Questionable Credentials Of Some FT Members
 

Randy,

Congratulations and well done on your achievement in the sale of FT. ^

But as you said, you're still in charge, so here's a question:

I have noticed at least a couple of FT members claim to work for the U.S. government in a law enforcement capacity. One says he works for the Transportation Security Administration. Another claims to be a Federal Air Marshal. These are merely two I have noticed.

I know you and your staff are very busy but has anyone actually verified these claims?

If not, is it in the best interest of FT for people to be allowed to make such claims?

[This is my first post in this forum. If I have inadvertently violated some protocol, I apologize and ask that you delete this post immediately.]

Unless they are posting in an official capacity, how is this any different to an FTer proclaiming to be a FA, or hold a certain elite status, or have inside knowledge of airline/FFP rules/changes?

Given the wide range of experience and collective knowledge of FTers it doesn't take long for someone faking it to be outed.

Note - I have no idea who you are referring to, and am replying as a member of FT not as a moderator.

Look at post #205 in this thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=668388

I don't know, Kiwi Flyer, some people get away with fraud for a long time. Remember B Watson? Eventually most fakes get caught, but it amazes me how long some people can live a lie, even duping their close friends and family.

Fortunately, in cyberspace, it really doesn't matter what people say unless you plan to do something in reliance on their information. If one were contemplating doing something based on information provided by a stranger, it would be smart to carefully verified that information before taking any action.

This isn't ebay. We aren't routinely sending other FlyerTalkers money until we get to know them. Of course there are times when we might send money to a Do Host prior to having met them, or perhaps contribute to a gift, but I have never heard of an instance where either of those requests for money turned out to be less than honorable.

Actually, one of my very favorite FlyerTalkers, arturo, is a patent fraud, but what difference does it make? I still love him and sure miss him. :(

To the best of my knowledge, even our most famous fraud, never really hurt anybody on Flyer Talk, although that is not true for his investors. :(

Agree.

Over many years on FT I've seen a number of folks posting pretending to be top airline elites, or hotel top tiers or Centurion Amex card holders etc, etc.

And seen all of them trip up on their own shoelaces sooner rather than later.

FT'er are very savvy as a group, and smell a rat pretty instinctively. @:-)

Take everything with a grain of salt that spouts out of your computer monitor. Many people refuse to believe I fly with Santa on Christmas Eve and have racked up an amazing 2 million miles in Santa’s frequent flyer program. But it really is true.

What's your point? That I raised the same question in another forum and didn't get an answer.

That is precisely the reason I am raising it with Randy.

I do not believe people should be allowed to claim law enforcement status unless that has been verified.

TSA Screeners are not Law Enforcement.

As for baseless claims, FT is chock full of them. In the past we have had members claim:

To be MDs, and they were not.
To be Journalists, and they were not.
To be Record Producers, and they were not.
To be Attorneys, and they were not.
To be in possession of internal airline documents (Training manuals, etc..), when they were not.
To be able to bring multiple FT members into an airline lounge as their guests, when they were not.

Bottom line is that you should always "trust, but verify" any information provided on an anonymous IBB. ALWAYS. If you cannot verify, then do not trust.

I didn't think it was FT's duty to check the background of some or all of it's participants. Why, I could just be pretending to be a travel agent because of all the prestige and adulation that profession commands. ;)

I think that Cholula's excellent response is about as good and complete an answer as you could ever hope to get.

Why would they? Really, do you think they spend their time reading thousands of posts daily in search of false claims by members in order to verify their authenticity??

How do you suggest they prevent people from making these, perhaps, false claims?

I have no point to make at all. I was pointing KiwiFlyer to the thread where the question was raised, so he could look at it himself. You're reading a little too much into my post.

The moderator in the Travel Safety and Security forum has replied to your question in that forum.

Maybe we could threaten to shoot them?? @:-)

OP, if you want to believe somebody, believe them. If you do not, ignore them.

Regarding the aforementioned departed Mr. Watson, several very active FTers believed him and may have even thought they befriended him, several very active FTers did not believe him and warned others (including me) not to do so, and most of us (including me) couldn't have cared either way.

Ignoring TSA for a second: Suppose I say I'm a minister. You believe my pitch and send me money for my cause, or maybe an expiring award on Southwest which I turn around and sell on ebay, or maybe you let me sleep on your couch for a night during a mileage run. How is that different from any con job on the internet?

Now, the obvious ones, such as the Nigerian scammers, don't last long here. But the nature of the community allows many of us to figure out who is not being honest about their details over time. Most of the time, it is not criminal, just a veneer of self-delusion.


ETA: Randy, i'm sorry for posting here in ORP - I know you sometimes object when the members are portrayed as speaking for you. I am writing while trying to stay awake on a conference call, and thought I was on the regular communitybuzz forum instead. But since some people have subscriptions set up, I'll leave my thoughts here until you wish to delete them.

Caveat lector, no?

On the internet, all men are handsome and all women are size 6. I always want to believe, but am frequently disappointed! Ah well, such is life, and I can deal with it. Bet the OP can too.

I do not believe people should be allowed to impersonate federal law enforcement officers online. Do I think anyone is doing this? I don't know, but I would like to find out.

Is it ok if I tell you I've just replaced Dick Cheney? :D

And in many jurisdictions, it's illegal to impersonate a lawyer. If you're going to hold others a standard, I think you need to put yourself to that standard as well. :rolleyes:

Mike

No problem.

Okay, we want F/T to check the credentials of members claiming to be LEOs -- now what?

How about those claiming to be lawyers or doctors? After all, you can get in a lot of trouble if you follow the advice of a faker here, too.

For that matter, you had better worry about plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, and pest exterminators.

On a different level, what if a Catholic is misled about his religion by someone who says he is a priest? Or a Jew by a person claiming to be a rabbi? Or a Protestant who believes the inaccurate teachings of a self-proclaimed minister?

With over 100,000 F/Ters, the House of Miles is going to be kept very busy double-checking everybody's profession.

(Randy, can I just send a GIF attachment showing my press card issued by the State of Israel Government Press Office or do you need it sent by fax?)

I'm thinking you should send a notarized copy. I can help! :D

Ahhh - I'm in the UK, where the notary system isn't available. Does that mean I can't be verified :eek: ;) And I'm about to change job (:D) - do I need to be reverified?

But you don't mind if they say they are RCMP? Or the Met? Or Carabinieri?

I'm with those that think life is too short, in case you haven't guessed ;)

Considering that TSA employees are not federal law emforcement officers and air marshalls are really little more than rent-cops with guns, why do you give a rat's arse what they proclaim??? :confused:

I'm sure there are some nice Scottish FT boys who would be interested in that task. ;)

I was told that the original "air marshals" were accidental, in that federal law enforcement laboratory personnel used to have badges and carried guns on planes while they transported evidence to trials they were attending. That priveldge was later withddrawn when one of them overstepped his authority and did a traffic stop, flashing his badge, and was reported. But that was many years before I was in the system (and more since I left).

Steve

I like the scene in True Lies when Simon (the used car salesman) is feeding Helen (Arnold's wife, who doesn't know her husband is a "secret agent") the line that he is a secret agent in the CIA, running from "the bad guys", and she swallows it whole.

If you are that gullible, you kinda deserve at least some of what coming.

I have the Answer!
 

Pretending to be somebody else should only be allowed on Halloween. :D

Is this any different than the questionable stories (i.e., tall tales) told by some passenger sitting in the seat next to us on a flight? If not, then I'll let judgment be the guide here too.

The big difference is that some FT members have written on their profiles the name of a government agency that shows up every time they post anything.

I have yet to read anyone here write a justification for this.

As opposed to "TSA Disparager" and the like? :rolleyes:

Maybe you could volunteer to do this job if it's so important to you, especially since no one else is going to waste their valuable time on such a silly venture. :rolleyes:

So, you're the guy I always meet on a flight who doesn't believe I'm Dick Cheney. :D

Unfortunately I don't think there is any appropriate way to verify identity, employment, etc. It is too difficult and too intrusive.

Besides, what do you use as standards? I have consistently stated, for several years, that you are not a "frequent flyer" unless you have done at least 300k BIS in a single year. But not everyone agrees. And that is one of the most important qualifications for people on this board.

I beg to differ. AFAIK, the only qualification for people on this board is a body temperature above freezing.

Posthumus posting is not allowed?

Does being brain dead count?

Same comment as mine; different words.

Not only are the words different, but the meanings are different as well - a person who is brain dead is not clinically dead and is also not likely legally dead. (That's neither here nor there, though.)

Mike

I don't think FT should be in the business of verifying that people are who they claim to be. Eventually, over time, we figure out that people are fakers or don't know what they're talking about.

I am now Hillary Clinton for this week. :D