That article sounds kind of old. How many years ago did they stop asking whether one's bag has been left unattended and whether one has accepted gifts/items from a stranger?

So it's been established that there is no directive from the government to airlines to deny boarding to a customer solely on the basis that he/she can not or will not show a government-issued photo ID. Does that mean that airlines are not allowed to deny boarding to someone solely on that basis, or is it simply left up to the discretion of the individual airlines?

The article does look old even though dated 2006. Also, the theory that there is no ID requirement to fly is an urban legend. While the ID requirement is not spelled out in the TSA's statutes or regulations, there are apparently a series of classified security directives which spell out this requirement. One individual has challenged this requirement and lost before the 9th Circuit. The decision is below in Gilmore v. Gonzales:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/A6AE4C85241C517C88257101007B72EB/$file/0415736.pdf?openelement

Gilmore appealed to the Supreme Court last month but the Supreme Court has not decided whether to hear the case. I suspect that it will not hear the case because the Court will generally hear such cases when their are conflicting decisions between different appellate circuits - which there are not here.

I could have spotted your post as coming from a foreign citizen quite easily...especially now learning that you're from the UK, where there are more than 4 million surveillance cameras in your nation, on nearly every public street corner...and your government is trying to institute a national ID program.

The question is certainly more of an abstract one...there's little danger in me showing my ID...but the thinker's question is why should I HAVE to? It does nothing for security (as everyone has pointed out), and it conditions people to acquiesce to the government's directives. Think there's no problem showing your ID when asked?

Please scan a copy of your driver's license or passport and e-mail it to me.

As for the Gilmore case, it wasn't exactly a "loss" - you can fly without ID, but by agreeing to fly as a selectee.

You're sorta correct and sorta not.

Yes, the feds have demanded that airlines [b]request/ask for/require[b] all their passengers to show ID.

But the Security Directives don't prohibit airlines from flying passengers without ID - as long as the airline is confident of identity and the passenger is given the full SSSS-style treatment. They just require that airlines hassle their customers for ID.

So the airlines get to blame the feds for a policy they believe in, while the feds and the airlines aren't blamed for grounding a person in case a passenger loses/refuses to show/etc their ID - the passenger can still fly.

ok guys, I understand your concerns about showing your ID. When I posted my replies I was more concerned about someone tracking me (and I know they do it already through my CC-card, Safeways card, frequent flyer card, etc) and it does not really make any difference to me showing this card as they anyway know already where I'll go, where I was last week, etc. And yes, I consider the zillion surveillance cameras are a breach of privacy, but how can you argue if they tell you it's good to help the war on terror

This dude is an .... Airline travel is not an explicit or implicit constitutional right. It's the purchase of a private service. So long as they do not discriminate in the category of people to whom they provide the service, there is no Constitutional issue here. The airlines could easily make a regulation that any person wishing to travel must produce government issued identification, and this would not be discriminatory so long as this did not exclude any group of people (it does not). For someone so sure about constitutionality and his rights, it might do him some good to a) learn what the hell he's talking about and b) stop for a second to consider the consequences of gratuitously being an ....

The guy isn't being an ....

If the airline wants to require an ID for travel for revenue protection, that is their right.

However, the government does not have the right to require ID to travel domestically. That is what this argument is about.

The government should get out of the commercial airline security industry.

Commercial passenger airline travel is not really "the purchase of a private service" when the door is guarded by federal security officers. It's not like Southwest (to take a random example) could say that effective tomorrow, its passengers will not be subject to TSA screening.

Commercial airline travel is a highly regulated industry from top to bottom--security screening, pilot and FA certification, dispatch, maintenance, traffic control, what activities passengers are and are not allowed to engage in when onboard an aircraft, etc. They are also in the interesting position of virtually being financed by the government these days via the PBGC, direct bailouts, loan guarantees, bankruptcy protection, etc.

There's really nothing "private" about air travel.

Did you know that the "security" checkpoints were run by the GOVERNMENT before you so smugly wrote that?

Did you know that the TSA doesn't require ID before you wrote that?

The USA PATRIOT ACT did more than just hit banks...it hit most any money transfer business. My wife's cousin in central PA was laid off from his job. So to help them out we sent him $500 via Western Union. Don't you know the WU agent (check cashing store) we went to demanded photo ID?!?! When I asked why the clerk said they had to collect ID information for all WU transactions. I looked over the WU form and the only thing I saw about ID (which I pointed out) is if the transaction exceeded $1000 but the clerk said "any amount" because it was their company policy under PATRIOT. Well, of course, she flipped out when I fished my passport out of my car! Turns out her computer has a form she fills in and it will take a state DL/ID or a passport but only NON-US passports! They didn't include USA in the list of countries! ...? She was literally stumped until I suggested she just use "UK" and be done with it!

The same cousin has some Coca-Cola stock certificates given as bonuses by his company (a soda distributor). I think there's a total of 100 shares or so. He went to a couple of brokerages in town and none of them will sell the stock for him. Because of the PATRIOT ACT and the requirement that financial institutions verify the identities of all parties opening new account, the brokerage firms use credit database services. Well his credit is kinda shoddy meaning he has a low credit score. As a result, none of the firms will establish an account and sell the stock for him! Now these are stock certificates in his name so as far as I can tell they are akin to travelers or cashiers checks! All they have to do is take the certificates, send them to the registrar to ensure they are valid, make the sale, deduct the commission and give him a check for the balance! Nope, the only thing they suggested is that he eith gift the stock to someone more creditworthy who also has sufficient ID to pass the PATRIOT test and have that person sell the stock and give him the money or he call Coke's transfer agent to see if they will sell the stock for him.

Does currency exchange exceeding 1,000 USD get hit too? I recall hearing that some are being asked to present government-issued ID and a SSN for foreign currency exchange valued at greater than 1,000 USD.

There was also some interest in having haraSSSSment at airports triggered by currency related transactions that exceeded a certain amount, but I don't know what came of that nonsense.

While we can debate whether the TSA should require an ID, its silly to keep claiming the TSA doesn't require an ID. Even the 9th Circuit (the most liberal appellate court in the country) has seen the classified secruity directives that require an ID and written about it in the Gilmore case. As FWAAA correctly points out, the TSA has also provided an out for those who don't have ID (for example, their dog ate their wallet). Those individuals can board the flights by going through SSSS screening -- perhaps super SSSS screening.

Anyway, what's the big deal about flashing an ID to a rent-a-guard who simply checks your ID against the ticket. That's far less intrusive that having to take off your shoes every time you go through the detectors!

What's to prevent some of the ID checks from eventually being a dragnet to check the ID against various other databases, some checks of which will certainly lead to detention and arrest on the basis of "mistaken" identity? Not really that much, when that's part of the government-desired end-state.

No, you don't. You just have to show a cheque card which showed the signature - at the discretion of the retailer.

Because a) "the war against terror" is the excuse for any old cack these days, b) it ID checking has practically no value in "the war against terror".

That's just the clerk or the specific agency misinterpreting or being overzealous, it's not the law. IME that sort of thing usually happens when they've just been slammed by regulatory authority for being excessively lax... Around where I live, people buy thousands of $ worth of money orders without ID, and no-one blinks an eyelid.