The name game is a sham, but since were dealing with an agency (TSA) which is also a sham, we're in trouble from the start. What would be the result (I don't generally have time to play "games" with TSA) if when asked for one's name, you made it clear to the agent that you are READING it directly from you DL or BP? ("Ditto" for destination.)

Providing a name that doesn't "match" may be a "reasonable" ground for barring entry.

(I don't think USG should be "barring entry" at all, but I digress.)

Declining to potentially be a witness against yourself can not be a "reasonable" ground for barring entry. Yes, by all means, let's find out if they understand that they are just making conversation. Thanks for clarifying, testing, continuing to test, and reporting back. An inspiring example.

I'm going to have to go with, "No."

Some of us have names that are unpronounceable by TSA employees. And should the TSA decide to bar entry to someone because the TDC decides that a last name spelled "Taliaferro" should not be pronounced "Tolliver," I'm all for a full-blown civil rights suit.

Actually this whole sham violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, since those who are deaf, can't speak English, or those with hard to pronounce names are exempt from this sham. Unfortunately it will take a court case to end this exercise in complete bullsh**.

Somehow I doubt when this "measure" was rolled out that constitutional clauses were given much consideration.

This was probably made by a mid-level TSA bureaucrat who probably never thought about the legal ramifications of this measure, it seemed simple enough to him/her and therefor picked a few airports to test it.

It probably went something like this, there was a meeting where TSA/DHS bureaucrats were discussing the guy going through (I think it was a LAX)a TSA checkpoint with boarding passes not matching his name, hmmm how can we ensure that does not happen again?????? A mid-level bureaucrat jumps up and says, "Wait, I got it! let's have the passengers say their names to ensure that their BPs belong to them."

There was mass applause to this bureaucrat's idea and they decided to slowly roll it out as a test to a few airport to measure the reaction and judge it effectiveness.

After all, The U.S. gov't loves metrics and the Saying Your Name Test's effectiveness is just another metric to measure.

I think we are giving DHS/TSA too much credit by even bringing up constitutional clauses, I am fairly sure the thought process never got that far. They probably feel it is up to their legal department to justify the action if it is ever challenged and if legal says to drop it, it would probably just fade away into the night and the only people to notice the change (for the better) would be us FTers. Though, most likely legal would fight it, probably citing some sort of SSI or other reasoning why it should not even make it to court.

Just saying,
Dan

Francine googled it. It's OK.

All of this could well be true. I would just add that, among those who would otherwise know better, they would just have gone along with this, the better to "condition" the rest of us into "obedience." But you're right, chances are it may not have been their idea in the first place.

Even though most of them don't really know or care about the constitutionality of what they do, and you're right, "legal" will see it as their job just to make up whatever defense they can to give the appearance of "doing their job," it is "our job" to actually formulate the constitutional grounds for resisting their efforts.

"I decline to answer that question on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate me."

Remember, they are not allowed to penalize you for invoking that right.

And yet, they will.

And THAT is the problem.

Bottom line? They are in control of us at that checkpoint. They can forbid entry on a whim, and we won't fly. Regardless of their reason for not allowing you to enter? There's nothing we can do at that moment and very little we can do after the fact - since there will be no evidence of wrong doing.

Thugs are in control. Thugs who could not get any job with any level of responsibility are in a protected position where they have total control over our travel. Sad but true.

The only true way to fix this is to be willing to burn the value of an air ticket and then be willing to spend the cash to hire a lawyer and file suit once you're denied access to the checkpoint and cannot fly.

Maybe those things can happen pro-bono (ACLU?) but we're not going to get anywhere - legally - without be willing to go far enough to get a judge involved.

In the meantime, civil disobedience and the court of public opinion - politics - are all we have.

I disagree.

First of all, I gather the airlines are always understanding in such cases.

Secondly, the case still holds if you enter through another checkpoint and catch your flight.

Thirdly, just creating such incidents is itself helpful, if they are recorded, such as by surreptitious video cam, or voice recording combined with someone else recording video at a distance, for example. Even an affidavit would be of use, in the right hands.

Of course, the question then becomes, how to get the evidence into the right hands.

I suggest, creating and publicizing the record, and making the case easier and easier, will attract legal help from the right resources.

A bit simpler:

"I refuse to answer that question because the answer might tend to incriminate me."

I had my first "refused entry" experience because of the name game at JFK Terminal 2 on June 28. I'm just getting around to posting it.

I was flying Delta to FLL at 3:45 pm. Got to the airport around 1:45. Showed the TDC my first-class boarding pass and Global Entry card. He seemed pleasant enough and gave me the usual squiggles. Then he ordered, "State your first and last name."

I replied that I did not feel comfortable stating my name in front of hundreds of strangers, due to security considerations. I pointed out that the name on my boarding pass exactly matches my ID, and the picture on my ID -- issued by the same department for which the TDC works! -- is obviously me.

He said that none of that matters; it's "procedure" for passengers to state their names. I pointed out that I fly very frequently, and this "procedure" is seldom used and even when it is, it can be waived. Plus, it isn't on the TSA website or written down anywhere passengers can read about it.

He called a supervisor, a medium-height black guy with a very round head. I won't post his name, just a description. He tried very, very hard to provoke me into acting stupid, but I didn't take his bait, despite numerous attempts. Finally, he just refused to let me pass for failing to follow "procedure."

I asked to speak with a screening manager (TSM). He said that no screening manager was available, and he is in charge of the terminal. (Remember that!) I asked for a law-enforcement officer. He said, "Negative," and started walking away. I asked what "Negative" means, and he said, "No." The TDC refused to interact with me after that experience with his supervisor.

Did that stop me? Of course not!!! Terminals 2 and 3 are connected by a bridge inside security, so I walked a few hundred feet to Terminal 3, where they were NOT conducting the name game, and went through security quickly. After I got through, I asked the competent supervisor there to call the screening manager. He did.

About 10 minutes later, a tall black woman in a bright dress showed up and introduced herself. I told her what had happened 30 minutes earlier at Terminal 2. She was shocked. For one thing, she told me that she was sitting in her office just a couple of dozen feet past the checkpoint when the supervisor said that she was unavailable. Nobody had told her that I was asking. And she said that people who feel uncomfortable saying their names should be passed through by alternative means. We agreed that they need such alternatives for people who cannot speak, have speech impediments, etc. She described the whole encounter with the supervisor as "silly" and promised to speak with him about it.

I then walked over to Terminal 2, where I smiled at the supervisor from airside. What a day!!!

Bruce

So the supervisor at the first terminal lied to a passenger. And will face no repercussions for having done so.

Wonderful.

I'm not so sure about that.

Bruce

that's the best part of the story !