FWIW Spiff, you gave that great idea awhile ago. Outside of the taxes on the airfares, I haven't spent any money at DEN since.

^ ^

Shoe Carnival airports get no concession revenue from me!

Doppy is right (of course).

Hey - not everyone drives. :rolleyes:

That's what they want you to think ;)

I presented a government issued photo ID and my boarding pass. That's precisely what they ask for. I don't consider that giving anyone a hard time. On the contrary, when they refuse to accept my government issued photo ID, they're giving me a hard time.

I don't agree with these regulations, but I don't have anything against the ID checkers who unfortunately can't get a better job. But I'm still not going to compromise my privacy. You've been to travel security briefings. The government tells me that if I don't protect my privacy I could end up victimized, kidnapped or killed. They even give examples of people who are too flippant being victimized, kidnapped or killed. And yet other arms of government tells me that I should and must be flippant by giving my ID out to anyone who wants it, or carrying around a passport that will let people a couple dozen feet find out that I'm an American, and download my name, photo, date and place of birth and passport number.

If stopped by a cop without probable cause, I won't show anything unless the law requires otherwise. If it does require the showing of ID, my library card or other similar ID card (with a name and photo, nothing else) will be what I show. Unless I'm driving, of course. Fortunately the wet dreams of the pro-totalitarian government lobby haven't come true yet - we're not required to carry around ID cards at all time and present them every two seconds.

Unless the ID checkers are going to give me the keys to a car, I don't see why I need a drivers license to pass them. And furthermore, the TSA does not either because it doesn't require drivers licenses to fly, or even recommend them.

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on drivers licenses. (1) Being licensed to drive says nothing about whether you're a terrorist, criminal, or (really) even a good driver. (2) This is probably the most commonly forged identification document. (3) Nobody, not even the ID checkers you admit are poorly paid, knows what the drivers licenses for more than a couple of states are supposed to look like, nor are they trained to spot a fake.

So you're saying you would present your Library of Congress card to a police officer (for other than a traffic-related incident requiring presentation of a driver's license) and expect the officer to accept it without asking for another form of ID? Hmmmm. OK. If you honestly believe that, then I won't pop your little bubble.

As a matter of fact, this is my area of expertise. Presenting your driver's license or passport at an airport security checkpoint does not compromise your safety or security. How ridiculous. If you truly believe this, then I am highly disappointed in you.

The rationale in the travel security briefings is that you don't single yourself out once inside a foreign country. I seriously challenge your notion that your travel security officer instructed you not to show your driver's license/passport at a security checkpoint. And you and I both know that if you were to ask that question during the briefing, they would laugh you right out of the room.

By the way, how condescending of you to think that people who work these jobs couldn't get a better one. How grand of you to even acknowledge them as people, your highness.

So who said anything about probable cause? I'm talking about non-traffic related incidents because it should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that if you are stopped for a traffic-related matter by a police officer, he's going to want to see a driver's license.

The issue is not a driver's license. I also mentioned passports. A Library of Congress card, on the other hand, is not the same thing. But as my esteemed collegue n5667 pointed out, if you don't satisfy the ticket reader with a proper form of ID, you'll be designated as a selectee, and we will screen you accordingly.

rsvp
 

Still waiting for your soliloquy on my post.

Speaking of driver's licenses, if you have one of these: http://kellie.fotopic.net/p8191996.html (real, but not mine), is that okay? It is a government issued photo ID. Is it better than a LOC reader's card? :D

Given that a LOC reader's card requires a driver's license, a non-driver state ID, or a passport, and is a government issued photo ID, what's wrong with it?

Unlike a driver's license, the LOC card is actually "marketed" as an ID card.

Maybe it doesn't "compromise your safety or security" directly, but everytime you remove your DL from your wallet, you increase the risk of losing it. That would really make the return trip, well, SSSS*ck. Using a LOC reader's card or other non-vital ID reduces this risk (esp. if you're renting a car at the dest).

As I mentioned above under most circumstances we're not required to show ID at all. This isn't East Germany yet.

What do you think a cop is going to do in such a situation? There's no law requiring us to carry ID at all, so it's not like he could arrest me for not have a drivers license when I'm walking down the street. If I didn't drink I wouldn't carry my license around with me unless I was driving.

Sure, he could ask for more, but that doesn't mean I have to give it over. Cops ask people if they can search their cars all the time, but you're not required to give consent. Would you voluntarily let a cop tear through your car?

It has my name, address, date of birth and other identifying information. That sets me up for identity theft or worse, doesn't it? Do you just have complete faith in these people? Such faith would seem to be misplaced since you used to investigate people with high level security clearances who weren't trustworthy. I don't know why someone with that kind of background would trust a poorly paid ID checker who has had little or no background investigation.

Or do you think that nothing bad can happen from people knowing all of these details? The incidence of identity theft would seem to contradict this claim. And we certainly know that airports are used for intel collection purposes.

The DOJ says that to thwart identity theft personal information should be on a "need to know" basis. What need does the ID checker have to know my address, DOB and ID number?

Do you routinely give people who have no need to know personal information about you?

Actually they tell you to start before you even leave your house - think about what you're wearing, for example. If you've been wearing your "HUMINT Collector of the Year award winner" jacket at the airport and on the plane, it's a little too late to take it off when you land at your destination.

Furthermore, the travel security brief includes an entirely domestic scenario, because domestic travel is not risk-free.

As another example, hotels, even in the US, train staff members to write people's room numbers down on the key card envelope and point to it, rather than announce it. Saying it out loud gives away the information to people without a need to know, and plenty of women have ended up raped as a result.

Travel security briefings always tell you not to give out your hotel room number (intentionally, by letting someone overhear it, or by letting allowing surveillance of you). Is that "address" much different than my home address? The drivers license instance is even worse because the ID checker would find the address of a home that would be unoccupied (aiding in theft), or find out where I live (if I were personally targeted).

Haven't you ever seen Home Alone? The writers of that movie didn't invent the "rob them while they're on vacation" ploy: that's a thing that happens in the real world.

That specific instance wasn't discussed; I didn't claim it was. It fell under the "don't give out personal information to people who don't need to know it" heading.

Stuff that most would think is even more benign, like what magazines you read, was discussed, however. Surely if one has to worry about something like that then unecessarily giving people personal details would be covered, no?

Well as far as I know those jobs don't pay a living wage. It seems to me that people generally don't take as a first job those which do not pay a living wage. I've previously worked on a court case to help people get a living wage. The plantiffs' stories were typically along the lines of, "neither this job, nor other ones I could get, pay enough for me to feed my family."

By the way, you keep insinuating that I'm a rude jerk to these people. I'm pleasant and polite with everyone I deal with. As long as I get the same in return, things stay that way.

Without probable cause there's no law that requires one to have or show ID at all. With the possible exception of Nevada (I forget the specifics of that case), no other state has a law that requires you to present ID upon demand unless there's cause, as far as I know.

If a cop just walks up to you on the street and demands ID for no reason a LOC card should be more than enough because, by law, you're not required to produce any ID at all. If the requirement is zero and you present something more than that, you've gone above and beyond the requirement.

Passports are my preferred backup because they have less identifying information. However people above mentioned that they've been rejected when they attempted to use a passport as ID, and I know people to whom this has happened as well.

But as I mentioned in the OP this was precisely the problem - they wouldn't let me pass without a drivers license. I offered to speak to their supervisor, the TSA, or get the selectee treatment, all of which were refused.

By the way, you sound just like a supervisor who got all upset at me because I wanted to file a complaint because I wasn't allowed to keep my bags in sight when I got secondaried. (The screener immediately got nasty and yelled at me that I had to walk over to him immediately. I calmly and politely explained that I wanted to keep an eye on my bags, which I wouldn't have been able to see from where he wanted me to go. He would have nothing of it. I was in a glass enclosed lane, so it's not like I could go anywhere. I also keep my cool because I think a lot of people with short tempers like this guy are just trying to trap people into getting into an argument or worse so they can threaten or punish them.)

The super who came over with the complaint form demanded my ID so he could photocopy it. Couldn't quite explain why that was necessary. He gave me the whole, "if a cop stops you..." routine when I gave him my LOC card. Why the heck should I let him photocopy my drivers license and keep that information? He had no legitimate need for that information, and could only use it for illegal or punitive means. Would you hand over your LOC card or license for unecessary photocopying in this situation?

30 seconds of Google news searching:

Here the people had guns stolen (obviously problematic), but also all of the ingredients necessary to add identity theft on top of burglary.
Also note that as you read these stories the tips from the cops all boil down to the same thing - don't let anyone except close friends know you're going away.

Also the FBI says that burglarizes are common:
And crooks don't just bust into the first house they see, they put a lot time, effort and planning into it. So maybe they'd be interested in getting a list of people who won't be home to help out? They certainly don't sound lazy or flippant about their "jobs."

They're the front-line representative who we interact with. It doesn't seem unreasonable to insist that they follow the published policy. It's not my fault if the airlines can't seem to train ID checkers properly about their own policies regarding photo ID.

Authoritarian tendencies.

Or, they think of the driver's license as a de facto national ID card. That's actually pretty accurate -- the driver's license is effectively a national ID card, even though it's politically incorrect to call it a national ID (because that would require admitting that we're heading in the direction of the very "papers, please" tendencies that we used to criticize the USSR for).

Oh lord, the drama, the drama! :rolleyes:

"Fair enough. But the person at the checkpoint entrance is the lowest person on the totem pole. That individual has absolutely no authority to deviate from his or her instructions. A more productive form of protest would be to lobby Congress for a more reasonable policy rather than to pick on some poor schmuck doing a job."

Agreed, but it's so much easier to piss and moan on a website that requires no real personal investment.

My favorite refusal is the NEXUS-land card.

I have one. It's a jointly issued card (CBP and Customs Canada). As many of you are aware, you have to pass a backgrounder and give up biometrics to get it. I had some twink at EWR refuse the thing. He got the LOC card as a backup.

It's stupid. To Bart's point--the frontline checkers bear the brunt of the abuse because they are a point of interaction. If they don't know the rules, with all due respect, screw 'em.