Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19502155)

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.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19502155)

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

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19502155)

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.

[. . .]

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

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19502155)

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.

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19503097)

Be that as it may, do you still stand by your statement given the airport video. This has been asked of you many times and yet crickets is all that we have heard till now.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19502155)

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

Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 19503068)

Do you see the inherent contradiction in your statements above?

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508178)

Sure I do. Its what’s so nice about our nations judicial system, we are allowed to disagree with their opinions.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508178)

Sure I do. Its what’s so nice about our nations judicial system, we are allowed to disagree with their opinions. That and the facts are the facts, they are the most reversed circuit court of appeals in the land. I am willing to face that fact. Are you saying that they are not?

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19503097)

Do you really not comprehend how CFRs work? Your authority only extends as far as the CFRs permit and you have failed once again to state with any specificity the applicable CFR authorizing checking ID. You didn't have an answer three years ago and nothing has changed.

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19503097)

But just because I like to teach "pigs to sing", I will point out (for the third time) what the CFRs do state about your authority at the screening checkpoint.

First, 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.

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19503097)

Really? The thread is about the TSA requirements and authority for ID to enter the sterile area by passengers. What proof have you provided with any specificity? None.

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19503097)

Then that would be in contradiction with what the TSA said in the Gilmore decision and what is permitted by the CFRs. In fact, that would contradict what happens at other airports. They must not be following the SOP. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19503097)

Are your having a senior moment? ;) The thread in which you made your unequivocal statement, "Mr. Corbett's fantasy video is nothing more or less than a complete falsehood" was started by Affection, in which his original post has a link to his original video. Even his signature states, "Watch me defeat the nude body scanners", which is a link to his videos. And yet you really want us to believe that you had no idea that Corbett and Affection were one and the same?

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19503097)

Be that as it may, do you still stand by your statement given the airport video. This has been asked of you many times and yet crickets is all that we have heard till now.

Originally Posted by janetdoe (Post 19503471)

Your statement that "there is a requirement that passengers be identified" directly conflicts with the testimony in Gilmore. Gilmore had the choice to refuse to provide any identification whatsoever, and instead undergo a secondary search for WEI. That is the only reason that the "identification" process was deemed Constitutional - because there was a choice to not identify yourself.

Originally Posted by janetdoe (Post 19503471)

If the TSA has taken away this meaningful choice, the choice to refuse to make any effort to identify yourself, then the logic in Gilmore falls apart, and the procedure is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, and the no-fly list needs to undergo court review in light of this new development.

Originally Posted by janetdoe (Post 19503471)

How do you propose that someone 'be identified' if they are a solo traveler and decline to provide ID? If I say, "No, I am choosing to travel without ID, and I elect to have a secondary screening. I am exercising my Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer any further questions or make any further statements regarding my identity. Please escort me to my secondary screening," then what will happen?

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508420)

No one is forcing you to fly. No one is forcing you to provide identification. No one is forcing you to answer questions or make any statements. Therefore your fourth and fifth amendment rights are not being violated.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508420)

Most likely you will be denied access to the sterile area. Whether or not you fly is not a TSA decision. If you can figure out how to lawfully access your flight and proceed to it then more power to you.

Here is the point. No one is forcing you to fly. No one is forcing you to provide identification. No one is forcing you to answer questions or make any statements. Therefore your fourth and fifth amendment rights are not being violated. Not by the TSA, not by me, and not by the Good Fairy. Choices have consequences, and your theoretical passenger has made a choice. Not being allowed entry to the sterile area is the consequence. I’m not going to support a year long list of “What If’s”, we could both do that until the cows come home, so I wont waste any more of your time or mine by playing that game. @:-)

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508420)

Oh yes, I understand how they work. And I have provided many answers over the years, but again the fact remains that people refuse to believe them. Not my problem. Some people just can’t face facts.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508420)

Nice cherry picking.
Please feel free to detail exactly what “other “systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas” prohibits us from checking ID’s.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508420)

Both of us have provided the information you seek, you only need read it. Put your prejudice against me and the TSA to the side for a moment and actually read what has been provided, all the authority needed is in the CFR as we both have quoted. Or keep your blinders on, your choice.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508420)

The devil is in the details. Read what was written without your usual prejudice and you will see what I am talking about.

[. . .]

Hair splitting madam. The requirement is for passage into the checkpoint and from there into the sterile area. That “should” have been understood since that was what was being discussed in this thread.

[. . . ]

Most likely you will be denied access to the sterile area. Whether or not you fly is not a TSA decision. If you can figure out how to lawfully access your flight and proceed to it then more power to you.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 19508420)

Senior moment. Hmmm. Anything is possible I suppose.

I saw the video, read his claims, and with the information provided I dismissed those claims as fallacious. I don’t care who stated the thread, don’t even remember who (but I’ll take your word that is was poster “Affection”), I just saw and read what everyone else did and commented upon it. My conclusions were different than most readers because I have a different perspective and was not willing to take his claims as gospel. I commented on what was shown, which was far less than what was claimed. I didn’t drink his “cool-aid” as so many before me had.

Looks like the same video I saw initially. So the answer to your question is a resounding YES. I see nothing in that video that gives any indication other than Mr. Corbett’s word to support his claims. What I see is a total lack of proof that the case was actually on his side as he went through the WBI systems as he claims. Many people commented likewise in one of the original threads concerning his video. I was not the only one refusing to “drink the cool-aid”.

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19514109)

The following statement of yours belies your assertion that you "understand how they work".



You believe the TSA has the authority unless it is specifically prohibited. That is not how the C.F.R.s nor administrative searches work. If fact, it is just the opposite. The agency has to be explicitly granted that right and it does so through its rulemaking authority.

The TSA has to be explicitly granted the authority (in this case requiring the identity of the passenger be ascertained before access to the sterile area is permitted) before the TSA is permitted to exercise that authority. Until you understand that basic concept, you will continue down your rabbit trail and "keep your blinders on".

Even Francine, the TSA's chief counsel, doesn't ascribe to your analysis and rejects it. She understands the beginning of a proper analysis has to delve deeper past “systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas” into the definition of screening function in order then to pull her google analysis. You, however, can't seem to be bothered with reviewing the actual definitions contained in the C.F.R.s. She understands that your analysis is a non-starter and a losing argument. You, however, do not seem to comprehend that.

To provide just one example of the fallacy of your argument, explain why the TSA specifically amended the C.F.R.s to add the only passenger identification requirement therein, which is watch list matching done by the airlines, not the TSA. Under your reasoning, that is a system that the TSA wants to use and "Government issued ID’s are already a system in common use throughout the world", so why did the TSA consider it necessary to go through the rulemaking process? See how your reasoning doesn't hold up in the light of the actions done by the TSA.



"Nice cherry picking" or the actual only applicable C.F.R.? Let me give you a hint, it is not the former.

Let's try the analysis again (this is primarily for other readers as I am pretty sure you will continue to "keep your blinders on").

1. "No person may: . . . (2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas." (49 C.F.R. §1540.105(a)(2)). This is the beginning and end of TSORon's analysis. He thinks that he can make up any definition and conform it to basically whatever fits his fancy. That is not the way C.F.R.s work.
   
   
2. Four areas are delineated in the foregoing section, but only one is applicable to passengers - the "sterile area". "'Sterile area' means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property." (49 C.F.R. §1540.5). The definition of sterile area sets forth the specifics for those "systems, measures or procedures", which is "the screening of persons and property".
   
   
3. So "screening of persons and property" could include requiring identification, couldn't it? And that is what Francine did in turning to Google to complete her analysis. And that might be fine if we had nothing else to go from, but that is not the case. We do have a definition of what that means: "'Screening function' means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries." (49 C.F.R. §1540.5). And to add to that, we have a definition of "screening location", which "means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries." (49 C.F.R. §1540.5).
   
   
4. So "inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries" I don't think that even Google would come up with an analysis that typical identification falls under the rubric "of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries". As such, the authority to require identification or identifying passengers by the TSA just doesn't exist unless you want to believe TSORon's truncated analysis and create any definition you like while ignoring the ones actually in the C.F.R.s.
   
   
5. Just to put another nail in this coffin, let's reexamine Point 1 from a different aspect. That particular C.F.R. (and the only one that Ron wants to look at), addresses not only the “sterile area” as related to systems, measures and procedures, but also includes any "secured area, AOA and SIDA". Each one of those has as part of its regulations specific identification requirements for being granted access. So why would three of the four areas go to such levels of specificity while the one applicable to passengers is silent? How can any reasoned analysis conclude that although one of the four doesn't have an identification requirement and the other three do, that doesn't matter?
   
   And as for how well identification does work, one only has to ask Ron about Timothy John Foster transiting over a period of six weeks the screening checkpoint at OMA (which is in the same state where Ron works) while having in his possession a fake SIDA. Did I get anything wrong about that story, Ron?
   
   BTW, how is Rick Gordon doing? When is the last time you saw him?
   
   

You want to put pencils down by just reading and relying upon only one C.F.R. section and then making up your own definitions. You refuse to go further in a reasoned analysis and are unable to critique where the other C.F.R. sections I cite are incorrect. So yes, one of us has the ability to "keep your blinders on". :rolleyes:

The Muse of the Platte has once again cryptically spoken.

First you stated, "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." Now, "Most likely you will be denied access to the sterile area." Trying to walk it back? To top it off you state, "The requirement is for passage into the checkpoint . . . ".

Are you really relying on some sort of differentiation that the requirement to verify identity is to be able to enter the checkpoint and the search for WEI is what is then required to enter the sterile area? That is totally ludicrous to even suggest a separation.

As the opinion in Gilmore stated, "The Security Directive 'imposes an obligation' by requiring airline passengers to present identification or be a 'selectee,' and by requiring airport security personnel to carry out the policy." If you are implying that the latter (i.e. a more in-depth search of an individual and his property) is no longer an option if one wants to get from the curb to the sterile area, then that is problematic from a legal point of view and the analysis of the Gilmore court.





There are two videos. You originally commented on the one that Mr. Corbett made in his transit of CLE and that is what you based your unequivocal statement, "Mr. Corbett's fantasy video is nothing more or less than a complete falsehood". The other video that was later posted shows footage from the CLE security cameras, so it is not "the same video [you] saw initially." The other posters that you believe had questions had not seen the CLE security camera footage at the time of their posts. I don't know of anyone (other than you) that believes it more likely that Mr. Corbett faked the test. You go ahead and continue to "keep your blinders on" and “drink the cool-aid”.

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 19525581)

Bless you, ND Sol, for continuing to attempt to enlighten this poor sad soul.

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 19739610)

Over a month later and TSORon is still unable to articulate the regulation and requirements related to the TSA and ID for a thread he wanted started.