My question #2 was about the "other" IDs, meaning not the ones that were listed as "acceptable". We all hear anecdotal stories where a Costco ID was accepted. My question is whether there's some SOP or unofficial procedure that would allow that or if it's entirely up to the discretion of the TDC. (The specific "unacceptable" IDs that I showed were a CLEAR card, an expired work ID with picture, a current ID (with picture) from a residence, a Social Security card, and a few credit cards/FF cards.)

Also, there are other reasons why the identity verification process might fail. For example, for a person who is in the 18-20 range, there may simply be no data on that person in the databases used. Another is that the data may be wrong (e.g., in my case, addresses that are really second homes are often the "right answer" to security questions on credit reporting web sites that ask for "previous address"). Or the answer might be something the passenger has to look up: another favorite question is the amount of a mortgage payment, but that's something I never remember and have to look up. The STSO I spoke to in TPA said outright that if something like that happened or I "make a mistake", I wouldn't be allowed to fly. It sounds like you disagree.

I am allowed to disagree with that STSO, and he can disagree with me. It is a discressionary authority the STSO at that point has to chose to authorize or not authorize. The rule does not say "hey, you tried to help identify yourself, but we couldn't do it, so you get to proceed for trying". The STSO at that point would have to decide whether or not to allow you through the checkpoint (btw, this is what I kept trying to explain to BD... It's not a simple yes or no answer, and all she said of me wa that I was being elusive...ugh).

And besides the one I list and the one you list, there are other reasons why someone would fail to be able to have themselves identified.

As to question 2, there is no rule what is acceptable, other than the SOP wants us to use something with a picture if at all possible. Not that we have to accept what you present.

I want to follow up on this because this issue keeps coming up on multiple threads. Are you saying that there's a statement in the SOP that's basically saying "If the passenger doesn't have any of the listed officially-acceptable IDs, but does have sufficient alternate ID that the TDC is confident that the person is who he says he is, the passenger is allowed to proceed either with or without a secondary, depending on the judgement of the TDC/STSO"?

Not that it really matters but BD is not a she.

My choice of word "elusive" might have well been substituted for unclear, misunderstood or other words indicating lack of understanding because I did not understand what you have been saying and you seemed, to me, to be dancing around the questions.

Lastly, it is a pretty low day in America when a low level government employee can restrict a persons freedom of movement without due process.

You have described exactly why TSA is dangerous to the freedoms of United States citizens.

Sort of; I will not say exactly what is said, as tha is SSI. However, The authority to send someone to additional screening is at the discression of thr TSO/STSO.

With whom does the authority to not send someone to additional screening lie?

Sorry about the "she" thing! Really....I have no idea where that came from

i do not believe we restrict the freedom of movement. Our courts have said flying is not a right, and if you can not go by airplane, drive, take a bus, etc. N movment has been restricted, we will not prevent you from going where you want.

I'm very curious about one thing you said and want to ask a question - if it were a "high level" governmen employee making that decision, would you be ok with the same policy? And please define what is low level and high level ( use the GS system as most people are familiar with that, if you want).

But if you are really worried about TSA being able to tell people they can not travel by flight, then your concern should not be with ID. That is a very rare happening. It is QUIET common for our employees to tell people if they insist on bringing a prohibited item through the checkpoint, if they do not want check in it, mail it, throw it away, etc., they will not be allowed through the checkpoint, thus they can not fly (no I am not talking about DY...T. I am taking about a passenger who does not want to part with their prohibited item.)

And as a low level TSO I have always had this authority since I have worked here. I have seen many people insist they will carry their prohibited item with them on the plane after we tell them it can not go, and when they realize they are about to be edited from te checkpoint into the non-sterile side, they comply one way or another.

So don't worry about preventing people from flying because of no ID, ts more common to have to explain to people they can fly if they refuse to do something with their prohibited item.

As I clearly wrote, the TSO/STSO. Depends on who you deal with. Any time a superior takes over the situation (be it LTSO or STSO or TSM or hgher) they make the decision. There have been many people I have cleared through the checkpoint I have sent for additional screening because of the "ID" they have presented, and I'm just a TSO

Will answer your last two responses in this one.

I don't think anyone should have their liberty (freedom to travel) restricted without due process. TSA in fact engages in abuse of freedoms as I understand them. You may disagree but that does not change my opinion.

As far as a low level versus high level employee neither should have the authority to restrict a persons movement unless that person is arrested for a suspected crime.

I have no idea how GS equates to TSA grades, I would consider all the usual TSA employees I encounter at airport checkpoints as low level government employees.

I asked the question of who could decide to NOT send a person for additional screening because that question is very different to who CAN send a person for additional screening, and you did not answer that question.

As an example, you can make certain decisions but for some must refer the decision to higher authority. Sending someone for additional screening may take a lower decision authority than not sending that same person for additional screening. Understand the difference?

1. Is it TSA's policy to refrain from offering "passenger screening" (i.e., searching and questioning of a passenger) to a person if that person has ID on his or her person and refuses to show TSA that ID?
   "Yes, that is TSA policy" "no, that is not TSA policy," or "cannot answer; more information needed"
   Quote:

   Originally Posted by SATTSO

   1. Would ask you then, "ok, how can we identify you." decision wouldn't be made until that question is asked and or/answered.
   You never said, yes, no, or cannot answer. Would you please either answer the question, tell us that you cannot answer it, or tell us that you refuse to answer it? I suspect that the answer is 'no,' but I'd like you to confirm. Did you mean to say, "No, Phil, it is not our policy to refrain from offering "passenger screening" (i.e., searching and questioning of a passenger) to someone because he refused to show us ID that he has on his person."?
   
2. Previous rulings had stated that a passenger had the choice of not showing ID if they agreed to enhanced screening. Is that the case today?
   "Yes, that is the case today" "no, that is not the case today," or "cannot answer; more information needed"
   Quote:

   Originally Posted by SATTSO

   I'd not agree with your understanding o the previous rulings (as far as I understand how you stated your question). TSA was not ordered by the court to offer alternative screened. The court simply said TSA DOES at the time offer it.
   Boggie Dog and I didn't say that TSA was ordered to do anything. As you can see above, the preface to the question is, "previous rulings had stated that a passenger had the choice of not showing ID if they agreed to enhanced screening." I've seen no disagreement over that here. Is that still the case, or not? Is it still the case that if a passenger agrees to submit to your "enhanced screening," then showing ID is optional for him?
   
3. If I, a passenger, have a form of ID on my person and simply state that I do not wish to show ID will the process of alternative screening begin?
   "Yes, it will" "no, it will not," or "cannot answer; more information needed"
   Quote:

   Originally Posted by SATTSO

   3. Refer to answer 1
   Please, can you just answer the question? Your response to #1 is not an answer to this question (or to that one). I suspect that you cannot answer the question without more information, but you didn't say so. If that is the case, could you please let us know, and also tell us what other informaiton you need in order to be able to answer?

I don't know how to make this any simpler for you. Each of these questions can only be answered with 'yes' or 'no'. I understand that you may not be able to answer them without additional information, but you've not indicated that such is the case. If you don't want to answer, I'll stop asking. But I'm not willing to pretend that you've answered.

When someone is moving and you order him to stop, then tell him that he is not allowed to proceed, you don't consider that a restriction of his movement?

I didn't write the following, but its authors seem to know what they're talking about:

Does any of that seem inaccurate? Do you think those Southern sheriffs should have been allowed to interfere with interstate bus travel since those people still had the option of traveling by horse or on foot?

Please don't take offense at this; I don't mean to offend: I don't think you understand the problem. Look at it this way: How could a government stymie the efforts of political dissidents by barring people from traveling by air while carrying certain items? Such a policy would affect everyone who attempts to carry those items, not just the people who the government wans to target for ideological reasons. Now, consider how a government could stymie the efforts of political dissidents by barring people from traveling by air when they have been blacklisted. Simple, right? Just blacklist the dissidents.

Is it clearer now? We're looking at the big picture. I'm not particularly concerned about one TSA bag checker telling one person he cannot go on about his business. I'm concerned about our government making it impossible or impractical for certain people to move about the country and associate with each other. Your passenger identification policies are integral to this system of restricting movement using blacklists.

That is great. I like it when the TSA employees are quiet. Often they bark and yell about shoes and liquids to people standing in line.

I think this period of quietness is due to the inability to answer simple, direct questions in an intelligent manner.

D'oh!!

Gee whiz....go from the site for a day and your basicaly called a coward...

I post here alot, but some of you post more than I. Bu I do have a life outside of FT. Why on my time off from work, sometimes for fun I like to roll around in a pile of confiscated LGAs. It makes me happy.

Aren't you afraid it will explode?

No one called you a coward, by the way.

If you think I or someone else has done so then please report that to a moderator. Oh, and while reporting that please report yourself for calling another FT member a liar.

Lol it's not a complaint, just amazed that if you take a day off from FT some people see something in that other than "hey, he/she wasn't here today."

and he is a liar I pretty much proved that with his own post; I can't explain why he would change what he asked otherwise.

Posted elsewhere:

Explanation: You told us that once, while performing your duties as document checker, you met a passenger who declined to present identity credentials, and you refused to examine his boarding pass, effectively barring him from traveling because instead of telling you that his credentials were lost or stolen, he noted that he's not required to do so:

So Boggie Dog asked if it is TSA's policy to refrain from questioning and searching a passenger (prerequisites for boarding a flight) if that person has identity credentials on his person and refuses to present them. You hemmed and hawed, never answering this simple yes/no question with a yes or a no. You told us what would happen in that situation, but never once answered the question about TSA policy.

No.

Sure. In response to that question, you asked another question. You never answered the questions, though.

#1 - #3: yes, no, or cannot answer. Simple. Up to you. I'm losing interest.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. When someone asks you if something is the case or not, the only logical answers to that question are 'yes' or 'no'. Suspecting that you were unable to answer some of these questions but were having difficulty expressing that and instead insisting that you had answered them, I suggested how you might explain that you cannot answer.

I don't think so. If you do, you can prove hat you answered at least three of them: Quote the posts in which you said 'yes' or 'no' to the three questions above. If you think those aren't yes/no questions, please say so. If you can't answer them (because you need more information in order to do so, or for any other reason) then you must not have answered them.