TSA's airline passenger identification policies
Sep 8, 2010, 12:05 pm
#31
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
SATTSO, if you're going to continue to participate in this discussion, would you please respond to the following?
Please correct me. Saying that a whole paragraph is "entirely incorrect" is not very helpful. What, specifically, do you dispute?
Best I can tell, these are all the case.
If you've explained before, please explain one last time, in this thread, which was created for just such a discussion.
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'm not going to accept anything you say as any more than something you say unless you back your assertions with sources we can verify. I'm happy to accept something you say as the word of one anonymous TSA employee, but we'd all be fools to take your word for it when our freedom is on the line.
This isn't about opinions -- matters on which we can agree or disagree -- it's about the rules people are required to follow in order to avoid having their movement restricted by you and your colleagues.
In the past, a recurring problem has been that I asked a question, then you responded without answering. You've just done it again:
That's interesting, and I thank you for sharing. You answered the question, "Why did you look it up?" but that is not what you were asked. The question I asked you -- the one to which you seem to have intended to respond -- was, "Where did you look it up?" You've yet to answer the question. Could you please tell us where you looked up this information you claim to have looked up?
Also, could you please correct any errors in my original post? You said that a significant part of it was incorrect, but you've yet to explain yourself, despite my polite requests for you to do so.
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.
- The clarity?
- That a boarding pass is all the documentation required for domestic flights?
- That passengers are not required to present identity credentials to TSA staff in order to cross the checkpoint?
- That presenting identity credentials at the checkpoint is optional?
- That electing to do so allows passengers through the checkpoint with a less-thorough search of their belongings?
- That electing to do so allows passengers through the checkpoint with fewer questions from TSA?
Best I can tell, these are all the case.
If you've explained before, please explain one last time, in this thread, which was created for just such a discussion.
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?
This isn't about opinions -- matters on which we can agree or disagree -- it's about the rules people are required to follow in order to avoid having their movement restricted by you and your colleagues.
In the past, a recurring problem has been that I asked a question, then you responded without answering. You've just done it again:
Also, could you please correct any errors in my original post? You said that a significant part of it was incorrect, but you've yet to explain yourself, despite my polite requests for you to do so.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Sep 8, 2010 at 7:09 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Sep 8, 2010, 12:40 pm
#32
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
It does amaze me how many people believe everything the read on this site because it already conforms to what they believe. Phil would be wise to not attemp a legal defense from info he obtains here...
Last edited by essxjay; Sep 8, 2010 at 2:36 pm Reason: personal attack removed
Sep 8, 2010, 12:58 pm
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
I do not doubt that Phil would try to use anything said here in his trial. And I've said months ago that he might try to use what was said here in court. But that would mean he would have to believe many things - one being that what i said here isn't purposefully misleading just for sh!ts and giggles? I don't think phils lawyers would be stupid enough to try to use uncerfied sources and information obtained on the Internet on a site where anyone at all can post and assume any identity they wish. Phil might be, but his lawyers???
It does amaze me how many people believe everything the read on this site because it already conforms to what they believe. Phil would be wise to not attemp a legal defense from info he obtains here...
It does amaze me how many people believe everything the read on this site because it already conforms to what they believe. Phil would be wise to not attemp a legal defense from info he obtains here...
Last edited by essxjay; Sep 8, 2010 at 2:37 pm Reason: edit quote
Sep 8, 2010, 1:11 pm
#34
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
That's what I was talking about. And what if everything I'm saying is wrong? What I'd I don't even work for TSA?
I'm mean, seriously, just because someone post on this site does not mean they are honest
Does this call into question everything I have said? To an intelligent person, it should... And I honestly don't think phils lawyers, who seem to be tip notch, know this, and won't spend time and money (thousands of dollars for price they charge per hour, I'll bet) to chase down uncerfied sources.
Oops...I cant edit for some reason - meant to say phils lawyers WOULD know that....sorry... 
I'm mean, seriously, just because someone post on this site does not mean they are honest
Does this call into question everything I have said? To an intelligent person, it should... And I honestly don't think phils lawyers, who seem to be tip notch, know this, and won't spend time and money (thousands of dollars for price they charge per hour, I'll bet) to chase down uncerfied sources.
That's what I was talking about. And what if everything I'm saying is wrong? What I'd I don't even work for TSA?
I'm mean, seriously, just because someone post on this site does not mean they are honest
Does this call into question everything I have said? To an intelligent person, it should... And I honestly don't think phils lawyers, who seem to be tip notch, know this, and won't spend time and money (thousands of dollars for price they charge per hour, I'll bet) to chase down uncerfied sources.
I'm mean, seriously, just because someone post on this site does not mean they are honest
Does this call into question everything I have said? To an intelligent person, it should... And I honestly don't think phils lawyers, who seem to be tip notch, know this, and won't spend time and money (thousands of dollars for price they charge per hour, I'll bet) to chase down uncerfied sources.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Sep 8, 2010 at 7:09 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Sep 8, 2010, 1:14 pm
#35
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Sep 8, 2010, 1:17 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
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.
Just reposting so it is not deleted.
Are you now claiming that you do not work for TSA and/or that you are not an honest person?
Purse size would likely decide the question.
The alternative is because people have their identification lost and/or stolen; crap happens. It is not for refusals to show ID.
Just reposting so it is not deleted.
That's what I was talking about. And what if everything I'm saying is wrong? What I'd I don't even work for TSA?
I'm mean, seriously, just because someone post on this site does not mean they are honest
Does this call into question everything I have said? To an intelligent person, it should... And I honestly don't think phils lawyers, who seem to be tip notch, know this, and won't spend time and money (thousands of dollars for price they charge per hour, I'll bet) to chase down uncerfied sources.
I'm mean, seriously, just because someone post on this site does not mean they are honest
Does this call into question everything I have said? To an intelligent person, it should... And I honestly don't think phils lawyers, who seem to be tip notch, know this, and won't spend time and money (thousands of dollars for price they charge per hour, I'll bet) to chase down uncerfied sources.
Purse size would likely decide the question.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Sep 8, 2010 at 7:10 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Sep 8, 2010, 1:50 pm
#37
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
I'm not claiming anything...just pointing out you have no way to verify it. As I have no way to verify what you claim about yourself. I trust and believe you in our conversations, but this is an informal open site on the Internet where the entire world has access. The threshold for what is verifiable here should be, and is, much lower for what will be accepted in our legal system.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Sep 8, 2010 at 7:11 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Sep 8, 2010, 2:01 pm
#38
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
I did find a policy from Randy Petersen's Inside Flyer site, but it may be different than the Internet Brands policy (can't seem to find one for them). At least with Randy's site he will try to alert you if you want to try and quash a subpoena before he responds to it. I'll only post one paragraph here:
http://www.insideflyer.com/aboutus/privacy.php
When responding to legal process served on InsideFlyer by non-government entities, unless otherwise ordered, InsideFlyer's current policy is to make reasonable efforts to notify affected visitor(s) in advance of releasing the information in order to provide visitor(s) an opportunity to pursue any available legal protection.
Sep 8, 2010, 2:02 pm
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
I'm not claiming anything...just pointing out you have no way to verify it. As I have no way to verify what you claim about yourself. I trust and believe you in our conversations, but this is an informal open site on the Internet where the entire world has access. The threshold for what is verifiable here should be, and is, much lower for what will be accepted in our legal system.
Sep 8, 2010, 2:03 pm
#40
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
If that is, in fact, the case, seems like a good reason for TSA employees not to post here, or be very judicious as to what they do post at the minimum.
Sep 8, 2010, 2:16 pm
#41
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Heck, it's not just TSA - many private companies fire employees for what they post online, sometimes even if what is post is not related to work.
As far as Phil using his name....not a good idea. I have had my identity stolen. About 10 years ago - and it's takene ALOT of time to have things removed from the 3 major credit reporting agencies. It is best NEVER to post ANY info at all... In my opinion (wallet was stolen in my case).
Sep 8, 2010, 3:56 pm
#42
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ATL
Programs: DL, AA
Posts: 6,031
...
It is our policy not to disclose to third parties Identity information that links a visitors screen name(s) with a visitors actual name, unless required to do so by law or legal process served on FlyerTalk (e.g. subpoena). FlyerTalk reserves the right to make exceptions to this policy in exceptional circumstances (such as a bomb or suicide threat, or instances of suspected illegal activity) on a case-by-case basis and at FlyerTalk Inc.s sole discretion.
FlyerTalk intends to abide by applicable laws governing the disclosure to governmental entities of Individual Information and other records. When responding to legal process served on FlyerTalk by non-government entities, unless otherwise ordered, FlyerTalk's current policy is to make reasonable efforts to notify affected visitor(s) in advance of releasing the information in order to provide visitor(s) an opportunity to pursue any available legal protection.
...
It is our policy not to disclose to third parties Identity information that links a visitors screen name(s) with a visitors actual name, unless required to do so by law or legal process served on FlyerTalk (e.g. subpoena). FlyerTalk reserves the right to make exceptions to this policy in exceptional circumstances (such as a bomb or suicide threat, or instances of suspected illegal activity) on a case-by-case basis and at FlyerTalk Inc.s sole discretion.
FlyerTalk intends to abide by applicable laws governing the disclosure to governmental entities of Individual Information and other records. When responding to legal process served on FlyerTalk by non-government entities, unless otherwise ordered, FlyerTalk's current policy is to make reasonable efforts to notify affected visitor(s) in advance of releasing the information in order to provide visitor(s) an opportunity to pursue any available legal protection.
...
Sep 8, 2010, 3:57 pm
#43
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
I have to apologize, Phil. I read your question as "why", not as "where". This was my mistake. however, I will not answer that question, because it does not matter.
However, there is another matter I wish to address, another mistake I made in a statement, where I wrote and you quoted me:
"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."
When I wrote this it made sense to me, and part of that is because I can not explain everything. However, I was mistaken to write this and I should have written this:
"if someone were to refuse to show ID, that's about it. I can guarantee they will not be allowed through the checkpoint, despite the alternative verification processes...in fact, I looked it up today to confirm, and if someone were to REFUSE to show ID, the alternative verification process would not help them, and they would almost certainly be denied entry through the checkpoint."
Maybe this does not seem much different to you, maybe it does. However, what I now edit my statement to be is vastly different than what I first wrote, and I apologize for not being more clear eariler. However, I will not explain in any more detail the verification process, or why if you refuse to show ID that the verificaion process would not be of much help to you.
I have no problem admitting my mistakes, but that does not make my mistakes "ok". It shouldn't have happened in the first place, so again, I am sorry, and I do apologize.
However, there is another matter I wish to address, another mistake I made in a statement, where I wrote and you quoted me:
"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."
When I wrote this it made sense to me, and part of that is because I can not explain everything. However, I was mistaken to write this and I should have written this:
"if someone were to refuse to show ID, that's about it. I can guarantee they will not be allowed through the checkpoint, despite the alternative verification processes...in fact, I looked it up today to confirm, and if someone were to REFUSE to show ID, the alternative verification process would not help them, and they would almost certainly be denied entry through the checkpoint."
Maybe this does not seem much different to you, maybe it does. However, what I now edit my statement to be is vastly different than what I first wrote, and I apologize for not being more clear eariler. However, I will not explain in any more detail the verification process, or why if you refuse to show ID that the verificaion process would not be of much help to you.
I have no problem admitting my mistakes, but that does not make my mistakes "ok". It shouldn't have happened in the first place, so again, I am sorry, and I do apologize.
Sep 8, 2010, 4:39 pm
#44
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.
Apology accepted.
Last edited by essxjay; Sep 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm Reason: argumentative
Sep 8, 2010, 5:10 pm
#45
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Folks,
It's getting a bit harpy in here. Please be gracious when posters declare they're bowing out of the convo or decline to answer any more questions. Repeated requests to engage border on harassment and may be subject to disciplinary action.
Thanks for your consideration.
-------
essxjay
TS/S moderator
It's getting a bit harpy in here. Please be gracious when posters declare they're bowing out of the convo or decline to answer any more questions. Repeated requests to engage border on harassment and may be subject to disciplinary action.
Thanks for your consideration.
-------
essxjay
TS/S moderator
Last edited by essxjay; Sep 8, 2010 at 5:20 pm