Section 107

well, not in the context of the discussion here about TDC and the security checkpoint but I have seen where attempts to open a door on an aircraft without permission or the voiding of bladder/bowels on an aircraft service cart (e.g. abusing an airline) has landed said pax on one of a number of no-fly lists. The practical advice - do not abuse the airlines (at least not as much as they abuse us.

WillCAD

Hogwash. I wouldn't care whether Osama bin Laden himself was on a plane so long as he'd been properly screened.

More hogwash. Behavioral detection has been proven not to work.

The originally stated reason for the ID check was to match each person entering the secure area with a boarding pass, to ensure that only ticketed passengers enter.

The sterile area was limited to ticketed passengers only just after 9/11 to reduce the number of people being screened, since the increased screening implemented after 9/11 slowed the whole process down and would have resulted in unacceptable delays. Originally, you just showed your boarding pass to gain entry. But a few years later, there were some embarrassing incidents involving stow-aways gaining entrance to the sterile area on invalid boarding passes, so TSA added another layer of checks - the BP had to be matched to an ID, to ensure that the person presenting was the person whose name was on the BP. And even after that, there were additional stow-away incidents, leading TSA to implement additional measures such as Magic Marks, the Name Game, and Enhanced Chat-downs. Not out of any desire for greater security, but out of embarrassment.

Now comes Real-ID, which tightens up the requirements for obtaining a driver's license or state-issued ID card.

But again, I don't care about ID, I only care that people who have access to commercial aircraft are properly screened for WEI, and the Real-ID requirements not only don't contribute to that, but they actively take away from it, by diverting resources from physical screening to poppycock ID verification. It will be especially bad in the weeks following fill implementation, as thousands upon thousands of Americans are harassed every hour for the heinous crime of not having jumped through enough bureaucratic hoops to obtain a Real-ID compliant ID.

shipcamein

WillCad, as I said before, I love your tagline and agree enthusiastically, but on this issue, we differ. If a wanted criminal is attempting to fly away, it would be cool if there were a way to prevent that, no?

GUWonder

If the REAL ID Act were set up to run an open, never-ending dragnet means to grab wanted criminals attempting to fly domestically from airports, that’s even more reason to be opposed to this DHS/TSA move in October.

Even without the government doing passenger ID checks for most passengers at airports for domestic travel, there were and remain ways to catch wanted criminals. “REAL ID” and ID checks at airports isn’t a necessary requirement to be able to chase down wanted criminals. Even if a war criminal is on my flights, his ID being checked for being REAL ID or not does my flight no good in terms of keeping prohibited weapons, explosives and incendiaries off my flights.

shipcamein

I'm sorry, GU, and MOD - but I just want to clarify - my previous post was not about REAL ID, but about the point of having a NO FLY list. I realize this isn't the place for a NO FLY post, but I didn't want anyone to think I think the REAL ID is set-up to grab criminals.

The REAL ID (as others have stated far upstream) has been in the works for a long, long time, and its stated mission hasn't changed. Technology has advanced, though. 15 years ago, when states were entirely free to do what they want with your DL (as in, what it looks like, what information is on it, and how they verify that information), then there was (not much debate here...right?) a mish-mash of DL's from state to state. There was no requirement (nor really a method) to share the data that the states had. This led to a simple statement in the description of the REAL ID act:

Compliant IDs must also feature specific security features intended to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.

Now, many years have gone by. Technology has moved on. Those of you that were 10 years old when the Real ID act happened probably think it was always possible to fake a DL with a good PC and a nice printer. Not so fast, said the Fed. You can debate endlessly (37 pages so far...) about the gov't. overstepping its bounds here, but it boils down to a simple point: It's easier for the FED to confirm your ID if you're using a Real ID than it ever was in the past with a regular DL. Easier. Not foolproof. Easier. Is there a NEED for them to confirm your ID? Again, debatable. Is it fair that you provide this info when they say you must? I dunno. But that's the law, and I can only play the teams that are on the schedule.

There is nothing - nothing - to be gained by fighting this tooth and nail and dragging your feet about it until you are denied a boarding pass. That's not winning. That's a $200 change fee.

petaluma1

The TSA's job is NOT to intercept wanted criminals. It's only charge is to keep weapons, explosives and incendiaries off airplanes.

rickg523

I disagree fundamentally. If that were the primary purpose, why in the first place insist that ID match BP? What's that have to do with anything except revenue? Why are names on BP anyway? In what way does the name on a boarding pass increase security? Once you're cleared, what difference does it make that your name is on the BP? To anyone but the airline.
It's the way it is and I don't expect it to change. Just the opposite in fact. Because there's absolutely no security rationale to extend permission to fly to only those who have a national ID card. Real ID makes no difference for security.
That's just using inconvenience to force submission (to an historically un-American policy)

cbn42

As most of us on this forum know, TSA's screening for WEI is essentially useless. Undercover tests have shown that they miss prohibited items, including firearms and explosives, upwards of 60% of the time. Therefore, if someone has exhibited an intention to engage in terrorist behavior in the past, I would much rather they be kept off a plane, because the physical screening clearly is not going to stop them. So assuming that the constitution allows it, this is a valid security policy.

Of course the no-fly list can also be circumvented by producing a fake ID. REAL ID is, at least in theory, harder to fake because it requires some additional security features. It would also make it more difficult for someone on the no-fly list to get an ID in another name from another state.

GUWonder

NFL can be very easily circumvented domestically even by those using legitimately acquired “REAL ID” when dealing with the TSA TDC procedure. There is zero indication that the October “deadline” will do anything to change this.

WillCAD

There is a way to prevent it - it's called police work. As a wise old man will once have said, "This fascist crap makes me want to puke."

Just because someone else is wanted doesn't give the government the right to infringe upon my personal freedoms or individual rights, including freedom of association, freedom of movement, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The SCOTUS has ruled that airport security screenings for WEI are not unreasonable searches, but the ID requirement to travel domestically, especially given the difficulty and cost associated with obtaining a Real-ID compliant ID, IMHO, places an unreasonable burden on the traveling public's free exercise of their rights.

Airport security screenings are NOT supposed to be - or ALLOWED to be, by law - dragnets to find criminals. They exist for one purpose, and one purpose alone: to interdict Weapons, Explosives, and Incendiaries from getting onto an airplane. They may not be wholesale warrantless searches for crimes, or criminals; only for WEI, that's all, nothing else. Anything else is a violation of the law, of the Constitutional rights of the traveling public, and of the very ideals upon which this country was founded.

Anyone who says otherwise is full of beans.

I disagree on that one, too. The NFL is, on its face, an un-Constitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process under the law, and the Fourteenth Amendment's right to Equal Protection under the law. It is especially egregious because it is managed in secret, and contains no avenue to petition the government for a redress of grievances - a violation of the First Amendment.

Only those who have been CONVICTED of a crime may be punished by curtailment of their personal liberties and individual rights. Any such curtailment without a conviction in an open court of law, following established due process, with an opportunity to petition for a redress of grievances by mounting both a defense against the charges and an appeal of the verdict, is a slap in the face to all of the people who have fought to protect those rights over the last 244 years.

This argument may be applied to Real-ID, as well - people who have not obtained a Read-ID compliant ID are being either denied their rights, or having those rights infringed upon by onerous consequences both financial and personal (i.e. you either have to PAY for a Real-ID, or be subject to a violation of your freedom from unreasonable search and seizure via a full-body gropedown in order to exercise your rights to freedom of movement and freedom of association).

And that's why I hate this Real-ID crap.

cbn42

The same argument could also apply to non-REAL ID compliant ID. Even before REAL ID passed, you had to pay for an ID or be subject to a gropedown in order to exercise your rights to freedom of movement and freedom of association. REAL ID may be more expensive (depends on state) and require more documentation, but in principle it's no different from any other ID.

WillCAD

That was my point - the ID requirement to board a common air carrier is an infringement on the rights of the traveling public. The Real-ID requirements simply deepen the infringement and increase the likelihood of additional violations such as gropedowns, seizures, arrests, and detentions.

shipcamein

Well - I really don't have a moment right now to research and post the relevant quotes - but there's no "infringement" as you can easily charter a small plane and fly all sorts of things everywhere with nary an ID.

But if you want to use a carrier that benefits from federal funding - as anything using a "real" airport is doing - then you have to play by their rules. It's pretty much right at the top of their rules: If they give you money to not go bankrupt, then you'll have to follow their rules. Which includes ID. Cheap blackmail? Maybe. But that's how it is.

You're truly free to travel by car, too, but there are rules. It's the cost of having paved roads and safe vehicles that result in having federal rules. Ain't no going back now.

It may be helpful (or infuriating) to realize that practically all other countries require ID to fly domestically. In the UK, a passport is recommended for DOMESTIC flights. Many countries (deregulation notwithstanding) still operate airlines primarily owned and managed by their government, and they certainly require ID. It's not about "revenue theft" in those areas. If you never travel abroad, then of course, you really don't care. The US is the last bastion of hold-outs of folks who feel some "bad thing" about carrying an ID.

Again, you do not have to get one. Only if you want to fly on a carrier that was bailed out by the gov't from an airport that was built by the gov't. That's not politics. It's just the facts of it.

Section 107

But, but, an id is not required to travel on a common air carrier....

Section 107

I have to say I really like this post, it is one of the most cogent and succinct explanations of the problem. I agree with most of it although there are parts that could be more accurate (e.g., it is not only convicted criminals that suffer loss of rights/liberty as the accused typically also have their rights and liberties penalized, for one example).

As noted above, the right to travel does not include any guarantee of method, convenience or cost.