Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Jan 28, 2011, 7:52 pm
#1592
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 104
Even more so, TSA spends considerable energy eyeballing the ID with a magic light to determine if it is real or not, and to see if it matches the name on the boarding pass.
Unfortunately, there is ZERO comparison of that name to ANY list while in the security line, to see if the holder is a bad guy or not.
There is also ZERO scrutiny of the paper boarding pass. Almost any 12 year old can change the name in the PDF and reprint that boarding pass to match his UNFORGED ID and board the plane with ease.
Talk of whether or not ID checks at the security checkpoint should happen or not aside, I have yet to hear what this current farce of a check ACTUALLY DOES!!!
This only catches stupid folks with phony IDs. Anyone with a smidgen of intelllegence and ill intent WOULD JUST REPRINT THE BOARDING PASS. IT'S NOT SECURITY!!!
Sorry about the shouting.
Jan 28, 2011, 8:22 pm
#1593
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Denver CO
Programs: HHonors Gold, National Emerald Club, no airline affinity status
Posts: 3,352
I believe it is to illuminate the holograms and other factors that are on most IDs. On my ID, there is a series of state seals that show up better under light. It is to prevent counterfit IDs (apparently).
Jan 28, 2011, 9:11 pm
#1594
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
It is the called the light of amazing properties, its specifications are SSI, of course, but it allows the TDC to do something that appears important. But it is only effective when used in combination with the equally important magic squiggle. The two in combination have prevented thousands of really bad guys from getting on airplanes with us.
(I really want to get one of these lights. The next time they look at my ID, I pull my light of amazing properties out and ask to look at their ID and then complain to a supervisor that I think they are a fake TDC when I can not find an appropriate hidden image on it. No, on second thought I will not do this as I have a hard enough time with my Nexus card, but thinking about it is fun. It is kinda like the "Messin' with Sasquatch" commercials, fun to think about, not so much fun to do. By the way, the Nexus card has all kinds of neat hidden images that can be seen with the light of amazing properties and they often do not give a flying crap that they are there, which often leads to the calling of a supervisor anyway. When they look for the Nexus in the bartender's book of ID's I have to tell them they will not find it there. I give them printouts of their own web site saying the Nexus is acceptable and they do not care. I have made up business cards with the url's of the DHS web sites and I hand them to the TDC and the Supervisors and they don't care. I stand my ground an eventually I will get through, but by this time, they care. My carry on often gets the award for the most thorough search of the day, but if you were to see what is my carry on you would want to search it, too. All said and done, I have had at least $50 worth of "find the idiot" fun that the Nexus application process cost me.)
Jan 28, 2011, 9:29 pm
#1595
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,131
Jan 28, 2011, 10:02 pm
#1596
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Another idea: I wonder if each of us obtained a copy of Blogger Bob's lies and a copy of the judgment and trial transcript and sent a brief letter to each of our Congressmen and Senators as well as President Obama (For what it's worth) demanding action.
This may not go anywhere, but as long as we can keep congress aware that this thorn will not go away, eventually they might just do something about it.
Jan 28, 2011, 10:12 pm
#1597
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,058
Talk about spin. I would consider this to be borderline libelous. What instructions did Phil fail to cooperate with ABQ Police? Implying that Phil was not cooperating with ID verification is not true. What was the testimony that Phil was asked to stop filming because of SSI? Phil is not a "covered person." It is the job of the TSA to ensure that SSI is protected from us seeing it. That is not done by telling him to stop filming. Were they going to ask Phil to close his eyes while the form was in front of him?
Jan 28, 2011, 11:07 pm
#1598
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 79
Fox Business Network segemnt with Phil
Jan 28, 2011, 11:33 pm
#1599
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,285
FYI, the expression "Philadelphia Lawyer," as far as I know, has always meant a lawyer of high competence. It dates back to the early 18th Century right here in New York after the acquittal of John Peter Zenger of criminal libel. He was defended by Andrew Hamilton, an attorney from Philadelphia.
I'll let the Philadelphia Bar Association speak for my brothers and sisters of the Bar in that city:
The term actually predates the nation's founding, having its origins in 1735 when Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton traveled to New York City to defend a poor printer, John Peter Zenger. Hamilton actually acted pro bono and accepted a case that no New York lawyer would take on. Defending Zenger against charges of sedition brought by the crown, Hamilton won the case and, in so doing, established the concept of freedom of the press more than 50 years before the First Amendment. It was said that when the jury returned its verdict those in the galleries exclaimed: "Only a Philadelphia lawyer could have done it!" Ever since then the term "Philadelphia lawyer" has come to characterize a particularly adept lawyer: more clever; craftier; a lawyer who will find a way to prevail for his/her client.
Jan 29, 2011, 1:45 am
#1600
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Doha, Qatar
Programs: Air Canada Aeroplan, Lufthansa Miles & More, Flying Blue, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 1,894
The post is beyond unbelievable. Besides the fact that it fails to mention the fact that Mocek was found "not guilty," BB begins by claiming:
A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently. The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers.
I've also been listening to the trial recordings -- congrats to the defence team and all, but why on earth weren't they objecting at just about everything coming out of the prosecutor's mouth? They allowed the prosecution to introduce into evidence -- via Breedon's testimony -- the view that Mocek's "videotaping" (I highly doubt he was using videotape, but whatever) of the no ID process was "against TSA policy". What does that have to do with anything? He's not being tried for violating TSA policy, he's being tried for disorderly conduct. The prosecution is never stupid enough to assert that the photography was illegal, so why doesn't the defence attorney object to the testimony around that issue as irrelevant?
Also, why isn't Breedon being charged with perjury? He states that he called the police over to get Mocek to "comply with policies that have been put in place that prohibit filming and photographing at the checkpoint". But Blogdad Bob confirms: "TSA does not prohibit photography at checkpoints".
Last edited by polonius; Jan 29, 2011 at 2:01 am
Jan 29, 2011, 2:17 am
#1601
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Also, why isn't Breedon being charged with perjury? He states that he called the police over to get Mocek to "comply with policies that have been put in place that prohibit filming and photographing at the checkpoint". But Blogdad Bob confirms: "TSA does not prohibit photography at checkpoints".
As I said in another thread, violating procedure at the TSA gets you "retraining." The rest of us would be terminated.
But, the TSA is more equal than the rest of us, I guess.
Jan 29, 2011, 4:28 am
#1603
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Also, why isn't Breedon being charged with perjury? He states that he called the police over to get Mocek to "comply with policies that have been put in place that prohibit filming and photographing at the checkpoint". But Blogdad Bob confirms: "TSA does not prohibit photography at checkpoints".
As I said in an earlier posting, I listened to the entire trial and heard a number of things that are probably not true, but none that, in my opinion, came even close to what would be required to prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the PV posting, I agree that it's potentially libelous and I think Phil should persue it. The government singling out a person like that and not even mentioning that he was acquitted of all charges is completely unacceptable.
Jan 29, 2011, 5:21 am
#1604
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
There are 42 comments now, all negative (including mine, which made the cut). People seem to really hate the TSA and its ridiculous blog. Good! ^^^
Bruce
Bruce
Jan 29, 2011, 5:42 am
#1605
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: FLL
Posts: 393
That brings up one thing I've always wondered. We've all heard that when it comes to crime, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" -- in other words, even if I don't know something's illegal, if I do it, I can be arrested. Why doesn't that work the other way around? Why are the "authorities" allowed to be ignorant of the law and get away with it?