No-one's mentioned the morality of SSSS evasion in all of this. Does it actually help the security situation to bend the rules (flawed as they might be) rather than honestly comply and lobby for change?

I'm all for civil disobedience in the face of un-American harassment. ^

I certainly wouldn't argue with your right to do that as long as you accepted that society in general might feel that sanctions were appropriate. Perhaps I'm too willing to stick to the rules.

I'll basically do what I'm told, follow the security procedures, provide the information that is asked of me, get on the plane and be done with it. When I see something I don't like, I complain to the relevant authorities (sometimes). Am I in the majority?

I don't see how dodging SSSS actually improves the system or helps improve the security situation.

It improves one's immediate personal situation. When one has finished improving one's immediate personal situation, one can still complain about SSSS to the relevant people.

As I have stated before (and others have as well), in the United States of America, one cannot be sanctioned for doing something unless it is specifically prohibited as a crime in advance. As far as I know, buying a separate ticket is not a crime. Others may find it dishonest or morally questionable or whatever. But it is not a crime.

The full-fare refundable "loophole" is legal as far as I can tell. The issue is whether TSA will alter CAPPS/SF/whatever to flag full-fare purchases, or to look for duplicate bookings under the same name originating at the same airport on the same date, or some similar set up.

The following would apply to alterations of a BP to remove SSSS or to indicate that secondary screening occured when it did not.

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Title 49 -- Transportation
Subtitle B -- Other Regulations Relating to Transportation
Chapter XII -- Transportation Security Admin., Dep't. of Homeland Security
Subchapter C -- Civil Aviation Security
Subpart A -- General
Part 1540 -- General Rules
§ 1540.1 Applicability of this subchapter and this part.
This subchapter and this part apply to persons engaged in aviation-related activities.

Part 1540.5 -- Terms used in this subchapter.
...
§1540.5 Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.

Subpart B -- Responsibilities of Passengers and Other Individuals and Persons
§ 1540.101 -- Applicability of this subpart.
This subpart applies to individuals and other persons.

§ 1540.103 -- Fraud and intentional falsification of records.
No person may make, or cause to be made, any of the following:

(a) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any application for any security program, access medium, or identification medium, or any amendment thereto, under this subchapter.

(b) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or report that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with this subchapter, or exercise any privileges under this subchapter.

(c) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any report, record, security program,access medium, or identification medium issued under this subchapter.

* * *
United States Code
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part I. Crimes
Chapter 47. Fraud and False Statements

47 U.S.C. § 1001
a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(anything in bold is my emphasis added)

SSSS has a purpose. That purpose is to catch terrorists. Anyone who's not a terrorist is morally in the clear to evade it, IMO. I'm saving the tax system wasted money that would be spent to search a non-terrorist.

If the TSA wanted to enforce SSSS selections, it could get a better system. It chooses to have a system that's fully exploitable in any number of ways to evade SSSS. Thus, I conclude that TSA must not really care about SSSS selection, particularly in light of Dovster's noting that SSSS applies only the first time through the checkpoint.

If all my mechanisms to evade SSSS fail, I have a simple backup method: I'll drive. I'm never letting those scary screeners put their hands all over me again.

Since your driving try your moral scenario at the next DUI checkpoint you evade and see how far your argument takes you.

Let me know how that works out for you.

And Dovster is wrong. In many airports SSSS follows you until you get on the plane. I know, I've experienced it.

A DUI checkpoint is not a TSA security checkpoint. While in 'many' airports according to you, SSSS follows one until one gets on the plane, in many others, apparently, it doesn't. Let us know how that works out for us.

The analogy holds - Gradgirl is skirting legally authorized checkpoints. If she feels a moral need to do so then have at it. But her rationale will not hold up in any court. She will pay the price.

Again, if she feels the moral imperative to do so and is willing to pay the requisite price, then more power to her. Take what you want and pay for it.

Okay. So let's say, arguendo, that the analogy does hold. SHOW ME THE STATUTE, that says buying a separate ticket is illegal. You can't because it isn't illegal.

You know every statute from every state? State authorities have jurisdiction in most airports.

You must be some kind of whiz kid to memorize all those statutes. I am impressed.

Evidently you aren't familiar with Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw. And you might want to rethink your position on jurisdiction. The TSA is a federal agency. Only federal law applies to TSA.

You think? You think that if you do something illegal at the checkpoint it is the feds that are going to arrest and charge you? You may want to rethink that.

Carrying a weapon through the checkpoint is what TSA is all about. And if you do it, who do you think makes the arrest and case?

I actually know. I've looked it up. Again, show us the statute if you think buying another ticket is illegal.

If I am driving and see a DUI checkpoint, and I have another street I can turn onto in order to get around the checkpoint, is that illegal? Who can prove that I made the turn to avoid the check rather than follow my preferred routing? If I buy a full fare ticket to avoid the SSSS, who can prove that I didn't buy the full fare ticket as a backup in case my original flight was delayed or I decided to switch flights at the last minute?

The government might not like what they "think" my intent was, but they can't prove that I truly had the intent to evade these checks...their assumption would be circumstantial and opinion, not fact.

Truth be told, I have often made side street turns or U-turns to evade checkpoints, not because I want to get away with a DUI (I dont even drink, let alone drink and drive), but the scope of the roadside check often goes far beyond the stated intent of checking for alcohol (thanks to the anti-Constitutional courts), and I believe I am fully within my rights to evade it, as well as the SSSS check if I can do so without my actions being an obvious violation of the law.

However, even with a statute barring the willful evasion of a SSSS airport check, I find it hard to believe that it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (required for a criminal conviction) that the sole purpose for buying an extra ticket would be to evade a secondary screening - likewise it would be equally as hard to prove the sole purpose for a turn down another road would be to avoid a roadside check.

Now if I was caught with a photocopy of a boarding card that had the SSSS removed with liquid paper and it can be shown that the original card was printed with a SSSS code, perhaps that might be a different story ;)