orbitmic

Fully agree... And by the way, I do think that the 'come on, it's not such a big deal to have to go through an id check' is neither here nor there: it would similarly be 'no big deal' to have to show your id whenever you board a bus, a train, or go to work or for that matter whenever you randomly cross some police officers on the street but there is simply no reason to condone a very minor inconvenience if it does not increase security whatsoever. Same goes, in my view, with body scanners, liquid restrictions, and all the extra tosh which has been devised for no other reason than to convince your average passenger that if you make flying a plane more hassle it "must" mean that it is safer. Rubbish...

Kölner

@Orbimitc: In Germany you have to scan your Boarding Pass in a Public Bus at the Entrance of the Bus in many cities. And you have to show your ID in a Train, if you have a personal Boarding Card. No one here has a Problem witht that. At big companys you have also to show your ID/Office-Card. Do you think you just can walk in without ID-Check!? :-D
It takes just seconds. In my opinion its a bit funny, how many of you have panic to show theire Boarding Pass/ID. Its not such a big deal as you think.
And in the States I have to show my ID almost every time I pay something. Why do you guys from France have such a big problem with your ID?

stimpy

I've never had to show my ID in a German train. Yes the police can demand to see your ID in any country, but that is not a normal occurrence.

Koby

I don't think anyone here has a problem with showing a boarding card or pass (or whatever you want to call it). We're discussing ID cards and/or passports.

And when you have to show your ID on a train in Germany, it's about revenue protection and preventing credit card fraud. When you buy the ticket on-line you have to say what type of proof of ID you will use (your ID card for instance) and then that ID has to be shown on the train. (Note: on the train. Not before boarding the train.) In this scenario, nobody asks for your papers using some security pretext.

orbitmic

Again, it's not a problem with my id or whatever else, it's a problem with just accepting to go through controls or share any form of personal information when it serves no purpose. To me the fact that it is 'no big deal' is no reason to do it. I think that San Gottardo has convincingly shown how dubious it is that extra security is gained from this at all and therefore I do not see any reason to support this. And like stimpy, I have personally never had to show my ID on the German trains I have taken so I suspect we are talking of revenue protection and not "anti terrorism" as mentioned by Koby?

Kölner

On my Personal "Train-card" stands: "Nur gültig in Verbindung mit einem Personalausweis" (=Only valid with a ID). And I always have to show my Personal Ticket and my ID. So I have no problem to show a ID if I board a Airplane.

@orbitmic: What Do you do if you fly from France to the United States or to the Uk!? Do you then "just accepting to go through controls or share any form of personal information"? Or if you have a meeting at a big company in Frankfurt, where you have to show your ID at the Entrance? Where is your problem to show a Airline your ID and Boarding Card? I dont understand.

JOUY31

DGAC press release

Journal officiel de la République Française

The reinstatement of document checks is a consequence of the increased VIGIPIRATE threat level. This decision is taken for three months and will then be re-evaluated. All airlines are required to make random ID checks representing at least 20% of passengers on domestic or Schengen flights. All passengers are required to show ID upon request from an airline representative before boarding a plane.

Airline compliance is mandated within 24hrs of the publication of the arrêté.

stimpy

That is because you have a train card. French train "cards" have a photo on them so the controller can see if it is indeed the person traveling. I do not possess a German train card so I just show the controller my ticket and no ID. I was on the ICE and S-Bahn in Dusseldorf last week and was not asked for my ID. Nothing to do with anti-terrorism.

orbitmic

On your point (1) yes, this is what the rest of us have said: it is revenue protection because you are using a card and Deutsche Bahn does not want you to pass on your card to your brother so that he can travel with a discount he is not entitled to.

On your point (2), on trips from France to the UK or US, the airline wants to check your ID not for identity issues but for travel allowance issues. The reason is that if the airline transports you to the UK and you are not entitled to enter the country, you will be deported at the airline's expense. This obviously does not apply to Schengen as entry rules are valid for the entire area.

As for your last point, it is not that you do not understand what is my problem with showing my ID, it is that you apparently do not accept the fact that I have no problem with showing my ID but a problem with showing my ID (again, or sharing any personal information) when it serves no security purpose. Would you have a problem if a stranger on the street randomly asked you to show him your passport? And asked you where you just came from, where you are going and who you will be meeting today? Maybe not but I would. The reason for that is that it is understood that any limitation on civil liberties (whether we talk of identity checks, personal and luggage searches, etc as whether you want it or not, all of those are considered to be limitations to civil liberties by all democratic legal systems including the German Grundgesetz and the European Convention of Human Rights) can only take place within set limits and rules which pertain to it being justified in a certain number of ways, done in a certain number of ways by certain possible people, and stored in a certain number of ways. So again, it is your phrasing of what you perceive to be "my problem" which is mistaken. I have absolutely no problem showing my id or indeed having my luggage searched when this is mandated by security needs and does indeed improve security. I just do not accept that it is the case here.

PS: Just saw that on point (1) stimpy beat me to it

orbitmic

Minor correction - if I'm not mistaken, it is not 20% of passengers but 100% of passengers (except children) on 20% of Schengen flights (including domestic). In other words, if you are 'lucky' you are on a non-controlled flight and all will go fast, if your flight 'won the lottery' checks will be carried out on all passengers on your flight. At least that's what the law requests.

Kölner

You are really making a big Drama/conspiracy theory ("limitations to civil liberties").
It is a Airline who has to check your ID, not a Stranger. A Car-Rental Company also has to check your Driver-ID. Do you make the same Drama there?
It's now the Rule of your Country to show your ID if you are boarding a Plane to check if your are really the Person belonging to the Ticket. Please, don't make such a big thing out of it.
Btw. it's just a thesis of you, that "it serves no security purpose".


PS: "Orbitmic Programs: AF/KL FB Plat, BA G, A3 G, Aclub Plat, Hilton G, IC Amb, Starwood G, blablablah, etc"
You are in so many Programs which all record your travel-behaviour. This makes your Comments on ID-Checks even more illogical.

San Gottardo

Yes, it seems so. But we can help.

Let's take things step by step, just to avoid mixing different cases, each one with its different reasoning.

The question is not whether you have a "problem" with it. I wouldn't have any problem reciting a poem before I board either. But for what reason?

The question is that this is a hassle for passengers and a cost to airlines, but for no reason.

In the case of your BahnCard there is a reason: the railway company has decided that it wants to limit fraudulous use of those reduction cards and therefore people may be asked that they really are the person who claims the reduction. In Switzerland we solve it slightly differently, there is a photo of the cardholder on the reduction card and that serves as prove that the person claiming the reduction is really entitled to it.

I am sometimes surprised airlines do not do the same things: they sell very inexpensive tickets and for some routes it would be easy to have another person travel on those inexpensive tickets. Airlines could protect this fraudulent use by checking IDs. However they have chosen not to. Evidence? The fact that Air France stopped doing ID-BP matching as soon as it was allowed by the police authorities. I assume the costs for doing the checks do not outweigh the benefits the few cases of fraud.

Controls make sense if the control finds out something that is relevant; if you can then act against the unwanted behaviour/person; and one might argue that a cost-benefit elements comes into play as well.

You will see that the that people are not against the need to show something. It's against being required to show something without any reason to do so.

You have given several examples.

1. Showing your ticket when you take a bus or tram in Germany (fyi: it's the same in all other countries on the globe, you need to have a ticket to use public transportation. Sometimes you can buy it on board). The ticket is the one document that proves that you have paid the fare and that you are entitled to travel. So there is a reason, which is to check whether someone has paid for the ride. Moreover, the people checking on the fare have the right to sanction you: make you pay a penalty, report to law enforcement agencies, put you in front of a judge in some cases. So there is a reason, the document that is being checked relates to that reason, and the people checking have the powers to do something.

2. Showing your ID when you travel to the UK or the US. Actually, this isn't just US and UK, it's pretty much every country in the world, except when traveling between Schengen states, that you need to show an ID when crossing the border. To be precise, in most cases, it's not just "ID", but a passport. Reason: the passport is shown to check whether a person fulfills the criteria to enter the country. The check is being done by border police, i.e. people who have the legal power to act against you if you are in infringement of immigration laws. They have the power to let you into the country, refuse entry, or detain you. So again, there is a reason, the document being checked relates to that reason, and the people checking have the powers to do something.

3. Matching BP to ID. The reason that is given to us is "security". Quite a blanket buzzword that can mean and justify about anything and seems to be accepted without questioning by more people than I believed. Let's look at it: is there a reason? Well, the reason is that you want to make sure that no person that intends harm boards a plane. Fine. As shown previously that is being taken care of by other means (no fly list, screening of baggage and people, and in some cases border control). So what is the reason for an *additional* check of ID and matching against BP? None that I can think of. Plus: the people checking can't do anything against it. No gate agent is allowed to detain you. Thus, there is no reason and no use, and there is no one who can enforce it.

And there is another thing: if you are so concerned about security - and I am not judging whether it's good or bad to be - why introduce something useless which is just a pain for everyone involved, instead of introducing things which would be useful? You could argue that all luggage that goes on trains must be screened, and so must the people. At least there would be some additional benefit.

Thus, I am not concerned so much about my civil liberties, but just annoyed about another interruption on my way to the plane which is perfectly useless.

I hope this makes things clearer now

JOUY31

You're absolutely right. ^

orbitmic

No, again, your referring to drama is your mistaken interpretation of the source of my comments. There is absolutely nothing "dramatic" in the concept of the limitation of civil liberty. It is simply a legal concept which we live with on a daily basis and which is necessary as a principle to ensure that public order is protected. There is nothing wrong with that and I have absolutely no problem with that when this is needed to either guarantee the security of society and/or the protection of individuals, companies, and their interests. It is simply that because law defines things such as identity verification as a limitation to civil liberty (free circulation of people in this particular case), there are also legal constraints attached to when and how it can be imposed by public authorities.

In that sense, your example of the car-rental company is, yet again, unrelated to the example of the intra-Schengen ID check because the rental company is doing something it needs to do for safety purposes (ie ensure that they do not give keys to somebody who is not entitled to drive). Here, the argument of some of us is that in the case we are discussing, the ID checks do not significantly improve security. You are perfectly free to call it a 'theory' of ours, but at least San Gottardo has spelt out what is the logical basis of the theory in question. You are perfectly free to disagree but at this stage you have not told us yet why you think that it effectively improves security to check passengers' ID at the gate (and if so, why doing it in only 1 in 5 flights makes sense).

I have made the effort to try to understand the basis of your argument (do feel free to tell me if I have understood it wrong) which is: "since it is no big deal to go through an extra ID check, I'm happy to do it" but you don't seem to want to make the effort to try and capture the logic of mine since you keep portraying what I say ("why is it such a big deal to show your id?", "why do you make such drama about showing your id?", "where is your problem to show an airline your id?"' etc) in a way which is totally different from what I am saying ("I think it is absurd of the state to request an ID check in this specific case of flights within Schengen, which adds an unnecessary hurdle and waste of time, as in my view it does not improve security"). If you did, you could still disagree with me, but at least we would be talking of the same thing while right now, it is a bit as though I said "I don't like the taste of chicory" and you answered "why are you saying chicory is bad for your health?" I hope it makes sense.

PS: I suspect that my travel experience which you are referring to is in many ways the reason why I think that the Vigipirate ID check makes no sense: taking well over 200 flights each year and using a lot of trains, hotels, etc I think I am being sensitised to when ID checks tend to be performed and when they are not. When there is a discrepency, I probably see it more than many people and question it. An equivalent would be someone driving in town with a 50km/h limit a lot. If suddenly a government decides to limit the speed of driving on motorways to 50km/h too, they are likely to be unhappy about it because precisely they know why city streets and motorways tend to have different speed limits. The fact that they find the limit a good thing for their city driving does not mean that they would necessarily embrace it being extended to the big roads.