What are you talking about???
What allows them to "track" and "control" freedom of movement.

You're off the deep end, sorry. :rolleyes:
Dave

I suggest that you go back and read the comment to which Red was responding, because your comment does not address that response. You do know, don't you, that there was a time before the TSA?

Yes, and during that time, the FAA was the one that required airlines to ask for identification since.. oh.. the mid-90s, I want to say. When TSA came around, they issued a Security Directive directing the airlines to continue the practice. Essentially, the only thing that changed about the whole thing between the FAA and the TSA was the letterhead.

Of course it doesn't address it. I wasn't making an attempt to address it. I was taking what he said and was providing some background information on it that people may or may not have known.

The statement he made, that it was a request for the airline and not a requirement to fly, while factually true, is not the absolute and whole truth. If the airlines so desired, they could make it a requirement to fly, a power granted under the authority of the same Security Directive. To date, they have chosen not to do so.

In summary, everything now is quite similar to what it was 15 years ago, except that it's all under one big roof that we can cry and whine about and villainize as the big bad TSA. So that fact that anyone would gladly pay $5 a gallon for gas in order for the TSA to go away is simply ridiculous. The TSA could go away, but the requirements (that pre-dated its existence) would still be there, even if the agency wasn't. Doesn't seem like a wise investment of money IMO. I'll take the $1.50 gas, thanks.^

The "track" part is done with their data mining exercises. Thus far none have made it into production, but that doesn't mean that they aren't trying very hard to get there. I don't know what the current name for CAPPS is, but the TSA continues to push this general concept.

The "control" part comes about from their ability to arbitrarily decide that you aren't eligible for travel with no recourse nor accountability. If they decide to put you (or one of your aliases, because there's no way that you specifically would ever be targeted) on a list, that's it. Sure, there's the redress program, but it doesn't seem to help too much.

As for communications monitoring, the revisions to the FISA rules and some other recent interpretations of existing law have given various government agencies significantly greater access to domestic surveillance, without the need for a warrant and without the ability of the surveilled to ever determine that it was happening. The fact that retroactive immunity had to be written in to the most recent version of the FISA bill should be a pretty big hint that the things going on were not legal and therefore not condoned by the government previously. Whether they were happening or not I cannot say, but now they are legal. That is a significant change.

So, by your own admission, your point that they ARE TRACKING our movements is false. Hmm, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
I find that those who are most likely to scream the loudest about injustices of this manner or that are more enamored of the screaming than they are of the fact checking.
So, TSA will know WHAT about WHERE an INDIVIDUAL goes?? And, then what will become of that data?
What role, if any, do you think the pax HAS TO play in this little scenario you've cooked up??
If they won't submit to screening - no, they ain't flying.
That was true 25 years ago, fwiw.
The number of people ACTUALLY subjected to this is so miniscule as to make it not worth discussing.
For those who wish to worry about the risks of THEM being on some "list" - I say: have at it.
I've bigger issues to worry about.
Yes, and so - this impacts YOUR freedom, how?
I see that you like to draw very tennous conclusions from very specious precendents.
Yes, agreed. It is a change. It is also NOT a reduction of your freedom.
Dave

I said that they can, not that they are. Do we need to wait for proof that people are being wronged rather than fixing the system that allows it before someone is wronged?
I can no longer assume that it is safe to freely express my opinion in a phone call because I have to assume that the government is monitoring the discussion as they now have every right to do.

As for whether the change is a net plus, minus or even, it certainly seems to me to be a reduction in freedom. If it doesn't seem that way to you so be it. We can disagree on this point.

That depends. People sometimes get denied credit cards because of inaccurate information in their credit report. Does that mean we should eliminate credit reports? No, it means we should utilize the measures that are in place just in case somebody gets wronged. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Credit checks are not (and cannot be) used by the government to arbitrarily limit freedom of their citizens. If I am unable to obtain a credit card I have alternatives, such as a secured line of credit. And I have a means of redress that actually works. Neither of these options are available with the TSA or the current policies.

Does the Boston Tea Party ring a bell with you?

Then, Dean, can you tell me, please, how and why, in the not so distant past (after September 01), I have been able to purchase a ticket, get a boarding pass, go through "security" and walk to my gate, never once being asked for ID?

It's because the government mandated ID check was in place for the first Gulf War - in addition to restrictions on parking curbside, etc. The government removed these restrictions after the war, but most airlines kept asking for ID because they discovered it was a way to stop the sale of non-refundable tickets.

Thank you. That's a much more plausible explanation.

Really? Try getting a secure government job, US customs brokerage license, etc. with poor credit. There is no "security deposit" if you want to be a Navy contractor with dings on your credit report - which might even be wrong.

I worked with bankrupt people in cleared gov't jobs. A lot is in how you live, what you report to them, and so forth. The whole purpose is to ensure that you can't be bribed into selling state secrets. It's not cut and dry. Being behind in your taxes is a deal breaker though.

And even with the clearance, if something's wrong, you can still appeal it.

Gov't's actually pretty forgiving if you're upfront with them. Try to hide it and it's a big strike, if not a deal breaker.