Is It Illegal To Travel Under A False Name?
 

I was just curious about this. I know that it would raise all kinds of flags with various government agencies if you were to travel under a name that was not yours. But the question is, is it illegal to do so? If it is, does anyone know the statute or regulation that covers it?

This would certainly seem to depend on what aspect of travel that one is thinking about (the "Soundproof Airport Motel" that used to be across Cicero Avenue from MDW comes to mind). Are you talking about paying cash and traveling with a Chicken Inspector badge?

In terms of being required to identify oneself, Gilmore v. Ashcroft is still kicking around. Nothing new in PACER when I checked a week and a half ago, but as far as the airlines are concerned, if it's not law, it will become "policy," so I think you'd be stuck with carrying fake ID.

No criminal intent = No Crime. But (at least as far as air, train, or bus transportation) you would presumably have to make or obtain bogus government-issued ID and you would run afoul of various federal and state laws.

As far as I know, you can certainly travel domestically under a false name. You do NOT have to have ID to travel; stating you do not have ID will result in a thorough search but nothing more.

Is It Illegal To Travel Under A False Name?

It shouldn't be. Good luck, Gilmore!!!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

In the US, as in other English common law countries, you can call yourself anything you want. Contrary to popular belief. You do not need a court order or anything.

However, you cannot be doing this to accomplish any fraud.

You can even get your passport or driver's license issued in any name, believe it or not. You just need to sign an affidavit saying that this is the name you go by.

Traveling under a different name is perfectly legal. Nothing false about it if that is what you call yourself. And you may have several names at the same time if you wish.

But then you are answering a question different from the one that was asked. If this is a name you really go by, then it isn't a "false name." And while I agree that you can go by any name you like, I don't think any airline will let you board if the name on your ticket is not the name on your ID.

Many persons named William or Richard do it every day. Right, Bill and Dick? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

The Robert / Bobby issue is one more example of discrimination in the application of airport security checks. People with foreign nicknames that are extremely common but unfamiliar to the insular TSA line personnel have trouble when the names don't match exactly. Robert travelling as Bobby goes right on through.

A relative of mine had to change his name legally to his nickname from his given name because of the continual recurrence of this dilemma. Half of his official paperwork was in his given name and the other half in his nickname.

Let's take it a step further. Giving a false name is a lie but it is a lie forced upon the passenger who really wants to fly anonymously. The only reason one would give a false name when the intent was not criminal (to establish that Fred was in New York when he wasn't) is because the airlines have this spot on their reservation form that says "Passenger Name" that they must fill out.

The way (I think) this would work would be for the airlines to either not even ask a name or honor the request for one to fly anonymously. You give your name voluntarily if you want to participate in a loyalty program.

To me the issue is whether or not I want to reveal my identity, not whether or not I want to use a false name--and I believe I should not have to reveal my identity if I choose not to. Freedom of mobility is implied by the constitution and has been an inherent in our history from the moment the settlers began pushing back the frontier in Salem.

Of course that implies no FF miles or status! The price we pay for freedom and privacy is a high one on many fronts!


[This message has been edited by pushback (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

Or, my decision to share my identity with the airline is my own. The federal government should not force me to do so and they should not consider themselves welcome to that information. It is none of their godd@mn business who, how, when, where or why I fly.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

The mention of Gilmore was a bit cryptic, so here is the link for anyone who wants to follow up.

http://www.freetotravel.org/legal.html

John Gilmore filed a lawsuit on July 18, 2002 against United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, the heads of the Federal Aviation Administration, the new Transportation Security Administration, FBI, the new Homeland Security agency and also the Attorney General. He sued "because he believes persons have a right to travel by air without the government requiring that they relinquish their anonymity. No security threat is as important as the threat to American society caused by erosion of the right to travel, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the right to exercise First Amendment rights anonymously." (from Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief)

So what names do people like P.Diddy, 50-cent, Cher, Beyonce, Snoop Dawg, etc. travel under?

The legal name they were born with or changed to.

On "Airline" Monday night there was a segment with a SW agent helping some fans determine whether Eminem was flying through LAX (On Southwest, I assume) on that particular day. She commented that "we know he can't travel under an assumed name" and with the boys' help looked up the name Marshall Mathers (but struck out).

"Rich and famous rapper/superstar"

What if your name is Bin Laden, Osama? Then should the powers that be in the local, state, and federal governments be entitled to know that you have some upcoming air travel?

After 9/11, it is Uncle Sam's business who, how, when, where, and maybe why you fly. Whether they make good use of that information, of course, is an entirely different question.

As long as someone named Osama Bin Laden passes through the metal detector and has his carryon bags, if any, x-rayed, then I don't give a d@mn if he sits next to me on the plane.

It is still none of the government's business!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I agree with Spiff almost completely. The only point we would differ on is the seating arrangement! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

The government has no need or right to demand the who, what, why, etc. Nor do they even have any business knowing why I want to remain anonymous. I do not believe that the events of 9/11 gives the government license to encroach upon our civil liberties one iota.

[This message has been edited by pushback (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

Here's what I mean: A "false name" meaning the name not on your birth certificate, but rather the name you decide to call yourself, perhaps one day on the way to the airport.

They may not let you board but the question is "is it illegal" and my answer is "no it's not illegal."

Given your well-documented lack of faith in the current transportation security infrastructure -- to be more specific, the chances of your favorite TSA official intercepting a real threat at the metal detector -- I find your statement preposterous. As you well know, the metal detector personnel would likely be busy harassing travelers like yourself for having metallic shoes while Mr. Bin Laden transversed the security checkpoint unmolested. We might as well give Uncle Sam a fighting chance of success by affording him the information necessary to red flag the real threats.

We all like our privacy, but the days of flying under an umbrella of anonymity are long gone. And justifiably so. I have no problem with the government knowing when and where I am flying, although I hope and expect that they use the information at their disposal effectively.


[This message has been edited by cAAl (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

Definitely not!

Shall we positively identify every person just before they get behind the wheel of a car and furthermore require them to divulge their exact driving route? Such a measure would "give Uncle Sam a fighting chance of success by affording him the information necessary to red flag the real threats." You never know when someone might decide to pack a truck full of explosives and detonate it in front of a building.

Better yet, shall we positively identify every person as they leave their house and require them to divulge their planned activities for the day? Such a measure would "give Uncle Sam a fighting chance of success by affording him the information necessary to red flag the real threats." After all, you never know when someone might decide to set off a bomb in a park.

There are some battles that the government should be forced to fight with one hand tied behind its back, because when both hands are free, the demonstrated history of abuse of power and destruction of civil liberties far outweighs any positives that would be gained if we were to "give Uncle Sam a fighting chance of success by affording him the information necessary to red flag the real threats."

By the way, it's not "lack of faith", it's pure contempt. Please get it right.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

As humans, we adapt and we very quickly forget. It is simply innate in us. A visible example is the encroachment on the "real estate" commonly known as your television screen. Not too long ago when you watched a program on TV you saw only the program, albeit it interrupted by commercials. Then, translucent logos appeared in the corner for brief periods. The marketing geniuses, knowing exactly how long they needed to wait for acceptance and adaptation before pushing the line then put the logo there permanently. From there the logos, over time, lost the translucence and then became animated. Now we have animated pop-ups with sound tossed in our face. Who’s complaining? For how long?

This is an example of how our short memories and ability to adapt is used against us.

Spiff's examples show a similar progression. As ridiculous as his examples may seem they are not outside the realm of eventual reality. Once we, as humans, accept one encroachment and we learn to live with it as its sting fades into acceptance. Like the advertisers, the government is well aware of human nature, knowing how far and how fast they can push the line of encroachment and under what circumstances.

As tragic as 9/11 was it was a boon for those with the agenda to strip us of our civil liberties and we, as a whole, have accepted it with few questioning the government’s actions or motives. It is important that all such attacks on our civil liberties being intensely questioned and scrutinized. Once a liberty has been sacrificed it never comes back on its own. It must be fought for to be recovered; a task much more formidable than standing ones ground and not allowing it to be sacrificed to begin with.

The logical conclusion of Spiff’s rant above would likely me micro-chipping our children at birth. Seems ridiculous, even preposterous to imagine such an encroachment now but that’s where those geniuses come in. If history is our guide, the encroachment will be methodical and deliberate. It will be under the guise of “our own protection”. Scenarios that come to mind are a rash of kidnappings requiring the government step in to protect our children. Who could argue with keeping our children safe?

No, I believe there must be another way to handle this without defying the dream of our founding fathers. We have granted absolute authority without probable cause to TSA and others. How does that protect our free nation? Instead of being attacked from without we are being attacked from within.

And bin Laden wears a watermelon smile the whole time.

[This message has been edited by pushback (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

Spiff: Take a look at your wallet. I presume you have a driver's license or some other form of government-issued identification. What are you doing on April 15? Presumably you will be providing the government with even more personal information in your tax return. I don't want to belabor the point, but the government already knows a whole lot about you. So aside from the general undercurrent of anarchy that lurks beneath each of your anti-government rants, pray tell what is so horrific about the government having the means to access information about your air travel plans? What tangible harm will you suffer if Washington discovers that you are planning on flying AA #1234 from XXX-YYY next week?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly a big fan of government. But I see no real downside in letting the government know some very basic details about my air travel plans. I've said it before: this is hardly the stuff of Orwell. And to the extent that there is a chance of a tangible security benefit, the scales tip in favor of this de minimis intelligence opportunity. Cause we all know what the catastrophic results of an air security breakdown can be.

You loudly proclaim the government's blindness and ineptitude when it comes to air transportation security measures. Why do you want to handicap them even further?

[Exit stage left for me. I suspect you and I are doomed to disagree.]

[This message has been edited by cAAl (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

And to prevent further attacks like, for example, the Oklahoma bombing, it seems appropriate to place cameras in every room of every building. That would certainly have greatly reduce the probably of success by the perpatrators.

If pre-flight screening is effective then knowing someone's name is not going to make the flight any safer. And if it's not effective, it's still not going to improve safety. It might help in some other preceived need, but it won't make flights any safer.

To further illustrate your point, I can see the public service announcements already:

"Stop all potential terrorists tomorrow. Abort all fetuses today." http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Mar 11, 2004).]

Har har har. Here's something fun you can try. Transfer money from one bank account to another $9,999 dollars at a time.

Sadly, that is not how it always works out. If one is unaware that they are violating a law, they could still face prosecution. Ignorance of the law would imply that one does not have an intent to violate said law since they are, by definition, ignorant of the law. However, if they inadvertently violate a law, prosecution is still a very real possibility.

All crimes require an actus reas (guilty act), not all of them require a mens reas (guilty mind).

1. Why would Eminem fly Southwest?

2. What she did is against airline policy, possibly against the law, and is also a great way to make sure that no one famous (or who merely values their privacy) flies your airline.

Oh really? Then all my airline tickets are issued in a false name, as are my passport, my driver's license, and my credit cards. I guess that's really pynchonesque of me, although I suspect that about half the people on any given flight also live their lives under false names.

Good point. I hadn't realized that air travel is the only way terrorists can kill people. As long as we stop people with funny foreign names from getting on planes, and we put thousands of rifle-toting dudes in airport terminals, we will be safe.

Yours is the good point. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif Since terrorists are capable of more than one mechanism of attack, why even bother with any preventive air security measures at all? The same myopic analysis could be applied to any danger. For example, cancer isn't the only cause of death. So why bother to try to fight it at all?

They travel under Sean Combs, Curtis Jackson, Cherilyn LaPierre, Beyoncé Knowles, and Cordozar Broadus.

:-)

how do you go about doing this? i would like to do this

You are mistaking a dynamic threat for a static one. Unless you are a Manichaean, morbidity does not adaptively deploy its resources to the path of least resistance; terrorism does. Clamping down on air travel and young Muslim males makes about as much sense as stationing the city's entire police force at the bank that was robbed yesterday. The goal of thieves is taking money, and their methods are flexible; the goal of terrorists is killing people and inciting panic, and their methods, likewise, are flexible. Terrorists have no more attachment to air travel than thieves have to a bank they robbed last week. Turning our air transportation system into an armed camp, because that's where the terrorists hit last time, is idiotic as far as security, but works pretty well as theatre and collective delusion.

Not so, for a U.S. passport. I had a friend who had done a name change without a court order and the S.F. passport office wouldn't issue a passport without proof that the name had been in use for at least 5 years -- an expired credit card, etc. (as if we all save those!).

(Edited for spelling)


[This message has been edited by RichardInSF (edited Mar 13, 2004).]

Alex Salmond tried to fly as Captain Kirk:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-34442262

Being discussed in the UK Forum already. Not illegal but against BA's contract of carriage - unless prior permission is sought in which case it's fine. Certain people regularly do it.

Dredging up an 11 year thread to respond to is frowned on here on FT.

As this is a very old thread and the recent topic is under discussion in another forum, we'll close this now. Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.