Carl Johnson

Does the gate agent check? Last year I flew RT between Amsterdam and Rome, and then RT between Amsterdam and Berlin, and I THINK that at least on one of those departures the GA wanted to see the passport and the boarding pass, but I can't remember. That isn't the same, though, as sending the checkpoint screeners roaming through the terminal to check IDs at the gate. If it didn't happen to me at all, it's DEFINITELY not the same. Well, for purposes of contributing to security, the effect is EXACTLY the same whether it happened or not.

I've ridden the bus from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore and cleared immigration each way. Maybe they're a single immigration zone for air travel, and international for bus travel? I don't think that sort of situation would actually require fundamental changes in the structure of the universe. Close maybe, but not quite.

FliesWay2Much

Those of us who went to college in the 70s (and before) remember the ads on the student union bulletin boards like this:

"JFK - LAX
Dec 21
Female
$100"

notquiteaff

As I mentioned upstream, LH has in many cases automatic self-service boarding gates where you scan your BP and the gate opens if the BP is accepted. You are not going to be asked for ID.


In my experience the checkpoint screeners screen bags; they don't check IDs.

mikeef

I think she has all of the point. And they have every right to do so, but they should be doing it with airline dollars, not the government's.

Of course, there's always the risk that I'll sell my ticket to somebody with the same name.

Look, I think everyone here knows that the ID check is useless. A terrorist who can get a bomb is also one who is likely to be able to find a fake ID. And even if they couldn't, I'm pretty sure that the TSA hasn't memorized the list of no-fly candidates.

But here's my question: If an ID check adds security to my trip, why aren't I forced to show one before boarding Amtrak? Or the subway? For that matter, why aren't they running every bag and making me walk through a metal detector (or worse)? Seems to me that a train explosion under Penn Station would do more total damage than a mid-air explosion.

We live with acceptable risks in our lives. I go outside. I cross the street. I know that a bird carrying a turtle could drop that turtle on my head from 100 feet up, likely killing me. And yet I choose to leave my house on a daily basis, knowing that a misstep could result in my imminent injury, mutilation or even death.

I know of nobody on this board who would propose having no security at the airport. While the chances of a terrorist attack are small, the results of one would be catastrophic.

I also believe that every person who posts here wants intelligent security. It's simply our definition of intelligent that differs.

An ID check does nothing in terms of security. In a perfect world, it means that you can match the identity of the person on the ticket to the one who boards. And one could also argue that a second, or third, ID check is a minor inconvenience, at worst. But a bunch of minor inconveniences add up to major inconvenience. You are far more likely to die in a car accident than on an airplane, and I think it's safe to say that airport security has pushed a lot of people to the roads, where they drive 75 MPH, rather than the 20 MPH that would ensure their safety.

There's another point, though, that we have barely touched on in this thread: I don't like this idea that Americans are becoming accustomed to pulling out their identification on demand. I don't like that "identification" has become equivalent to "security." And, while we all appear to be willing to give up a bit of essential liberty to purchase a bit of temporary safety at the airport, what, exactly, is the right amount? How little incremental gain do we need to justify a significant increase in privacy violations? I don't know the answer to that, but in the case of ID checks, I do know that the incremental value is zero. That's how much liberty I'm willingly going to give up for that bit of added "security."

Mike

GUWonder

I have flown on common carriers domestically within some countries in the Schengen area without showing any ID to fly. It's been rather routine for me.

I have flown internationally within the Schengen area without showing any ID to fly. It's been rather routine. On some international routes within Europe, I could fly under the name Frosty Thesnowman and not be checked for ID. Even this year.

The number of such flights of mine hit by a terrorist attack? Zero.

Carl Johnson

Why isn't the incremental value negative? What's the incremental value of the War on Water? I think both of these things focus the attention of the clerks on trivia even more than it already was.

And probably, come to think of it, the gate ID checks are BDO related, which causes the clerks to look for people who are feeling afraid, and trying to cover up for it by holding their heads erect and whistling a happy tune so no one will suspect they're afraid.

kmersh

I have been here long enough now to gather some reoccurring sentiments RE: TSA processes and procedures and generally it seems that certain things like the ID check are unhelpful (I will be generous) in keeping us safe.

Being a Physician and not a security expert, I truly have no idea, but logically I do not see a connection between checking IDs and keeping us safe. To my thinking a would be bad person would be able to obtain a fake ID and failing that, would not mind showing a real ID, especially if they intend to do something really bad which could very well end up with the would be bad person loosing their life.

Some rules are in the what my Father (also a Physician and not a security expert) calls the keeping the honest people honest rules and it seems ID checks at the airport as performed by the TSA fall into that group.

chollie

Yes, and while TSOs are 'keeping the honest people honest' at the gate with useless ID checks, people are clearing security and boarding planes with firearms and even bricks of government military explosives.

Maybe those TSOs who are 'keeping the honest people honest' would be better employed catching the dishonest people, particularly those dressed in TSO uniforms or employed at the airport. Maybe if they didn't send so many people to hang around the gates to keep honest people honest, they'd have the manpower to actually catch the bad guys.

Carl Johnson

I don't even understand what that is supposed to mean. What the TSA is supposed to do is to screen for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, not to enforce some sort of behavioral standard for passengers. The passenger and carry-on screening, all that is, basically, is keeping the honest people honest, or it would be if they cleaned up the process so that they only screened for real threats. Also, helping clueless passengers who forget they've left something in their bag. There are some things that could start accidental fires and it helps everybody if those things are detected.

An actual terrorist attack is so rare that it can't be prevented by screening, even if the TSA did a good job.

A real terrorist is going to have all his documents perfectly in order.

kmersh

I don't disagree, I am not a security expert, I honestly have no idea what is useful and what is not, I can only use logic and it seems that these ID checks are not useful is keeping aviation safe. Hence why I said it is a procedure to keep the honest people honest, it does not logically seem to do anything to stop a would be bad (dishonest) person.

It seems that security in general is about keeping the honest people honest, a would be bad person is going to try and find a way to do something bad without getting caught, as you rightly point out by having his documents in order, for example.

I often wonder if upper Management at TSA feels that these sort of procedures (like ID checks) are useful or just look useful.

I have a buddy who worked for DHS as an attorney, he has since moved on to the IRS also as an attorney, and he used to tell me that the belief back then (could be now as well, no idea), was that even if a procedure didn't actually improve security, if it looked like it did to John Q. Public, that was enough. He said that the real security was the FBI investigating and interrupting plots before they got anywhere near the airport.

I never understood that (looking good, but not being useful) and still don't but it was interesting none the less to hear my buddy explain that to me and be candidly honest (at least with me).

Boggie Dog

You are an educated person so that means you can think, use reasoning, and consider issues even in areas that you are not expert.

Many things that TSA does seem directed more for public consumption than for achieving any real security objective. If people "feel" safe they are more likely to climb into that metal tube, climb up to 40,000 feet, and go spend a few thousand dollars visiting Mickey Mouse or some such.

The question, do those steps that TSA uses really add up to true safety improvements? I would suggest that they do not in all cases but they do add the perception that TSA is doing something which makes the gullible think they are safe. ID checks are on of those things. Checking peoples hair for some minute item is another. Name games and questions is another complete waste of effort and poor use of limited resources.

TSA's only function which truly adds to safety is the interdiction of WEI. Not confiscating water, not hand lotion, or any other harmless item. If TSA cannot distinguish between harmful and safe items then that is where improvement efforts should be directed, not in doing the same worthless steps day after day.

I believe that there is a legitimate security role for TSA to play, it's just not the one that is being played now. TSA's use of available manpower is a complete circus. Training, or retention of training, by TSA employees is abysmal. TSA's respect for the public is unacceptable, I could go on but the bottom line is that for $8,000,000,000.00 a year taxpayers are not getting the TSA that we need or deserve.

kmersh

Thank you, I am a Physician which means that I spent most of my educational years studying biology and then medicine and thus my and many other Physician's educations are not very well rounded. Physicians (and I am no exception) are notoriously bad at business and many think they know lots about lots of things, but in my experience Physicians know lots about medicine, but many others topics they (and I am no exception) we know very little.

That makes perfect sense and my buddy who I referenced earlier tends to agree with that assessment, one reason he gives for leaving DHS, nobody wanted to listen to him, though he did say that good people do work at DHS and TSA, just that they can be drowned out by the less great employees.

catocony

We don't call it Kabuki theater for nothing. It's mostly for show, and the audience eats it up. It's like pro wrestling. Fake, but a lot people get into it anyways. TSA security - it's not really secure, but most people think it is.

"Why are you taking my bottle of water?"
"It might be a bomb"
"Then why did you throw it in the trash can next to the line of people?"
"Because its just a bottle of water"

That's TSA logic.

WilcoRoger

ID check at the gate is usually by the airline to protect revenue (or to make sure on int'l flights that the pax have right to enter the destiantion country)

In Germany, no ID checks, domestic or international (at least with LH and AB) UK - AFAIK a frequent flyer card (no pic, no signature) is enough for BA. I can't remember any ID checks on TH or MY domestic flights. SG, HK, Brunei - domestic??

Often1

Gate checks of ID in the state are often directed at a single passenger, but made to look random. Same thing with people being pulled into secondary at CBP. 30 people may be pulled out in order to not tip the one individual they care about.

Every country has different requirements.

The UK may not require ID to fly but it requires many foreigners to register with the local police within 7 days of arrival. The US does not.

Intra-Schengen does not generally require ID, but sometimes it does. Thus, any smart person carries their ID even if they never have to pull it out.

There are all manner of arguments about what works best, but arguing about each one in a vacuum seems silly.