|
Here's the Problem
Lots of names are similar....not only John Smith, but also Alberto Gonsalez. Frequently you will find 35 people named Alberto Gonzalez who were all about the same age and live in the same city. So, the birth date is another, more unique, feature.
The Constitution only guarantees the right to travel, not the right to fly or ride Amtrak. If you object, walking may be your best option, as long as you avoid looking like a vagrant. |
Originally Posted by Reindeerflame
The Constitution only guarantees the right to travel, not the right to fly or ride Amtrak. If you object, walking may be your best option, as long as you avoid looking like a vagrant.
Congress is already talking about laws that would make it harder to get an ID card that was acceptable for airport screening purposes -- I can imagine the day that you wouldn't be allowed to fly if, for example, the pre-flight check turned up that you had unpaid parking tickets. Is that REALLY what you mean by "freedom to travel?" |
Originally Posted by RichardInSF
Guaranteeing the right to travel is meaningless if it is limited to walking, just like freedom of the press would be meaningless if the government could require that you had to go to the printing plant to get the newspaper.
|
Originally Posted by clarence5ybr
I've read and heard from a lot of people upset when children or others (nuns, for example) get SSSSd. While I certainly don't agree with many of the TSA's ideas, I don't think children (or nuns) should be exempted from searches.
If someone is insane enough to believe that killing themselves and potentially thousands of other people in an attack is the right thing to do/will make them an honored martyr/etc., do you think they would really hesitate to use their own child to carry a bomb onto a plane if they knew children were expempt from searches? (As for nuns, there are costume shops in every city where you can rent a nun's habit--do you think a female terrorist wouldn't dress in a rented nun's habit to avoid being SSSSd?) Ask someone who works 'loss prevention' from a retail operation, and you'll find it's quite a common tactic for adult shoplifters to use childern as "accomplices"--bring your six-year-old child into the store with you, shove the product under junior's jacket, and then if junior gets caught, it looks like a six-year-old did it, and who's going to prosecute a six-year-old for shoplifting? (The adults get caught on camera shoving the items under the child's jacket/shirt, which is how retail security people are well aware of this tactic). Terrorists are people who are so deluded that they think what they are doing is right. If someone is that crazy, what is there to stop them from putting a bomb in their own child's backpack? Nothing that I can think of. If they know it will make the carry-on with bomb exempt from additional screening because it's being carried by a child, this will inspire them to go this route. Again, I'm not trying to defend every TSA policy, but I don't think SSSSing children is stupid. |
Originally Posted by RichardInSF
Guaranteeing the right to travel is meaningless if it is limited to walking, just like freedom of the press would be meaningless if the government could require that you had to go to the printing plant to get the newspaper.
Congress is already talking about laws that would make it harder to get an ID card that was acceptable for airport screening purposes -- I can imagine the day that you wouldn't be allowed to fly if, for example, the pre-flight check turned up that you had unpaid parking tickets. Is that REALLY what you mean by "freedom to travel?" And yes, people have no business having uncleared parking tickets. Advocating on behalf of the irresponsible simply makes society less functional. |
Originally Posted by yogi
For the reasons you state I did not think it was stupid or that they should be exempt, but it is just not an optimal use of resouces. All our other packs and plenty of other people got through with less inspection as a result. As far as I know a family of US born citizens traveling together, one of which is a frequent flyer on that airline does not AT ALL match the profile of likely terrorists who are going to try to take over a plane. When presented with the all that information (based on our boarding passes, appearance and ID's) the TSA agent realized that it was a waste of time. Better use of the available information would provide better targeting.
|
Originally Posted by da_guy
......Amazing to me how much hatred of the TSA there is on FT. You all ***** and whine but never offer alternatives. Exactly what should they do? You don't like showing ID. You don't like giving DOB. You don;t like pat-downs. You don't like taking off your shoes. You don't like that they make you wait in line to go through.
So what is the alternative? Do we all just get on a plane like we do on a bus and hope for the best? LAX |
Originally Posted by da_guy
Amazing to me how much hatred of the TSA there is on FT. You all ***** and whine but never offer alternatives. Exactly what should they do? You don't like showing ID. You don't like giving DOB. You don;t like pat-downs. You don't like taking off your shoes. You don't like that they make you wait in line to go through.
So what is the alternative? Do we all just get on a plane like we do on a bus and hope for the best? As for the searching of children etc, we should never forget the story of the man who was travelling with his girlfriend (then pregnant with his child) on holiday to Israel. He didn't manage to get tickets for both of them on the same flight, so they were booked on different flights. She was on El Al, he was on another airline. At the security check at the gate in London, El Al found the bomb that he had put in her cabin baggage. |
Originally Posted by Globaliser
The alternative is that the TSA should go out and learn how to do it the way that other countries do it: that is, other countries which have lived with serious terrorism for much longer than the US has, and which remain at the same level of risk of terrorist attack as the US, yet manage not to be either as hysterical or as incompetent as the TSA......
LAX |
According to a local TV news report, providing your DOB will not be required. Airlines will be required to ask you for DOB but you can decline to answer.
|
Originally Posted by Herb687
According to a local TV news report, providing your DOB will not be required. Airlines will be required to ask you for DOB but you can decline to answer.
Personally, I have no problem with providing a full name and a DOB. Both are relatively bening ways of identifying me (or anyone else). |
Originally Posted by fromYXU
... and be suggested to more intense security for not providing your DOB.
Personally, I have no problem with providing a full name and a DOB. Both are relatively bening ways of identifying me (or anyone else). LAX |
Originally Posted by LAX
Not to be harping on the subject, but how's a "benign" piece of information help with security? We can't just go along with senseless, perhaps useless, policies. Besides, what are they going to ask from us next, SSN or fingerprints? Get the point?!
LAX I look at it the other way: what harm is there in identifying you as who you are? |
Originally Posted by fromYXU
I look at it the other way: what harm is there in identifying you as who you are?
As it appears that bad guys could simply lie about their DOB without too much trouble, requiring it seems to do nothing to improve security. Since I see no benefit, I don't have to get to your question of "what's the harm?" (Though I have already answered that question in detail in a related thread in Travel Saftey / Security.) |
Originally Posted by yogi
OUR SEVEN YEAR OLD SON! When we got (back) to the airport later that day, Benjamin went through the magetometer handed his BP and school ID to the TSA agent, who looked at, looked at me says "your kidding...", I said "I know...pretty crazy", he shakes his head and says.... "ok stand here... which is your back pack...." The whole routine.
.
Originally Posted by Clarence5ybr
I've read and heard from a lot of people upset when children or others (nuns, for example) get SSSSd. While I certainly don't agree with many of the TSA's ideas, I don't think children (or nuns) should be exempted from searches.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:31 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.