Perhaps it helps to ensure that the photo is relatively recent? That's about all I can think of...

I love this forum, you guys (and gals) always make my day.

Nine times out of ten, I have to tell TSA that the expiration date is on the back of my license. Where I live, your license is renewed every 5 years, but you only get a new card every ten years. The send you a sticker for the back of your license at 5 years. Even here where I live, they don't think to look on the back. They tell me my license is expired & that I can't fly.

I take great joy in pointing out there (albeit tiny) error.

One of the implications of Dovster's point is that while the image may match, the rest of the physical credential can me made up or altered. This is why the flashing of ID cards does not imply proof of identification. And ID does not ensure security or safety.

Expiration of a license to operate a motor vehicle has nothing to do with the veracity of an individual's identity.

An expired US passport is a valid document for an I-9 (eligibility to legally work in the USA).

But it won't get you a drink in Maui County!

It can't possibly be necessary because it isn't often done.

While I'm not suggesting anyone does any of this, it just shows how absurd the id requirement is. As long as there is no verification between what is presented to the id checker and who is actually flying where the id check does nothing except help airlines with revenue protection.

There is an even easier way then what VPescado illustrated:

Step 1: Buy ticket to where ever you want to go in some other name, preferably - Al Kyder or Terry Wrist Sorry couldn't resist

Step 2: Use a standalone boarding pass generator and make your own boarding pass that matches whatever you are carrying as id. Since there is no check to make sure that the boarding pass is valid or you are even on that flight you can pass through security.

Step 3: Use fake boarding pass to cross security.

Step 4: Board plane with real ticket and no one knows you are really on this flight.

or

Step 1: Buy ticket to where ever you want to go in some other name, preferably - Al Kyder or Terry Wrist Sorry couldn't resist

Step 2: Do Internet check in and print the boarding pass to a PDF file.

Step 3: Edit PDF file and change the name to match your id.

Step 3: Use edited boarding pass to cross security. Again there is no check to make sure that the boarding pass is valid or the name on the boarding pass matches a passenger on that flight you can pass through security.

Step 4: Board plane and no one knows you are really on this flight.

I could go on with other ways to get a boarding pass with the kiosks but then you start needing equipment that can write to magnetic strips.

The limit on liquids is equally absurd.

Every chemist I've talked to has said that you basically need laboratory conditions to make a liquid explosive so making one on the plane is basically humbug and the ready made liquid explosives are very unstable.

The one said, you have a better chance of blowing yourself up on the way to the airport then an airplane.

Furthermore, since the TSA has no idea what is actually in the 3 oz containers, you could just take your ready made explosive and fill as many containers as you want and fit them in the quart size baggie. Repeat with as many of your cohorts you feel is necessary. Unless you get secondary, and have an ETD test on the stuff you are home free since guess what? X-Ray machines don't detect explosives! All they can do is help someone see something that might have been modified. How will you do that when all you can see is a bunch of 3oz bottles inside a quart baggie and have no idea what is in them?

Providing you haven't blown yourself up yet, you can then board the plane and attempt to smuggle the bags into the lavatory where you can pour everything into the nice big quart sized baggies that the TSA has mandated and ignite them by shorting out your iPod and creating a spark.

Did I mention before that liquid explosives are really unstable?

If liquids are such a risk they should be treated as hazmat when they are disposed of. I have yet to see any hazmat indicators on the garabage the screeners are throwing the stuff into, or in some cases drinking. There have been documented cases where the screeners have been seen drinking the confescated water.

After all aren't all of these liquids potentially explosive? Think of the screeners!!! They could be drinking an explosive liquid and think it's water?

There is even an easier way. Attach an explosive device to the unscreen cargo that is loaded onto the plane.

Again, I am not suggesting anyone do any of these things. I am just bringing them up because I am tired of security kabuki theater. Someone needs to do a risk/benefits analysis and get rid of all of the window dressing and put things into place that can combat real potential threats.

You really make too much sense. A true risk/benefits analysis by DHS would have to involve bean counters from Halliburton, thereby negating any possible hint of reason.

I do realize that. I was merely pointing out what some of the rationale behind the non-expired ID rule may be based on, and not whether it is effective or not.

I am not a regular participant in this forum so perhaps am stating things that are obvious to the 'regulars' but this issue came up in the discussion of Canadian passports and why we should or should not move to 10-year validity from the current five years. Some argue that a 5-year passport ensures that the photo will be fairly recent while a 10-year passport could have a very dated image.

The Canadian Border Services Agency uses this (and the changes in security features) in their argument (from this post in AC forum):

"Shorter validity passports are less likely to be successfully counterfeited or altered since their security features are more recent," his note reads. "Aging and other changes in the appearance of document holders over time cause visual comparison of the document holder with the document and automated comparison against facial recognition biometric templates to be less reliable."

Personally, I think this might be a specious argument. And I agree, the security of the document can be questionable, even if valid, as I argue in this post about the security problems with Canadian passports.

Welcome to FT, BigDogBart!

Hope you don't mind, but I'll selectively quote:


Sorry, but I don't think that's the reason for security or, at least, not in its current implementation. I think the reason for the kind of security we have is simply to reassure Ma and Pa Kettle -- you know them, the bargain fare hunters who fly once a year and who the airlines have decided they can't survive without -- that it's safe to fly. If this were not the case, then could you explain to me why uninspected air cargo and mail are loaded aboard every single commercial aircraft in the US? I feel far more at risk from exploding cargo than from another 9/11-like hijacking. However, I'm not the one that needs to be reassured -- I'll fly regardless, because I know that flying is fundamentally safe (and, statistically, was even on 9/11, a day I was scheduled to fly). When the Kettles and Gomers (you know the Gomers -- well, golly, if they want us to do this there must be a good reason!) see confiscation of a bottle of scope because its 3.1 ounces, see legions of travelers forced to take off their shoes (though only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and only in certain airports), see lighters confiscated (but multiple books of matches let through), etc., they assume that the government and the airlines have everything under control and its safe to fly. It is safe to fly but, sorry, not because of the dog-and-pony show that constitutes security at airports.

I'll say this: 99.9% of the TSOs that I encounter are pleasant, professional and efficient. I have no argument with virtually all of you guys. It's your boss, Kip Hawley, and the administration that hired him that bothers me.

Then lobby your organization to support a "trusted traveler" pass that means something. I'll submit to the pre-screening and security check and pay a hundred bucks or so if it means I get a nice little card with biometric ID that lets me skip the line AND the screening.

That's why I'd like the trusted traveler card -- to avoid the Kettles and the Gomers.

Then why are liquids allowed at all? Sorry, but you've got it wrong. TSA doesn't allow liquids through to accommodate passengers. It allows liquids through because the airlines pressured TSA to permit it. Business travel becomes impossible if everyone must check bags, and no one can travel for business without such minimal necessities as toothpaste and deoderant. When TSA imposed the total ban after the London bombing, business travel fell off precipitously and the airlines squawked long and loud -- they were losing their bread-and-butter, the high-fare passengers who keep them in the air (no airline can subsist on the low-fare seeking, any-airline-in-a-storm). The airlines pressured TSA into making the change.

TSA didn't allow liquids to accommodate passengers. It allowed liquids to accommodate the airlines who would have gone out of business if the total ban was enforced.

Do you really think terrorists are going to use obviously-tampered-with ID or ID that was printed on a home computer? This doesn't stop the real threats, only the loony amateurs who don't pose a threat to anyone but themselves.


With all due respect, most FT regulars know the procedure. The problem is the exceptions -- how many of us have had TSA-approved locks cut-off or missing? (You can't see me, but I'm raising my hand 5 times -- that's 5 TSA-approved locks at $20 per). How many of us have had things go missing? (Yes, I know, it must be the baggage handlers. Right.)

BigDogBart, it's nice to have you here on FT. I hope you continue posting.

And that's one of the issues causing the problem here.

For example, I'm carrying a California driver's license that has a 10 year old photo.

At the time the photo was taken, I looked somewhat like Brad Pitt....or so I'm told.

Now, 10 years later, I look more like Danny DeVito.

So even though my CA DL is valid, the picture is so outdated as to be useless.

I once shaved my beard the day after my DL photo was taken; so within 2 days, and for the remaining 3 years of validity, the photo looked nothing nothing like me. (but then, Gargoyles are face-changers, so what can I expect?)

Glad you take pride in your position, but I think most of the travelling public realizes that your procedures amount to aviation security theater (TSA backwards) which create more hassle than true security. Most of the time I go through the checkpoint, all I hear is whining from employees that they are supposed to be going on break. The pre 9/11 screeners were more professional while working for nearly min. wage. While there are some very good screeners out there, the vast majority are just there for the check and will leave as soon as better opportunity comes their way

And I look like an old, retired American grandpa, except to the TSA screeners who punished me for it twice in a row(I GUESS... they are NOT very forthcoming with reasons when THEY violate the law...)

There won't be a third time to mistake me for a terrorist. Most old grandpas are a helluva lot smarter than that. Agencies can terrorize, too. Those FF folks who'd call me and the missus Ma and Pa Kettle are prime examples of robotic inurement. They will bend over for ANYONE (quickly, too!) to avoid the agony of waiting any longer than a microsecond.

Welcome to flyertalk, BigDogBart. Unfortunately, the jargon in your post is fodder from the TSA site as far as I can tell. I WOULD like to know your opinions about TSA's pledge of dignity and respect for PAXs and how any of it is possible at ANY checkpoint, anywhere, any time.


Yet, you've remained strangely silent following your first post...