Originally Posted by
pmocek
Right. It seems that at that time, verbally identifying yourself wasn't useful, and presenting credentials simply got you through with a walk through the magnetometer instead of a frisk, and an X-ray search of your bags instead of a hand-search of them. That's what happened the dozen or so times I flew without showing ID credentials before mid-2008.
Maybe. Do blog posts and press releases constitute notification of a government agency's official position? Since they publish conflicting information, relying on one particular announcement seems rather unwise. The latest authoritative source I've seen was the
SOP manual provided to the Identity Project in May of 2009 (and dated June 30, 2008, a week after the date that their policy reportedly changed). As I
quoted above, they found that "Rather than requiring people who don’t have or don’t choose to show government-issued ID credentials to execute affidavits stating who they are under penalty of perjury, the TSA procedures manual requires that such people be allowed to proceed through secondary screening as “selectees”, and specifically directs screeners and other TSA staff not to make any attempt to detain or delay them."
I've since requested a copy of their screening management operating procedures manual under FOIA, and they've
stalled for over a year.
So while there's plenty of hearsay, we don't really know what their policy is. It would be nice if people would test the system, hopefully documenting their experience with photo and video.
I didn't intend to make that argument. I asked TSA staff who are participating in this discussion to explain, but none of them has done so.
I don't know. I would guess that their policy is similar to that which was described in the June, 2008, press release, but we know for sure that this was not the case a week later (unless they violated FOIA when providing that procedures manual).Until they publish their rules and policies, we can only guess.
And remember that positions, rules, and policies are all different. The only credible information about this I've seen was the description of their operating procedures, not rules. Quoting that IDP announcement again: "These are “procedures”, mind you. Not policies. Not regulations. Not laws. Congress has never debated or approved any of this, nor has any judge or jury. The excerpts from the TSA manual that we received gave little hint of how much “discretion” the TSA thinks it has, or gives its minions at individual airports or checkpoints, to use “nonstandard” procedures if they feel like it."
I have a question, Phil. You state here that you are really unsure of what TSA policy is, that TSA presents conflicting information regarding policy, and let's just assume that's true. How is it then, that when another potential passenger comes and ask a question that you decide to answer if you state you don't really know what TSA policy is? Are you purposefully give out possible bad information, or are you simply content to give out answers that are guesses?
And I'll work on answering some of tour questions you post to me eariler in the thread. I may have time later today, but regardless I will get to them.
Originally Posted by
pmocek
Unanswered questions from this thread for SATTSO:
- Why didn't you allow the man past your barricade?
- Did the man violate any rules? If so, which ones? Where can we read them?
- Did you bar the man from proceeding because he did not tell you his ID was misplaced or stolen?
- Do you think that his choosing not to show you what you wanted but were not entitled to see -- his identity credentials -- indicated that he would present a danger to other passengers on his flight?
- Did the fact that he did not utter the words "I lost it" indicate that he was dangerous?
- Had he -- metaphorically speaking -- bent over and kissed your feet, would you have continued to perform the procedure we pay you to perform instead of restricting the man's movement?
- You did not describe the man refusing to undergo the identity verification process TSA claims its staff use when people do not present identity credentials, only him refusing to present identity credentials. Does it seem from this statement that I read yours correctly?
- Was the man required to present those credentials to you in order to go on about his business?
- Did you retaliate by prohibiting the man from crossing your barricade simply because his stated reason for not presenting identity credentials was his desire not to do so?
- Had the situation been exactly the same, except for three words out of the man's mouth -- "I lost it" or "it was stolen" -- would you still have immediately infringed upon his right to travel?
- Was there any specific security threat or any unlawful behavior in that case?
- What, if anything, made you think this man was such a threat to transportation security that you should bar him from walking through the airport to the terminal from which he presumably arranged to be transported? Please don't reply by citing internal procedures you won't allow us to read, just tell us why you -- TSA -- felt it was appropriate to infringe upon that man's right to move from one place to another.
1. he refused to provide identification or provided information to the BDOs to identify himself (basically, we look up you ID at a central location)
2. yes, he did not provide information regarding his identity nor proivde his actual ID
3. no
4. i do not know - and thats a loaded question. But I expect nothing less from you. ^
5. why do you assume he was dangerous? and how do you know what he "uttered"? I gave a very brief description of an encounter that was actually somewhat lenghty considering other interactions at TDC. I gave a short version. Sorry if that upsets you.
6. considering I pay taxes too, that argument holds little weight with me. try again. But to answer you condescending question, flatter does not sway me in the performance of my job.
I would state that you ask such at particularly stupid question tell me you already had an answer to the question, and your fishing. So I will state this again, perhaps it would be best if you yourself ask your questions, write your own answers, and and I will sign my name to it, so that your happy.
7. I mistakenly thought that was self-evident. To me it does not make sense that someone would say "I will not show you my ID because government doe not have the right to ask for my "papers", but you can look it up online". We end up seeing the same document.
Please explain to me why it is not ok for the TSO at TDC to see you government ID, but another TSA employee to see it somewhere else?
8. Already answered in previous questions. Why ask the same question over and over again, albeit, using different words? What are you fishing for? Please be more straight-forward, and I will try to be too. Thanks
9. Define retaliation, please. As many here on this site use the word, they state a TSO does something against TSA policy to the passenger because the TSO is angry at them. Under that definition, I have never retaliated against anyone.
If you want to claim that by following TSA policy that I acted in retaliation, thats up to you. But then you also have to claim that is true of every TSO who does not allow a prohibited item through the checkpoint. In other words, if I stop someone from carrying a function chain-saw (true story) through the checkpoin, or a gun (true story), then I have "retaliated" against that person for enforcing TSA policy.
Besides, I wonder why you ask that question? It seems VERY clear to me you already decided your answer, and I believe your fishing again. Which again leads me to ask you to go ahead and answer you own questions so that you will be happy.
10. Loaded question. I do not believe anyone has a right to fly. A right to move about the country, yes, but to fly, nope. And our courts have state so, too. As far as I am concerned, I did not "infringe" upon anyones right.
But again, we are faced with the FACT that you have already decided upon an answer before I have given my answer, so I am given more proof that your fishing.
And if someone claims as you state, and they attempt to help us identify themselves, since we end up seeing their ID, yes, they can proceed through the checkpoin.
11. Providing ID or identity is federal regulation, which you well know. And as said by one expert regarding this topic, Robert Longley, "Federal regulations are the actual enforceable laws authorized by major legislation enacted by Congress."
If a person were to attempt to go through a TSA checkpoint and hide their identity, they COULD (not saying they would) be charged criminally (besides facing regulatory fines) with attempting to circumvent airport security. Even if you do not like it, or know about it, sorry and deal with it.
12. You ask a loaded question, and then try to force me to answer a certain way. Proof again you are fishing, and should answer you own questions.
Sorry, you asked me a question, and I did not get to dictate to you what questions you can ask or how you can ask those questions, so do NOT dictate to me how to answer.
He did not follow established TSA policy, and TSA has the discression to bar him entrance into the checkpoint. You can read about his here:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...documents.shtm
But specifically from that link: "Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane."
But on to your loaded and silly question, I enforce many TSA policies. I do not allow certain LGAs through the checkpoin, nor knives, guns or other things. I have stopped people carrying guns before, yet I honestly did not think they would be a threat to the airline. My opinion of the matter counts for NOTHING. You seem to NOT want to understand this nor NOT want to accept this, for whatever reason.
There, I have answered all you questions. I will not play your game that you do here so often and keep answering them again, over and over. So post them if you have to, but all you have to do for my answers is to refer back to here. Thanks, and your werlcome!