Unanswered questions from this thread for SATTSO:

1. Why didn't you allow the man past your barricade?
2. Did the man violate any rules? If so, which ones? Where can we read them?
3. Did you bar the man from proceeding because he did not tell you his ID was misplaced or stolen?
4. Do you think that his choosing not to show you what you wanted but were not entitled to see -- his identity credentials -- indicated that he would present a danger to other passengers on his flight?
5. Did the fact that he did not utter the words "I lost it" indicate that he was dangerous?
6. Had he -- metaphorically speaking -- bent over and kissed your feet, would you have continued to perform the procedure we pay you to perform instead of restricting the man's movement?
7. You did not describe the man refusing to undergo the identity verification process TSA claims its staff use when people do not present identity credentials, only him refusing to present identity credentials. Does it seem from this statement that I read yours correctly?
8. Was the man required to present those credentials to you in order to go on about his business?
9. Did you retaliate by prohibiting the man from crossing your barricade simply because his stated reason for not presenting identity credentials was his desire not to do so?
10. Had the situation been exactly the same, except for three words out of the man's mouth -- "I lost it" or "it was stolen" -- would you still have immediately infringed upon his right to travel?
11. Was there any specific security threat or any unlawful behavior in that case?
12. What, if anything, made you think this man was such a threat to transportation security that you should bar him from walking through the airport to the terminal from which he presumably arranged to be transported? Please don't reply by citing internal procedures you won't allow us to read, just tell us why you -- TSA -- felt it was appropriate to infringe upon that man's right to move from one place to another.

W-T-F. Phil lay off the pot dude.

You make it sound like you want people to kiss our @$$. This is crap imposed on by high-level bureaucrats, their rules... Don't want to show; Don't want to undergo the identity verifying secondary, Then don't fly. Simple as that.

You should know since you consented to undergo the secondary in ABQ until the video camera you had caused things to go awry.

SATTSO described a situation in which he refused to examine a passenger's boarding pass simply because the man refused to present identity credentials. He very clearly stated that he discontinued performing his duties upon the passenger's refusal to do something that the passenger was not required to do. This was not about safety or security, it was all about an agent of our government attempting to gain compliance from the public. "Papers, please!"

I've asked you multiple questions in this thread that you've yet to answer. Would you please do so?

1. When someone asks about potential trouble from TSA when traveling with damaged ID, I would expect your response to be, "No, you won't have any trouble from us, unless you consider answering a few questions and having you and your belongings thoroughly searched for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, to be trouble. You don't need to show us ID in the first place. Doing so is optional. It would just get you through our checkpoint with less scrutiny than we'll give you if you don't have it." That's the case, isn't it?
2. What do you mean by "the acceptable ID"? This thing that people have the option of presenting to you?
3. Of what significance are the things that "the acceptable ID" is required to have if passengers are not required to have "the acceptable ID" in the first place?
4. Do you think your agency clearly communicates the fact that passengers are not required to "show ID" at your checkpoints?

Regarding the ABQ incident: no comment.

Why was this person not offered alternative screening?

In other words, we don't kiss your @$$, you have to kiss ours....

How can you state that a person who wishes to not show ID refuses to verify identity by other means.

You have no substantiation for such a claim.

You have a lot of questions there Phil. Bit I think you have already chosen the answers you want to hear, and if I provide anything else, you will claim I haven't answered, as you always seem to do.

So I'll tell you what, you go ahead and post the answers to the questions, and I'll sign my name at the bottom, and you will be both happy and victorious!

besides, I have a busy day and will not be back till maybe late tonight, or tomorrow.

Bye, Phil.

Uh, because I told the short version of the story... I though it was self-evident. Notice I also didn't include everything he and I said to each other, either. Bye BD.

I haven't chosen anything. I don't know what the answers are. Will you please answer? You claim your action was not retaliatory, but from what you've said so far, it seems that your action was retaliatory. Now is your chance to explain.

Cite examples, please. TSA staff have a history of responding to questions without answering them, and I have repeatedly drawn attention to such.

It wasn't a story. You made a general statement of fact: that if someone refuses to show identity credentials, he obviously refuses to verify his identity by any other means. Boggie Dog didn't ask you about the time you showed a passenger who's the boss by refusing to allow him past your barricade after he showed you all the documentation he was required to show you, he asked you about your stated belief that someone's refusal to present identity credentials should be seen as that person's unwillingness to identify himself.

The way to do it is to sue like Gilmore did, not through individual actions; that just isn't going to produce change in this arena. Let the courts work it out. The policies need to change, and the courts are the best way to effect those changes.

I won't argue with that. However, Gilmore's suit would not have happened were it not for an individual action.

Until then, what to do about TSA staff who don't follow their existing policies (e.g., SATTSO)? Pretend that the policy is whatever a particular airport security guard says it is?

I would not have asked the question if the answer was self evident.

I also do not understand why a person is not given alternative screening if they do not wish to show ID. Doing so would be the most expedient thing to do in such cases.

What is TSA policy on this point?

It is time to re-sue, IMO.

The TSA's former position was that you can willfully decline to provide them with identification and be permitted to fly with the selectee designation.

The TSA's current position is that you cannot willfully decline to provide them with identification and be permitted to fly; if you lose or for some other reason so not have your ID on you, then they will work with you and attempt to verify your identity by other means. If you have identification with you and willfully decline to show it, my understanding of their position is that you are not permitted to fly, a change from their previous position articulated above. (If one does not have an ID with himself or herself, one is not considered to be willfully declining to present identification to the TSA even though the identification might have been willfully 'forgotten' at home).

Because Glimore rested on the premise that, so long as a person has the option to decline to present identification and still fly, albeit as a selectee, no legal problem arises. Given the TSA's change in position on this issue, my understanding is that the 'opt-out-equals-SSSS' logic of Glimore no longer applies since one can no longer simply 'opt out' and that therefore the issue now needs to be relitigated.

I have not seen anyone except you (so far) make a serious argument that the TSA's current policy still allows one to willfully decline to present ID and still fly. (In fact, the TSA website explicitly says exactly the contrary). May I ask what you believe the TSA's current position/rules/policies to be on this issue?

Right. It seems that at that time, verbally identifying yourself wasn't useful, and presenting credentials simply got you through with a walk through the magnetometer instead of a frisk, and an X-ray search of your bags instead of a hand-search of them. That's what happened the dozen or so times I flew without showing ID credentials before mid-2008.

Maybe. Do blog posts and press releases constitute notification of a government agency's official position? Since they publish conflicting information, relying on one particular announcement seems rather unwise. The latest authoritative source I've seen was the SOP manual provided to the Identity Project in May of 2009 (and dated June 30, 2008, a week after the date that their policy reportedly changed). As I quoted above, they found that "Rather than requiring people who don�t have or don�t choose to show government-issued ID credentials to execute affidavits stating who they are under penalty of perjury, the TSA procedures manual requires that such people be allowed to proceed through secondary screening as �selectees�, and specifically directs screeners and other TSA staff not to make any attempt to detain or delay them."

I've since requested a copy of their screening management operating procedures manual under FOIA, and they've stalled for over a year.

So while there's plenty of hearsay, we don't really know what their policy is. It would be nice if people would test the system, hopefully documenting their experience with photo and video.

I didn't intend to make that argument. I asked TSA staff who are participating in this discussion to explain, but none of them has done so.

I don't know. I would guess that their policy is similar to that which was described in the June, 2008, press release, but we know for sure that this was not the case a week later (unless they violated FOIA when providing that procedures manual).Until they publish their rules and policies, we can only guess.

And remember that positions, rules, and policies are all different. The only credible information about this I've seen was the description of their operating procedures, not rules. Quoting that IDP announcement again: "These are �procedures�, mind you. Not policies. Not regulations. Not laws. Congress has never debated or approved any of this, nor has any judge or jury. The excerpts from the TSA manual that we received gave little hint of how much �discretion� the TSA thinks it has, or gives its minions at individual airports or checkpoints, to use �nonstandard� procedures if they feel like it."

That didn't go too well . . .

What usually happens to you when you fly without ID?

An agency's procedures are based on their policies (or might be said to define what the agency policy is looking from the inside out). An agency's policies and procedures with respect to a given matter is likely to reflect said agency's position on said matter. Oftentimes, an agency's position will be that of the president.

Rules, regulations and laws refer to specific things (acts, CFR, etc), so I agree those terms are better left out of it. But procedure, position and policy seem to be so interrelated that I believe using them interchangibly does not confuse the discussion.

I haven't done so since early 2008. Before that time, I was diverted out of the regular line and searched more thoroughly than the people who presented credentials. One of the Primeflight guys at MCI wouldn't let me through until I went back to the ticket counter to have them print a boarding pass for me. He was rude and misinformed, refused to tell me his name, and hid his badge. That was around 2005-2006.