It's not a matter of faith in the American public, ex. I know that the American public is, by and large, made up of selfish, apathetic, paranoid people who never complain about something that hurts others, only about things that hurt them directly.

My faith is that, the more people who speak out and the more people who protest these policies, the more chance that we will have of getting them modified or repealed. I don't know how much protest we're going to get, but believing in a cause that's lost doesn't make the cause any less worthwhile.

I'll share a quote with you from a sci-fi novel I read years ago, that may explain what I hope will happen:

The Authority won't meet with disaster because it abuses naive schoolboys and idealistic old scholars. But as it increasingly hampers intractable, hardheaded individualists such as yourself, it will find its real opposition.

The more TSA affects the average American individualist, either directly or by invoking outrage at stories such as the disabled girl who tested posisitive for "explosive residue" last week, the more resistance and pushback they'll experience, and the more likely they are to back down from this assault on our individual liberties.

Basically, I don't have a lot of faith in America's capacity for doing the right thing, but I have tremendous faith in our stubborn, hard-headed insistence on doing things our own way, and getting mighty torqued off when we're told that we can't.

You may be right, and I certainly can appreciate having faith.

I may just be jaded from flying from my favourite, highly enjoyable airports and hearing what I posted above over and over and over again, or having my usual no wait or max 5 person queue being held up by people who insist on removing shoes even when we tell them not to do so. Last week at CDG I got to see the 'US bound' security in action, while the rest of us breezed through regular security with the usual ease and pleasantries.

I do hope that you are right, but I have seen a sharp drop off of anti-TSA posts on the internet, and am disheartened to see the spread of American-style security in our airports.

I do find it telling that some of the loudest and reasonable voices on FT over the years re the TSA have been non-American posters.

I don't mean any of this to be American-bashing or anti-American, and I do know that you know the mindset of your fellow citizens better than I, and hence I do hope that you are right. But for now, I see an alarming trend of less outrage, more willingness, and the spread of the absurdity.

This is a multi-front war, to use a military term. At the very top, Congress and the Administration need to have their political careers threatened by a population that really doesn't like what's going on at airports and elsewhere. Since the heat would have to come from the voters, I've completely rules out any sense of ethical behavior or simply doing the right thing. Every once in a while, a Jason Chaffetz comes along. But, for every Jason, there's Peter King who gets reelected by maintaining a certain level of fear in his constituency.

At the clerk level, we need to view them as they view us. This will require us to dehumanize them to the point where they become the symbols of all we despise. There will come a tipping point where the average clerk will stop dismissing us as "troublemaker" and realize that "They really DON'T like what I'm doing." We can't be afraid that we might cause some of them to quit their jobs or become physically sick. If enough of this happens, perhaps the union will take notice and start complaining about working conditions. If this became big enough, Pissy would either have to back down to keep the unions happy or institute even more draconian policies and procedures at airports.

Either way, we win. If the union forces him to back down, we have succeeded by using the power of the union in a way we didn't anticipate. If Pissy becomes even more draconian, we win because more and more of us will stop flying and the airlines will feel the heat even more than ever.

As we enter 2013, we have to understand that it IS personal with every clerk we encounter and we also have to understand that there will be casualties. (I will admit I'm a wide-eyed visionary at times.)

It may have more to do with probability than anything.

Americans are taught from grade school that the government is their friend and that it is there to help them. Most, but not all, grow up believing this.

From this number only a fraction, made up number but let's use it, 50% ever fly anywhere.

Of those that do, only a percentage fly more than a few times.

Very few fly over 10 trips per year.

Almost none fly the 50 or so flights a year that I do. Some fly more but it is a decreasing percentage.

One final data point is that not every interaction with the TSA is uncomfortable or problematic.

The vast majority of Americans that seldom or never fly miss out on the worst of the abuses just by luck of the draw. They think we are a bunch of whiners.

The frequent flyers are getting opportunities to avoid serious encounters with the TSA. Even the elderly and young children are being excluded from some of the abuses.

The only ones left to complain are the seldom flyers and people that have special circumstances (another low percentage group) such as the handicapped. Plus one more group. Those like me that are not eligible for precheck because of my airport. We are the major complainers and as a percentage, it is just not that many of us. If we all scream together, it still can not be heard in Washington.

When I start telling my TSA stories, I get a lot of eye rolling and "Sure, right" like I am making it all up. After all, it never happens to them and they fly every two or three years just like most people.

So saying your name is not mandatory?

Absolutely not. If you get pushback for refusing, ask for a supervisor. It may escalate more than one level, but someone should ultimately check your docs again and allow you to proceed. I've done this once, to see how easy it was to opt out. It's a lot more awkward and disruptive than opting out of NoS and I definitely felt like more of a jerk. But no one can force you to speak your name.

That. Most definitely that. I am a legal immigrant in Canada (Vancouver) for more than four years now, I got an excellent score on my language exam and have little trouble understanding people here. In the USA, it's... ugh. I often need to ask to please speak slower. And, I can't imagine the guy being able to compare my name to the documentation given that it has sounds which do not exist in the English language so... I think Danish is even worse -- what happens if the guy believes the name is incorrect btw? How do you prove it is correct they are just daft?

I[m not sure that I'll have the intestinal fortitude to refuse to say my name, given the troubles that a single miffed TSO can cause me when I'm traveling. But were I to say my name, and were a TSO to have the incredible audacity to actually tell me that I'm pronouncing my name wrong, or the stupidity to say, "That's not what it says here" and refer to my ID, I'd be incensed. My voice would definitely get loud enough for all to hear as I replied, in typical Ugly American fashion, "Are you SERIOUSLY trying to teach me how to pronounce MY OWN FRIKKIN' NAME?! Just who the hell do you think you are?! Call your TSM, RIGHT NOW!"

Well, I can't resist. They've quit doing it where I go, but I always say my name when asked. One time I said, oh, you can't read, and then said it. But I did it two more times since then - once I handed over my Nexus card as ID and then when they asked it I made them wait while I pulled out my driver's license and read it off. Another time I made them wait while I read it off my second boarding pass.

I don't know if anything will help. I think there are many many AFS's. I think feeling threatened makes them feel important, so the TSA's disgraceful behavior makes them feel both threatend (and thus important) and protected from the threat.

Don't worry, it's not just you (and your English is absolutely fine). I have travelled to and/or worked in almost every single state in the US, and still have difficulty with American English. I am addicted the English language as spoken word or text; I prefer plays and poetry over music on my iPod, attend the theatre as often as I can, and am enthralled with certain actors from the UK due to their diction and tone.

But I rarely watch American films or television, and struggle now with many of the American accents. I have to ask for things to be repeated, or think for a moment as to what one is asking for or telling me. (That's not unusual; I have seen David Tennant subtitled on American television and RadioCanada subtitles 'French French' speakers just as TV5 subtitles Québécois speakers. Bayerisch and Switzerdeutsch are unintelligible to many Germans)

Any 'security' measure which assumes that everyone speaks and understands American English and overlooks those who are hearing-impaired, or speech-impaired, or non-English speakers is simply reflective of the arrogance and lack of understanding of the TSA, and reflects poorly on a country which already has a weak reputation abroad for embracing diversity.

I've said before that in other countries where security is considered a profession and not a job open to school drop outs, language skills are encouraged or required. Often the screeners need to speak their native language plus English or one other language, and sometimes even more. Every week I see screeners switching from their native language to English to help American travellers; I just wish that the TSA would afford the same courtesy to travellers, but I know that is a wish which will not be fulfilled.

My name may not be as 'easy' as Will, but I joke that it was the 'Tiffany' of my generation. It is entirely common in Germany and France (and French speaking countries around the globe), heard frequently all over western Europe, and slight variations are common in central and eastern Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and south Asia.

I'll accept both the German and French pronunciation willingly even though they differ in amount of syllables and overall sound of the name, and am understanding of people who use regional variations.

Names are personal. When someone who is obviously ignorant enough not to understand diversity insists that I am 'sayin' it wrong', it may reflect on their ignorance, but I still find it insulting.

At some airports, including AUS, it WILL earn you the longest retaliatory SSSS you've ever received. And the TSM will NOT talk to you, he'll just direct his folks to delay you as long as they can.

Personal experience.

Put a big smile on your face, offer handshake and say, "well Merry Christmas/Happy New Year/ great day ain't it, I'm Buddy, what's your name?" That should take them off script real quick.

You don't need to really mean it.

It is de facto mandatory if you want to make your flight. I made a scene of refusing at LGA Marine Air Terminal a few months ago. Yes, I am sure I could have gotten through w/o saying my name, but after protesting for about 45 minutes and escalating two levels, I finally had to say my name (to a supervisor, I whispered it in her ear) if I wanted to make my ticketed flight.

This. I have been told a couple dozen or so times to state my name. My answer has always been: "No." After being momentarily taken aback, the TSOs typically just shrugged and let me through. That's not to say there weren't some moments of sheer excitement when a two-striper decided that it was now their job to keep me out of "their" sterile area, but on the whole, the TSOs just looked at me like I was nuts, checked my BP against my ID again, then sent me on my way.

The logic behind the thing? I suspect it's simply to force compliance, and accustom Americans even further to doing whatever some nitwit with a tin badge tells you to.

I've been told that the name game was a "customer service because of the high incidence of identity theft in the area" which was quite probably the stupidest answer ever, because it means that the process is an unconstitutional criminal dragnet unrelated to airport security. :rolleyes:

I've taken to saying either "I plead the fifth" or "I'm exercising my right to remain silent". If I am subject to a retaliatory SSSS search, then I think I would have either 1) a Bivens case (if the TSA won't fess up that it's SOP to retaliate for exercise of a Constitutional right) or 2) a legitimate constitutional issue where I am being punished/inconvenienced for exercising a Constitutional right.

The farthest I have had to go is to say, "I'm perfectly happy to make a federal case out of this." That usually seems to get someone with some common sense on the scene. <shrug> Haven't said my name yet when I've chosen to force the issue.