MatthewLAX

<crickets chirping>

You're not going to get an answer, because it DOESN'T make anyone safer.

polonius

Of course there are even simpler ones -- for example, almost all countries have laws against intentional mutilation or alteration of passports (other than by immigration officials in the course of their legitimate duties, of course). Those laws apply world-wide -- just because you are away from home doesn't make it legal to make such changes because your country's laws "don't apply overseas"

NoClu

edit to clarify.

TSA = ... Why are we spending this amount of cash??????

nrgiii

It doesn't today, but it could if boarding passes were tamper-proof (or at least tamper-resistant). I heard they are working on that.

I agree that ID checking and the rest of security theater will not prevent another 9/11. But at the same time I understand the need for it

When it comes to ID checking and the rest of "security theater", you have to remember that the primary function of most law enforcement resources is to catch and deter the unsophisticated criminals. Look at how many cops there are chasing speeders. You can make a strong argument that pulling me over for going 10 mph over the limit makes us no safer either. But if there were no cops on the highways, then pretty soon we'd have some idiots going 120 mph and killing innocent people regularly. Same applies to TSA. If it was easy to bring guns or explosives on an airplane then some idiots would do just that and people would get hurt. TSA's job is to make sure it's not brain-dead-easy to bring something bad on a plane. In essence, their job is to keep out the "terrorist riffraff".

Catching the sophisticated (aka "real") criminals (terrorists or otherwise), is much more difficult and expensive than keeping me from bringing a bottle of shampoo on board. And catching the little fish while the big fish goes free goes way beyond TSA. Think about how long Bernie Madoff got away with his ponzi scheme. Does that make the SEC the Wall St. version of the TSA? Probably.

When I'm feeling optimistic, I like to think that FBI/CIA/NSA are doing the real "heavy lifting" in aviation security, and that it's kept out of public view for good reason (could it ever be effective if it was in public view?), and that TSA is the tip of the security iceberg. At least that's what I hope is going on every time I board a flight.

nrg

MatthewLAX

How does checking ID prohibit someone from "bringing something bad" on a plane?

Everyone goes through a metal detector...

nrgiii

It doesn't, but it could keep known terrorists off the plane if the boarding pass was secure.

Yes, but there are types of explosives and weapons that sail right through a metal detector without a peep.


nrg

whkento

All the best to you, Phil. ^

...Looking forward to seeing that video.

pscabrea

I agree checking ID does not make the flight any more secure. The ID checking is not being used consistently either. I've travel once in a while and have used the electronic boarding pass on my phone (Continental). I haven't had my ID checked when using my phone as my boarding pass. The phone is not tied to me in any way and has not been verified. The email link I brought up could've been used by anyone.

MatthewLAX

You've changed the goal post, but who determines who is a "known terrorist?" According to the "no fly list," the late Senator Kennedy was one.

Yes, there are types of explosives that sail right through a metal detector without a peep. How does checking an ID prevent this?

If checking ID is to prevent "dumb" criminals from committing crimes, why would do you think the criminal would be smart enough to construct a weapon that the metal detector would not pick up yet dumb enough to travel with an ID the TSA would recognize is false?

RadioGirl

Suppose the boarding pass is completely secure. Now what?

In the first place, the known terrorists (the genuinely bad guys) aren't on the No Fly List 'cause the government doesn't want them to know that they've been identified. Or at least that's the government's excuse. (And do you really think OBL is going to rock up to the ID checker at BWI with his own passport?)

In the second place, getting a fake ID card in someone else's name is absurdly easy; ask any college student. Getting a genuine ID card (a legitimate Driver's License for example) in a fake name is easy if you have the right contacts or the right money. If your brother or cousin looks like you, using his DL is easy. It's therefore very easy to have ID in "good" name that matches boarding pass in "good" name with photo that matches Mr BadGuy's face => terrorist on the plane. Simple. As long as the TDC is checking name=name and photo=sorta-like-you, there are too many ways to fool an ID check.

Third, known terrorists, if they find they can't check in online because they're "on the list," are going to recruit unknown terrorists. Simple.

Fourth, these loopholes have been known since, well, before any of these checks were in place, and yet there aren't planes falling out of the sky because "known terrorists" managed to sneak past the TSA. Gotta wonder how many people are really trying.

And at the end of the day, if the TSA does their primary job of keeping guns and explosives off the plane, it doesn't matter who the person is. Checking documents is just diverting them from their primary job.

The fundamental lunacy of TSA is that they claim to protect us from all sorts of far-fetched, statistically improbable events, and then when you point out flaws in their policies, like this, they claim that it will at least stop some people. It's a bit like claiming that a volleyball net will at least hold some water.

MatthewLAX

Exactly.

carterd

A little balanced perspective -- I don't know the case nor have I seen the video -- but as a general comment, TSO's can ask for ID under their authority to maintain security -- NCIC, TSC, HSIN-Intell, NCTC and other databases can be checked for "wants", "warrants" and intelligence targets. Usually an ID check or secondary search is triggered by a known fact that has to be resolved -- in most cases, it is resolved easily and there is no problem -- when a person fails to comply with a lawful order of a government official, then there will be a consequence or sanction. That's not diminish the fact that there are some "badge heavy" TSO's, however yo place yourself in jeoprady with non-compliance.

QUERY

You make an excellent point. On the opposite end, there was a FTer that actually suggested that HE would be OK having 1 or 2 planes fall out of the sky per month due to terrorists in exchange for eliminating TSA and not having to endure their screening. Of course, I'm sure he would change his mind if he was on board one of those 1 or 2 planes or in the impact zone when those planes came down.

N830MH

No, airlines agent does not showing the hijacker ID or passports. I knows it was ID fraudulent where terrorist did came into BOS/IAD/EWR. Could be getting real big problems with UA/AA agents didn't look the suspicious ID. I think it was fake ID who the 9/11 hijackers is trying to get through at metal detector or curbside check-in. I knows the terrorist did put false identifiable or social security is not exact to be matched. FBI has already investigations against the terrorist who came into USA illegally.

PTravel

The request (note the use of the word "request") comes within the limited administrative search. However, TSA has no blanket authority to violate the Constitution.

TSA has no authority to check for wants, warrants or intelligence targets. TSA is not a law enforcement agency, nor is it an intelligence gathering one.

Not in my personal experience. Secondaries have been "random."

Only that little problem that results from exceeding the limitations on government power set out in the Constitution.

TSOs have no authority to give orders of any kind. I'm going to repeat this one more time, because it's critical:

TSOs have no legal authority to order anyone to do anything.

Any "order" from a TSO is, by definition, unlawful -- they are not law enforcement officers. TSOs can do one thing, and one thing only: either permit or deny access to the sterile area based on a specific protocol that is limited to ensuring that passengers don't have weapons, explosives or incendiaries. If a TSO chooses not to admit a passenger to the sterile area, he can NOT give the passenger an order -- if the passenger still insists on entrance, the TSO's only option is to call a policeman, i.e. a law enforcement officer, who possesses to the authority to issue an order, as well as to detain or arrest.

Want to bet? Please identify the statute that provides for a sanction for failing to follow a TSO's "order."

Let me guess . . . you're a TSO. If so, you're badly in need of some training, not to mention a high school civics refresher course.