Your right to fly without ID (proof at last)
Sep 7, 2007, 4:51 pm
#77
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cows in Berkeley?....Moooo!
Programs: Fly Amtrak, Go Greyhound! I'm often wrong but always sincere.
Posts: 7,102
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?
Learn how to protest folks. Weren't any of you around in the 60s?
I didn't live in the 60's, but this is well within the same realm and concept of Civil disobedience. Perhaps the more people who challenge, the more likely LEO's and TSA will overstep their boundaries, which prompts media attention, which may affect change.
By the way, is you life really that busy that you are SO concerned about the one in a million fliers that is prepared to question authority? I'm mean really, the vast majority of Americans are perfectly trained in the concept of being Sheeple so I doubt this is truly going to impact you any time soon and most of your time at checkpoint will continue to be wasted by people who forgot to take their hand lotion out of their carryon.
Sep 7, 2007, 5:33 pm
#78
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
As for your second and third questions, what do you think? I'm genuinely curious to know.
Sep 7, 2007, 5:55 pm
#79
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
All a pax needs to add to their declaration about lack of ID is to say, "I'll take secondary" or "I'll need additional screening." In fact, those of us (me, goalie, others here) who have metal implants and choose to show ID just the same know that since we'll be secondaried regardless of ID, it's easier ask for secondary up front. There is no need to argue and delay anyone. (I certainly take no pleasure in doing so.)
Last edited by essxjay; Sep 7, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Sep 7, 2007, 6:12 pm
#80
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
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.
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.
In the same city on the same municipal busline 12 years before Rosa Parks changed the course of history, my very Caucasian father, in the uniform of an Army Aviation Cadet, was nearly attacked by other Caucasian males for the offense of offering his seat to an elderly black man.
I have confidence that there is another Rosa Parks out there who will make the same impact in this current attack on our precious liberties.
Sep 7, 2007, 7:34 pm
#81
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Sep 7, 2007, 7:36 pm
#82
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Did you know there are still countries where airport security doesn't care about ID's? In fact, there are airports (outside of the USA) where anyone can go through security and enter the passenger terminal .. passengers, meeters, greeters, etc.
No boarding pass is needed at the security checkpoint, there is no shoe removal, and overall commercial aviation is much more civilised than it is in the United States. There is no yelling or barking of orders at the security checkpoints; passengers are treated with respect, checked luggage is screened for explosives (and can be locked), and ETD screenings are also conducted at the checkpoints. Security is above and beyond international standards at these airports -- and on some flights, you might just get a hot meal at meal time, even in economy.
No boarding pass is needed at the security checkpoint, there is no shoe removal, and overall commercial aviation is much more civilised than it is in the United States. There is no yelling or barking of orders at the security checkpoints; passengers are treated with respect, checked luggage is screened for explosives (and can be locked), and ETD screenings are also conducted at the checkpoints. Security is above and beyond international standards at these airports -- and on some flights, you might just get a hot meal at meal time, even in economy.
Sep 7, 2007, 7:38 pm
#83
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 551
i had a reread of the first post and subsequent posts. There is no indication that if you do not show id, the TSAcannot insist on "hand checking your wallet". It is through that process that they can then pull out your id and copy down the information and i fail to see how anyone can fight it. That is why i ask: " even if you show the letter, how does one fight the TSAagent from insisting on hand checking your wallet and copying down information thereafter." It is not far fetched. SIN airport secuirty once insisted on hand checking my wallet.
Sep 7, 2007, 9:29 pm
#84
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
It should also be noted that this same bus driver had not stopped to let Parks on his bus in previous trips.
On December 1, 1955, Parks finally had had enough.
When will we, I wonder?
Sep 7, 2007, 9:45 pm
#85
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
i had a reread of the first post and subsequent posts. There is no indication that if you do not show id, the TSAcannot insist on "hand checking your wallet". It is through that process that they can then pull out your id and copy down the information and i fail to see how anyone can fight it. That is why i ask: " even if you show the letter, how does one fight the TSAagent from insisting on hand checking your wallet and copying down information thereafter." It is not far fetched. SIN airport secuirty once insisted on hand checking my wallet.
Sep 8, 2007, 1:25 am
#86
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
I think you misunderstand - the civil rights movement was something that actually mattered. Comparing yourself having to show I.D to get on a plane to the civil rights movement does nothing but demean the civil rights movement.
Sep 8, 2007, 5:46 am
#87
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by aamilesslave View Post
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.
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.
Sep 8, 2007, 5:54 am
#88
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,441
I believe many have learned from the civil rights movement to not wait until it is too late - nip it in the bud.
Sep 8, 2007, 6:23 am
#89
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,417
This whole comparison to "Rosa Parks" is ridiculous. Parks involved the question of equality -- some citizens had more rights and privileges under the law than others. If only persons with Islamic names were ordered to show ID at the Airport, I could see the comparison. But that's obviously NOT what's happening. Everyone is being treated equally at the ID check.
Instead of equal treatment under the law, we're talking about privacy. Everyone knows, or should know, that the Constitution does not provide an absolute right to privacy. It's "balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life." http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy
As flawed as our airline security system may be, I can't imagine any court finding that -- in these times -- the gov't doesn't have a compelling interest in identifying potential airline terrorists. An ID check, no matter how flawed, assists in that effort and is obviously Constitutional. To argue otherwise is to express a personal opinion (which is also protected by the Constitution), but it is an opinion that has no plausible chance of becoming law.
So if it makes you feel good giving the TSA guys a hard time by not showing ID, go for it. But arguing that you're "defending the Constitition" is an act of self delusion. If you don't want to show your ID at the airport, contact your Congressman and ask him to pass a law ending the practice. But I'm 100% sure your efforts will be 100% unsuccessful. That's what sometimes happens in a democracy.
Instead of equal treatment under the law, we're talking about privacy. Everyone knows, or should know, that the Constitution does not provide an absolute right to privacy. It's "balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life." http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy
As flawed as our airline security system may be, I can't imagine any court finding that -- in these times -- the gov't doesn't have a compelling interest in identifying potential airline terrorists. An ID check, no matter how flawed, assists in that effort and is obviously Constitutional. To argue otherwise is to express a personal opinion (which is also protected by the Constitution), but it is an opinion that has no plausible chance of becoming law.
So if it makes you feel good giving the TSA guys a hard time by not showing ID, go for it. But arguing that you're "defending the Constitition" is an act of self delusion. If you don't want to show your ID at the airport, contact your Congressman and ask him to pass a law ending the practice. But I'm 100% sure your efforts will be 100% unsuccessful. That's what sometimes happens in a democracy.
Sep 8, 2007, 6:30 am
#90
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
As flawed as our airline security system may be, I can't imagine any court finding that -- in these times -- the gov't doesn't have a compelling interest in identifying potential airline terrorists. An ID check, no matter how flawed, assists in that effort and is obviously Constitutional. To argue otherwise is to express a personal opinion (which is also protected by the Constitution), but it is an opinion that has no plausible chance of becoming law.