TSA's airline passenger identification policies
Sep 7, 2010, 11:20 pm
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
However, if someone were to refuse to show ID, that's about it. They will not be allowed through the checkpoint, despite the alternative verification process...in fact, I looked it up today to confirm, and if someone were to REFUSE to show ID the alternative verification process is not available to them.
IDP wrote:
In response to a request by the Identity Project under the Freedom of Information Act, the TSA has for the first time given us a (redacted) version of the section on Travel Document and ID Checks from the TSA’s “Screening Management SOP” (Standard Operating Procedures) manual. Our request was made June 21, 2008, the day the TSA announced what they claimed were changes to ID “requirements” for air travelers. It took the TSA almost seven months to respond.
The version of the SOP manual which the TSA has now made public is dated June 30, 2008, so it ought to reflect the changes announced in the TSA’s June 21, 2008 press release. But there is nothing at all in the sections of the manual the TSA has released about the new procedures and new ID verification form which the TSA had, in fact, started using. Rather than requiring people who don’t have or don’t choose to show government-issued ID credentials to execute affidavits stating who they are under penalty of perjury, the TSA procedures manual requires that such people be allowed to proceed through secondary screening as “selectees”, and specifically directs screeners and other TSA staff not to make any attempt to detain or delay them.
The TSA procedures manual states that the “Travel Document Checker” (TDC) must “ask to see” each person’s travel document. (”Travel document” appears to be used to mean “ticket” or “confirmation”, contrary to the international industry-standard usage of “travel document” to mean “passport or other ID”.)
The key words used are “ask” and “request”, not “demand”. The procedures further state:
If the individual’s identification documents remain suspect, the STSO [Screening Officer] must notify an LEO [law enforcement officer] for resolution….
Screening of the individual may proceed while waiting for an LEO response. If an LEO fails to respond within established airport timeframes, the STSO must process the individual as a selectee. If the individual clears selectee screening, do not attempt to detain or delay the individual from entering the sterile area for the purpose of obtaining LEO clearance….
Individuals who appear to be 18 years of age or older with a valid travel document, but without an ID, or in possession of an invalid ID, must be designated and screened as a selectee.
Any detention, search, or interrogation by a law enforcement officer, of course, would be subject to well-established legal standards for warrant, probable cause, or sufficent basis for suspicion.
The other key word in the phrase “ask to see” in the procedures is “see”, which would require only that you allow visual inspection of your documents. There’s nothing in the procedures requiring or authorizing the TDC to demand that you surrender possession or physical control of your documents, although in fact they often demand that you give them your documents and let go of them yourself.
Contrary to TSA claims to have firm legal authority for their ID checking and other screening practices, this section of the TSA SOP manual suggests that the TSA knows that their authority is limited, and in particular does not extend to detention, general-puprose search, confiscation of documents, or compelled responses to interrogatories.
These are “procedures”, mind you. Not policies. Not regulations. Not laws. Congress has never debated or approved any of this, nor has any judge or jury. The excerpts from the TSA manual that we received gave little hint of how much “discretion” the TSA thinks it has, or gives its minions at individual airports or checkpoints, to use “nonstandard” procedures if they feel like it.
If you’re going to be trying to fly without showing ID credentials, or without ones that the TSA finds acceptable, you might want to carry a copy of the procedures manual, to remind the TSA that they aren’t supposed to detain or delay you. If you do, please let us know how it goes.
The version of the SOP manual which the TSA has now made public is dated June 30, 2008, so it ought to reflect the changes announced in the TSA’s June 21, 2008 press release. But there is nothing at all in the sections of the manual the TSA has released about the new procedures and new ID verification form which the TSA had, in fact, started using. Rather than requiring people who don’t have or don’t choose to show government-issued ID credentials to execute affidavits stating who they are under penalty of perjury, the TSA procedures manual requires that such people be allowed to proceed through secondary screening as “selectees”, and specifically directs screeners and other TSA staff not to make any attempt to detain or delay them.
The TSA procedures manual states that the “Travel Document Checker” (TDC) must “ask to see” each person’s travel document. (”Travel document” appears to be used to mean “ticket” or “confirmation”, contrary to the international industry-standard usage of “travel document” to mean “passport or other ID”.)
The key words used are “ask” and “request”, not “demand”. The procedures further state:
If the individual’s identification documents remain suspect, the STSO [Screening Officer] must notify an LEO [law enforcement officer] for resolution….
Screening of the individual may proceed while waiting for an LEO response. If an LEO fails to respond within established airport timeframes, the STSO must process the individual as a selectee. If the individual clears selectee screening, do not attempt to detain or delay the individual from entering the sterile area for the purpose of obtaining LEO clearance….
Individuals who appear to be 18 years of age or older with a valid travel document, but without an ID, or in possession of an invalid ID, must be designated and screened as a selectee.
The other key word in the phrase “ask to see” in the procedures is “see”, which would require only that you allow visual inspection of your documents. There’s nothing in the procedures requiring or authorizing the TDC to demand that you surrender possession or physical control of your documents, although in fact they often demand that you give them your documents and let go of them yourself.
Contrary to TSA claims to have firm legal authority for their ID checking and other screening practices, this section of the TSA SOP manual suggests that the TSA knows that their authority is limited, and in particular does not extend to detention, general-puprose search, confiscation of documents, or compelled responses to interrogatories.
These are “procedures”, mind you. Not policies. Not regulations. Not laws. Congress has never debated or approved any of this, nor has any judge or jury. The excerpts from the TSA manual that we received gave little hint of how much “discretion” the TSA thinks it has, or gives its minions at individual airports or checkpoints, to use “nonstandard” procedures if they feel like it.
If you’re going to be trying to fly without showing ID credentials, or without ones that the TSA finds acceptable, you might want to carry a copy of the procedures manual, to remind the TSA that they aren’t supposed to detain or delay you. If you do, please let us know how it goes.
I stopped reading after this:
" it's relatively clear that your boarding pass is all the documentation that's ever required for domestic flights. It seems that passengers are not required to present documentation of their identities to TSA staff, and that doing so is not a condition of crossing the TSA checkpoint, but rather is an option which allows passengers to cross the checkpoint with a less-thorough search of their belongings and fewer questions."
As it is entirely incorrect.
" it's relatively clear that your boarding pass is all the documentation that's ever required for domestic flights. It seems that passengers are not required to present documentation of their identities to TSA staff, and that doing so is not a condition of crossing the TSA checkpoint, but rather is an option which allows passengers to cross the checkpoint with a less-thorough search of their belongings and fewer questions."
As it is entirely incorrect.
If you've explained before, please explain one last time, in this thread, which was created for just such a discussion.
Sep 7, 2010, 11:28 pm
#17
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
FH wrote:
The part I'd like clarified (edit-SATTSO did try above, as I was posting)
(if it is lost, stolen, etc.), What is the etc? It could only be expired, correct? As SAT just noted failure to show does not fall into this list. Why the etc if it is only 3 reasons? What could the other reasons be?
Just for grins...there are a few other reasons (the etc), and I'll give you a fairly obvious one: the ID could be damaged; it's actually surprising how many people have handed me their DL and there are obvious teeth marks in them, marks that damage the picture, so you can't tell who it really is, and marks that have destroyed part of the name, DOB, etc (dont ya love etc?)...
I actually honestly though stuff like that happens in movies - my dog ate it - but I have since learned.
So that is just one "etc". Let's see who can figure out the rest.
The part I'd like clarified (edit-SATTSO did try above, as I was posting)
(if it is lost, stolen, etc.), What is the etc? It could only be expired, correct? As SAT just noted failure to show does not fall into this list. Why the etc if it is only 3 reasons? What could the other reasons be?
Just for grins...there are a few other reasons (the etc), and I'll give you a fairly obvious one: the ID could be damaged; it's actually surprising how many people have handed me their DL and there are obvious teeth marks in them, marks that damage the picture, so you can't tell who it really is, and marks that have destroyed part of the name, DOB, etc (dont ya love etc?)...
I actually honestly though stuff like that happens in movies - my dog ate it - but I have since learned.
So that is just one "etc". Let's see who can figure out the rest.
Sep 7, 2010, 11:45 pm
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
good to have some TSA folks around to fill us in
SATTSO, you, as a TSA employee, should be particularly well-suited to tell us about TSA policies. Could you please help me correct any errors you see in my original post? Also, could you please tell us where you looked up the information about refusals to present identity credentials you said you looked up?
Sep 8, 2010, 12:23 am
#19
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,781
LONG VERSION:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...documents.shtm
...
Passengers who do not or cannot present an acceptable ID will have to provide information to the Transportation Security Officer performing Travel Document Checking duties in order to verify their identity. Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. ...
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...documents.shtm
...
Passengers who do not or cannot present an acceptable ID will have to provide information to the Transportation Security Officer performing Travel Document Checking duties in order to verify their identity. Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. ...
Lost, stolen, damaged and other circumstances in the category of "crap happens" are all covered by "cannot." For example, I cannot present an identification document which has been lost or stolen. I cannot present an acceptable identification document if my identification document is so damaged that key information is illegible.
But the TSA website quoted above doesn't simply say "cannot present an acceptable ID". It also allows for passengers who "do not" present an ID. If the intention was only to cover "crap happens", the word "cannot" would be sufficient, and the option "do not" would be unnecessary. In any sensible understanding of plain English, a passenger who "does not" present an acceptable ID is simply refusing. All your hiding behind SSI "see who can guess the other circumstances" won't change that.
(I have no doubt that you've been TOLD that passengers who simply refuse to show an ID document should not be allowed to pass. But the TSA website says otherwise.)
Originally Posted by Neils Bohr
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.
Sep 8, 2010, 1:36 am
#20
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Emphasis mine.
Lost, stolen, damaged and other circumstances in the category of "crap happens" are all covered by "cannot." For example, I cannot present an identification document which has been lost or stolen. I cannot present an acceptable identification document if my identification document is so damaged that key information is illegible.
But the TSA website quoted above doesn't simply say "cannot present an acceptable ID". It also allows for passengers who "do not" present an ID. If the intention was only to cover "crap happens", the word "cannot" would be sufficient, and the option "do not" would be unnecessary. In any sensible understanding of plain English, a passenger who "does not" present an acceptable ID is simply refusing. All your hiding behind SSI "see who can guess the other circumstances" won't change that.
(I have no doubt that you've been TOLD that passengers who simply refuse to show an ID document should not be allowed to pass. But the TSA website says otherwise.)
Lost, stolen, damaged and other circumstances in the category of "crap happens" are all covered by "cannot." For example, I cannot present an identification document which has been lost or stolen. I cannot present an acceptable identification document if my identification document is so damaged that key information is illegible.
But the TSA website quoted above doesn't simply say "cannot present an acceptable ID". It also allows for passengers who "do not" present an ID. If the intention was only to cover "crap happens", the word "cannot" would be sufficient, and the option "do not" would be unnecessary. In any sensible understanding of plain English, a passenger who "does not" present an acceptable ID is simply refusing. All your hiding behind SSI "see who can guess the other circumstances" won't change that.
(I have no doubt that you've been TOLD that passengers who simply refuse to show an ID document should not be allowed to pass. But the TSA website says otherwise.)
FB
FB
Sep 8, 2010, 1:53 am
#21
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,781
OK, I will bite. By your logic why wasn't the word refused used if that what was meant by do not? to be fair I have seen whole procedures changed, CFR's changed because the authors that wrote them never actually did the task that those documents directed the employees to perform.
FB
FB
FB
FB
The authors could have merely said "Passengers who cannot present..." and that would have covered the cases of lost, stolen, damaged, which SATTSO says are the only options. And it's short.
The authors could have said "Passengers who refuse or cannot present an acceptable ID..." but that's bad English grammar. (ie, it's not "Passengers who refuse present an acceptable..." plus "passengers who cannot present..."
The authors could have said "Passengers who refuse to present or who cannot present an acceptable ID..." which is acceptable English but getting wordy.
"Refuse" also carries a connotation of the intent or motivation of the passenger, while "Passengers who do not" covers the same ground without being emotive. And the construction "do not or cannot" is efficient.
Or, as you say, they didn't know what they were writing about. But as it stands, I cannot see how it can be interpreted to mean merely the inability to produce a document.
Sep 8, 2010, 2:45 am
#23
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Their data hosts got raided a few days ago, on a supposedly "separate" matter. And I've met the prosecutor who applied the "rape" charge to Wikileaks' founder for having sexual relations with another adult who consented to fornication (even as both parties have the sexual equivalent of "buyer's remorse" after both adults consented to sexual intercourse). Close enough? Unfortunately this doesn't really qualify as "leaked", but perhaps someone inside DHS (tied into its Office of General Counsel ) will eventually help the cause of freedom -- instead of furthering the cause of government authoritarianism -- by leaking the actual internal memos that exist on the subject matter.
Apparently DHS doesn't always even care to diligently help others in government to pursue for prosecution "background-checked" sickos in government who purchased child pornography with full knowledge of DHS:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pentagon...rnography.html
Unfortunately this doesn't really qualify as "leaked", but perhaps someone inside DHS (tied into its Office of General Counsel ) will eventually help the cause of freedom -- instead of furthering the cause of government authoritarianism -- by leaking the actual internal memos that exist on the subject matter.
They have all had background checks, so what's to worry about?http://www.prisonplanet.com/pentagon...rnography.html
Last edited by GUWonder; Sep 8, 2010 at 3:03 am
Sep 8, 2010, 8:23 am
#24
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
They will not be allowed through the checkpoint, despite the alternative verification process...in fact, I looked it up today to confirm, and if someone were to REFUSE to show ID the alternative verification process is not available to them.
The alternative is because people have their identification lost and/or stolen; crap happens. It is not for refusals to show ID.
The alternative is because people have their identification lost and/or stolen; crap happens. It is not for refusals to show ID.
I *still* don't think this policy would hold up in court, and I wish John Gilmore or some other wealthy civil-liberties activist would try to fly without ID again. IMO the best "starter" case would be a US Citizen from Hawaii, flying to DC with a scheduled appointment to see his Congressman and a concrete plan to attend a scheduled demonstration, refusing to present ID at the airport in HI and being refused travel. There would be so many civil rights violations there (freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government, freedom of movement, etc.), and the "take the bus" argument would not fly (bad pun). The only sad part would be that the court would likely try to construct a narrow ruling to deal with only one of the violations.
It's also very interesting that TSA treats people without ID differently based on their beliefs/attitude. If you "forgot" your ID you're ok, but if you "willfully refuse" you're not. It seems like there's all sorts of equal-protection type issues there.
I personally believe that TSA management strongly hopes that such a case does not arise and would go out of their way to avoid it (screeners in HI and perhaps AK may even have received extra training on ID refusals), try to make it go away, settle it if that didn't work, and stonewall it on trumped-up national-security grounds if that didn't work (as they have done before). An appeals court or SCOTUS ruling striking down TSA's ID "requirement" would be a catastrophic blow to the credibility of that out-of-control agency.
Sep 8, 2010, 8:37 am
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
And that alternative is more through and what many here would consider "intrusive" than showing ID...and of course I'm leaving other things out because I can not write about it. However, if someone were to refuse to show ID, that's about it. They will not be allowed through the checkpoint, despite the alternative verification process...in fact, I looked it up today to confirm, and if someone were to REFUSE to show ID the alternative verification process is not available to them.
The alternative is because people have their identification lost and/or stolen; crap happens. It is not for refusals to show ID.
The alternative is because people have their identification lost and/or stolen; crap happens. It is not for refusals to show ID.
And that alternative is more through and what many here would consider "intrusive" than showing ID...and of course I'm leaving other things out because I can not write about it. However, if someone were to refuse to show ID, that's about it. They will not be allowed through the checkpoint, despite the alternative verification process...in fact, I looked it up today to confirm, and if someone were to REFUSE to show ID the alternative verification process is not available to them.
The alternative is because people have their identification lost and/or stolen; crap happens. It is not for refusals to show ID.
The alternative is because people have their identification lost and/or stolen; crap happens. It is not for refusals to show ID.
You wouldn't mind if I quote your statement above on PV and ask BB just what the ID rules are would you?
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Sep 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Sep 8, 2010, 11:26 am
#26
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Emphasis mine.
Lost, stolen, damaged and other circumstances in the category of "crap happens" are all covered by "cannot." For example, I cannot present an identification document which has been lost or stolen. I cannot present an acceptable identification document if my identification document is so damaged that key information is illegible.
But the TSA website quoted above doesn't simply say "cannot present an acceptable ID". It also allows for passengers who "do not" present an ID. If the intention was only to cover "crap happens", the word "cannot" would be sufficient, and the option "do not" would be unnecessary. In any sensible understanding of plain English, a passenger who "does not" present an acceptable ID is simply refusing. All your hiding behind SSI "see who can guess the other circumstances" won't change that.
(I have no doubt that you've been TOLD that passengers who simply refuse to show an ID document should not be allowed to pass. But the TSA website says otherwise.)
Lost, stolen, damaged and other circumstances in the category of "crap happens" are all covered by "cannot." For example, I cannot present an identification document which has been lost or stolen. I cannot present an acceptable identification document if my identification document is so damaged that key information is illegible.
But the TSA website quoted above doesn't simply say "cannot present an acceptable ID". It also allows for passengers who "do not" present an ID. If the intention was only to cover "crap happens", the word "cannot" would be sufficient, and the option "do not" would be unnecessary. In any sensible understanding of plain English, a passenger who "does not" present an acceptable ID is simply refusing. All your hiding behind SSI "see who can guess the other circumstances" won't change that.
(I have no doubt that you've been TOLD that passengers who simply refuse to show an ID document should not be allowed to pass. But the TSA website says otherwise.)
seriously. The verification of someones identity i believe is vital to security (but that's a useless conversation here), and you tell me, how does someone comply with the screening process I they have identification and refuse to provide it? In other words, the "screening" of identification (my own words, don't put this on TSA or SOP) is not a physical things, such as a pat-down or bag check is. It is something some what in-tangible; I will personally call the screening of identification a cooperative procedure; if there is no cooperation, passage through the checkpoint rightfully denied. Again, I stress, my words and my explaining of it.
Sep 8, 2010, 11:36 am
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
SATTSO, you, as a TSA employee, should be particularly well-suited to tell us about TSA policies. Could you please help me correct any errors you see in my original post? You previously stated that most of the paragraph under the "What are the rules concerning airline passenger identification by TSA?" heading was incorrect, but despite my repeated requests for you to do so, you've never said what parts are incorrect.
Also, could you please tell us where you looked up the information about refusals to present identity credentials you said you looked up?
Also, could you please tell us where you looked up the information about refusals to present identity credentials you said you looked up?
Sep 8, 2010, 11:40 am
#29
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Your second sentence may well be the answer. But let's look at the other options.
The authors could have merely said "Passengers who cannot present..." and that would have covered the cases of lost, stolen, damaged, which SATTSO says are the only options. And it's short.
The authors could have said "Passengers who refuse or cannot present an acceptable ID..." but that's bad English grammar. (ie, it's not "Passengers who refuse present an acceptable..." plus "passengers who cannot present..."
The authors could have said "Passengers who refuse to present or who cannot present an acceptable ID..." which is acceptable English but getting wordy.
"Refuse" also carries a connotation of the intent or motivation of the passenger, while "Passengers who do not" covers the same ground without being emotive. And the construction "do not or cannot" is efficient.
Or, as you say, they didn't know what they were writing about. But as it stands, I cannot see how it can be interpreted to mean merely the inability to produce a document.
The authors could have merely said "Passengers who cannot present..." and that would have covered the cases of lost, stolen, damaged, which SATTSO says are the only options. And it's short.
The authors could have said "Passengers who refuse or cannot present an acceptable ID..." but that's bad English grammar. (ie, it's not "Passengers who refuse present an acceptable..." plus "passengers who cannot present..."
The authors could have said "Passengers who refuse to present or who cannot present an acceptable ID..." which is acceptable English but getting wordy.
"Refuse" also carries a connotation of the intent or motivation of the passenger, while "Passengers who do not" covers the same ground without being emotive. And the construction "do not or cannot" is efficient.
Or, as you say, they didn't know what they were writing about. But as it stands, I cannot see how it can be interpreted to mean merely the inability to produce a document.
lost, stolen, damaged, which SATTSO says are the only options
it is simply not true of what I said.
Very true.
SATTSO, you, as a TSA employee, should be particularly well-suited to tell us about TSA policies. Could you please help me correct any errors you see in my original post? You previously stated that most of the paragraph under the "What are the rules concerning airline passenger identification by TSA?" heading was incorrect, but despite my repeated requests for you to do so, you've never said what parts are incorrect.
Also, could you please tell us where you looked up the information about refusals to present identity credentials you said you looked up?
Also, could you please tell us where you looked up the information about refusals to present identity credentials you said you looked up?
However, as a way of informing others, as it is a valid point, I looked it up to confirm becaus it is so rare that someone does not show identification. The things anyone deals with on an average day we should know be heart; other things it is good to refresh oneself from time to time. Unless you have perfect memory.... I don't.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Sep 8, 2010 at 7:08 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Sep 8, 2010, 12:04 pm
#30
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Phil, if you haven't gotten it yet, in not really going to answer any of your questions. No point in doing so; you don't accept what I or anyone says about this or any topic, unless you agree. I have never said toy have to agree with what I say, but in other threads to simply say I haven't answered because you don't like the answer....well, sorry, you won't get anything like that from me again. And I'm sure your crying in your soup about it.
However, as a way of informing others, as it is a valid point, I looked it up to confirm becaus it is so rare that someone does not show identification. The things anyone deals with on an average day we should know be heart; other things it is good to refresh oneself from time to time. Unless you have perfect memory.... I don't.
However, as a way of informing others, as it is a valid point, I looked it up to confirm becaus it is so rare that someone does not show identification. The things anyone deals with on an average day we should know be heart; other things it is good to refresh oneself from time to time. Unless you have perfect memory.... I don't.
FB