Originally Posted by
Wally Bird
although I think the latter has been changed from a question to a statement, as in "you won't fly today". I don't know that that makes it any less of a threat but certainly less confrontational.
I disagree. The statement should be nothing more than "you won't be allowed to pass the security checkpoint" or similar. Not flying is an obvious side effect of that, but specifically mentioning it blatantly smacks of punishment and retribution, IMO.
Originally Posted by
ND Sol
The crux of the issue in Gilmore was that the TSA would permit him to fly without showing ID, provided he consented to additional screening of his person and property, which was then called "secondary screening". Gilmore did not want to go through that secondary screening. The court said that if a reasonable alternative to not showing ID existed, then the TSA requirement was permissible.
But isn't TSA already violating that?
I remember, for a time, that TSA's policy on lack of ID was:
- if you lost or forgot your ID, you would endure additional physical screening
- if you had ID but refused to show it, you weren't allowed past security
Today, it appears that not having an ID means you go into a room and answer a bunch of questions about yourself, and possibly endure additional physical screening. To me, that sounds like a violation of the Gilmore decision, in spirit if not in literal interpretation.