I was in Austin last month and got the "what is your name" question. I amused myself by pronouncing my last name with the consonants intact and a ridiculous use of vowels and syllable emphasis: if you were "Smith" you could say that your last name was "Smie-the", with a jaunty accent at the end.

To the first: These are published requirements for clearing security. As such, I am aware of them long before I approach the CP and can decide accordingly.

To the second: Working backwards, you are correct that the government does not need a rational explanation. I agree that the government may legally do things that accomplish nothing. I also agree that the government does not have to have a practical justification.

It does, however, have to have the authority either in law or in proper regulation to do what ever it decides to do no matter how rational, no matter how poorly it accomplishes anything or whether it is practical.

So are you claiming to be unaware that you need to say your name at the checkpoint? Sorry, but I'm not buying that.

Glad we agree on something. It seems like some people on this thread are claiming that being asked to say your name is a violation of rights/liberties, and others (like you) simply claim that it is a violation of procedure. Would it resolve your concerns if Pistole put a line into the TSA's manual saying that passengers are required to say their name at the checkpoint?

No you don't.

What was that about common sense ?

And nothing in the constitution prohibits its citizens from petitioning that same government for a redress of grievances. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees that right.

So the government is free to act idiotically, and I'm free to complain about it ... and to talk to my friends about it, and try to convince them to vote for someone else next time 'round. Or, maybe, perhaps the government will listen to my grievances, get its act together, and eliminate the need for me to vote them out. Stranger things have happened.

Yes, if the regulation to ask my name and private travel plans were in published regulation that have been approved by the standard legal process, my concerns would be met. Now, satisfy my concerns and tell me where I can find them.

If you can not, my complaint and concern continues.

Your right to refuse isn't in the regs, but in the 5th amendment. After all, there's no NoS reg, but those are still required.

--Jon

There are books and books of court decisions saying they do. A lot of consitutional appeals are based exactly on the need for some action to be rational. Doesnt matter if those words aren't in the Constitution, courts examine the question anyway.

Where in either of these two regulations does it say I have to state, pronounce or otherwise verbally indicate what my name is? ;)

CFR 1540.107: Submission to screening and inspection

CFR 1560.3

Of course you are free to complain about it and talk to your friends about it and try to convince them to vote for someone else. But you are not free to interfere with the process and cause delays for the public. It is similar to protesting on the streets: you can protest all you want, but you can't block traffic.

I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer and I have no interest in combing through pages of government regulations. But if it is really illegal, why hasn't anyone gotten a judge to put a stop to it yet?

My argument has been that being asked your name is not a violation of your fundamental rights and liberties. This would be true regardless of the laws. A fundamental right is one that cannot be infringed, even if Congress authorizes it.

Because when pushed, TSA will back down. They call a supervisor who invariably initials the BP and off you go. But the TD checker still asks the next person to "say your name".

They know they do not have a leg to stand on yet continue the game!

1. I have never advocated for interfering with the process.

2. But if I had advocated for it, I would be absolutely free to interfere with the process, and cause delays for the public --- as long as I was also willing to accept the consequences of those actions. It's called "civil disobedience", and it has a long and venerable history in this country.

Because in order to do so, you have to file a lawsuit. Which means you either need to be a skilled lawyer to go up against the Feds, or have access to a bucketful of money to hire a skilled lawyer to argue on your behalf.

Just because the law hasn't been challenged doesn't mean it'll survive when it's challenged.

I hate my name and do not wish to hear it. Period.