If the TSA's actions don't meet the reasonable person standard, then why do 99.9% of people have no objection to saying their name?

How do you justify that statistic?

Just because 99.9% of people comply with the request of the TDC to state their name doesn't mean that 99.9% of people have no objection to the request. Compliance does not mean agreement.

Perhaps, because they see saying their name as the least of all the indignities TSA inflicts on us.

I think the underlined statement refers to many other forms of degrading and dehumanizing treatment travelers must submit to in order to get on the plane.

Not even close. 99.9% of people are not either deaf, mute, or speak English.

Please document your claim that 99.9% of people have no objection to saying their name.

I for one object most strongly!

Repeat after me: "Baaaa, baaaaaa, baaaaaa!" :p

Yup. Got one of those myself back in mid-August after refusing to play the game.

They're being inconsistent, though. I went through two weeks ago and was not asked to state my name. It could have been due to the fact that they had ONE document checker for a line of 50+ people.

If it was me, then I would escalate it with a bypass directly to the media and then let the the TSM come back with a response

This has been happening consistently at least since the original post.

Today, the TSO volunteered "we have been asked to have passengers say their name so we can make sure they traveling in they right mind."

:confused: infinity

I have found AUS to be very consistent about asking for the name stating for a couple months now.

Not related, but I wanted to mention this on the board about an interaction at AUS today:

I said to a TSA, "So, I guess these are the last days before the body scanners get here."

She said, "I guess. If they really come. They been sayin that for a long time."

I asked, "So you think there is a chance Austin is not really getting them?"

She replied, "I don't know. We'll see, I guess." She sounded REALLY unhappy about the idea of the body scanners, for what it's worth.

(I don't really think there is a chance we're not getting them, but the fact she questioned it was what I found interesting.)

Especially if you plant the true meme that you sympathize with the fact that management will forbid them to wear dosimeters after the scanners arrive. Too bad for everybody in the vicinity, you can say. Even elevators get more safety inspection and even a posted public certification with an expiration date, you might add.

"State your name" is alive and well in Tyler, Texas (TYR). Passed through this afternoon and after a short and fruitless discussion about the idiocy of this requirement with the 3-striper on duty, I said my name backwards and was let through post-haste. I'm thinking that next week I'll say it as an anagram. :p

Or do it in ASCII binary so 4nsicdoc becomes":
00000100011011100111001101101001011000110110010001 10111101100011

Then switch to hexidecimal and tell them: "46-55!"

name game lame questions
 

Searched and couldn't find anything recent -

Has anyone ever been denied access yet for not playing along? Unfortunately, the last few times I've encountered this nonsense I was with my wife and kids and couldn't afford to take my chances, but I REALLY would like to have the opportunity to refuse and have a showdown with the TDC over my rights as a passenger.

Every business trip I've taken lately by myself has been through terminals and airports that don't have these silly requirements. My name and destination are clearly stated on my boarding pass and the purpose of my trip and my home address are none of TSA's business.

I really don't understand why people just go along with this stuff like trained sheep, but they sure do.

I believe you answered your own question. Many people don't want to deal with the hassle that may ensue, may not have the time to deal with it the way they would prefer, etc.

To my knowledge, limited as it is regarding this, no one has been kept from the air side of the airport due to not answering the questions. Delayed, additional invasive screening, and the like: yes, but not outright denial.