This thread is giving me so many ideas on how to respond to this sort of questioning. I can recall one occasion where I responded by saying I was going east of the Mississippi. The clerk asked a couple more times and I slowly narrowed the area down, though not to the point where they could have determined anything very useful from my description. Now I need to decide whether to continue doing that, refuse to answer, or use goalie's approach.

Actually, any response is a mistake. They want you to talk. It does not matter about what. Refusal to answer should be the only response to this.

I haven't run into the 20 questions nonsense yet, but when I do, I intend to say, "I'm not at liberty to discuss that."

"Where are you going?"
"To a plane."
"No, to what city?"
"As you can see on my BP, I am in seat 3A which is a passenger seat. As such I have no control over where the plane goes. That is up to the navigator. He's over in that other lane marked "CREW" wearing the Delta pilot's uniform. He can answer your question better than I can. I suggest you go ask him where this flight is going." :p

Holy crap, I am using this next time I have a TDC pretend they're a BDO. :D

Name game at AUS this morning. My TSA mouth-breather asked me to say my name, and I told him that for my own safety, I don't say my name where others can overhear it. He pretended to laugh at me, and I said, Oh, you're not aware that women traveling alone are advised not to let strangers hear their names? He then asked several times: say your name, say your name, say your name, interspersed with my saying: do you think I don't know how to pronounce it, it's right here on my boarding pass, it's not safe for me to say it. Finally I caved and said it very quietly. This lowlife loser kept laughing in my face during the whole disaster. As I walked away I said, "Everything you do makes me less safe."

If there were a genuine security reason for saying ones name, it is behavior from the TSO'a like this that shows that it is simply another way to exert power and domination. True security methodology for which we do not understand the reason would elicit understanding and a genuine explanatory environment. What we get is ridicule.

We understand they have a job to do while we do not always agree with the methodology by which they do it. We really do want to work with them in providing the best security possible within the guidelines of law and reasonable use of time and resources. When I am ridiculed, scoffed at, put down, condescended to and am subjected to other various methods of intimidation tactics, it is evidence that they too do know it is all for show and that I should get in line lest they need to make an example of me for others to see.

I went through IAH with a buddy of mine who is Swiss (but speaks Fluent English as well) and he pretended not to understand the request to say his name and just smiled at the TSA Employee as he asked repeatably for my friend to say his name.

After attempt number four or five the TSA employee just let my buddy go without saying his name and I was up next. He asked me to say my name and I just smiled at him and remained silent. He repeatedly asked me to say my name and after a few attempts he said I can call over a police officer if you do not say your name.

I said to him, you did not force the person before me to say his name and the TSA employee's responds, he does not speak English, so there is nothing I can do and this is for your security.

I responded, so I am to infer that this layer of security is strictly to catch would be bad actors who can speak and understand English, his response, yes that would be correct.

At which point, I said, I feel safer already (rolled my eyes) and said my name.

Honestly, if this test is strictly for those who speak and understand English, what is the point, a would be bad actor, simply just pretends to speak a Foreign Language and this test fails to catch the would be bad actor.

Dan

But the test isn't just for those who speak English. Your friend was lucky. (Well so was I at IAH a few weeks ago as they didn't bother to ask me that question either)

Perhaps IAH is more perceptive about non-English speakers. But at SFO and IAD one definitely is ordered over and over and OVER AGAIN to SAY YOUR NAME! Because we all know that shouting English more and more loudly will eventually magically make the non-English speakers understand.

The Germans ahead of me applauded me for holding my ground and repeating over and over in German 'but why do you wish to know my name? It says it right there on my boarding pass? See? Let me show you!' Like your friend, the TSO finally gave up and let me pass. He then turned his attention to the Japanese and Koreans behind me and last I heard he was increasing his volume to force them to understand his English. :rolleyes:

You were with your buddy, so you didn't want the delay, OK. But, what happens when you call their bluff?

Do we really have examples of denied access due to refusal to say one's name? Please refresh my recollection, thanks.

I hope some of these people are frequent fliers. Or these.

;)

Yes, I do. There was no dispute that when he refused to show anything whatsoever with his name on it, the TSO calmly said "that's not a problem: just fill out this form". It was only when Phil took out his camera that the problem started.

I'll repeat what I said before: it's a common occurrence many times a day at any large airport that people fly without ID.

Would Mr. FUK YU, be subject to even more harassment when he did state his name, but the TSA agent thought he was cursing at him?:D

Will never happen.

What is the appropriate answer when it is not phrased as a question, but an order, "Say your first and last name." ala SFO?

I'm the only person living in the DFW area with my name, and my address is listed in public directories and in the DCAD property records. I don't care if the TSO already has my name, the people behind me in line and other support staff at the airport don't have it. It's pretty stupid to give a bunch of strangers who know you are traveling out of town enough information to find your address.

That used to be true, but now my understanding is that the TSA procedure requires you to be cooperative and provide detailed personal information, including financial information that can be verified in a database, if you do not have an ID. The entire construction of, "you are not required to provide ID, you can just endure additional screening for WEI" that was used in Gilmore v. Gonzalez is no longer in effect from a practical standpoint. You are required to give sufficient personal information (addresses, mortgage amount, vehicle ownership, marital status, etc) to identify yourself, or you are denied access to the checkpoint.

There was an example posted on FT of this happening to a foreign student last year, and several posters corroborated that this agreed with their recent experiences.

Even if there is no legal requirement to "show ID", there is a procedural requirement to "identify yourself by furnishing deeply personal and private information" if you want to be admitted to the sterile part of the airport.