Always love it when someone trots out the old I have nothing to hide argument. :rolleyes: I guess you won't mind me coming over tomorrow and searching your car and then the next day searching your house since you have nothing to hide and no expectation of privacy.

Because I do have something to hide. It is a private life, you shmuck. Confidential information, secrets, and just stuff that is none of your business because it is private.

Seriously, having something to hide isn't something bad, or a sign of evil or terrorism, it is called "I believe certain things are only the business of me, myself, and I unless I tell others by choice," A KEYSTONE OF PRIVACY.

And unless I've suddenly become as dense as a Twinkie, you have stuff to hide too, so the point is moot.

Well said and well argued, PTravel. I agree with you 100%. My way of expressing it is that the only rights you have are the ones you exercise.

Could you PM me your phone number? I may need it at some point!

In which case, the federal government should have absolutely no say - security should be up to said private entities.

You won't mind if I come by and toss your house, eh? Or your car as you commute to work?

LOL. Security guards are "authority"? I have no problem with authority--if you ARE authority. I will submit to any legal request from a person who possesses the proper authority to make the request. TSO's are NOT authority and while they may possess the authority to ASK, they do not possess the authority to force compliance.

Were you being a jerk for asking why in the first place? He's allowed to see your boarding pass so he can easily find out where you're going. Why bother picking a fight. Do you have that little to do in the run of your week?

Why does a TSA employee (screener or BDO) need to find out (easily or otherwise) where the OP was going? :rolleyes: What possible bearing could that have on the TSA's role of keeping weapons etc off aircraft?

Random check, my @ss! Random show of "authoritah" is more like it. :td:

And the reason the TS"O" needs to see ID is so he can easily push this pathetic airport game further towards a "papers please" society?
It's not a TS"O"'s business, but even if it were, how does any TS"O" know where I'm going by, even at the legal checkpoint TDC :rolleyes: "inspection" of my BP? Direct flights are a rarity in my itineraries (and for that of most pax at medium sized airports), IRROPS with different routings are frequent, and I have copies of my old BP's still with me.

Does it ever occur to you as you post the facile drivel you put up here, that despite the significant spectrum of opinions found, you are the only one with the perspective that throwing away our bothersome constitutional rights and TSA's constitutional obligations would make your travel week that much more efficient?

^^^^^

The paper check does nothing to improve security. Just going through motions does not equal work and the document check is nothing but kabuki theater.

Devil's Advocate here.

Your two statements are contradictory. If the "procedures being applied" include roving or gate screening, the TSA is arguably permitted to do so.

The law is vaguely worded, either intentionally or out of sheer incompetence. By running the two conditions (enter sterile area & board aircraft) together in a single clause, different interpretations are possible and inevitable. Which is why a court case is needed to clarify.

He is not allowed to see your boarding pass. There is only one place where your boarding pass must be produced, and that's at the ID check as you enter the checkpoint. Once you have through the checkpoint and been cleared of possession of weapons or explosives, TSA's ability to demand anything from you ends.

That language doesn't give TSA carte blanc to ignore the Constitution. The courts have construed the purpose of the initial checkpoint: checking ID (which isn't needed anyway, according TSA's own procedures), and clearing the passenger of weapons, explosives and incendiaries. The Fourth Amendment isn't suspended in the sterile area.

Laws may be unconstitutional in one of two ways: "on its face," or "as applied." This CFR isn't unconstitutional on its face. It is unconstitutional as applied if TSA construes it as allowing them to engage in unlawful searches and seizures.

I don't think it's worded vaguely, but I agree that it would be ago idea to allow a court to construe it.

Yes - and I didn't even read your actual post.