Originally Posted by
cparekh
This is a rational and agreeable approach. My only concern is the "slippery slope" argument. Simply put, each intrusion, legal or illegal, warranted or unwarranted, is marginally only a little worse than the last one. They require ID already, so saying my name is not that big a deal. They require my BP already, so that stating my destination is not a big deal. This is entirely rational and true (IMHO).
However, what if we went back to before there were TDCs? What if all of a sudden, we now have to give ID, give a BP, state our name, give our destination, when before, all we did was go through the WTMD?
My only point, is that little battles lead to little victories, that are winnable and that add up over time. Not fighting these battles means that each additional intrusion by the TSA eventually becomes a monumental intrusion.
Just a thought(s).
I agree. There is one difference. There is a published regulation that I must give my ID and BP to the TDC unless I want to undergo a thorough physical screening. I agree as well that the saying of ones name is not part of that requirement, but it is a trivial addition in that the name is required and it is required that it match the travel document. I do not like it. I do not want to do it. But, we must choose our battles carefully or we spend our entire time in trivial skirmishes. That is why the PIPI is where I draw the line. It is not required in any form, written or spoken.