OutOfOffice

The reality is you may not disagree with having your ID checked and that's your opinion. If this was the only questionable assault on our personal freedoms, perhaps I would agree with you. However, it's the perponderance of changes in the past few years both in Aviation and in everyday life that makes me feel that anyone who is not questioning where we are heading is guilty of complacency.

gj83

The only time I don't mind showing my drivers license in the course of business travel is at the rental counter. why? because it is a drivers license, not a "i have proof to exist" card.

what REALLY irks me is that I consult to hospitals. There are two hospitals so far that I consult with that require EVERYONE entering the building to show photo ID AND they copy it into their computer system . I know that is going OT, but anyone know how I can fight that? As if having medical records isn't enough reason to hack them, they have medical records for patients and photo IDs for most of South Florida or Syracuse.

doober

Does the Privacy Act apply here, i.e., they have to advise you what they are doing with the information they input?

And have you tried refusing to allow them to enter the information into their records?

APW Girl

Since I work in an airport and travel about 75K a year, I think I see and feel both sides. Travel is very stressful on any given day or trip. I see people all day long who tell me they travel all the time and you can tell after talking to them they still don't have a clue how to make it any easier. To me the worst part of travel are the security points. Its bad enough being held up because people have things in their carryons that is banned or they haven't taken jackets, shoes and etc. off but it just seems to me that anything I can do to not hold up the next person is the least I can do to hopefully make all our trips a bit better.

scophreak

Gotta side with the protesters on this one. I think that it's beyond debate here that checking ID's has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the safety/security of passengers. That being the case, requiring ID's serves no purpose other than taking up $ and manpower that could be used more effectively in other areas. As someone stated previously, the TSA has a dismal record in detecting test weapons coming through the checkpoints. If they can't stop weapons in the first place, what good is making sure that names on an ID and boarding pass match up?

As to the "slippery slope" argument: say what you will, it's really not a far-fetched scenario. We've already established that ID checking when flying has no tangible security benefits (so why do it in the first place?). History has shown us that even purported "free" societies can degrade in to police states and dictatorships. Is that going to be the case here?...not necessarily. However, I'm not willing to put all my eggs in that basket. It's much easier to nip this type of behavior in the bud before it becomes too large and ingrained for any of us to do something about.

exerda

And checking ID would not have prevented a single one of those things. That's the point: IDs are not security, so requiring them to fly does nothing but waste our time and tax $$.

essxjay

You may want to apologize for insulting the intelligence of our readers upon further reflection, if, that is, your question about comparisons was sincere.

I'll address the facts of the civil rights incident involving Rosa Parks directly since others have handily dealt with the implications of your proposition.

Are you not aware that Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat -- in the "blacks" section, btw -- most certainly did hold up a full busload of other passengers? The bus driver, James Blake, had in fact left his seat to compel Parks and some other black pax to stand in order for white pax to be seated. Following a short exchange, the police were summoned and Parks was arrested. (Spoiler: Butterfly Effect ahead.) And in case, just as I was, you're still fuzzy on the rest of the facts that fateful day in December of 1955, she was convicted of disorderly conduct and fined $10 (which was immediately appealed).

So, it wasn't just Parks who was inconvenienced (or merely herself and the driver) on that day. Her actions also effected the few dozen or so pax already on the bus, pax waiting for the bus, people waiting elsewhere for those "stuck" on the stalled bus, etc. Doesn't this strike one as a eerily similar to the situation under consideration here? If not, I'm curious how one can fail to see it.

Yes, so much inconvenience to others for Parks' own "selfish" reasons.

About her decision to remain in her seat on the bus the day of her arrest, she later said, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen of Montgomery, Alabama."

BTW, Parks deliberately held up bus loads of pax following the incident that triggered the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, which continued for more than a year until on Dec. 21, 1956, when SCOTUS ruled that segregated seating was unconstitutional.

Whether your hair is blonde or your skin purple, I think the flipness with which you've dismissed the discussion (and other posters) in this thread is regrettable and I hope that it's never again used as an excuse to do so.

Wally Bird

Jeez Louise, for the third (fourth ?) time. Not showing ID does NOT HOLD UP THE NEXT PERSON(S). Unless that next person is also declining to show ID, in which case you have a point.

Wally Bird

No. The "all shoes off" policy was instituted at the same time as the liquid ban. Now, the TSA may well have wanted this for some considerable time previously, but had to wait until they could claim the screeners were 'too busy' with some other threat(sic).

aamilesslave

Sure it does. It takes a screener away from the regular screening processing to give the ID-refusing pax the SSSS screening. The SSSS screening doesn't just happen by itself. Thus, all other pax behind are delayed.

essxjay

No. There are dedicated screeners for SSSS purposes at most airports.

Wally Bird

aka Thousands Standing Around.

aamilesslave

Most airports != all airports

Do you have a source for that or are you just making it up to bolster you arguement?

Do the number of SSSS pax work into the allocation of screeners for SSSS duties vs. non-SSSSS duties? How about for TSA hiring decisions?

Wally Bird

I tend to think it is all airports, maybe except for teeny-weeny ones. The "regular" screening activities consist of 1) the WTMD monitor(s) and 2) the Xray operator(s). They are not called away for a "(fe)male assist".

Larger airports may have barkers, moat dragons and sundry other hangers-on. Never seen any of them do an "assist" either. Oh, yes ID checkers too - but they are far too important to be doing actual screening of course.

oneant

There may be people waiting around to extra-screen the person who refuses to show their ID in "most" airports, but does that mean that the idiot taking the IDs knows about this lack of ID-checking enforcement?

I realize that that is not the problem of the ID-refuser, but there is where you delay comes in. Do us all a favor and protest some other way.

I was very interested in the letter the OP posted, and I'm very happy to know what my actual rights are, but refusing to show ID is a futile battle. If it's going to be overcome, it sure as hell won't be at the TSA checkpoints. It will be in Congress. Even then, spurring Congress in the haunches won't happen through TSA checkpoint antics.

Learn how to protest folks. Weren't any of you around in the 60s?