefighters, police officers, teachers, and military members who feed from the public trough should burn! Burn I say![/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
 
auschip, thanks, you beat me to the quip ...
I have found that someone who will stoop so low as to feed at the public trough probably has numerous other unsavory habits as well, and deserves watching.
Yep, the wife of one of the techs (civil service) who does some work for my unit told me once that he is constantly leaving his dirty skivvy shorts and socks in the corner of their bathroom ...
 
If you gentlemen will note, I said nothing about "they should burn." I said nothing about "dirty socks" either.

The "bad habits" I referred to had more to do with putting people in jail with no charges for three years (see Padilla case), or gutting the first amendment (see campaign finance reform), or violating unreasonable search and seizure laws (see the "War on some drugs"), or fabricating evidence to put people in jail (see any number of FBI cases, and local police cases galore). All this and much more brought to you by Government and those who carry out the orders.

Government is corrupt on many many levels, and those that participate indeed deserve scrutiny. Our founding fathers understood this -- it is too bad that so many of us have forgotten.
 
From the CRS Report:

New federal statutes and agency regulations have been implemented, each with the purpose of ensuring the safety and security of passengers, facilities, and workers of our national transportation systems.

From Gilmore's papersplease.org website:

What does an ID, any ID, do for security? The honest answer is 'not much'. If anything, relying on ID for security purposes actually makes things worse.

[...]

Bad people, besides using fake IDs and stolen identities, can also make the system of checking IDs work in their favor. The Carnival Booth effect, as described by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, means that terrorists can probe an ID security system by sending a number of people on innocent trips through the system and noting who is flagged for extra searches and who isn't. They then send only those who the system doesn't flag on terrorist missions.

I do not believe both can be true. Can they?
 
By the way, Bruce Schneier has some great thoughts on airplane "security"...

...many of them dead wrong.

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0208.html#8

Arming Airplane Pilots

It's a quintessentially American solution: our nation's commercial aircraft are at risk, so let's allow pilots to carry guns. We have visions of these brave men and women as the last line of defense on an aircraft, and courageously defending the cockpit against terrorists at 30,000 feet. I can just imagine the made-for-TV movie.

Reality is more complicated than television, though. Sometimes, security systems cause more problems than they solve. Putting guns on aircraft will make us more vulnerable to attack, not less.

When people think of potential problems with an weapons in a cockpit, they think of accidental shootings in the air, holes in the fuselage, and possibly even equipment shattered by a stray bullet. This is a problem, certainly, but not a major one. A bullet hole is small, and doesn't let a whole lot of air out. And airplanes are designed to handle equipment failures -- even serious failures -- and remain in the air. If I ran an airline, I would worry more about accidents involving passengers, who are much less able to survive a bullet wound and much more likely to sue.

The real dangers, though, involve the complex systems that must be put in place before the first gun can ride along in the cockpit. There are major areas of risk.

One, we need a system for getting the gun on the airplane. How does the pilot get the gun? Does he carry it through the airport and onto the plane? Is it issued to him after he's in the cockpit but before the plane takes off? Is it secured in the cockpit at all times, even when there is no one there? Any one of these solutions has its own set of security vulnerabilities. The last thing we want is for an attacker to exploit one of these systems in order to get himself a gun. Or maybe the last thing we want is a shootout in a crowded airport.

Second, we need a procedure for storing the gun on the airplane. Does the pilot carry it on his hip? Is it locked in a cabinet? If so, who has the key? Is there one gun, or do the pilot and co-pilot each have one? However the system works, it's ripe for abuse. If the gun is always at the pilot's hip, an attacker can take it away from him when he leaves the cockpit. (Don't laugh; policemen get their guns taken away from them all the time, and they're trained to prevent that.) If the guns remain in the cockpit when it is unoccupied, we have a whole new set of problems to worry about.

Third, we need a system of training pilots in gun handling and marksmanship. Guns require training to use well; how much training can we expect our pilots to have? This is different from training sky marshals. Security is the primary job of a sky marshal; they're expected to learn how to use a gun. Flying planes is the primary job of a pilot.

Giving pilots guns is a disaster waiting to happen. The current system spends a lot of time and effort keeping weapons off airplanes and out of airports; the proposed scheme would inject thousands of handguns into that system. There are just too many pilots and too many flights every day; mistakes will happen. Someone will do an inventory one night and find a gun missing, or ten. Someone will find one left in a cockpit. Someone may even find one on a seat in a terminal.

El Al is the most security-conscious airline in the world. Their pilots remain behind two bulletproof doors, and they're unarmed. It's the job of the pilot to land the plane safely, not to engage terrorists in close combat. For that, they rely on sky marshals, crew, and passengers. If pilots have to leave the cockpit to solve a security problem, it's too late.

United States airlines are not comparable to El Al. Our flights don't travel with two armed sky marshals each. We don't perform security checks on passengers that, while legal in Israel, would violate U.S. laws. We don't have two bulletproof doors separating the cockpit from the passengers. Many politicians see guns as a quick fix to a problem that can't wait for a careful solution.

Personally, I don't think pilots should be armed. But even if I thought they did, I still wouldn't give them guns. Guns aren't designed to be used in the cramped spaces you find in airplane cockpits. They have too high a risk of doing unwanted damage if they miss. And there's too much risk involved in putting thousands of guns in airports, storing them, getting them on and off airplanes, and keeping them in cockpits. If you want to arm pilots, it would be much smarter to give them billy clubs or tasers. At least those weapons make sense for the situation.

Schneier is quite an expert in data security, and has some good core values about personal privacy, but unfortunately, he thinks he's an expert on, well, everything.

Our local hero joelr has thoroughly fisked Scnheier's article here: http://www.ellegon.com/features/data/january2004/ (scroll down to the headline "Bruce Schneier on Guns in Cockpits: A Quick Fisking").
 
Gaming the system

Bad people, besides using fake IDs and stolen identities, can also make the system of checking IDs work in their favor. The Carnival Booth effect, as described by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, means that terrorists can probe an ID security system by sending a number of people on innocent trips through the system and noting who is flagged for extra searches and who isn't. They then send only those who the system doesn't flag on terrorist missions.

and Michigander:
I do not believe both can be true. Can they?

Quoting one of the finest minds of our time: "Soitainly"

The days of changing birthdates and such on ID are long gone. Now all good "fake" ID is generally fraudulantly obtained VALID ID. If the government droids call home the ID shows up good, valid, whatever.

Since we now have "no fly" lists, what better way for someone of bad intent to find out if the "new" personna is gonna work? They just turn the no fly person away, unless he complains...

As far as real searching by the TSA, the airlines are fined if more than two persons in any minority group per plane load are searched. It's something like a $25,000 fine per person.

So, maybe they are searching all the grannies and groping the foxes just because of boredom and letchery.
 
As much as I admire and support Gilmore, I have to say this:

Do any of you actually believe the Supreme Court - the statist, "public safety uber alles", "we-can't-imagine-any-reasonable-person-having-a-problem-showing-an-ID" Supreme Court - will even agree to hear this?
 
I'm curious as to how the airlines are complying with laws that they've never seen. If they haven't seen them, where are they getting them from? What government official's say-so are they going by? If they have seen them, why can't they attest to the text?

I'm certain our hero has already been down that particular path (probably from many different angles) but it still makes me wonder. It also makes me wonder what country I can move to that doesn't seem to be slipping toward being a bad place to be. :mad:
 
I'm sure there are some here that would think it would be OK because "they ain't got nothing to hide". What a joke.

Where are the "if you've got nothing to hide, why not let us see" people on this thread anyway? Does that logic not apply to government rules? What do they have to hide here, anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top