Yes, I think the way the demand was worded (or reported) is causing the confusion. I don't think they want the DL number specifically (what earthly use is that ?), just something government issue with a name and picture. If you don't have a DL or won't show it, or anything else which qualifies then the 'two other pieces' kicks in, and one of the suggested acceptable documents is SS card (again I think the number is irrelevant, but it's right there anyway). If you have something else without a picture yet is government-issued it should suffice. I'm not sure about where the DoB requirement comes from - if the CSR did in fact demand that then I think she was wrong/misinformed/lying (take your pick).

I'm Baaack...
 

Hi guys (and I mean that in the Boston sense of the word),

Sorry for going off the radar: I was busy taking advantage of UA's March Madness in spite of the constant 4th Amendment violations.

The point of this investigation is to determine whether TSA told the 9th Circuit the truth. The 9th rejected Gilmore's arguments because the Feds claimed their secret laws (which neither you nor I have yet to see) gave pax an option to either show their papers or go through secondary screening. By pulling in data points from travelers across the country, we can then separate TSA secret law fact from fiction and figure out whether those secret laws are evenly applied.

The results received thus far have been quite enlightening. I'll be publishing a detailed analysis within the next week, but what we're seeing is that so long as a pax w/o ID is willing to grovel to the TSA, chances are that pax will fly. If you tell them 'The dog ate my homework', you should be able to fly. When pax simply refuse to show ID, then it's a very different story. Needless to say, the right to travel in our country should not be predicated on the degree to which a citizen is willing to bow and scrape to authority.

More later,

Bill

I have never been forced to show ID just to ride as a passenger in someone else's car -- but I have always been forced to show ID if I want to ride as a passenger in someone else's plane. Why?

(Do you think that the ID requirement for airplane passengers serves a valuable aviation security purpose? I doubt it.)

It's a matter of distance. A cell phone on an airplane puts a lot more radio energy into the plane's electronics than the big tower on the ground.

It's probably ok but nobody has done the extensive testing that would be needed to prove it's ok--and when it comes to aviation safety rules it's basically show it's safe or don't do it.

Not once you get to the "far field", which is the area beyond a sphere of about 1 meter or less from the cell phone's antenna. :)

The energy radiated by a cell phone in the far field is 1)very tiny and 2)in another frequency band than the frequency band of the navigation and communication systems of the aircraft. The harmonics' (multiples of the cell phone's frequency) energy in the communication and navigation frequency bands is so small that it is zero for all practical purposes.

I agree with that last point, but let's say that you can prove the unevenness you allege. Then what? What would be unlawful about giving greater scruitiny to those who refuse to show ID for no reason, or for stated privacy reasons? The 9th Cir. has already held that the constituional right to travel is not implicated here (i.e., commercial air is only one means of travel). Search and seizure law is inapplicable because this is a request for consent to screen (don't have to consent if you don't fly). I think that leaves you with some vague free speech or equal protection arguments, neither of which is likely to fly.

Please don't misunderstand -- I think you raise legitimate concerns about TSA and ID. I'm just very skeptical that the legal challenges will succeed.

What if the only reasonable way to get somewhere within a required time frame is by air? Then does that help? For example, someone needs medical treatment and going by surface routes would result in a delay of treatment that increases the rate of morbidity.

Moving back to the OP, the OP seems to have limited the scope at this time to determining if the TSA lied:

I think there is no harm in determining that, for it may enable a PR challenge to the TSA's claims or even a review of the decision of the Gilmore case.

A second, separate thing would be to be able to find or manufacture potential test cases to get the most recent ruling on this ID-while-flying matter reviewed and perhaps further limited or struck down. [Of course, I would not count on that succeeding in the current environment. And contrary to popular misconceptions, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not "whacked-out" any more than the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals or the others.]

My understanding was that the typical cell phone only puts off about 1W of power at max. I don't know what cell towers emit, but I generally think it'd at least be more. I could be wrong though.

At any rate, I think that's why some were advocating putting picocells on planes. That would minimize the amount of energy for the phone to connect to the site, thus minimizing the energy put into the plane's electronics.

I believe that in recent years, the Ninth Circuit has been the most reversed circuit, even adjusting for its large size. Quite often it has been reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court. Perhaps it's not "whacked-out", but it does produce more than its share of dubious decisions.

What specific data suggests that the 9th produces more than its share of "dubious decisions" vis-a-vis each of the other circuits on an individual basis? [Also, what exactly constitutes an "overturning" of a decision? Sometimes it's not exactly clear.]

The percentage of cases reviewed but not reversed in X period?
The percentage of cases that are not reviewed (and de facto not reversed) in X period?
The absolute number of cases reviewed but not reversed in X period?
The absolute number of cases that are not reviewed (and de facto not reversed) in X period?

I prefer data-based analysis and a lot of times anecdotal evidence -- and "talk" -- isn't supported or is only supported by selective slicing. (Unfortunately I don't have data on such things at my fingertips, but would welcome evidence in one direction or another.)

In any event, if the 9th produces more than its share of "dubious decisions" and is the most reversed court by any and all measures, then the OP should welcome that. The OP should welcome that for it means that the chances for this court ruling to be overturned or otherwise reinterpreted increases. ^^

Well, like most things in law, the question about Ninth Circuit reversals depends on how you frame the issue. This discussion includes some hard data:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20020419.html

...and here's a counterpoint, using data from different years:

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v37-issue...hemerinsky.pdf

Thanks a lot for that, and I'll take a good read of both to see what's there.

When pax simply refuse to show ID, then it's a very different story. Needless to say, the right to travel in our country should not be predicated on the degree to which a citizen is willing to bow and scrape to authority.

================================================== =======
What about the non citizen? Are they afforded the same rights to not show ID{even though anybody can get one on the corner}? I guess I just don't understand the paranoia of Big Brother, if you are not doing anything wrong, then why would you care who tracks where you fly? Why do you care if Safeway tracks your purchases? I belong to Albertsons and Ralphs, and neither of them bug me. It seems that nobody here has ever been the victim of identity theft, or a lost credit card. I frown on those that don't ask me for ID when using a credit card, as the face should fit the purchaser.
I dread the day when anybody can board any flight any way they want to, just because they are entitled to. But then again, it will never happen like it did, right?

People used to fly all the time without government-mandated demand of ID in the US; and in many parts of the world people still do fly without ID checks. And I don't feel any less insecure nor am I any less secure because of that.

Domestic ID checks are a dog-and-pony show that exists to reassure the insecure, Also, domestic ID checks used in conjunction with government blacklisting gives birth to unAmerican haraSSSSment at US airports and has given way to even worse elsewhere. Furthermore, ID is not security.

If you're not doing anything wrong, how about I search your house from time to time? Or pull you over on your way to and from work and toss your car? Or just visit you at home or pull you over and demand a valid ID? You have nothing to hide, so you should be pleased to be contributing to a safer, more secure society.

I am very annoyed with those who do ask me for ID, since their merchant agreement usually prohibits doing so. If someone swipes my credit card, I'm liable for $50 as long as I report the bogus charges as soon as I see them. That could be as late as when I get my monthly bill. Moreover, most credit card companies will waive the $50. If I get carded making a credit card purchase, I educate the merchant about their credit card agreement. If they do it a second time, I report them to Visa/Mastercard/American Express and let them take care of the problem. For some reason, it never persists. :)

Why?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but anyone CAN board any flight they want to by grabbing someone else's boarding pass/passport and clearing "security" with their own ID or someone whose ID looks very much like them. This doesn't bother me and I wish we'd give up on the idiotic paranoia of having to know everything about someone who gets on a plane. Guess what? Unless you only bid internationally, convicted, violent felons fly with you daily. Just like they walk among you at the mall and supermarket.

I would very much prefer this nation lives up to the principles upon which it was founded.