Getting selected anyway, should I refuse to show ID?
Feb 6, 2010, 4:28 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
The benefit is that while they may not make as much as they would in the private sector, they still do quite well and the income is going to be stable and there for the long term, where as that may not be the case in the private sector.
I met with OGC once and at least the one we met witih seemed relatively sharp, unlike TSA's.
Feb 6, 2010, 4:32 pm
#17
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ATL
Programs: Global Entry, UA, AA, BA, DL, Bonvoy
Posts: 281
...
A quick story: when I first started my shift ended and we would still be busy, even though the new shift was now on. I would stay to help with the shif change, maybe 10 to 20 minutes. When the supervisors found ou I was doing this, I was told - very pleasantly, I might add - that though the extra help was appreciated, my shift was over and I had to leave. I had put in my hours, the day was over. Huh. That took a while getting used to, but now I like the fact that when they day is over, it's over. Gone are the 12 hour days, working extra on the weekends... I've learned it's nice to rest, sometimes. But don't call me lazy!! I still work as hard as I can while I am here. But you can see why some people might perfer that. It's all about externalities.
A quick story: when I first started my shift ended and we would still be busy, even though the new shift was now on. I would stay to help with the shif change, maybe 10 to 20 minutes. When the supervisors found ou I was doing this, I was told - very pleasantly, I might add - that though the extra help was appreciated, my shift was over and I had to leave. I had put in my hours, the day was over. Huh. That took a while getting used to, but now I like the fact that when they day is over, it's over. Gone are the 12 hour days, working extra on the weekends... I've learned it's nice to rest, sometimes. But don't call me lazy!! I still work as hard as I can while I am here. But you can see why some people might perfer that. It's all about externalities.
Feb 6, 2010, 4:33 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
I have NOT read mos of the court cases involving TSA. In fact, I have read only a dozen or so. So I am not an expert. I can remember from some of the cases that I have read from the lower courts, TSA has clearly stated their opinion such courts did not have jurisdiction, thus TSA has refused to allow the court access to SOP. In higher courts, TSA has allowed access to SOP in private, as thy have argued such courts do hae jurisdiction.
Can you please site to me where TSA has stated courts in general, no matter their stature, do not have jurisdiction. I am interested in reading their opinion why; and just to let you know, if TSA has made such annartument, I disagree.
Thanks.
Can you please site to me where TSA has stated courts in general, no matter their stature, do not have jurisdiction. I am interested in reading their opinion why; and just to let you know, if TSA has made such annartument, I disagree.
Thanks.
Perhaps I should have phrased it such that TSA acts like no court has jurisdiction over them. That's definitely apparent. If it had regard for court system and the law, I don't think it would be pulling a lot of the garbage it does.
Feb 6, 2010, 7:53 pm
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Attitude. Proper attitude is hat in hand, standing with head down, no eye contact, and pleading that you be allowed through the checkpoint to catch your flight because you don't have any identification.
Improper attitude is defiantly standing there, standing your ground because the ID check has no actual bearing on any security.
Improper attitude is defiantly standing there, standing your ground because the ID check has no actual bearing on any security.
Thanks so much for straightening this out.
Feb 6, 2010, 11:43 pm
#21
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 346
It's worth noting that TSA does not conduct passenger screening at SFO. It has been outsourced. Look carefully and you will see that the personnel are not TSOs and do not wear TSA uniforms.
That said, they probably operate under guidelines provided by TSA, so the "interview" process to prove identity might still apply.
That said, they probably operate under guidelines provided by TSA, so the "interview" process to prove identity might still apply.
Feb 6, 2010, 11:56 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
That is a state court case for a couple of misdemeanors that will have little if any precedential value. If he were to sue in federal court, that could go up the chain and have some effect; note that the opt-out logic (SSSS) in Gilmore no longer applies since you can no longer refuse to show ID and still fly. If the TSA added back in refusal=SSSS policy, but you can still fly, then we'd just be back where we started and Gilmore would be 'good' law again.
But his state court case has nothing to do with the TSA policy-- just some rogue cops who can't read a statute correctly (concealing identity, for one). His case in state court isn't going to change anything, and I don't know if a case in federal court would work for this in his situation-- it would require further thought.
I have NOT read mos of the court cases involving TSA. In fact, I have read only a dozen or so. So I am not an expert. I can remember from some of the cases that I have read from the lower courts, TSA has clearly stated their opinion such courts did not have jurisdiction, thus TSA has refused to allow the court access to SOP. In higher courts, TSA has allowed access to SOP in private, as thy have argued such courts do hae jurisdiction..
I'll have to dig around and see what I can find, as that thought has intrigued me now.
Perhaps I should have phrased it such that TSA acts like no court has jurisdiction over them. That's definitely apparent. If it had regard for court system and the law, I don't think it would be pulling a lot of the garbage it does.
Perhaps I should have phrased it such that TSA acts like no court has jurisdiction over them. That's definitely apparent. If it had regard for court system and the law, I don't think it would be pulling a lot of the garbage it does.
Feb 7, 2010, 6:23 am
#23
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
Folks, we're removed several posts here from a of couple members who thought the thread was all about them.
Surprise.....the topic is about getting selected and having to show your ID.
Please keep further comments on the topic at hand and away from bickering with your fellow members.
Thanks.
_____________________________
Cholula
TS/S Co-Moderator
Surprise.....the topic is about getting selected and having to show your ID.
Please keep further comments on the topic at hand and away from bickering with your fellow members.
Thanks.
_____________________________
Cholula
TS/S Co-Moderator
Feb 7, 2010, 6:37 am
#24
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
May, may not. Shrugs...
I haven't kept up with it to be honest. Bu personally, I doubt the policy will change, if at all. Too many "events" have happened that TSA lawyers can whip out of the bag to help argue their case before the Courts - but TSA's track record seems to be they do not disclose such events or SOP to lower courts; correct me if I am wrong, but TSA has always argued lower courts do not have jurisdiction.
I haven't kept up with it to be honest. Bu personally, I doubt the policy will change, if at all. Too many "events" have happened that TSA lawyers can whip out of the bag to help argue their case before the Courts - but TSA's track record seems to be they do not disclose such events or SOP to lower courts; correct me if I am wrong, but TSA has always argued lower courts do not have jurisdiction.
Sooner or later, a combination of inane and unnecessary TSA practices coupled with TSA's lawyers running out the same tired arguments will be seen for what it is - an unconstitutional abuse of the rights of the traveling public. I just wish Congress would wake up now and rein your rogue Agency in.
Feb 7, 2010, 7:35 am
#25
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
I have NOT read mos of the court cases involving TSA. In fact, I have read only a dozen or so. So I am not an expert. I can remember from some of the cases that I have read from the lower courts, TSA has clearly stated their opinion such courts did not have jurisdiction, thus TSA has refused to allow the court access to SOP. In higher courts, TSA has allowed access to SOP in private, as thy have argued such courts do hae jurisdiction.
Over here, you would be required to produce such items, and if you refused, you would have been in contempt. Of course, there was always the right of appeal, so this would have been settled a long time ago, over here, that is, but in your grossly convoluted court system, it is not surprising that even this has not been resolved by this stage.
Why don't you refine your court system, namely give your judges some dangly bits to make courageous rulings once in a while, sure, some of them *might* be overturned on appeal, but once there is an appeal then a precedent has been set and everyone knows where they stand. Instead of pooncy TSA legal droids dancing around the "this court doesn't have jurisdiction", by then there will be a superior court ruling and then the court WILL have jurisdiction.
Dave
Feb 7, 2010, 4:18 pm
#27
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
I think where the confusion lies is the fact if you sue the TSA it has to be done in the Appellate courts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49...0----000-.html
The way I read it this applies ONLY to someone suing the Government over an order. If the TSA is a part of a criminal case in any capacity the lower court Judge can compel them to present SOP, SSI or anything else.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49...0----000-.html
a person disclosing a substantial interest in an order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) in whole or in part under this part, part B, or subsection (l) or (s) of section 114 may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business.
Feb 8, 2010, 2:08 am
#28
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Feb 8, 2010, 4:49 pm
#29
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
What a strange legal system you have over there.
Over here, you would be required to produce such items, and if you refused, you would have been in contempt. Of course, there was always the right of appeal, so this would have been settled a long time ago, over here, that is, but in your grossly convoluted court system, it is not surprising that even this has not been resolved by this stage.
Over here, you would be required to produce such items, and if you refused, you would have been in contempt. Of course, there was always the right of appeal, so this would have been settled a long time ago, over here, that is, but in your grossly convoluted court system, it is not surprising that even this has not been resolved by this stage.
"All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."
Why don't you refine your court system, namely give your judges some dangly bits to make courageous rulings once in a while, sure, some of them *might* be overturned on appeal, but once there is an appeal then a precedent has been set and everyone knows where they stand. Instead of pooncy TSA legal droids dancing around the "this court doesn't have jurisdiction", by then there will be a superior court ruling and then the court WILL have jurisdiction.
Back in the days of prohibition, a federal judge told prohibition enforcers that the new technology of wiretapping telephones was illegal based on then-current laws that kept police from searching post. Said enforcers manufactured evidence that the judge was in the pay of bootleggers, had the judge impeached, removed, prosecuted, and imprisoned. Message sent. Message received.
Feb 16, 2010, 9:48 am
#30
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
passenger identification FAQ; cross-reference related FT posts
What are the rules concerning airline passenger identification by TSA?
Although TSA refuses to publish all the rules they require passengers to follow at airport checkpoints, from what we can distill from TSA press releases, heavily-redacted information obtained via FOIA requests, TSA blog posts, and other information they publish on the Web, it's relatively clear that your boarding pass is all the documentation that's ever required for domestic flights. It seems that passengers are not required to present documentation of their identities to TSA staff, and that doing so is not a condition of crossing the TSA checkpoint.
TSA won't publish the rules we're supposed to follow. So what do we know about their I.D. policies?
According to a 2008 press release from TSA, TSA's airport passenger identification policy changed on June 21, 2008, but "showing I.D." was seemingly not required before and is seemingly not required now.
Prior to June 21, 2008
Before June 21, 2008, the situation seemed to be: In order to proceed to the "secure area" of an airport after being stopped at a TSA barricade, each passenger must submit to a pat-down and search for metallic objects using a hand-held metal detector, along with a hand-searching of any carry-on baggage, unless he presents documentation of his identity (i.e., unless he "shows I.D."), in which case he must submit only to a search for metallic objects on his person via walk-through metal detector and search of any carry-on baggage using an X-ray machine.
In other words: back then, showing I.D. simply got you a less-thorough search than you'd otherwise receive.
Now
Beginning June 21, 2008, the situation seems to be: Each passenger still has the option of showing I.D. and participating in the less-thorough searches (walk-through metal detector and X-raying of carry-ons), but the alternative now involves not only being thoroughly searched for dangerous items, but also identifying oneself verbally and participating in an interrogation intended to verify one's identity (via phone call from Homeland Security headquarters). Chillingly, it seems from the aforementioned TSA press release that this alternative also requires that someone be "cooperative with officers". What that cooperation entails is not defined.
Initial reports from TSA indicated that while people who claimed that their government-issued I.D. card was misplaced or stolen would be allowed to take the alternate route through the checkpoint (with the questioning), those who willfully refused to show their papers would be barred from proceeding. It's unclear whether or not this is still the case, or if it was ever the case, as TSA's initial press release seems, based on information received from TSA via Freedom of Information Act request, to have been inaccurate.
Summary of present situation and how to exploit it
In short, best we can tell, complying with TSA's "papers, please!" request is not necessary in order to fly domestically, it's simply a way to avoid the hassle of a thorough search for dangerous items, the hassle of providing convincing information in support of your claim to be who you say you are, and having to cooperate with TSA airport staff in any manner they see fit.
This is a great system for people who wish to do harm in airports or on airplanes, since getting a falsified identification document (i.e., a "fake I.D.") is relatively simple, and presentation of one almost guarantees that TSA staff will look at someone with less scrutiny, making it easier for him to take weapons, explosives, or incendiaries past the security checkpoint. Even if TSA could detect such fraud with perfect accuracy, using the Carnival Booth Algorithm, terrorists can probe an identity-based security system like TSA's by sending a number of people on harmless trips through the system, noting who is flagged for extra searches and who isn't. Then they can send those who aren't flagged -- people who almost certainly will get through security with a less-thorough search -- on terrorist missions.
Why does TSA want to identify us? What's wrong with them doing so?
This isn't about your safety. It's about control -- a few people's control over the rest of us.
The primary reason that TSA wants to know who you are is their desire to restrict people's movement based on Homeland Security blacklists. As did every government that has imposed totalitarian rules, TSA repeatedly tells us that their freedom-restricting policies are about safety, security, and rooting out subversives. Of course, this policy is really about extra-judicial punishment, allowing our executive branch of government to sidestep our judicial branch and punish someone for any reason or no reason at all. That's not the way things are supposed to work in the United States. It's ripe for abuse, and it's an infringement on our freedom.
For more on showing I.D. in the general sense, please see the Identity Project's "What's Wrong With Showing I.D.?" page.
Previous discussion on FlyerTalk
For more on TSA airport I.D. policies, see also the following FT threads (the first of which is what brought me to FlyerTalk for the first time):
- 2008-04-08: Article:No ID needed to board plane
- 2008-05-01: new info from TSA re: airlines requesting ID
- 2008-05-01: does the law/courts say ID is not required to...
- 2008-06-06: Starting June 21: Refuse to Show ID, No Entry to Sterile Area
- 2008-06-09: Actually, it looks like you can still fly without ID
- 2008-06-11: TSA blog addresses the new airport ID rule
- 2008-06-20: TSA says new airport ID rule is not about control
- 2008-06-22: No ID - Reports from the Field
- 2008-06-23: Forget ID after 6/21: expect invasive ?s including political affiliation
- 2008-11-19: Are you kidding me: No ID
- 2009-05-01: What is the ID Policy?
- 2009-05-27: TSA SOP re: airport ID requirements provided to IDP via FOIA request
- 2009-07-20: Flying with expired license
- 2009-07-28: Do kids with seats (age 2-10) need ID?
- 2009-08-04: Expired Drivers licence + Temporary One -Can I fly?
- 2009-08-10: Has anyone had a problem without photo ID at the gate of Jetblue at JFK and MCO?
- 2009-10-30: How many times do I show my BP and ID at the checkpoint?
- 2009-11-09: Can I travel with my expired drivers license as ID?
- 2009-11-16: Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
- 2009-11-21: What happens if an ID is lost?
- 2009-11-22: No longer using passport as ID for TSA - here's why
- 2009-11-28: Expired ID
- 2009-11-30: Damaged NY State License
- 2009-12-08: Flying with expired id or no id
- 2009-12-20: College ID or Expired License for Check-in ID
- 2010-01-29: Passport card not accepted by TSA yesterday
Last edited by pmocek; Feb 16, 2010 at 11:15 am