![]() |
Originally Posted by N1120A
(Post 18729899)
There is no way 99% of TSA types know the correct pronunciation of my last name. That's because 99% of people out there don't know without being told and/or practicing for at least a while. I've even made that a point when faced with this.
TDC: State/Pronounce your name N1120A: What's the point, you can't say it anyway? Was this an older (probably in his 70s), white-haired 3 striper? If so, I know who you are talking about and agree that he was fantastic. Unfortunately, he retired about a year ago. 3-striper was older gentleman. |
the NameGame continues... SNA yesterday morning.
TSO: state your name me: it's right there on 2 documents in your hand, can't you read ? TSO: I need you to tell me your name me: nickname stated (the shortened informal version or my first name only) TSO: (states my full first and middle name) me: that sounds familiar me: I'm enjoying playing security theater with you, but how is this remotely relevant to aviation security ? TSO next to my TSO: they make us ask it my TSO: yeah, they make us say it me: that's a cute story, but it doesn't answer my question. TSO: have a nice flight. So, you can board a plane without stating your name.... |
Originally Posted by zitsky
(Post 18738486)
We still have the ability to seek redress for wrongs done to us by TSA or others.
The ability to "seek redress" is irrelevant if the request merely disappears into a black hole of bureaucracy. Only if there is the ability to escalate the redress to an open court room with real due process protections does redress matter. These innocent victims range from people who have been merely delayed to those who have missed flights/meetings to those who have been delayed and harassed by law enforcement to those who have attempted to seek redress and been lied to and misled to those who have actually sued, yet at every step the government attempts to block the suits on trumped up national security grounds. Just recently a native-born US citizen was forced to *walk* back into the US from Mexico because of the no-fly-list. ( http://www.theblaze.com/stories/told...r-u-s-on-foot/ ) The government, of course, declines to comment on the case. |
Originally Posted by zitsky
(Post 18738486)
We still have the ability to seek redress for wrongs done to us by TSA or others.
|
Originally Posted by cynicAAl
(Post 18739425)
TSO next to my TSO: they make us ask it
my TSO: yeah, they make us say it |
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger
(Post 18736908)
How should Finnish curling-world champion and MP, Mr Uuspaavalniemi pronounce his name to be let through? Or ex-Prime Minister Mrs Jäätteenmäki, whom even the BBC News called "Mrs Unpronounciable"?
|
If you believe that being asked to show ID at an airport is oppressive, then how about at a traffic stop? You could be pulled over for something completely trivial or even imaginary, or you could be in an accident where you weren't at fault, and you need to show ID and it will be recorded in a database. Does this practice also increase the risk of genocide down the road?
|
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
(Post 18740679)
Actually one killed by getting a parliament to suspend an inconvenient constitution. The other kills people via drones to avoid the problem of an inconvenient constitution.
If the TSA stopped asking for ID at a checkpoint, would that hurt the government's ability to deploy drones? |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 18740708)
What do drones have to do with showing ID?
If the TSA stopped asking for ID at a checkpoint, would that hurt the government's ability to deploy drones? |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 18740706)
If you believe that being asked to show ID at an airport is oppressive, then how about at a traffic stop? You could be pulled over for something completely trivial or even imaginary, or you could be in an accident where you weren't at fault, and you need to show ID and it will be recorded in a database.
The problem is when a license to drive a car is being used outside that narrow purpose, as a more general "ID". |
The OP was about using a fake name, and in my opinion, provoking the TSA.
|
Originally Posted by RunsWithScissors
(Post 18743647)
The OP was about using a fake name, and in my opinion, provoking the TSA.
|
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 18725719)
If the purpose of the question is to determine whether the passenger is commiting the crime of using a fake ID, then the only appropriate answer is "I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that the answer may incriminate me". You cannot be forced to answer a question asked for the purpose of using that answer to determine whether or not you committed a crime whether you are guilty or innocent of that crime.
Originally Posted by RunsWithScissors
(Post 18743647)
The OP was about using a fake name, and in my opinion, provoking the TSA.
AFAIK, the only time the "requiring ID to travel" was challenged (in Gilmore v. Gonzales), the Supreme Court affirmed the requirement to show ID only because there was an alternative in place, the option to undergo secondary screening in lieu of showing ID. According to the TSA, that is no longer an option, so I think is is about time for someone to re-challenge the ID requirement. |
Originally Posted by RunsWithScissors
(Post 18743647)
The OP was about using a fake name, and in my opinion, provoking the TSA.
|
Watch any European football match and listen to a different number of English speaking commentators trying to pronounce Eastern European names and you will hear at least three different ways of saying their names, especially the longer ones.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:36 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.