Did you even bother to read the information I provided? Any of it?

If not then why even comment?

49 C.F.R. §1540.105(a)(2) addresses not only the “sterile area” as related to systems, measures and procedures. It also includes secured areas, AOA’s and SIDA’s. For that reason, the other “systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas” are dependent on the particular area at issue. So, for example, in the case of SIDA’s an acceptable system would be the checking of ID’s. On the other hand the definition of sterile area sets forth the specifics for those systems, measures and procedures, which is the screening of persons and property. How is that screening accomplished – through the screening function, which is defined as “inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.” Until the CFR is amended, that is the TSA's limit for the sterile area.

49 C.F.R. does not limit TSA to operations in just those specific areas. Read on...

What's your point? We are discussing the sterile area and the TSA's authority in the C.F.R.s for presentation of ID as related thereto. Do you have the cite to such authority that would contradict what I have presented?

You said that you looked forward to my reply, but yet you have failed to address it in the least.

ETA: Ron, you came on the board last night and failed to respond in the least to my October 7th posting, even though you were the one that wanted a new discussion in a new forum, which I complied with, and you stated you look forward to such. But yet you have been unable to articulate the C.F.R.s supporting your position. In fact, you are even unwilling to answer a simple question that was posed:

Let me pose a hypothetical (which has happened in airports). A passenger has no identification, nothing with his name on it except his BP. A verification process which asked him questions such as past rental history, credit history, etc., failed to identify the passenger. A complete and thorough search of his person and property is made without finding any WEI. Will he be permitted through the checkpoint and allow to fly?

IMHO, this tact is no less dissimilar than when you stated about a fellow poster, Affection, that "Mr. Corbett's [Affection] fantasy video is nothing more or less than a complete falsehood". You had no support for that unequivocal position, but you made it anyway. When Affection posted another video to show that your statement was the one, in fact, to be the "complete falsehood", you continue to ignore that fact. That to me is similar to what is occurring here.

Since he knows he can't intimidate/strip-search/call a LEO to trump up charges against FTers here, his 'training' tells him to stick his fingers in his ears, repeat the phrase "Your Safety is our Priority" and think happy thoughts.

What is a "publicly available database"?
One woman's account of traveling without an ID:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flying...170404264.html

"...According to the Transportation Security Administration's Web site, a federal- or state-issued photo identification is required to fly. But, the site adds: "We understand passengers occasionally arrive at the airport without an ID due to lost items or inadvertently leaving them at home. Not having an ID does not necessarily mean a passenger won't be allowed to fly. If passengers are willing to provide additional information, we have other means of substantiating someone's identity, like using publicly available databases."
The special T.S.A. agent had me sign a form, allowing the agency to verify my identity. He asked me if I had any other form of identification (I didn't), or if my husband had anything in his wallet that had my name on it. (Again, no.) I did have a checkbook, bearing checks that had both my name and my husband's, so I handed that over for him to examine. Then, he called someone else on his phone, and asked me some questions -- things like my previous addresses and my date of birth. It reminded me of the online verification process you go through when opening a bank account or obtaining your credit report..."

IANAL, but it sure sounds like you agreed to an instant background check (like the kind potential employers can run on job candidates.)

That is indeed the kind of "quality" database info they are using. There is so much false information that comes up for use by the TSA in such situations that I was more amused than anything by the stupid questions. Anyone with good their wits about them and a desire to show up the TSA can be groomed to toy with the TSA's "identity" "security" system.

Experian, Trans Union, and Equifax.

Last couple of addresses, Employer, Date of Birth, Social Security Number plus enough other info for TSA employees to open lines of credit using your name.

Feel safer now?

I've always wondered what would happen when if they looked up mine since I have a security freeze on all four (including Innovis). Would they still be able to get all the information they needed? Do government agencies get special privileges in these cases?

But did you comprehend it? :confused:

Simple logic tells us that if Gilmore's choice wasn't meaningful (e.g. identify yourself or leave the airport) that the court's decision would have been different.

As far as I know, no court so far has ruled on the Constitutionality of whether or not the government can have a no-fly list and restrict people from traveling via such a list. TSA wiggled out of that one by saying that ID is not required to fly in Gilmore. If ID or an identification process is not required to fly, then the no-fly list is meaningless. @:-)

I hope the Ibrahim v DHS case that is winding its way through the Ninth Circuit is probably going to be an interesting test of the no-fly list. So far, the SFPD settled her suit for false arrest. The private contractor at the "Freedom Center" (i.e. the person who answers the phone when there is a match with the no-fly list) instructed them to arrest her because her name was on a secret government list. I wonder why the police didn't want to try and defend that? :rolleyes:

It has been my experience that when a security freeze is in place the report still generates the headers showing all of the things I mentioned, just not credit lines.

Sort of; it is an identity verification system which mines data from consumer reporting agencies and public records; it doesn't run a background check in the usual use of the word.

Correct; a freeze with a CRA (consumer reporting agency-- TransUnion, Equifax, etc) will generate a report, but will inform the requesting entity not to open a new account until identity is verified (which usually involves a password or something similar). The report might be short some data fields, but it will still work for the purpose of generating identity verification questions.

The point is that CFR 49 does not specify what systems we are allowed to use. Government issued ID’s are already a system in common use throughout the world, there is nothing in CFR 49 that prohibits the TSA from using those systems.

Opinions on that vary. If you had actually read what was provided you would noit have come to such a conclusion.

If that passenger is not able to have his identity verified using one of the many resources TSA uses, he would not be allowed access to the sterile area. I await the inevitable splitting of hair now.

Sorry, I was totally unaware that Mr. Corbett used the name “Affection” in this forum, didn’t even know that he was aware that FT existed. That of course would not change what I have said concerning his writings, video’s, and comments one darn bit.

Quite. The idea that his arguments before the court are anti-TSA does not change the fact that he had some valid points or that the argument was interesting. That fact alone should demonstrate that I am not as partisan as most here think. I am a firm believer in our nation’s judicial system, and its wisdom. After all, it is there to protect my family and I just as it is to protect the rest of our nations citizens.

If a court were to say that a procedure that TSA has is illegal or violates someone’s rights, I would respect that. The difference is that in most of the cases cited by the citizens who have complaint with the TSA a TSO has gone outside of established procedure or has broken the law, and therefore has no real means of protection for their actions. Violating established procedure is not a crime in most cases, its just someone who has not done their job. Execution would be an inappropriate reaction by the TSA, just as would termination of their employment in most cases. Violating procedure and law in the same action might be cause for employment termination and criminal action.

There is no requirement for an ID, but there is a requirement that the passengers be identified.

The 9th is iffy at best. It is the single most reversed court in the land, so it’s not really all that good a measure of what might or might not be allowed.

Do you see the inherent contradiction in your statements above?