Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - IAH Name Game - denied entry today

I tried to go through IAH Terminal B today and was denied access to the checkpoint because I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID. The TDC immediately called the supervisor who asked me to leave. I asked where the policy was, she said, "That's classified."

We called the LEO and he was worthless, "Their checkpoint, their rules, man."

So I went to Terminal A and walked through with the same fake name. The TDC hesitated when I said it, but he let me through.

I'm now in the lounge in Terminal B on my computer looking for proof on FT that it's not required and then I'll go back and ask the supervisor's name.:D

Help would be appreciated if someone has a link to share before I have to go catch my fight.

So I went to Terminal A and walked through with the same fake name. The TDC hesitated when I said it, but he let me through.

Well, if anyone was looking for proof that the "name game" is pointless theatre, that's it.

(It also suffices as evidence of TSA employees not quite being as sharp as the potato masher in the knife drawer.)

I tried to go through IAH Terminal B today and was denied access to the checkpoint because I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID. The TDC immediately called the supervisor who asked me to leave. I asked where the policy was, she said, "That's classified."

We called the LEO and he was worthless, "Their checkpoint, their rules, man."

So I went to Terminal A and walked through with the same fake name. The TDC hesitated when I said it, but he let me through.

I'm now in the lounge in Terminal B on my computer looking for proof on FT that it's not required and then I'll go back and ask the supervisor's name.:D

Help would be appreciated if someone has a link to share before I have to go catch my fight.

The legislation that authorizes TSA only allows for a limited administrative search for WEI.

Also in 357 U.S. 116 Kent v. Dulles the Supreme Court ruled:

(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 125-127.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0357_0116_ZS.html

In my judgement TSA violated your civil rights and should be held legally accountable. INAL so what do I know?

Same thing happened to me at IAH B. The TDC called over the LTSO...and she said "aww hell no" when I repeated the name. Then they tried to tell me to "wait over there" for some unknown authority. Needless to say, I didn't stick around for the drama. It's not like you have to follow there orders outside the sterile area...:cool:

As I left, i told them that they don't know how my name is pronounced...

I wound up taking the train over to C where there was much less attitude.

"I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID"

And why would you do this?

"I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID"

And why would you do this?

Let me correct the original statement.

cottonmather0 pronounced his name, which does in fact match his boarding pass and ID, in a manner that would not necessarily be the most common pronunciation assumed by a native speaker of American English. He in no way intended to mislead the TSO, but disclaims any responsibility for confusion caused by the TSO's erroneous assumption as to his choice for pronunciation of his name.

"I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID"

And why would you do this?

The real question is why does TSA ask?? It goes beyond the administrative search doctrine (Davis 1973).

I don't willingly submit to illegal requests.

A document checker played the name game with me at SFO some time ago.
I told him my name was "smith'. He asked if I was sure, and after my affirmative response, he called over a supervisor.
I explained my rationale (theater, as well as a security risk), and the supervisor said I didn't have to say my name if I didn't want to. He told the screener they can't force me to say my name.

My opinion is that if you didn't want to say your name, you should have refused to do so. Many people have reported doing that on FT, and they all get through after some amount of hassle. However, once you gave them a fake name, you gave them probable cause to believe that you are using a fake ID or stolen boarding pass, and they are justified in denying you entry.

My opinion is that if you didn't want to say your name, you should have refused to do so. Many people have reported doing that on FT, and they all get through after some amount of hassle. However, once you gave them a fake name, you gave them probable cause to believe that you are using a fake ID or stolen boarding pass, and they are justified in denying you entry.

I don't see that the OP is saying he/she gave a fake name, but perhaps OP pronounced it differently than the TSO felt it "should" be pronounced. Who determines the 'correct" pronunciation? I think it should be the individual bearing the name. not some government agent.

Take the name "Thibideaux" which is rather common in some parts of the country. In New Orleans it is pronounced "tib-uh-dough" but a TSO who hasn't studied Cajun/French thinks it should be pronounced "the - bid - ox."

Mr/Ms Thibideaux is denied entry because the TSO doesn't care for the way he/she pronounces their own name?

Who determines the 'correct" pronunciation? I think it should be the individual bearing the name. not some government agent.


come to think of it, in all my years of flying, I've never seen Brett Favre (pronounced "farve") on a plane, so the TSA must be doing their job.

"I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID"

And why would you do this?

Because I wanted to see what would happen.

And let me point out, I did make my plane just fine with no trouble at the other checkpoint, so it's not as if I was harmed by not playing along with this nonsense. If enough people do what I did today and just resisted their foolishness just a little but, this whole mess would go away.

When I fly out of IAH again on Monday, I'm thinking I'll just refuse to play the name game altogether and see what happens then.

This was the response when I asked TAS IAH last year about the failure to provided my name:

If I was a Transportation Security Officer on the floor and a passenger didn’t want to give me their name, I would first be certain I was not dealing with someone who was mute, and barring that, I would regard such a simple request as suspicious and probably notify my supervisor and a behavioral detection officer. They would need to try to figure out why a passenger had trouble to provide their name. If the name provided didn’t match the one on the documents presented, I would also contact my supervisor and a behavioral detection officer to have additional dialog. Beyond that it would be the decision of the supervisor in charge as to what other measures should be taken.

I don't see that the OP is saying he/she gave a fake name, but perhaps OP pronounced it differently than the TSO felt it "should" be pronounced. Who determines the 'correct" pronunciation? I think it should be the individual bearing the name. not some government agent

To some degree, this is what I was trying to accomplish. The TDC and Supervisor very clearly could read my name - it's a very simple and common name - so what's the point of me saying it if my boarding pass matches my ID? They kept saying, "that's not what your boarding pass says." How do you know? And if you do, why put passengers through it?

There's no reason for the name game. It's nothing but authoritarian nonsense.

There's no reason for the name game. It's nothing but authoritarian nonsense.

But, my friend, there is a reason. You can be assured that some well-compendated consultant told TSA management how bouncers have used the name game to trip up underage kids with a fake ID. And it's not much of a leap of imagination from kid trying to get a beer to adult trying to bomb a plane.

That the TSA had disposable money to hire said consultant when he came calling is the reason.

I got the name game twice, and both times got a free ride. I do not recommend these techniques.

The first was in HOU, the other Houston airport. As many of you know I am hearing impaired. In fact I have a variable hearing impairment. Right now, at this moment, I can hear pretty good. Tomorrow when I go to the airport I may be nearly deaf. Like I was in HOU. I was fairly certain after the fact that that she was asking for my name, but being new to the name game, the question made no sense. People that are hard of hearing rely on context for a lot of their understanding. I know what questions they might ask and I am ready to handle those. Questions out of context or unexpected are little mysteries to be solved. After three times saying "I'm sorry, I do not understand your question. Would you repeat that?" She gave up and sent me on.

The other involved a Nexus standoff, at DAL. (What is it about Texas?) I had to escalate all the way up to the Screening Manager (he was 6th or 7th in the process) who came out to the CP ready for bear. It was not a good look. He asked one of the involved 3-stripers what the problem was, and he said "This person is disrupting the screening process by trying to give us an invalid ID and refuses to provide another ID." Well, that is a good start. He asked for the ID and boarding pass. He looked at the ID and became very, very angry. He turned to me and said (paraphrase) "I am sorry sir, but obviously my people did not recognize your Nexus as we do not get these often and I will make sure they get training." He squiggled the BP and sent me on my way. Training began in earnest immediately.

I almost forgot, the name game. Everyone else in line was asked their name. In dealing with me and then the Manager, I guess they forgot. :p

I don't see that the OP is saying he/she gave a fake name, but perhaps OP pronounced it differently than the TSO felt it "should" be pronounced. Who determines the 'correct" pronunciation? I think it should be the individual bearing the name. not some government agent.

Take the name "Thibideaux" which is rather common in some parts of the country. In New Orleans it is pronounced "tib-uh-dough" but a TSO who hasn't studied Cajun/French thinks it should be pronounced "the - bid - ox."

Mr/Ms Thibideaux is denied entry because the TSO doesn't care for the way he/she pronounces their own name?

I'll say it again: There is no law in the United States of America requiring one to pronounce one's name as it would be phonetically pronounced by a native English speaker. I can pronounce my name any way I darn well please. There is also no law requiring me to keep pronouncing my name one way. I can change the pronunciation as often as I want.

Other than the intimidation factor, which is why certain clerks play the name game, this is about the most useless think the TSA does. But, it will never stop because it doesn't cost them any money.

Cottonmather, I'm a bit confused. Did you just pronounce your name slightly differently, or did you say something completely different? Saying "Thabeedocks" when your boarding pass says "Thibideaux" is one thing, saying "Smith" when your boarding pass says "Jones" is entirely different.

If the latter, then as I said before, they had more than enough reason to believe you were using fake ID. They could have confiscated it and sent it back to the DMV. Heck, even a bartender could have done that.

I tried to go through IAH Terminal B today and was denied access to the checkpoint because I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID.

I'm jealous of people who have lots of time to spare.

This was the response when I asked TAS IAH last year about the failure to provided my name:

If I was a Transportation Security Officer on the floor and a passenger didn’t want to give me their name, I would first be certain I was not dealing with someone who was mute, and barring that, I would regard such a simple request as suspicious and probably notify my supervisor and a behavioral detection officer. They would need to try to figure out why a passenger had trouble to provide their name. If the name provided didn’t match the one on the documents presented, I would also contact my supervisor and a behavioral detection officer to have additional dialog. Beyond that it would be the decision of the supervisor in charge as to what other measures should be taken.


The solution for exercising your right not to talk to the governemt? More questions from the government. Why is checking the ID and the name on the BP so hard for these rocket scientists to handle?

Tyrants--1, The Free and The Brave--0

:rolleyes:

If the latter, then as I said before, they had more than enough reason to believe you were using fake ID. They could have confiscated it and sent it back to the DMV. Heck, even a bartender could have done that.
If the purpose of the question is to determine whether the passenger is commiting the crime of using a fake ID, then the only appropriate answer is "I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that the answer may incriminate me". You cannot be forced to answer a question asked for the purpose of using that answer to determine whether or not you committed a crime whether you are guilty or innocent of that crime.

I tried to go through IAH Terminal B today and was denied access to the checkpoint because I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID. The TDC immediately called the supervisor who asked me to leave. I asked where the policy was, she said, "That's classified."

We called the LEO and he was worthless, "Their checkpoint, their rules, man."

So I went to Terminal A and walked through with the same fake name. The TDC hesitated when I said it, but he let me through.

I'm now in the lounge in Terminal B on my computer looking for proof on FT that it's not required and then I'll go back and ask the supervisor's name.:D

Help would be appreciated if someone has a link to share before I have to go catch my fight.

The policy might be SSI, but is highly unlikely to be "classified". If you have a recording of the false claim of classification, a federal criminal complaint will be easy to pursue.

Other than the intimidation factor, which is why certain clerks play the name game, this is about the most useless think the TSA does. But, it will never stop because it doesn't cost them any money.

Ah, but it does cost money: It adds to the time it takes to process each passenger, and when multiplied over thousands of passengers, might cause a need for additional TDC lanes to be opened, staffed by additional TDCs.

But since when did costing more money ever stop the TSA or DHS?

I've never understood the purpose of threads like this.

Ha I showed them.

I gave a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID

They would not let me in.

I called the police over

They would also not let me in.

I showed them good.



Yup, you sure did.

He got through fine at another checkpoint, at the same airport, staffed by TSOs trained by the same trainers.

Could any example better show the TSA's ineffectiveness?

Cottonmather, I'm a bit confused. Did you just pronounce your name slightly differently, or did you say something completely different? Saying "Thabeedocks" when your boarding pass says "Thibideaux" is one thing, saying "Smith" when your boarding pass says "Jones" is entirely different.

Why? There are over seven billion people in the world. Who is to say that for one of them, a name spelled out as "Jones" using the Latin alphabet is pronounced as the typical American (who comprise a mere four percent of the world's population) would pronounce "Smith"?

I look forward to the day that this guy (http://www.thelocal.de/society/20101108-31027.html) is asked to play the name game.

If enough people do what I did today and just resisted their foolishness just a little but, this whole mess would go away..

Yeah-right. Wish in one hand, and poop in the other, and tell me what you got. If enough people did *anything* we could win. If enough people opt-out, the scanners would be gone.

I share your feelings, but.........................

My new favorite is to give them every variation of the pronunciation of my name I know possible and as fast as an auctioneer.

State your name.
"Gladly..."
(it says James J.)
"James"
"Jim"
"Jimmy"
"Jay"
"JJ"
"Jimmy Joe"

(last name)
"coach"
"coch"
"coke"
"cohshe"
"couche"

"...take your pick."

If the purpose of the question is to determine whether the passenger is commiting the crime of using a fake ID, then the only appropriate answer is "I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that the answer may incriminate me". You cannot be forced to answer a question asked for the purpose of using that answer to determine whether or not you committed a crime whether you are guilty or innocent of that crime.

^

Why? There are over seven billion people in the world. Who is to say that for one of them, a name spelled out as "Jones" using the Latin alphabet is pronounced as the typical American (who comprise a mere four percent of the world's population) would pronounce "Smith"?

I look forward to the day that this guy (http://www.thelocal.de/society/20101108-31027.html) is asked to play the name game.

Holy underwear. I had to read that poor guy's name about 10 times before I got it.

Von... Haagen Dazs?

Van Den Haas. It's Dutch.

I look forward to the day that this guy (http://www.thelocal.de/society/20101108-31027.html) is asked to play the name game.

It doesn't need to be him. Take someone like me, with a very common first name amongst Germans and French. My name is pronounced completely differently depending on if I say it in German, or in French.

My last name is similar in terms of differences in pronounciation.

Then there is the UK pronunciation of my first name, which differs from the Australian pronunciation, which differs from what most Americans 'believe' it should be.

I have been told many times that I did not say MY NAME correctly :rolleyes: by Americans, including TSA. Since I am fluent in German and in French, I will accept either from a German or a French speaker, and when in France will even pronounce my name in the French manner.

But I refuse to accept an American telling me that I do not know how to pronounce my own name, simply because they are ignorant.

Recently, the gentleman in front of me was of Thai decent and we started talking while waiting on-line in Term E. @ IAH about what a pain TSA is and how much is just a horse and pony show.

He said, since they started asking pax to say their name, he has started to come up with unusual last names for himself that are totally incorrect to prove a point, that saying ones name is totally useless. Since he has an Thai last name and I would wager that very few TSA employees are familiar with the Thai language, they have no idea if the name he provides is even remotely close to the name on the paper and I guess that is his point, that a name on a paper does not constitute security and simply saying that name out loud does not prove anything, other than one can read.

Dan

Recently, the gentleman in front of me was of Thai decent and we started talking while waiting on-line in Term E. @ IAH about what a pain TSA is and how much is just a horse and pony show.

Clearly, in the TSA's minds, anyone with more than two syllables in their name is a potential terrorist.

He said, since they started asking pax to say their name, he has started to come up with unusual last names for himself that are totally incorrect to prove a point, that saying ones name is totally useless. Since he has an Thai last name and I would wager that very few TSA employees are familiar with the Thai language, they have no idea if the name he provides is even remotely close to the name on the paper and I guess that is his point, that a name on a paper does not constitute security and simply saying that name out loud does not prove anything, other than one can read.

You give some TDCs too much credit.

Cottonmather, I'm a bit confused. Did you just pronounce your name slightly differently, or did you say something completely different? Saying "Thabeedocks" when your boarding pass says "Thibideaux" is one thing, saying "Smith" when your boarding pass says "Jones" is entirely different.

If the latter, then as I said before, they had more than enough reason to believe you were using fake ID. They could have confiscated it and sent it back to the DMV. Heck, even a bartender could have done that.

Really? You'll never make it as an ID checker at a bar lol.

There is no way 99% of TSA types know the correct pronunciation of my last name. That's because 99% of people out there don't know without being told and/or practicing for at least a while. I've even made that a point when faced with this.

TDC: State/Pronounce your name
N1120A: What's the point, you can't say it anyway?

A document checker played the name game with me at SFO some time ago.
I told him my name was "smith'. He asked if I was sure, and after my affirmative response, he called over a supervisor.
I explained my rationale (theater, as well as a security risk), and the supervisor said I didn't have to say my name if I didn't want to. He told the screener they can't force me to say my name.

Was this an older (probably in his 70s), white-haired 3 striper? If so, I know who you are talking about and agree that he was fantastic. Unfortunately, he retired about a year ago.

Clearly, in the TSA's minds, anyone with more than two syllables in their name is a potential terrorist.


TSA (and most people) can botch the pronounciation of even a two-syllables name. Hotel clerks routinely use my name with the English pronunciation of the two syllables, none of which is right.

Cottonmather, I'm a bit confused. Did you just pronounce your name slightly differently, or did you say something completely different? Saying "Thabeedocks" when your boarding pass says "Thibideaux" is one thing, saying "Smith" when your boarding pass says "Jones" is entirely different.

If the latter, then as I said before, they had more than enough reason to believe you were using fake ID.

And if the former? Or worse, saying Thibideaux (as short i, long o) and having the TSA employee expect Thee-bee-docks?

I've never understood the purpose of threads like this.

Ha I showed them.

I gave a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID

They would not let me in.

I called the police over

They would also not let me in.

I showed them good.



Yup, you sure did.

A much more eloquent way of saying what I was going to: that the OP was behaving like a petulant child and was treated as such. Way to go!

A much more eloquent way of saying what I was going to: that the OP was behaving like a petulant child and was treated as such. Way to go!

Actually that characterizes the TSA not the OP.

I have a swedish name. It is spelt in swedish. It is pronounced in swedish.

Americans try a lot of times to make it their "version" of the name.

They try to make it spanish (live in Ca.) Or get a english version.

Both those names are totally names on their own.
Interesting next time I fly.

A much more eloquent way of saying what I was going to: that the OP was behaving like a petulant child and was treated as such. Way to go!The voice of The Man.

The voice of The Man.

No, the voice of reason.

What happens if you indicate to the TDC that you can't talk? If you have laryngitis, for example? Or think you have a case coming on, and don't want to risk it? ;)

joe

What happens if you indicate to the TDC that you can't talk? If you have laryngitis, for example? Or think you have a case coming on, and don't want to risk it? ;)

joe

This is a good question deserving of an answer. I read somewhere that those who are mute are waved through. Although I am not mute, I do have a speech block that simply isn't predictable. Sometimes starting with hard sounds, like the first sound of my name, is extraordinarily difficult. I may speak to someone in the line, then not be able to say my name when asked.

If I have a difficult time saying my name, how long with TSA keep me there helplessly trying to make a sound?

OP here.

Went through MAF today on my way back to IAH. TDC was pleasant until she asked me where I was going. After I repeated three times, "It's on my boarding pass," she said, "I'm not trying to be difficult sir." Didn't once try to intimidate me with "policy" or "procedure" or DY...T?

We had a 15 second silent staredown, then she sighed and gave me gigantic red squiggles and handed me my docs back. I think I could see the steam coming out of her ears when I tossed the BP in the trash bin next to her.

Got to the Dragon, he asked for my BP. I started digging around in my bag for the second one I had printed. He just smiled and said, "Oh, that's OK sir."

The grope was pleasant and the groper was nice and polite.

Don't tell me this TDC nonsense isn't mostly just a power trip with the plastic badge.

No, the voice of reason.

Those who advocate surrender to authority, particularly when the authority is unreasonable, abusive, or illegal, often use that tired old line.

Although I don't have the guts to engage in these acts of civil disobedience myself, I applaud those who do. They are standing up for the rights and freedoms of all, at some risk to themselves. How is that "unreasonable"?

No, the voice of reason.

Those who advocate surrender to authority, particularly when the authority is unreasonable, abusive, or illegal, often use that tired old line.

Although I don't have the guts to engage in these acts of civil disobedience myself, I applaud those who do. They are standing up for the rights and freedoms of all, at some risk to themselves. How is that "unreasonable"?

Just tell the guy your name is on the boarding pass (or identity document). That's what I'd likely do if they played this game in Canada. Don't engage in childish games by giving false names, etc. That's all I'm saying. Don't compare the TSA with Hitler. You lose all credibility.

We had a 15 second silent staredown, then she sighed and gave me gigantic red squiggles and handed me my docs back. I think I could see the steam coming out of her ears when I tossed the BP in the trash bin next to her.

You are my hero.

Although I don't have the guts to engage in these acts of civil disobedience myself, I applaud those who do. They are standing up for the rights and freedoms of all, at some risk to themselves. How is that "unreasonable"?

^

Don't compare the TSA with Hitler. You lose all credibility.

The power grab of the DHS is how it starts. Please don't lose sight of that because history is bound to repeat itself.

Every government has a list of some sort to keep track of people who are problematic. Your local police station likely has one. The FBI has had one for years. On one hand, I don't think that the absence of a watch list would have made any difference to the Holocaust, and on the other hand, I think it's ridiculous to say that the TSA should not maintain a list of people who deserve extra scrutiny.

I think it's ridiculous to say that the TSA should not maintain a list of people who deserve extra scrutiny.A list based on what?

Someone who is arrestable on sight should be on the FBI and police lists and subject to law enforcement, not the TSA. Otherwise the criterion seems to be "suspicious activity" which is a subjective and arbitrary determination. And contrary to the 5th Amendment, viz. ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

If individual airlines wish to bar people from availing themselves of their service due to past behavior, that's a civil matter; nothing to do with the government and certainly not the TSA.

The important point is that it simply does not work. No actual threat has been intercepted by the list. Ever. A number of suspected and even confirmed (Times Square bomber) terrorists have sailed through. If the screening is 100% effective then it really doesn't matter who is on the plane. If it's not 100% effective then fix it; which is the rub - it can't be done. A speculative, farcical list would just be a canard were it not an erosion of essential liberty.

Just tell the guy your name is on the boarding pass (or identity document). That's what I'd likely do if they played this game in Canada. Don't engage in childish games by giving false names, etc. That's all I'm saying. Don't compare the TSA with Hitler. You lose all credibility.

As a loyal subject of the Queen, and without the Bill of Rights, that's what would be expected and required of you.

From my 6th grade English class:

Name spelled: Ghoti

Name pronounced: Fish

???

"Gh" as in laugh, "o" as in women, "ti" as station

I look forward to the day that this guy (http://www.thelocal.de/society/20101108-31027.html) is asked to play the name game.

There's a reason you never see Coach K on a commercial flight. ;)

Holy underwear. I had to read that poor guy's name about 10 times before I got it.

Von... Haagen Dazs?

Van Den Haas. It's Dutch.

+1 for the LW2 reference.



I have been told many times that I did not say MY NAME correctly :rolleyes: by Americans, including TSA. Since I am fluent in German and in French, I will accept either from a German or a French speaker, and when in France will even pronounce my name in the French manner.

But I refuse to accept an American telling me that I do not know how to pronounce my own name, simply because they are ignorant.

I dunno, I think you might be to blame for this one. There's a large TSO population that barely speaks English. I can't imagine how you could expect them to speak French or German. ;)

Mike

How should Finnish curling-world champion and MP, Mr Uuspaavalniemi pronounce his name to be let through? Or ex-Prime Minister Mrs Jäätteenmäki, whom even the BBC News called "Mrs Unpronounciable"?

There's a large TSO population that barely speaks English.

Been through ATL lately? They barely grunt, let alone speak.

How should Finnish curling-world champion and MP, Mr Uuspaavalniemi pronounce his name to be let through? Or ex-Prime Minister Mrs Jäätteenmäki, whom even the BBC News called "Mrs Unpronounciable"?Or any number of Sri Lankans (see Jennifer Abeygoonewardana (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2010/07/100711_name_ebookers.shtml)) or others from the Indian subcontinent.

Oh wait, they're "dusky" so they'll get the extra screening anyway :( .

How should Finnish curling-world champion and MP, Mr Uuspaavalniemi pronounce his name to be let through? Or ex-Prime Minister Mrs Jäätteenmäki, whom even the BBC News called "Mrs Unpronounciable"?

If you have the Google Translate phone app, try putting in some names and "translating" to various languages, and then have the app read the name in the chosen language.

Imagine that: there's more than one way to pronounce a given subset of 26 letters!

If you have the Google Translate phone app, try putting in some names and "translating" to various languages, and then have the app read the name in the chosen language.

Imagine that: there's more than one way to pronounce a given subset of 26 letters!

I know it, but obviously you should know how to pronounce those names in Texan or New Yorkian, depending on your departure airport.

If you take into account, that it is the English alphabet that has only 26 letters, whereas others have more (and I'm talking about languages using the Latin script) the prospects are mind-bogling. Think about all those àáâãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõöøùúûüýāăąćĉċčđēĕėęěĝğ 's facing a TSO :D

All this to get to a security checkpoint.

All this to get to a security checkpoint.

There, corrected that for you.

There, corrected that for you.

^

There is no way 99% of TSA types know the correct pronunciation of my last name. That's because 99% of people out there don't know without being told and/or practicing for at least a while. I've even made that a point when faced with this.

TDC: State/Pronounce your name
N1120A: What's the point, you can't say it anyway?



Was this an older (probably in his 70s), white-haired 3 striper? If so, I know who you are talking about and agree that he was fantastic. Unfortunately, he retired about a year ago.

This was about a month ago at the international terminal.
3-striper was older gentleman.

We still have the ability to seek redress for wrongs done to us by TSA or others.


Tell that to any one of numerous Americans who has been victims of the no-fly-list and gotten the runaround from DHS/TSA.

The ability to "seek redress" is irrelevant if the request merely disappears into a black hole of bureaucracy. Only if there is the ability to escalate the redress to an open court room with real due process protections does redress matter.

These innocent victims range from people who have been merely delayed to those who have missed flights/meetings to those who have been delayed and harassed by law enforcement to those who have attempted to seek redress and been lied to and misled to those who have actually sued, yet at every step the government attempts to block the suits on trumped up national security grounds.

Just recently a native-born US citizen was forced to *walk* back into the US from Mexico because of the no-fly-list. ( www.theblaze.com/stories/told-he-could-not-fly-california-born-muslim-man-on-no-fly-list-forced-to-re-enter-u-s-on-foot/ ) The government, of course, declines to comment on the case.

We still have the ability to seek redress for wrongs done to us by TSA or others.How's that work? Do tell.

How should Finnish curling-world champion and MP, Mr Uuspaavalniemi pronounce his name to be let through? Or ex-Prime Minister Mrs Jäätteenmäki, whom even the BBC News called "Mrs Unpronounciable"?

Denied boading of course. That's the brilliance of our system.

If you believe that being asked to show ID at an airport is oppressive, then how about at a traffic stop? You could be pulled over for something completely trivial or even imaginary, or you could be in an accident where you weren't at fault, and you need to show ID and it will be recorded in a database. Does this practice also increase the risk of genocide down the road?

Actually one killed by getting a parliament to suspend an inconvenient constitution. The other kills people via drones to avoid the problem of an inconvenient constitution.

What do drones have to do with showing ID?

If the TSA stopped asking for ID at a checkpoint, would that hurt the government's ability to deploy drones?

What do drones have to do with showing ID?

If the TSA stopped asking for ID at a checkpoint, would that hurt the government's ability to deploy drones?

The Thread's about pronouncing your name, not showing ID.

If you believe that being asked to show ID at an airport is oppressive, then how about at a traffic stop? You could be pulled over for something completely trivial or even imaginary, or you could be in an accident where you weren't at fault, and you need to show ID and it will be recorded in a database.
In that case, you're not showing "ID", but fulfulling the original purpose of the license, namely granting permission to drive a vehicle on public roads. It's long been the practice of government that they have a right to ask somebody to prove they have the appropriate license whether flying a plane, driving, piloting a boat, hunting, or fishing.

The problem is when a license to drive a car is being used outside that narrow purpose, as a more general "ID".

The OP was about using a fake name, and in my opinion, provoking the TSA.

The OP was about using a fake name, and in my opinion, provoking the TSA.

Try again, but it must be noted that repeated failure is the way of Team TSA and its fans.

If the purpose of the question is to determine whether the passenger is commiting the crime of using a fake ID, then the only appropriate answer is "I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that the answer may incriminate me". You cannot be forced to answer a question asked for the purpose of using that answer to determine whether or not you committed a crime whether you are guilty or innocent of that crime.I've actually used this, and it worked. The document checker was a little incredulous, "Asking your name is an incriminating question?!?" but his supervisor seemed to think it wasn't worth hassling me over.

The OP was about using a fake name, and in my opinion, provoking the TSA.
Yes, using a fake name instead of refusing to play the game is an strange choice. But then again, forcing people to show ID to travel internally within the country is an odd choice, and forcing people to 'pronounce' their name in order to travel is utterly bizarre. And by "odd" and "bizarre", I mean characteristic of totalitarian governments, and most likely, unconstitutional.

AFAIK, the only time the "requiring ID to travel" was challenged (in Gilmore v. Gonzales), the Supreme Court affirmed the requirement to show ID only because there was an alternative in place, the option to undergo secondary screening in lieu of showing ID. According to the TSA, that is no longer an option, so I think is is about time for someone to re-challenge the ID requirement.

The OP was about using a fake name, and in my opinion, provoking the TSA.

Since there is no requirement to pronounce one's name as the letters spell out phonetically in English there is no such thing as a "fake name."

Watch any European football match and listen to a different number of English speaking commentators trying to pronounce Eastern European names and you will hear at least three different ways of saying their names, especially the longer ones.

A document checker played the name game with me at SFO some time ago.
I told him my name was "smith'. He asked if I was sure, and after my affirmative response, he called over a supervisor.
I explained my rationale (theater, as well as a security risk), and the supervisor said I didn't have to say my name if I didn't want to. He told the screener they can't force me to say my name.
Incidentally, the screeners/TSA at SFO is refreshingly compliant. Today, they had some thugs walking the lines in front of the luggage x-ray machines, asking people for their boarding pass. I refused, pointing out that they had already checked it earlier and right away asked for a supervisor and LEO. Another thug came over, relented, and never got to see my boarding pass.

Since there is no requirement to pronounce one's name as the letters spell out phonetically in English there is no such thing as a "fake name."

for tomorrow's flight, I think I'll respond to the "state your name" with "I'm sorry, my name doesn't translate into English".

The name GHOTI, is pronounced FISH [GH in enough is pronounced "f", O in women is pronounced "i", TI in nation is pronounced "sh"].:D:D:D

The name GHOTI, is pronounced FISH [GH in enough is pronounced "f", O in women is pronounced "i", TI in nation is pronounced "sh"].

GOTO #59 :)

Finally, I have determined, reluctantly, I might add, that the "say my name" and "where are you going?" are trivial matters. They have the information in their hands and it makes little sense to withhold something they already know.

Beyond that, we enter into an area in which we will likely agree. They do not have right to ask what my business will be, where I will staying, and such personally intrusive questions from the PIPI's that have been reported here but seem to have quieted down a bit, the reports at least. This I find a fight worthy of a battle of that may end by me not making my flight.

... [happily redacted]

Finally, I have determined, reluctantly, I might add, that the "say my name" and "where are you going?" are trivial matters. They have the information in their hands and it makes little sense to withhold something they already know.

Beyond that, we enter into an area in which we will likely agree. They do not have right to ask what my business will be, where I will staying, and such personally intrusive questions from the PIPI's that have been reported here but seem to have quieted down a bit, the reports at least. This I find a fight worthy of a battle of that may end by me not making my flight.

I think it makes more than a little sense to withhold something they already know.

Increase their frustration, with their job and their life. Arguably, that is a net plus.

Express one's disapproval, and non-compliance, for one's own sake and the sake of various others.

Depending on how much you want to fly today, one can back down, as necessary.

Don't give them an inch, I say.

I think it makes more than a little sense to withhold something they already know.

Increase their frustration, with their job and their life. Arguably, that is a net plus.

Express one's disapproval, and non-compliance, for one's own sake and the sake of various others.

Depending on how much you want to fly today, one can back down, as necessary.

Don't give them an inch, I say.

They have my name and destination. I give they nothing they do not already have.

If you wish to not give your name, fine, that is your choice and I accept it and support your right to not doing so. As for me, I do not choose to fight all battles.

GOTO #59 :)

How is that pronounced? ;)

I certainly agree the entire Security process is a joke and nothing more than a dog and pony show to impress the uninformed and clueless masses. The asking of your name in particular is just downright dumb.

But there are a lot of idiotic things in life we contend with from a 70 mph speed limit on a vast open desert highway to the IRS. To me just same my name and move on. Life has enough complications that the little things albeit just plain lacking any common sense are not worth getting in a tizzy about.

How can the American people not know what is going on now? Anyone who flies (and I would say the majority do fly once in a way) can experience it for themselves. Anyone can record anything and put it on Youtube.

The American people know exactly what is going on.

How can the American people not know what is going on now? Anyone who flies (and I would say the majority do fly once in a way) can experience it for themselves. Anyone can record anything and put it on Youtube.

The American people know exactly what is going on.

The numbers I've found show that less than half of the US adult population had traveled by air in the last two years (most recent study years are 2008,2009). http://www.ustravel.org/news/press-kit/travel-facts-and-statistics

The US people do NOT know what is going on now.

How can the American people not know what is going on now? Anyone who flies (and I would say the majority do fly once in a way) can experience it for themselves. Anyone can record anything and put it on Youtube.

The American people know exactly what is going on.

OK. You asked for it.

Please identify any factual errors in the text of the following article:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/index.php

(You are allowed only one ad hominem against the author or me per such factual error.)

This article shows that the American people, even those who fly regularly, do not know "exactly what is going on."

Ergo, we are at risk of being tricked into giving up our liberties, such as at the "security" checkpoints.

If the latter, then as I said before, they had more than enough reason to believe you were using fake ID. They could have confiscated it and sent it back to the DMV. Heck, even a bartender could have done that.

No they couldn't. The TSA can't confiscate anything, not even weapons or bottles of Coke.

I tried to go through IAH Terminal B today and was denied access to the checkpoint because I said a name that didn't match my boarding pass and ID. The TDC immediately called the supervisor who asked me to leave. I asked where the policy was, she said, "That's classified."

We called the LEO and he was worthless, "Their checkpoint, their rules, man."

So I went to Terminal A and walked through with the same fake name. The TDC hesitated when I said it, but he let me through.

I'm now in the lounge in Terminal B on my computer looking for proof on FT that it's not required and then I'll go back and ask the supervisor's name.:D

Help would be appreciated if someone has a link to share before I have to go catch my fight.

it is not classified, TSA rules/policies are deemed "sensitive security information" or SSI

This article shows that the American people, even those who fly regularly, do not know "exactly what is going on."


I just looked over the article, and it does not make any mention whatsoever of flying, airports, TSA, or anything related to such matters. Therefore, using it to prove that Americans don't know what is going on at airport security checkpoints makes no sense.

I just looked over the article, and it does not make any mention whatsoever of flying, airports, TSA, or anything related to such matters. Therefore, using it to prove that Americans don't know what is going on at airport security checkpoints makes no sense.

Moderators have deleted some of the context of this discussion. I won't try to remember it now. Down the memory hole.

But, I didn't use the article "to prove that Americans don't know what is going on at airport security checkpoints."

AFAIK, the only time the "requiring ID to travel" was challenged (in Gilmore v. Gonzales), the Supreme Court affirmed the requirement to show ID only because there was an alternative in place, the option to undergo secondary screening in lieu of showing ID. According to the TSA, that is no longer an option, so I think is is about time for someone to re-challenge the ID requirement.
There is no requirement to show ID. The TSA has never claimed otherwise. Many people fly each day from any large airport without showing ID.

(Well, "never" is too strong: there was a brief period when refusing to show an ID, as opposed to not having one, would be grounds for denial.)

There is no requirement to show ID. The TSA has never claimed otherwise. Many people fly each day from any large airport without showing ID.

(Well, "never" is too strong: there was a brief period when refusing to show an ID, as opposed to not having one, would be grounds for denial.)

In practical terms, the requirement is to show ID or subject yourself to an unknown type and amount of harassment at the hands of a government employee. Remember Phil?

This, IMO, is effectively the same as requiring ID.

In practical terms, the requirement is to show ID or subject yourself to an unknown type and amount of harassment at the hands of a government employee. Remember Phil?

This, IMO, is effectively the same as requiring ID.

Agreed. Strong coercion, including the threat of missing a flight, intimidation by threat of retaliatory screening, and the calling of various LEO's and supervisors is an infinitesimal difference from "require." It may actually be worse.

This is what I drafted today to send to IAH. I am worried, however, that by sending this I'll get myself some kind of retaliation, whether a fine for "lying" last week or placement on some sort of watch list.

On the one hand, that makes me question whether it's really worth it to raise a stink. On the other, it would seem that's precisely the reason I should go through with this, because shadowy security procedures and petty retaliation against my constitutional rights - speech, petition of grievances, warrantless search, self-incrimination - is the whole point about why I think this stuff is so bad and why I feel so strongly about it.

Advice and feedback is appreciated.

If anyone has any suggestions on who else to copy on this, I'd appreciate it. Unfortunately, IAH is in Sheila Jackson Lee's district, so she would likely be openly antagonistic to my plight given her past support for TSA as some kind of jobs program for the underclass and fodder for government unions.

Ms. Ann Testa
Federal Director of Security
Bush Intercontinental Airport
2800 North Terminal Road
Houston, Texas 77032


June 16, 2012


Dear Ms. Testa,

As a former resident of Houston who still owns a business there, I am a frequent traveler through Bush Airport (“IAH”) and have recently noticed that it is now routine for TSA agents at IAH, and less frequently, at other airports, to ask passengers to verbally speak their first and last names upon entering security checkpoints at all terminals.

While I have never refused to answer the question about my name, whenever I have questioned the appropriateness or purpose of this request, I have found that the inquiring agents are quick to take offense and threaten me with the denial of access to the checkpoint, thus preventing me from traveling that day, and insist that the request is standard policy and cannot be refused.

Furthermore, on more than one occasion I have been told that the rationale and authority behind this policy is “classified” and thus cannot be shared with me and that if the name I speak does not “match” the name on the boarding pass, despite the presentation of valid identification that matches my boarding pass, I also may not enter the checkpoint. This happened to me on June 8 of this year when an agent at Bush Airport, and subsequently, her supervisor, Ms. __________, refused to grant me access to a checkpoint because the name I spoke to them did not “match” the name on my boarding pass and identification.

The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to ask the following questions of you:

1.) Are passengers required, in fact, to verbally speak their names to enter the checkpoint?

2.) May I refuse to comply with this request and still be admitted to the checkpoint?

3.) By what authority is TSA making this request? Is this policy indeed “classified”?

4.) Why does Houston Bush Intercontinental Airport have differing security requirements than other airports? Is Bush Intercontinental Airport a greater security risk than other American airports?

5.) What is TSA attempting to accomplish by making this request? How is security enhanced by this practice?

6.) How does an individual TSA agent “know” how an individual may pronounce his or her own name? How is security enhanced if the agent refuses to admit a passenger who pronounces his name differently than how the agent thinks it should be pronounced, even if the passenger presents a valid form of photo identification that matches the name printed on the boarding pass?

7.) What are the consequences, in terms of additional required security procedures, if any, by refusing this request?

8.) What is the rationale of these additional security procedures? Considering that other airports do not make this request nearly as often – or at all - compared to IAH and seem to have no noticeably higher incidence of security breaches or risk to public safety, it would seem that stating one’s own name does not add to the cumulative level of security at IAH and thus additional procedures would not be needed. In that case, are these additional procedures, if any, actually necessary or are they simply retaliatory in nature for not complying with the agent’s original request?

Your assistance with these questions is very much appreciated. I would ask that when you respond, please respond in writing, on letterhead, with answers to each of these questions. If it is indeed the case that stating one’s name is voluntary, I plan to use your letter as justification to the inquiring agent for refusing this request whenever I encounter it in the future.

If you cannot respond to me and answer these questions in the manner I am requesting, I would appreciate a written explanation, again, on letterhead, as to why you cannot answer, and a referral to the appropriate federal official who is able to answer these questions. Given that the “state your name” policy occurs most prominently at IAH than any other American airport, I would presume that in your capacity as the federal director of security for IAH, you yourself are indeed the proper person to answer these questions.

Thank you in advance for your response. My personal mailing address is included below.


Best Regards,



I understand that the likelihood of retaliation for last week is higher if I include the supervisor's name in my letter, because they'll go ask her what happened and she'll certainly remember me. At the same time, the supervisor laughed at me and was very open with her name when I threatened to complain about her, precisely because she didn't think I'd go through with it and intimidation and fear of unknown future retaliation is the name of the game for TSA. If I go along and don't include her name because I am scared of retaliation, then she has "won".

It really makes me sad that I even have to worry about this.

It really makes me sad that I even have to worry about this.

Ditto.

IMO, there is nothing to gain by sending this letter to anyone in the TSA or HSD. If you get a response at all, it will be a form letter about how they have a mandate to keep us safe and the procedures they use are SSI. In other words, FO.

I suggest that you are better off going to the IG to challenge the claim this is "classified" as well as threatening you/retaliation for questioning that statement.

I would add to your question about the classification to ask what level it is classified and who is the classifying authority.

Name game at AUS this morning. My TSA mouth-breather asked me to say my name, and I told him that for my own safety, I don't say my name where others can overhear it. He pretended to laugh at me, and I said, Oh, you're not aware that women traveling alone are advised not to let strangers hear their names? He then asked several times: say your name, say your name, say your name, interspersed with my saying: do you think I don't know how to pronounce it, it's right here on my boarding pass, it's not safe for me to say it. Finally I caved and said it very quietly. This lowlife loser kept laughing in my face during the whole disaster. As I walked away I said, "Everything you do makes me less safe."

Name game at AUS this morning. My TSA mouth-breather asked me to say my name, and I told him that for my own safety, I don't say my name where others can overhear it. He pretended to laugh at me, and I said, Oh, you're not aware that women traveling alone are advised not to let strangers hear their names? He then asked several times: say your name, say your name, say your name, interspersed with my saying: do you think I don't know how to pronounce it, it's right here on my boarding pass, it's not safe for me to say it. Finally I caved and said it very quietly. This lowlife loser kept laughing in my face during the whole disaster. As I walked away I said, "Everything you do makes me less safe."

If there were a genuine security reason for saying ones name, it is behavior from the TSO'a like this that shows that it is simply another way to exert power and domination. True security methodology for which we do not understand the reason would elicit understanding and a genuine explanatory environment. What we get is ridicule.

We understand they have a job to do while we do not always agree with the methodology by which they do it. We really do want to work with them in providing the best security possible within the guidelines of law and reasonable use of time and resources. When I am ridiculed, scoffed at, put down, condescended to and am subjected to other various methods of intimidation tactics, it is evidence that they too do know it is all for show and that I should get in line lest they need to make an example of me for others to see.

I went through IAH with a buddy of mine who is Swiss (but speaks Fluent English as well) and he pretended not to understand the request to say his name and just smiled at the TSA Employee as he asked repeatably for my friend to say his name.

After attempt number four or five the TSA employee just let my buddy go without saying his name and I was up next. He asked me to say my name and I just smiled at him and remained silent. He repeatedly asked me to say my name and after a few attempts he said I can call over a police officer if you do not say your name.

I said to him, you did not force the person before me to say his name and the TSA employee's responds, he does not speak English, so there is nothing I can do and this is for your security.

I responded, so I am to infer that this layer of security is strictly to catch would be bad actors who can speak and understand English, his response, yes that would be correct.

At which point, I said, I feel safer already (rolled my eyes) and said my name.

Honestly, if this test is strictly for those who speak and understand English, what is the point, a would be bad actor, simply just pretends to speak a Foreign Language and this test fails to catch the would be bad actor.

Dan

But the test isn't just for those who speak English. Your friend was lucky. (Well so was I at IAH a few weeks ago as they didn't bother to ask me that question either)

Perhaps IAH is more perceptive about non-English speakers. But at SFO and IAD one definitely is ordered over and over and OVER AGAIN to SAY YOUR NAME! Because we all know that shouting English more and more loudly will eventually magically make the non-English speakers understand.

The Germans ahead of me applauded me for holding my ground and repeating over and over in German 'but why do you wish to know my name? It says it right there on my boarding pass? See? Let me show you!' Like your friend, the TSO finally gave up and let me pass. He then turned his attention to the Japanese and Koreans behind me and last I heard he was increasing his volume to force them to understand his English. :rolleyes:

I went through IAH with a buddy of mine who is Swiss (but speaks Fluent English as well) and he pretended not to understand the request to say his name and just smiled at the TSA Employee as he asked repeatably for my friend to say his name.

After attempt number four or five the TSA employee just let my buddy go without saying his name and I was up next. He asked me to say my name and I just smiled at him and remained silent. He repeatedly asked me to say my name and after a few attempts he said I can call over a police officer if you do not say your name.

I said to him, you did not force the person before me to say his name and the TSA employee's responds, he does not speak English, so there is nothing I can do and this is for your security.

I responded, so I am to infer that this layer of security is strictly to catch would be bad actors who can speak and understand English, his response, yes that would be correct.

At which point, I said, I feel safer already (rolled my eyes) and said my name.

Honestly, if this test is strictly for those who speak and understand English, what is the point, a would be bad actor, simply just pretends to speak a Foreign Language and this test fails to catch the would be bad actor.

Dan

You were with your buddy, so you didn't want the delay, OK. But, what happens when you call their bluff?

Do we really have examples of denied access due to refusal to say one's name? Please refresh my recollection, thanks.

I hope some of these people (http://www.whitepages.com/name/Fuk-Yu) are frequent fliers. Or these (http://www.whitepages.com/name/Bomb/).

;)

In practical terms, the requirement is to show ID or subject yourself to an unknown type and amount of harassment at the hands of a government employee. Remember Phil?
Yes, I do. There was no dispute that when he refused to show anything whatsoever with his name on it, the TSO calmly said "that's not a problem: just fill out this form". It was only when Phil took out his camera that the problem started.

I'll repeat what I said before: it's a common occurrence many times a day at any large airport that people fly without ID.

I hope some of these people (http://www.whitepages.com/name/Fuk-Yu) are frequent fliers. Or these (http://www.whitepages.com/name/Bomb/).

;)

Would Mr. FUK YU, be subject to even more harassment when he did state his name, but the TSA agent thought he was cursing at him?:D

the TSA agent thought

Will never happen.

If the purpose of the question is to determine whether the passenger is commiting the crime of using a fake ID, then the only appropriate answer is "I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that the answer may incriminate me". You cannot be forced to answer a question asked for the purpose of using that answer to determine whether or not you committed a crime whether you are guilty or innocent of that crime.What is the appropriate answer when it is not phrased as a question, but an order, "Say your first and last name." ala SFO?

Finally, I have determined, reluctantly, I might add, that the "say my name" and "where are you going?" are trivial matters. They have the information in their hands and it makes little sense to withhold something they already know. I'm the only person living in the DFW area with my name, and my address is listed in public directories and in the DCAD property records. I don't care if the TSO already has my name, the people behind me in line and other support staff at the airport don't have it. It's pretty stupid to give a bunch of strangers who know you are traveling out of town enough information to find your address.

There is no requirement to show ID. The TSA has never claimed otherwise. Many people fly each day from any large airport without showing ID.
That used to be true, but now my understanding is that the TSA procedure requires you to be cooperative and provide detailed personal information, including financial information that can be verified in a database, if you do not have an ID. The entire construction of, "you are not required to provide ID, you can just endure additional screening for WEI" that was used in Gilmore v. Gonzalez is no longer in effect from a practical standpoint. You are required to give sufficient personal information (addresses, mortgage amount, vehicle ownership, marital status, etc) to identify yourself, or you are denied access to the checkpoint.

There was an example posted on FT of this happening to a foreign student last year, and several posters corroborated that this agreed with their recent experiences.

Even if there is no legal requirement to "show ID", there is a procedural requirement to "identify yourself by furnishing deeply personal and private information" if you want to be admitted to the sterile part of the airport.

Even if there is no legal requirement to "show ID", there is a procedural requirement to "identify yourself by furnishing deeply personal and private information" if you want to be admitted to the sterile part of the airport.

Unless, of course, you happen to be an illegal alien (foreign national sans visa) working for the TSA as an employee under a stolen identity.

What is the appropriate answer when it is not phrased as a question, but an order, "Say your first and last name." ala SFO?


"Am I required to?"

Then,

"Where is that written down?"

After that, your path may vary. But, a "question" is not required to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself. US Constitution, Amendment V:

"[No person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ..."

"[No person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ..."TSA (and Covenant) is not governed by criminal law.

That used to be true, but now my understanding is that the TSA procedure requires you to be cooperative and provide detailed personal information, including financial information that can be verified in a database, if you do not have an ID.
My understanding is that the information that you provide is your name and address. They then look you up in a database and ask you to confirm information that's in that database, which may be either financial or older addresses. But they already have that information: you're just confirming it.

In other words, it's like a police stop: in some states you have to identify yourself, but you never have to show ID.

In other words, it's like a police stop: in some states you have to identify yourself, but you never have to show ID.

2 things wrong with that statement:

1) TSA are not police officers.

2) Even if they were, they would have to have reasonable suspicion that you committed, or are about to commit, a crime in order to stop you or compel you to identify yourself.

2 things wrong with that statement:

1) TSA are not police officers.

2) Even if they were, they would have to have reasonable suspicion that you committed, or are about to commit, a crime in order to stop you or compel you to identify yourself.

Not to mention the limitations on the so-called "Terry" search.

TSA (and Covenant) is not governed by criminal law.

The real question is, whether the question (or demand) is or could be part of a "criminal case."

If they might have you arrested right then and there for using a name not your own, then yes, I would say.

If it's just exclusion from the airport terminal, I suppose not.

My question remains: Has anyone ever been excluded from an airport terminal just for refusing to state his or her name?

It appears not. They must know they can't do that.

2 things wrong with that statement:

1) TSA are not police officers.

2) Even if they were, they would have to have reasonable suspicion that you committed, or are about to commit, a crime in order to stop you or compel you to identify yourself.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't comparing TSA procedures to a police stop, just saying that the difference between "showing ID" and "identifying oneself" is the same under both circumstances.

The real question is, whether the question (or demand) is or could be part of a "criminal case."

If they might have you arrested right then and there for using a name not your own, then yes, I would say.
Let's suppose you were presenting fraudulent ID, under a name not your own. Then, if you gave a truthful answer to the question being asked, you would be incriminating yourself in a crime (presenting fraudulent ID). Therefore, it's covered by the self-incrimination privilege (a.k.a, the Fifth Amendment).

Let's suppose you were presenting fraudulent ID, under a name not your own. Then, if you gave a truthful answer to the question being asked, you would be incriminating yourself in a crime (presenting fraudulent ID). Therefore, it's covered by the self-incrimination privilege (a.k.a, the Fifth Amendment).

This would be true if an LEO were present.

It could then be considered a "criminal case," because the LEO is empowered to arrest me and charge me with a crime, on evidence including a voluntary statement of mine.

Is it still true if the question asker has no authority to arrest me, but can keep me out of the secured area even though I am not even accused of a crime?

By the way, on what basis can the TSA keep me out of the secured area, if I have ID and boarding pass?

This would be true if an LEO were present.

It could then be considered a "criminal case," because the LEO is empowered to arrest me and charge me with a crime, on evidence including a voluntary statement of mine.

Is it still true if the question asker has no authority to arrest me, but can keep me out of the secured area even though I am not even accused of a crime?

By the way, on what basis can the TSA keep me out of the secured area, if I have ID and boarding pass?

Any basis they choose. And the justification for it would, of course, be some SOP that's SSI.

What is the appropriate answer when it is not phrased as a question, but an order, "Say your first and last name." ala SFO?


Answer: I'd be happy to do so just as soon as you can explain to me how that affects aviation safety/security. You have 2 documents in your hand that clearly identify me. If that's not enough to convince you, I suggest you call a supervisor to assist you. I'm not interested in playing NameGame with you today.

Then we have a brief stare-down (which I always win). Then I continue with security and catch my flight. Simple, really.

Any basis they choose. And the justification for it would, of course, be some SOP that's SSI.

What about the other part of the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be ... deprived of ... liberty ... without due process of law; ..."

Being barred for refusing to be groped or scanned is one thing, and that would apparently be upheld by the courts. But, even the no-fly list is being litigated.

I would want to know if the courts would go along with "any basis they choose." But for some reason, TSA seem to have stopped asking pax to state their name. At LGA on Monday, just check and squiggle.

This would be true if an LEO were present.

It could then be considered a "criminal case," because the LEO is empowered to arrest me and charge me with a crime, on evidence including a voluntary statement of mine.

Is it still true if the question asker has no authority to arrest me
Yes. Because that person is competant to testify as to what you said (it's an exception to the hearsay rule since it's a "statement against interest") and is acting of behalf of the government.

By the way, on what basis can the TSA keep me out of the secured area, if I have ID and boarding pass?
Failure to complete screening.

By the way, on what basis can the TSA keep me out of the secured area, if I have ID and boarding pass?

Refer back to my original post in this thread - I was using my passport card and a matching boarding pass that they had scanned and found to be authentic, but they wouldn't let me pass because they claimed the name I said didn't "match" (quotes because how would anyone know that but me?).

Granted, I was purposely trying to be provocative and said a different name than was on either document, but when I pointed out that I had a valid ID and boarding pass, they said that they couldn't let me enter the checkpoint. When I asked to call the LEO, he deferred and said that their rules controlled the checkpoint... And I left the line before it escalated beyond that and before the LEO could threaten me with trespassing, which I was pretty sure was going to be the next step.

I am going to Houston again in a couple of weeks and am going to try again, this time without saying my name at all, without giving them the "fake name" excuse, and will hope this time that the boarding pass and ID are sufficient.

The name game is a sham, but since were dealing with an agency (TSA) which is also a sham, we're in trouble from the start. What would be the result (I don't generally have time to play "games" with TSA) if when asked for one's name, you made it clear to the agent that you are READING it directly from you DL or BP? ("Ditto" for destination.)

Refer back to my original post in this thread - I was using my passport card and a matching boarding pass that they had scanned and found to be authentic, but they wouldn't let me pass because they claimed the name I said didn't "match" (quotes because how would anyone know that but me?).

Granted, I was purposely trying to be provocative and said a different name than was on either document, but when I pointed out that I had a valid ID and boarding pass, they said that they couldn't let me enter the checkpoint. When I asked to call the LEO, he deferred and said that their rules controlled the checkpoint... And I left the line before it escalated beyond that and before the LEO could threaten me with trespassing, which I was pretty sure was going to be the next step.

I am going to Houston again in a couple of weeks and am going to try again, this time without saying my name at all, without giving them the "fake name" excuse, and will hope this time that the boarding pass and ID are sufficient.

Providing a name that doesn't "match" may be a "reasonable" ground for barring entry.

(I don't think USG should be "barring entry" at all, but I digress.)

Declining to potentially be a witness against yourself can not be a "reasonable" ground for barring entry. Yes, by all means, let's find out if they understand that they are just making conversation. Thanks for clarifying, testing, continuing to test, and reporting back. An inspiring example.

Providing a name that doesn't "match" may be a "reasonable" ground for barring entry.

I'm going to have to go with, "No."

Some of us have names that are unpronounceable by TSA employees. And should the TSA decide to bar entry to someone because the TDC decides that a last name spelled "Taliaferro" should not be pronounced "Tolliver," I'm all for a full-blown civil rights suit.

Providing a name that doesn't "match" may be a "reasonable" ground for barring entry.

(I don't think USG should be "barring entry" at all, but I digress.)

Declining to potentially be a witness against yourself can not be a "reasonable" ground for barring entry. Yes, by all means, let's find out if they understand that they are just making conversation. Thanks for clarifying, testing, continuing to test, and reporting back. An inspiring example.

Actually this whole sham violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, since those who are deaf, can't speak English, or those with hard to pronounce names are exempt from this sham. Unfortunately it will take a court case to end this exercise in complete bullsh**.

Somehow I doubt when this "measure" was rolled out that constitutional clauses were given much consideration.

This was probably made by a mid-level TSA bureaucrat who probably never thought about the legal ramifications of this measure, it seemed simple enough to him/her and therefor picked a few airports to test it.

It probably went something like this, there was a meeting where TSA/DHS bureaucrats were discussing the guy going through (I think it was a LAX)a TSA checkpoint with boarding passes not matching his name, hmmm how can we ensure that does not happen again?????? A mid-level bureaucrat jumps up and says, "Wait, I got it! let's have the passengers say their names to ensure that their BPs belong to them."

There was mass applause to this bureaucrat's idea and they decided to slowly roll it out as a test to a few airport to measure the reaction and judge it effectiveness.

After all, The U.S. gov't loves metrics and the Saying Your Name Test's effectiveness is just another metric to measure.

I think we are giving DHS/TSA too much credit by even bringing up constitutional clauses, I am fairly sure the thought process never got that far. They probably feel it is up to their legal department to justify the action if it is ever challenged and if legal says to drop it, it would probably just fade away into the night and the only people to notice the change (for the better) would be us FTers. Though, most likely legal would fight it, probably citing some sort of SSI or other reasoning why it should not even make it to court.

Just saying,
Dan

They probably feel it is up to their legal department to justify the action...Francine googled it. It's OK.

Somehow I doubt when this "measure" was rolled out that constitutional clauses were given much consideration.

This was probably made by a mid-level TSA bureaucrat who probably never thought about the legal ramifications of this measure, it seemed simple enough to him/her and therefor picked a few airports to test it.

It probably went something like this, there was a meeting where TSA/DHS bureaucrats were discussing the guy going through (I think it was a LAX)a TSA checkpoint with boarding passes not matching his name, hmmm how can we ensure that does not happen again?????? A mid-level bureaucrat jumps up and says, "Wait, I got it! let's have the passengers say their names to ensure that their BPs belong to them."

There was mass applause to this bureaucrat's idea and they decided to slowly roll it out as a test to a few airport to measure the reaction and judge it effectiveness.

After all, The U.S. gov't loves metrics and the Saying Your Name Test's effectiveness is just another metric to measure.

I think we are giving DHS/TSA too much credit by even bringing up constitutional clauses, I am fairly sure the thought process never got that far. They probably feel it is up to their legal department to justify the action if it is ever challenged and if legal says to drop it, it would probably just fade away into the night and the only people to notice the change (for the better) would be us FTers. Though, most likely legal would fight it, probably citing some sort of SSI or other reasoning why it should not even make it to court.

Just saying,
Dan

All of this could well be true. I would just add that, among those who would otherwise know better, they would just have gone along with this, the better to "condition" the rest of us into "obedience." But you're right, chances are it may not have been their idea in the first place.

Even though most of them don't really know or care about the constitutionality of what they do, and you're right, "legal" will see it as their job just to make up whatever defense they can to give the appearance of "doing their job," it is "our job" to actually formulate the constitutional grounds for resisting their efforts.

"I decline to answer that question on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate me."

Remember, they are not allowed to penalize you for invoking that right.

Remember, they are not allowed to penalize you for invoking that right.And yet, they will.

And yet, they will.

And THAT is the problem.

Bottom line? They are in control of us at that checkpoint. They can forbid entry on a whim, and we won't fly. Regardless of their reason for not allowing you to enter? There's nothing we can do at that moment and very little we can do after the fact - since there will be no evidence of wrong doing.

Thugs are in control. Thugs who could not get any job with any level of responsibility are in a protected position where they have total control over our travel. Sad but true.

And THAT is the problem.

Bottom line? They are in control of us at that checkpoint. They can forbid entry on a whim, and we won't fly. Regardless of their reason for not allowing you to enter? There's nothing we can do at that moment and very little we can do after the fact - since there will be no evidence of wrong doing.

Thugs are in control. Thugs who could not get any job with any level of responsibility are in a protected position where they have total control over our travel. Sad but true.

The only true way to fix this is to be willing to burn the value of an air ticket and then be willing to spend the cash to hire a lawyer and file suit once you're denied access to the checkpoint and cannot fly.

Maybe those things can happen pro-bono (ACLU?) but we're not going to get anywhere - legally - without be willing to go far enough to get a judge involved.

In the meantime, civil disobedience and the court of public opinion - politics - are all we have.

The only true way to fix this is to be willing to burn the value of an air ticket and then be willing to spend the cash to hire a lawyer and file suit once you're denied access to the checkpoint and cannot fly.

Maybe those things can happen pro-bono (ACLU?) but we're not going to get anywhere - legally - without be willing to go far enough to get a judge involved.

In the meantime, civil disobedience and the court of public opinion - politics - are all we have.

I disagree.

First of all, I gather the airlines are always understanding in such cases.

Secondly, the case still holds if you enter through another checkpoint and catch your flight.

Thirdly, just creating such incidents is itself helpful, if they are recorded, such as by surreptitious video cam, or voice recording combined with someone else recording video at a distance, for example. Even an affidavit would be of use, in the right hands.

Of course, the question then becomes, how to get the evidence into the right hands.

I suggest, creating and publicizing the record, and making the case easier and easier, will attract legal help from the right resources.

A bit simpler:

"I refuse to answer that question because the answer might tend to incriminate me."

I had my first "refused entry" experience because of the name game at JFK Terminal 2 on June 28. I'm just getting around to posting it.

I was flying Delta to FLL at 3:45 pm. Got to the airport around 1:45. Showed the TDC my first-class boarding pass and Global Entry card. He seemed pleasant enough and gave me the usual squiggles. Then he ordered, "State your first and last name."

I replied that I did not feel comfortable stating my name in front of hundreds of strangers, due to security considerations. I pointed out that the name on my boarding pass exactly matches my ID, and the picture on my ID -- issued by the same department for which the TDC works! -- is obviously me.

He said that none of that matters; it's "procedure" for passengers to state their names. I pointed out that I fly very frequently, and this "procedure" is seldom used and even when it is, it can be waived. Plus, it isn't on the TSA website or written down anywhere passengers can read about it.

He called a supervisor, a medium-height black guy with a very round head. I won't post his name, just a description. He tried very, very hard to provoke me into acting stupid, but I didn't take his bait, despite numerous attempts. Finally, he just refused to let me pass for failing to follow "procedure."

I asked to speak with a screening manager (TSM). He said that no screening manager was available, and he is in charge of the terminal. (Remember that!) I asked for a law-enforcement officer. He said, "Negative," and started walking away. I asked what "Negative" means, and he said, "No." The TDC refused to interact with me after that experience with his supervisor.

Did that stop me? Of course not!!! Terminals 2 and 3 are connected by a bridge inside security, so I walked a few hundred feet to Terminal 3, where they were NOT conducting the name game, and went through security quickly. After I got through, I asked the competent supervisor there to call the screening manager. He did.

About 10 minutes later, a tall black woman in a bright dress showed up and introduced herself. I told her what had happened 30 minutes earlier at Terminal 2. She was shocked. For one thing, she told me that she was sitting in her office just a couple of dozen feet past the checkpoint when the supervisor said that she was unavailable. Nobody had told her that I was asking. And she said that people who feel uncomfortable saying their names should be passed through by alternative means. We agreed that they need such alternatives for people who cannot speak, have speech impediments, etc. She described the whole encounter with the supervisor as "silly" and promised to speak with him about it.

I then walked over to Terminal 2, where I smiled at the supervisor from airside. What a day!!!

Bruce

She was shocked. For one thing, she told me that she was sitting in her office just a couple of dozen feet past the checkpoint when the supervisor said that she was unavailable. Nobody had told her that I was asking.

So the supervisor at the first terminal lied to a passenger. And will face no repercussions for having done so.

Wonderful.

So the supervisor at the first terminal lied to a passenger. And will face no repercussions for having done so.I'm not so sure about that.

Bruce

I then walked over to Terminal 2, where I smiled at the supervisor from airside.

that's the best part of the story !

So the supervisor at the first terminal lied to a passenger. And will face no repercussions for having done so.

Wonderful.

If the account of the story is true, and my guess it is, the STSO from the first encounter is in violation of TSA Management Directive (http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/foia/TSA_MD_1100_73_5_FINALv2_090521.pdf) No. 1100.73-5 (5)(A)(3) and MD No. 1100.73-5 (5)(A)(7) and needs to be disciplined.

Somehow I doubt when this "measure" was rolled out that constitutional clauses were given much consideration.

This was probably made by a mid-level TSA bureaucrat who probably never thought about the legal ramifications of this measure, it seemed simple enough to him/her and therefor picked a few airports to test it.

It probably went something like this, there was a meeting where TSA/DHS bureaucrats were discussing the guy going through (I think it was a LAX)a TSA checkpoint with boarding passes not matching his name, hmmm how can we ensure that does not happen again?????? A mid-level bureaucrat jumps up and says, "Wait, I got it! let's have the passengers say their names to ensure that their BPs belong to them."

There was mass applause to this bureaucrat's idea and they decided to slowly roll it out as a test to a few airport to measure the reaction and judge it effectiveness.

After all, The U.S. gov't loves metrics and the Saying Your Name Test's effectiveness is just another metric to measure.

I think we are giving DHS/TSA too much credit by even bringing up constitutional clauses, I am fairly sure the thought process never got that far. They probably feel it is up to their legal department to justify the action if it is ever challenged and if legal says to drop it, it would probably just fade away into the night and the only people to notice the change (for the better) would be us FTers. Though, most likely legal would fight it, probably citing some sort of SSI or other reasoning why it should not even make it to court.

Just saying,
Dan

You neglected to include that the mid-level bureaucrat that came up with the idea most likely received an invention or performance award for their idea.

I then walked over to Terminal 2, where I smiled at the supervisor from airside. What a day!!!Bruce

that's the best part of the story !

I did the same thing during my experience. Once I got back to Terminal B after going through Terminal A, I made a point of stopping by the B checkpoint to ask the supervisor for her name.

She made a very exaggerated show of sticking her security badge in front of my face, basically daring me to make an incident of it.

You neglected to include that the mid-level bureaucrat that came up with the idea most likely received an invention or performance award for their idea.

LOL!!!! The person probably did.

Dan

This video pretty much sums it up. (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/census/1226117/)

Skip ahead to 1:10 for the most relevant bit, though all of it is worth watching.

Went through FNT today. TDC was asking all pax to state his/her name. First time I've seen this here.

I told TDC that my name was on my ID. She said, "it's our policy that we ask everyone to state their name." I said, "a new policy, eh? No." She again asked me to state my name, and I said, "no I won't say my name."

She called a 2-striper supervisor over. The supervisor looked at my BP and ID, and then told her to let me continue.

I did not say my name, and I didn't have retaliatory screening.

This video pretty much sums it up. (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/census/1226117/)

Skip ahead to 1:10 for the most relevant bit, though all of it is worth watching.

Funny!

I wonder what would happen if someone refused to say their name but offered a second form of ID (like sometimes required to purchase liquor). Seems reasonable enough...I mean it serves the same purpose

I wonder what would happen if someone refused to say their name but offered a second form of ID (like sometimes required to purchase liquor). Seems reasonable enough...I mean it serves the same purpose

At AUS it will earn you a full-blown secondary where each item in every carry-on is individually swabbed leading to a 30 minute process. And at AUS you will be denied the ability to talk to a the checkpoint manager.

Personal experience.