Keep Your ID Handy to Fly (Trees And Things)

3fingerspointback: Because We say you can't, and you can't see it.

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:14:25 EST

"the identification policy here does not impose any criminal sanctions, or threats of prosecution, on those who do not comply"

WTF? You can have secret laws as long as they don't land people in jail? Did the Supremes just allow states

pO157: Re: A Clear Subject.

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:40:56 EST

As you may well have guessed "500%" was due to the inevitable hyperbole on my part. One article I read says it is Any chance you could back that up? I'm

wetkarma: Re: A Clear Subject.

Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:47:36 EST

As a security professional, what do you think about the TSA in general?

I think that in general the organization does what it means to do -- which is to give a sense of security when people are travelling by air.

The TSA strives to create

pO157: Re: A Clear Subject.

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:45:39 EST

Ah, Mr. Karma,

It popped in my head this morning that I actually forgot to put one of my more important questions in my last post.

As a security professional, what do you think about the TSA in general?

Mostly on the internets I mostly read blovia

Thalia: Re: Keep Your ID Handy to Fly

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:57:18 EST

Agreed. The part of the opinion I find disturbing is that since this is not a penal law (i.e. you can't get locked up for failing to follow it) you do not have a right to see the law. All kinds of scary things can be hidden under that little ru

cahironsuir: Re: Keep Your ID Handy to Fly

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:44:56 EST

It doesn't bother me that we have to show ID to fly. It bothers me that there are laws that we aren't allowed to see.

profwhat: Not All Stupid Things Are Unconstitutional

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:35:47 EST

I admit it: I have fantasized of suing the bastards responsible for long airline lines many times while standing in line. I have dreamed up constitutional theories, most more creative than Gilmore's, and even thought of organizing a civil disob

gerrymander: Re: A Clear Subject.

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:25:13 EST

According to Gilmore's website, he was offered the option of going through a more strict check, but declined:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly

pO157: Re: A Clear Subject.

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:48:39 EST

You know, your post made me look on the TSA's website as to what constitutes positive-ID (whatever that means). I found this link which says the absence of proper government issued p

wetkarma: Re: A Clear Subject.

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:37:17 EST

I work in the security field.

I can attest that requiring ID does very little for security, more importantly you can always board without an "official photo id". Since 9/11 I've boarded with a credit card with my name on it (misplaced my drivers license

pO157: A Clear Subject.

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:46:09 EST

I disagree with the ID requirement to board airplanes.

IIRC, the current system requires you to hand your ID to a minimum wage private contractor who matches your ID to your boarding pass before you even approach the TSA security checkpoint. Some airpo