TSA: Search your iPhone? Yes we can!

Old Jul 24, 12, 5:15 pm
  #31  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by UshuaiaHammerfest View Post
I don't disagree in the least. But when a rogue cop does something, we don't jump to the conclusion that Law Enforcement on a nationwide scale agrees. Why would we apply the same thought process to TSA?
Because the TSA is prone to making blog posts that their employees "...followed correct procedures..." instead of admitting they've penetrated the canine.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jul 24, 12, 5:18 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by UshuaiaHammerfest View Post
But as long as the blogger makes up complete BS, he's going to drive away anyone who might be in the "undecided" or "non-extreme" camp.
I can tell your mind is made up, and you likely won't undertake to learn about electronic identities and the use of those identities in electronic devices such as cell phones.

As I alluded to earlier, a lot of effort is being expended to make the smart phone the next wallet. That makes the cell phone as much, or more, of a target than a physical wallet.

If you do want to learn, you can start by googling for "Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" and "NFC chip".

But I doubt you will because your mind obviously is closed.
OldGoat is offline  
Old Jul 24, 12, 5:34 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
Wasn't this all addressed in Gilmore v. Gonzalez? The court said the only reason asking for ID at the checkpoint was valid was because passengers had the option of a undergoing a more stringent search in lieu of presenting ID. So they have no power to demand or force you to show ID... right?

So why on earth would they need the ability to search for ID? If I decline to show ID and ask to undergo a secondary search, will they then be entitled to search my luggage for ID?

I also thought court cases and settlements had strictly limited TSA to the search for WEI. Why is this even up for question again?

sigh.
janetdoe is offline  
Old Jul 24, 12, 5:48 pm
  #34  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 32,726
Originally Posted by janetdoe View Post
Wasn't this all addressed in Gilmore v. Gonzalez? The court said the only reason asking for ID at the checkpoint was valid was because passengers had the option of a undergoing a more stringent search in lieu of presenting ID. So they have no power to demand or force you to show ID... right?

So why on earth would they need the ability to search for ID? If I decline to show ID and ask to undergo a secondary search, will they then be entitled to search my luggage for ID?

I also thought court cases and settlements had strictly limited TSA to the search for WEI. Why is this even up for question again?

sigh.
This has been touched on before, in this forum and elsewhere.

If I tell the TDC that I have no ID (or he/she declines to accept the ID I present for some reason), Gilmore vs. Gonzalez says they have to offer me alternative screening.

That alternative screening can include (and has) a rigorous 'bag check'. If ID turns up during the bag check, TSA now has evidence that I lied when I said I had no ID. That, of course, will probably be construed as 'interfering with the screening process' at the very least, and I would be quite surprised if LEOs weren't summoned.

TSA would claim that the bag search was just part of a cautionary random procedure applied to pax without ID. It would be another (bogus) example of "we're not authorized to look for it, but if we find it, we have to tell someone".
chollie is online now  
Old Jul 24, 12, 7:03 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP, 2mm; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by OldGoat View Post
I can tell your mind is made up, and you likely won't undertake to learn about electronic identities and the use of those identities in electronic devices such as cell phones.

As I alluded to earlier, a lot of effort is being expended to make the smart phone the next wallet. That makes the cell phone as much, or more, of a target than a physical wallet.

If you do want to learn, you can start by googling for "Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" and "NFC chip".

But I doubt you will because your mind obviously is closed.
If only you knew what I did for a living, you'd probably find your post as idiotic as I do.
UshuaiaHammerfest is offline  
Old Jul 24, 12, 8:25 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (usually), GVA (occasionally)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 5,162
Originally Posted by janetdoe View Post
So why on earth would they need the ability to search for ID?
It's not because they need it. It's because they want it. (Why? Probably so they can post more success stories about finding college kids and petty criminals with fake IDs to make themselves look valuable to the taxpayers. Or because they're just curious.)

And it's because neither Congress nor the court system have stopped TSA - ever - from doing exactly what TSA wants to do. Case in point: TSA implements body scanners; Congress (belatedly) says they should have had a public rulemaking process and demands that they do so; TSA ignores Congress; Congress ignores the fact that TSA has ignored them.
Originally Posted by janetdoe View Post
I also thought court cases and settlements had strictly limited TSA to the search for WEI.
But none of the those court cases have actually stopped the TSA from overstepping such a limit. They continue with ID checks, and the name game, and the BDO farce, and reading (and confiscating) passenger's papers, none of which have anything to do with the search for WEI.

They do it because they can, and no one will stop them.

Sigh, indeed.
RadioGirl is offline  
Old Jul 24, 12, 8:35 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by chollie View Post
If ID turns up during the bag check, TSA now has evidence that I lied when I said I had no ID.
They have evidence you may have lied. There's no way of proving that you knew it was in the bag.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jul 24, 12, 8:40 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,034
Originally Posted by chollie View Post
This has been touched on before, in this forum and elsewhere.

If I tell the TDC that I have no ID (or he/she declines to accept the ID I present for some reason), Gilmore vs. Gonzalez says they have to offer me alternative screening.

That alternative screening can include (and has) a rigorous 'bag check'. If ID turns up during the bag check, TSA now has evidence that I lied when I said I had no ID. That, of course, will probably be construed as 'interfering with the screening process' at the very least, and I would be quite surprised if LEOs weren't summoned.

TSA would claim that the bag search was just part of a cautionary random procedure applied to pax without ID. It would be another (bogus) example of "we're not authorized to look for it, but if we find it, we have to tell someone".
I carry four to five acceptable ID's. When I present my NEXUS and they ask if I have another ID I NEVER say I do not have another ID. I say, "The NEXUS is an acceptable ID by your own SOP." If they still balk, I ask for a supervisor. I never admit or say I do not have another ID.

Furthermore. I have considerable experience dealing with obstinate TDC's and my NEXUS. At no time has the rejection of the NEXUS lead to an alternate screening. Yes, my tool case gets a close check, but it should. My computer backpack is almost never checked. I have never been given a pat down due to the NEXUS standoff.

I do not say I do not have an ID. I present an acceptable one, and I insist that they follow their own guidelines and accept it.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Jul 24, 12, 11:36 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
Originally Posted by chollie View Post
This has been touched on before, in this forum and elsewhere.

If I tell the TDC that I have no ID (or he/she declines to accept the ID I present for some reason), Gilmore vs. Gonzalez says they have to offer me alternative screening.

That alternative screening can include (and has) a rigorous 'bag check'. If ID turns up during the bag check, TSA now has evidence that I lied when I said I had no ID. That, of course, will probably be construed as 'interfering with the screening process' at the very least, and I would be quite surprised if LEOs weren't summoned.

TSA would claim that the bag search was just part of a cautionary random procedure applied to pax without ID. It would be another (bogus) example of "we're not authorized to look for it, but if we find it, we have to tell someone".
As far as I know, I haven't heard any anecdotes of someone testing GvG a the checkpoint, but I wouldn't lie about my ID, I would say that I decline to show ID, as established in the Gilmore v. Gonzalez case. Or in the case of a domestic flight, I could check it after presenting it to the airline staff.

I wonder if it would make it easier or harder to get through the checkpoint if I assert that I am exercising my right to opt for a secondary screening in lieu of showing ID. I wonder how DFW TSA would respond to someone who said, "No, I don't particularly need to fly today, it's a leisure trip, and I care more about making sure that TSA is still adhering to procedures approved by the Supreme Court."

Originally Posted by RadioGirl View Post
But none of the those court cases have actually stopped the TSA from overstepping such a limit. They continue with ID checks, and the name game, and the BDO farce, and reading (and confiscating) passenger's papers, none of which have anything to do with the search for WEI.
There have been some very explicit court decisions that have set limits, it's just that no one seems to test them / sue the TSA when they overstep those limits. Or maybe they do, but the courts are slowwwww....

Aukai set specific limits, Gilmore set specific limits, Bierfeldt was settled but also set specific limits. Of course, I wonder if Kathy Parker ever sued after TSA violated that settlement...

This is the latest thing I could find on the George case - pdf warning (Arabic flashcards), but it looks like it is proceeding. The motions to dismiss were denied and the judge opened the case up for discovery. (!!) That's the first TSA case I've heard of allowing discovery.

Last edited by janetdoe; Jul 25, 12 at 12:03 am
janetdoe is offline  
Old Jul 25, 12, 5:24 am
  #40  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,707
Originally Posted by Affection View Post
Jon -- Did you receive a copy of the Management Directive referenced in the memorandum in support? It said that it was attached. This might make for interesting reading. Thanks
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Jul 25, 12, 5:30 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by UshuaiaHammerfest;
If only you knew what I did for a living, you'd probably find your post as idiotic as I do.
I doubt it. Although name calling is unimpressive, it does highlight voids in the speaker's knowledge.
OldGoat is offline  
Old Jul 25, 12, 6:56 am
  #42  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 437
You can grab it in another case at this link:

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/TSA..._2_and_3_0.pdf

Make sure to read both the first version and the update.

Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much View Post
Jon -- Did you receive a copy of the Management Directive referenced in the memorandum in support? It said that it was attached. This might make for interesting reading. Thanks
--Jon
Affection is offline  
Old Jul 25, 12, 9:40 am
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,707
Originally Posted by Affection View Post
You can grab it in another case at this link:

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/TSA..._2_and_3_0.pdf

Make sure to read both the first version and the update.



--Jon
Thanks... A couple of things jumped out at me:

1. From reading the update, it's obvious that they update it after they have lost a court case, lawsuit, or have been otherwise embarrassed.

2. The post-Bierfelt "large amounts of cash" paragraph in the update makes absolutely no sense at all. Francine must have written it. The "makes no sense" part means that a clerk (assuming he/she has read the directive) can do whatever they want.

3. The "identification media" stuff came out of nowhere and is obviously related to Kip's "ID matters." proclamation. The standard government language of "but not limited to..." does give them the authority to check whatever they decide is identification media. A cell phone is fair game because they have not said it is off limits. Note that a SPOTNik is required to do an identification media search.

4. Is it just me, or, did they pull "special needs search" out of a body orifice? This looks like the justification for the private room, the "resolution pat-down," removal of clothing, or anything else they want to do. The Aurora, CO, police (how ironic is that?) apparently used this justification recently to stop all cars at an intersection, remove and handcuff all occupants, and detain them after an armed robbery without any whiff of reasonable suspicion. The TSA gave themselves the same authority, because this document doesn't tell them they can't do this.

5. It also struck me that some of the text is source of a lot of the Propaganda Village drivel.

Something tells me that this is where a ban on all checkpoint photography will show up if Pissy decides to go that route.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Jul 25, 12, 11:42 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP, 2mm; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by OldGoat View Post
I doubt it. Although name calling is unimpressive, it does highlight voids in the speaker's knowledge.
I called your post idiotic, not you. I especially found the use of the term "cyberspace" to be idiotic. I'm not accusing you of being an idiot -- if I were, I would've said it clearly. (And no, I'm not calling you that. I'm not a fan of ad hominem.)

Anyway, if you really want to go there and play the "Since you aren't responding, I therefore claim I know more than you" game, I can 100% guarantee I know more about NFC and all things mobile than you do -- certainly enough that I would never use the term "cyberspace" unless I were making fun of someone.

First, putting identity on a chip isn't new. RFID chips have been capable of this for ages now. Second, in the case of NFC, identity doesn't even go on a "chip" (or "tag," as it's properly called in the NFC world -- but I'm not here to teach you how NFC works). Identity and so on go on the NFC device itself. Third, going through one's apps and contact lists would be pretty useless in the NFC-device-as-identity case.

So in your example, it appears the TSA is in fact not claiming they have a right to look through your phone, since doing so wouldn't yield any information.

Regardless, the blogger claimed that when the TSA said it had a right to look for "identification media," they were claiming they could look through your phone. I said it's ridiculous to go there, and even more ridiculous to make it the headline of the post. My argument is simply that turning everything into a slippery slope really doesn't accomplish the goal. The TSA does enough worthy of indictment that fabricating policies and misrepresenting their words and statements can only backfire when it comes to getting people to listen.
UshuaiaHammerfest is offline  
Old Jul 25, 12, 1:46 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by UshuaiaHammerfest View Post
Originally Posted by OldGoat View Post
I doubt it. Although name calling is unimpressive, it does highlight voids in the speaker's knowledge.
I called your post idiotic, not you. I especially found the use of the term "cyberspace" to be idiotic. I'm not accusing you of being an idiot -- if I were, I would've said it clearly. (And no, I'm not calling you that. I'm not a fan of ad hominem.)

Anyway, if you really want to go there and play the "Since you aren't responding, I therefore claim I know more than you" game, I can 100% guarantee I know more about NFC and all things mobile than you do -- certainly enough that I would never use the term "cyberspace" unless I were making fun of someone.

First, putting identity on a chip isn't new. RFID chips have been capable of this for ages now. Second, in the case of NFC, identity doesn't even go on a "chip" (or "tag," as it's properly called in the NFC world -- but I'm not here to teach you how NFC works). Identity and so on go on the NFC device itself. Third, going through one's apps and contact lists would be pretty useless in the NFC-device-as-identity case.

So in your example, it appears the TSA is in fact not claiming they have a right to look through your phone, since doing so wouldn't yield any information.

Regardless, the blogger claimed that when the TSA said it had a right to look for "identification media," they were claiming they could look through your phone. I said it's ridiculous to go there, and even more ridiculous to make it the headline of the post. My argument is simply that turning everything into a slippery slope really doesn't accomplish the goal. The TSA does enough worthy of indictment that fabricating policies and misrepresenting their words and statements can only backfire when it comes to getting people to listen.
I quite agree that "cyberspace" is a poor term.

But identity credentials are in accessible through many phones today, and they can be used to prove identity with an assurance that equals some of TSA's techniques. In the future more credentials will be stored or accessible from smart phones. Although the current MD refers to "Documents" in the definition of "Identity Media", the definition does not limit the document media to paper. Therefore electronic and other media is not excluded from the MD.

As for the rest, whatever, dude.

Last edited by OldGoat; Jul 25, 12 at 2:11 pm
OldGoat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: