ID Required to fly? No!
- Thread starter the_dmn8tr
- Start date
Scandinavian13
New Member
Re: ID required just to walk around? Airline ID requirement
In the public realm, however, one is allowed to take pictures freely (within certain limitations, but these limitations are nowhere near those on private property).
It's a rather obtuse example, but it's all I could think of at the moment. It's just one I remember well, as DC was trying to implement security cameras, etc, but was getting all kinds of flak because people were complaining that it was a violation of their privacy. The problem is that privacy is not something that carries completely over from private to public. If you are in the public domain, you simply do not have the same private rights that you are afforded in the private domain.
Whether or not the airlines actually enforce any of this is a different story. I doubt they'd take it too far, because there is probably a risk of a lawsuit if they did actually deny boarding.
In the end, I really don't understand peoples' aversion to proving their identity to someone who asks for it. Now, I'm not going to go showing my ID to any person who asks for it, but if a cop asks for my ID, why not show them? Chances are, they're looking for something and if I can prove that I'm not what they're looking for, it's better for me.
If an airline wants to know if I am actually the person boarding their aircraft, why should I not prove I am who I say I am? Should we, as pilots not have licenses with our names on them now? Is it a violation of privacy that we have to have our license and a Gov-issued picture ID on us when we are flying?
I would argue that it is not. It is a necessary step in the world we live in today. Now, if it comes to the point that people in power are asking for IDs for no particular reason and this place actually becomes a police state, then there's a problem. There must be a reason to ask for semi-private information, and that reason has to outweigh the potential harm of asking for the information. In the case of the airlines, the safety of everyone else on board outweighs the potential harm ("inconvenience") of asking for your semi-personal information. If you don't agree with it, take a bus, drive, walk, or find some other airline to get you to wherever you need to go.
This is a far cry from the SS walking around saying "Papieren, bitte."
Taking an argument to the point of absurdity proves nothing. While it is true that once a "right" is given up, it is hard to get it back, it is not necessarily true that that "right" is given up entirely. Allowing security checks for air travel comes out of the threat presented to it. Until something bad happens to another mode of transportation, we won't get security checks for those other modes for no reason at all.
The government isn't in place to ruin people's lives. It should be watched carefully, to be sure, but questioning its every move is ridiculous. Certain decisions are rather arbitrary, but not all of them. The decision to have people present identification to a law officer is not absurd, provided there is a reason. In the case of air travel, I think the reason is very obvious.
Again, if a private entity asks that you follow certain rules, provided they are not in violation of law, you must follow them in order to be allowed service. If they stipulate that you must present identification, you must do so in order to receive the service.
I still do not understand why this is an issue.
No, but what you are not allowed to do on private property, you are allowed to on public property, and vice versa, in certain circumstances. For example, it is illegal (an absolutely ridiculous/disgusing) to take pictures from outside of a residence of the inside of a residence without permission. Similarly, on private property, the owner of that property may require someone to stop taking photos on the premises (movie theatres, private homes, etc.), or even leave.
In the public realm, however, one is allowed to take pictures freely (within certain limitations, but these limitations are nowhere near those on private property).
It's a rather obtuse example, but it's all I could think of at the moment. It's just one I remember well, as DC was trying to implement security cameras, etc, but was getting all kinds of flak because people were complaining that it was a violation of their privacy. The problem is that privacy is not something that carries completely over from private to public. If you are in the public domain, you simply do not have the same private rights that you are afforded in the private domain.
As far as I know, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, you are required to have some form of identification on you at all times. Enforcement of this is obviously near impossible and rather pointless, so I doubt there are any arrests/tickets for it. It's just something I was told.
True, but if he or she is, and he or she could have been on the watch list, danger could have been avoided, provided he or she was required to show proper government identification. True, it could be forged/fake, but it's just a step to make sure something bad doesn't happen.
If you act up in a bar, you can get kicked out. If you violate company policy, you can be fired. If you do not comply with the rules of the airline, you can be denied boarding. In the case of a private entity, if you are in violation of the rules, you can be denied service.
Whether or not the airlines actually enforce any of this is a different story. I doubt they'd take it too far, because there is probably a risk of a lawsuit if they did actually deny boarding.
In the end, I really don't understand peoples' aversion to proving their identity to someone who asks for it. Now, I'm not going to go showing my ID to any person who asks for it, but if a cop asks for my ID, why not show them? Chances are, they're looking for something and if I can prove that I'm not what they're looking for, it's better for me.
If an airline wants to know if I am actually the person boarding their aircraft, why should I not prove I am who I say I am? Should we, as pilots not have licenses with our names on them now? Is it a violation of privacy that we have to have our license and a Gov-issued picture ID on us when we are flying?
I would argue that it is not. It is a necessary step in the world we live in today. Now, if it comes to the point that people in power are asking for IDs for no particular reason and this place actually becomes a police state, then there's a problem. There must be a reason to ask for semi-private information, and that reason has to outweigh the potential harm of asking for the information. In the case of the airlines, the safety of everyone else on board outweighs the potential harm ("inconvenience") of asking for your semi-personal information. If you don't agree with it, take a bus, drive, walk, or find some other airline to get you to wherever you need to go.
This is a far cry from the SS walking around saying "Papieren, bitte."
I would argue, again, that this is not true. It is not the case in other modes of travel because people have not used cars, busses or trains in the United States for terror/randsom/money/what-have-you, to the same magnitude. If hijackings, bombs or anything else related to death and flying never happened, we would not have this security that we have today. Glass alcohol containers are not allowed in sports events now because the have been used in the past as weapons. If this was not the case, people would still be able to bring them in to games.
Taking an argument to the point of absurdity proves nothing. While it is true that once a "right" is given up, it is hard to get it back, it is not necessarily true that that "right" is given up entirely. Allowing security checks for air travel comes out of the threat presented to it. Until something bad happens to another mode of transportation, we won't get security checks for those other modes for no reason at all.
The government isn't in place to ruin people's lives. It should be watched carefully, to be sure, but questioning its every move is ridiculous. Certain decisions are rather arbitrary, but not all of them. The decision to have people present identification to a law officer is not absurd, provided there is a reason. In the case of air travel, I think the reason is very obvious.
Again, if a private entity asks that you follow certain rules, provided they are not in violation of law, you must follow them in order to be allowed service. If they stipulate that you must present identification, you must do so in order to receive the service.
I still do not understand why this is an issue.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Re: right to travel
I agree that there are bad rules that need to be changed but I think you've also got to pick your battles.
For example, instead of fighting about IDs, what if we fought over other stupid TSA rules such as not being able to take liquids or gels on board? Or how about fighting the shoes off rule?
Those are rules we should fight. IDs I can live with.
I agree that there are bad rules that need to be changed but I think you've also got to pick your battles.
For example, instead of fighting about IDs, what if we fought over other stupid TSA rules such as not being able to take liquids or gels on board? Or how about fighting the shoes off rule?
Those are rules we should fight. IDs I can live with.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Re: right to travel
"Papers Please!"
What a joke.
Tony, in 7 separate incidents, the TSA has failed to show me or direct me to someone who could show me, where it is a requirement for me to take of my shoes prior to going through the machine.
So you know what - I don't take them off. If they want to secondary screen me, so be it. But my shoes are staying on my feet.
They can take my country, but they can not have my feet. #######s.
"Papers Please!"
What a joke.
Tony, in 7 separate incidents, the TSA has failed to show me or direct me to someone who could show me, where it is a requirement for me to take of my shoes prior to going through the machine.
So you know what - I don't take them off. If they want to secondary screen me, so be it. But my shoes are staying on my feet.
They can take my country, but they can not have my feet. #######s.
Minuteman
I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING!
I don't rush to put my shoes back on, if that's what I think you're trying to say.
phil_mocek
New Member
Re: ID required just to walk around? Airline ID requirement
I mean absolutely no disrespect by this, but that's hearsay until someone cites the law. I still doubt that there is any place in the United States where it is unlawful to be in public without carrying one's papers and being willing to provide them upon request.
Again, please see: Flex Your Rights Foundation: FAQ: "When do I have to show ID?"
I wrote:
"As far as safety is concerned, it doesn't really matter if a passenger is who he told government agents or even the airline that he is, as long as he's not carrying anything dangerous."
You responded:
If people on this watch list -- the secret black list that we're not allowed to see, not allowed to find out why people were added to, not allowed to know who added them -- were truly a danger to others, then we should go arrest them and bring them in front of a judge. If not, then we should let them go about their business without government intrusion. Over 900,000 names are on that list now.
American courts have ruled that we cannot use roadblocks and checkpoints to stop everyone in hopes of finding those with outstanding warrants. They have also ruled that we cannot stop everyone in hopes of finding suspects or persons of interest. The type of dragnet operation that is being performed at our airports would probably be ruled unconstitutional were it not for the fact that presently people submit to it voluntarily.
Generally speaking, yes. But not in the cases of businesses that for one reason or another are subject to additional regulation. Typically this happens in cases where we, the people, have assisted a business by granting it a limited monopoly. If you want the privilege of using our shared airspace (or, as another example, our shared radio spectrum) you will operate your business with less freedom to do as you please than you would have in other areas of business.
Please see "What's Wrong with Showing ID?" at the Identity Project.
Paraphrasing their words:
No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a "no fly" list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
In the United States, you have no responsibility to prove your innocence to an officer of the law. We are considered innocent until proven guilty.
At this time, I'm arguing only that you should not have to identify yourself to the government in order to travel. Arrangements you make with another private entity are entirely different than those which you are required to make with your government.
No, of course you should. But there's good reason for that. There is no similar reason for having "passenger licenses".
"No particular reason" or arbitrarily, at the discretion of each and every individual with the power to do so? Is "because he said so" some particular reason?
Showing ID doesn't improve safety.
Please stop and consider which mode of travel has historically been the target of more terrorist bombings -- air, rail, or bus.
"Watching carefully" is questioning its every move.
Do you think this country's founders were being paranoid when they set forth the protections we've been granted?
I mean absolutely no disrespect by this, but that's hearsay until someone cites the law. I still doubt that there is any place in the United States where it is unlawful to be in public without carrying one's papers and being willing to provide them upon request.
Again, please see: Flex Your Rights Foundation: FAQ: "When do I have to show ID?"
I wrote:
"As far as safety is concerned, it doesn't really matter if a passenger is who he told government agents or even the airline that he is, as long as he's not carrying anything dangerous."
You responded:
If people on this watch list -- the secret black list that we're not allowed to see, not allowed to find out why people were added to, not allowed to know who added them -- were truly a danger to others, then we should go arrest them and bring them in front of a judge. If not, then we should let them go about their business without government intrusion. Over 900,000 names are on that list now.
American courts have ruled that we cannot use roadblocks and checkpoints to stop everyone in hopes of finding those with outstanding warrants. They have also ruled that we cannot stop everyone in hopes of finding suspects or persons of interest. The type of dragnet operation that is being performed at our airports would probably be ruled unconstitutional were it not for the fact that presently people submit to it voluntarily.
Generally speaking, yes. But not in the cases of businesses that for one reason or another are subject to additional regulation. Typically this happens in cases where we, the people, have assisted a business by granting it a limited monopoly. If you want the privilege of using our shared airspace (or, as another example, our shared radio spectrum) you will operate your business with less freedom to do as you please than you would have in other areas of business.
Please see "What's Wrong with Showing ID?" at the Identity Project.
Paraphrasing their words:
No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a "no fly" list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
In the United States, you have no responsibility to prove your innocence to an officer of the law. We are considered innocent until proven guilty.
At this time, I'm arguing only that you should not have to identify yourself to the government in order to travel. Arrangements you make with another private entity are entirely different than those which you are required to make with your government.
No, of course you should. But there's good reason for that. There is no similar reason for having "passenger licenses".
"No particular reason" or arbitrarily, at the discretion of each and every individual with the power to do so? Is "because he said so" some particular reason?
Showing ID doesn't improve safety.
Please stop and consider which mode of travel has historically been the target of more terrorist bombings -- air, rail, or bus.
"Watching carefully" is questioning its every move.
Do you think this country's founders were being paranoid when they set forth the protections we've been granted?
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
You didn't quote anyone, so who are you talking about?
Who, among us, are the misguided and misinformed?
germb747
Well-Known Member
By the way, the only thing you legally must do to change your name is to simply start using the new name. So, you can be whoever you want to be (with certain limits, for example you can't change your name to a symbol, number, curse word, or trademark)--and you don't need an identification card to prove it.
the_dmn8tr
New Member
Re: ID required just to walk around? Airline ID requirement
I mean this with the utmost respect, but if you ask for specific examples, please cite some of your own. You keep saying that over and over again and linking to "papersplease.org," but nowhere do you say why it doesn't improve safety. Papersplease.org if filled with rhetoric, but it fails to give any facts as to why showing ID doesn't improve safety.
On the contrary, we can look at a time when showing ID wasn't mandatory and see that if ID was shown, an accident could have been prevented.
USAtoday "Airline ID requirement faces legal challenge"
The point I am trying to make here, is that you can argue either position and in the end, neither side is going to concede to the other. The reality is that we are engaged in a war with Islamo-fascists who want nothing more than to destroy our way of life. These are the times we live in, and if providing my ID will prevent another terrorist attack, then so be it, but we can't change the past, we can only improve the future.
I mean this with the utmost respect, but if you ask for specific examples, please cite some of your own. You keep saying that over and over again and linking to "papersplease.org," but nowhere do you say why it doesn't improve safety. Papersplease.org if filled with rhetoric, but it fails to give any facts as to why showing ID doesn't improve safety.
On the contrary, we can look at a time when showing ID wasn't mandatory and see that if ID was shown, an accident could have been prevented.
USAtoday "Airline ID requirement faces legal challenge"
The point I am trying to make here, is that you can argue either position and in the end, neither side is going to concede to the other. The reality is that we are engaged in a war with Islamo-fascists who want nothing more than to destroy our way of life. These are the times we live in, and if providing my ID will prevent another terrorist attack, then so be it, but we can't change the past, we can only improve the future.
TheShortOne
Well-Known Member
This type of sentiment does not promote the atmosphere that Doug is trying to maintain on this website.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
I just want to know which of us are the zealots in his opinion.
I mean, I love sticking my head in the sand as much as the other guy. . .but I've seen this country descend into a police state far too quickly for me to just keep my mouth shut. Not after defending the constitution, and watching it get eroded by an agency that does not have to answer to anyone.
Ministry of Love and Truth, all rolled into one.
I like your enthusiasm, really do. Bravo.
Only issue I take with this is that it was not the "Islamo-Fascists" that thought up the Patriot Act, or the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Or the development of the TSA, or Department of Homeland Security.
It was our own elected officials who decided that these safety blankets would make us feel all nice, warm, and cozy - thinking that hey "We're SAFE!"
If safety blankets give you a warm and fuzzy, bravo. But I'm not that silly to think that we can't get attacked again because of the measures put into place.
More importantly, we'll be attacked by an element of _________ (insert terrorist group name) through a medium never seen before in Western civilization. So all of these ridiculous TSA rules, the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 will all be for nothing. Just so the naive masses can feel good about living in America. Along with the gradual erosion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which obviously - do not mean much to a majority of this country these days.
Another thing that really makes my head swivel is the use of the word Liberal when calling out someone who wants to protect the Constitution, and our collective individual liberties. Liberal? That's damn conservatism people, wake up. (Not directed towards you dmn8tr)
Not trying to get into a pissing match, but all of this stuff is ridiculous beyond belief. But what do I know - I'm just some "Liberal."
Scandinavian13
New Member
Re: ID required just to walk around? Airline ID requirement
Without even going into detail, I'll just say some people need to re-learn the difference between right and privilege.
This is not to say, however, that I'm 100% right and everything else is wrong.
Quit being over-dramatic. America has not become a police state. If you really think so, go travel abroad somewhere. You are, after all, pilots. You should see the laws in other countries, and some of them do quite well for themselves. Heck, Germany has more laws than I can even wrap my head around, regulating far more than what we as Americans might consider to be necessary, and I'd argue that things run much more smoothly over there.
Sure, you may not want to live in Germany and that's why you're here, but quit looking at the government as if it's some tyrannical tool of some random evil-doer. Yes, it is possible for the government to mess things up. On the whole, however, the government does a pretty good job for all of the problems we give it. Do I like how it runs the country? No. Do I wish certain things would change? Yes. Very much so.
I'm no fan of the government, but I'm not going to sit here spewing random ridiculous accusations that the government is secretly out to usurp our rights over time.
The state of aviation is what it is. The regulations have been put in place to protect us from future attacks, based on past events. They are put in place to prevent something that has happened from happening again. Yes, because of these regulations, people who want to do damage will look to other means/methods, but claiming that the measures do nothing for security based on that agrument alone is ridiculous. We can't predict the future, so we can only protect ourselves from the past. Ignoring past issues in order to try and predict the future is just plain ignorant.
Identification has its relevance in any aspect of life. You need it to get licenses, a job, alcohol, pay with a credit card (if they check like they're supposed to), among other things. These policies have been put in place to avoid certain wrongdoings. In air travel, asking for identification is a way to deter those who wish to cause harm. If it had no relevance, why should we, as pilots, have our names on our licenses and be required to carry another photo ID?
Some would argue that we are different because we are put in a position of power. I'll keep this one simple for you:
I don't care how much control over the plane I have, or how much control over the passengers I have. If someone in the back of the plane is packing explosives, all of that doesn't matter. A pilot may be in a position of power, but that power is meaningless when you, your passengers and your plane are in millions of pieces.
True, baggage and personal screening are ways to prevent the explosives/weapon from reaching the plane, but preventing the person from getting on the plane to cause the harm is another method of prevention. The best way to do this is to match a government-issued identification against the passenger information and database.
Terrorism is a wicked problem. Like crime and poverty, it will never be solved/ended. The best way to attack it is to protect ourselves from what has happened already and hope that those measures prevent occurrances in the future. In this world, that requires policy to be put in place that is restrictive.
Flying is not a right. It is a privilege. Placing restrictions on a privilege is not making the country into a police state, and it is not taking people's rights. If you don't like it, go find a way to change it, or start riding Greyhound.
I'd rather be safe with more restrictions, than dead. Honestly, what good are rights, freedoms and privileges when you're dead?
Without even going into detail, I'll just say some people need to re-learn the difference between right and privilege.
This is not to say, however, that I'm 100% right and everything else is wrong.
Quit being over-dramatic. America has not become a police state. If you really think so, go travel abroad somewhere. You are, after all, pilots. You should see the laws in other countries, and some of them do quite well for themselves. Heck, Germany has more laws than I can even wrap my head around, regulating far more than what we as Americans might consider to be necessary, and I'd argue that things run much more smoothly over there.
Sure, you may not want to live in Germany and that's why you're here, but quit looking at the government as if it's some tyrannical tool of some random evil-doer. Yes, it is possible for the government to mess things up. On the whole, however, the government does a pretty good job for all of the problems we give it. Do I like how it runs the country? No. Do I wish certain things would change? Yes. Very much so.
I'm no fan of the government, but I'm not going to sit here spewing random ridiculous accusations that the government is secretly out to usurp our rights over time.
The state of aviation is what it is. The regulations have been put in place to protect us from future attacks, based on past events. They are put in place to prevent something that has happened from happening again. Yes, because of these regulations, people who want to do damage will look to other means/methods, but claiming that the measures do nothing for security based on that agrument alone is ridiculous. We can't predict the future, so we can only protect ourselves from the past. Ignoring past issues in order to try and predict the future is just plain ignorant.
Identification has its relevance in any aspect of life. You need it to get licenses, a job, alcohol, pay with a credit card (if they check like they're supposed to), among other things. These policies have been put in place to avoid certain wrongdoings. In air travel, asking for identification is a way to deter those who wish to cause harm. If it had no relevance, why should we, as pilots, have our names on our licenses and be required to carry another photo ID?
Some would argue that we are different because we are put in a position of power. I'll keep this one simple for you:
I don't care how much control over the plane I have, or how much control over the passengers I have. If someone in the back of the plane is packing explosives, all of that doesn't matter. A pilot may be in a position of power, but that power is meaningless when you, your passengers and your plane are in millions of pieces.
True, baggage and personal screening are ways to prevent the explosives/weapon from reaching the plane, but preventing the person from getting on the plane to cause the harm is another method of prevention. The best way to do this is to match a government-issued identification against the passenger information and database.
Terrorism is a wicked problem. Like crime and poverty, it will never be solved/ended. The best way to attack it is to protect ourselves from what has happened already and hope that those measures prevent occurrances in the future. In this world, that requires policy to be put in place that is restrictive.
Flying is not a right. It is a privilege. Placing restrictions on a privilege is not making the country into a police state, and it is not taking people's rights. If you don't like it, go find a way to change it, or start riding Greyhound.
I'd rather be safe with more restrictions, than dead. Honestly, what good are rights, freedoms and privileges when you're dead?
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
Re: ID required just to walk around? Airline ID requirement
"The reality is" we aren't engaged in a war with someone who wants to destroy our way of life. None of the Islamic militant doctrines say "we hate how free they are over in the U.S." They hate, with much more passion, our presence in the area. I live in Saudi Arabia for 2.5 years and got lots of dirty looks from normal looking Muslims when I accidentally wore shorts in public, or when we were near Mecca but not going there. If we didn't have interest in the area we wouldn't be in the crosshairs of those people.
"The reality is" we aren't engaged in a war with someone who wants to destroy our way of life. None of the Islamic militant doctrines say "we hate how free they are over in the U.S." They hate, with much more passion, our presence in the area. I live in Saudi Arabia for 2.5 years and got lots of dirty looks from normal looking Muslims when I accidentally wore shorts in public, or when we were near Mecca but not going there. If we didn't have interest in the area we wouldn't be in the crosshairs of those people.
phil_mocek
New Member
ID check doesn't improve safety, may be unconstitutional
It's difficult to do so. It's as if you're asking me to prove a negative. Besides that, this isn't something that requires examples in order to be understood; it's just logical. How could the federal government knowing someone's identity make our travelling on a plane with that person any safer? I assume that many people don't think far into this, but automatically assume that since many people tend to act less responsibly when they are anonymous, preventing people from flying anonymously will improve flight safety. But I don't think someone who would otherwise be likely to commit an act of terrorism will be less likely to do so if his name will be connected with his actions.
And if it's not the identification of someone that is supposed to improve safety, but rather what can be done with that information (such as preventing the person from flying), then we really are dealing with a restriction of people's right to travel. Of course, I concede that in this case it's travel specifically by air that would be restricted, but if we accept a restriction of our right to travel via the only mode of transportation that is practical for someone who wants to go from, say the Pacific Northwest to Washington, D.C. to, say, petition his government for redress of grievances but cannot spend a week or more doing so (maybe for reasons such as employment or family commitments), then 1) we are truly infringing upon an important right, and 2) it's highly likely that we would soon be willing to accept similar restrictions on other modes of transportation.
If the 900,000+ names that have been blacklisted truly correspond to dangerous criminals, then we should go arrest them, not simply prevent them from flying or hassle them at the airport, then let them walk away. We're not allowed to know who is on the list, why they were put there, or who put them on it. There is no appeals process for those who have been blacklisted.
As evidence of such, you quoted a USA Today story that stated:
How is that an example of how an ID check could have prevented an accident? Restricted areas are not open to the public, regardless of whether we check IDs or not. And "checking IDs against luggage and passenger information"? What does that mean? I understand that we can prevent bombings by those who are unwilling to die on-board the flight they bomb by ensuring that every piece of checked luggage corresponds to someone who actually boards the flight. But this could be done by waiting to load a piece of luggage until the boarding pass associated with the ticket associated with the piece has been used by someone to board -- no ID check necessary. Positive passenger bag matching does not require identification of passengers.
In the case of suicide bombers, any such bag matching would be ineffective.
I remain unconvinced that the federal government knowing the true identities of airline passengers, much less knowing what names happen to be printed on the ID cards they show government agents, can improve air travel safety.
Others here, including someone who spent time in the Middle East, have disputed that assertion.
I'll admit that the ID check allows us to find some criminals and criminal suspects. However, doing so is not the duty of TSA. I believe that we should leave law enforcement up to law enforcement agencies and that the Transportation Security Agency should focus on transportation security.
It's interesting to note that most of the instances of passengers being caught with falsified I.D. cards and passports that are described on TSA's "Travel Document Checker (TDC)" Web page (under "Travel Document Checking Success Stories") were arrested on charges of immigrations violations, possession of illegal drugs, or credit card theft. Even more interesting is that none of them is described as having been found to be carrying anything that, had he brought it onto his flight, would have put other passengers or crew at risk.
An airport identification checkpoint is no more reasonable and no more useful for ensuring transportation security than would be a roadblock at which travellers were required to identify themselves. I suspect that such a dragnet operation is currently allowed to happen at our airports for two reasons: 1) those who participate do so voluntarily (we're not required to show ID, though are fooled into doing so by false information on TSA airport signs), and 2) many Americans are still so frightened by a horrendous crime (one that clearly could have been avoided) that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution is subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous than was Communism during the Cold War.
It's difficult to do so. It's as if you're asking me to prove a negative. Besides that, this isn't something that requires examples in order to be understood; it's just logical. How could the federal government knowing someone's identity make our travelling on a plane with that person any safer? I assume that many people don't think far into this, but automatically assume that since many people tend to act less responsibly when they are anonymous, preventing people from flying anonymously will improve flight safety. But I don't think someone who would otherwise be likely to commit an act of terrorism will be less likely to do so if his name will be connected with his actions.
And if it's not the identification of someone that is supposed to improve safety, but rather what can be done with that information (such as preventing the person from flying), then we really are dealing with a restriction of people's right to travel. Of course, I concede that in this case it's travel specifically by air that would be restricted, but if we accept a restriction of our right to travel via the only mode of transportation that is practical for someone who wants to go from, say the Pacific Northwest to Washington, D.C. to, say, petition his government for redress of grievances but cannot spend a week or more doing so (maybe for reasons such as employment or family commitments), then 1) we are truly infringing upon an important right, and 2) it's highly likely that we would soon be willing to accept similar restrictions on other modes of transportation.
If the 900,000+ names that have been blacklisted truly correspond to dangerous criminals, then we should go arrest them, not simply prevent them from flying or hassle them at the airport, then let them walk away. We're not allowed to know who is on the list, why they were put there, or who put them on it. There is no appeals process for those who have been blacklisted.
As evidence of such, you quoted a USA Today story that stated:
How is that an example of how an ID check could have prevented an accident? Restricted areas are not open to the public, regardless of whether we check IDs or not. And "checking IDs against luggage and passenger information"? What does that mean? I understand that we can prevent bombings by those who are unwilling to die on-board the flight they bomb by ensuring that every piece of checked luggage corresponds to someone who actually boards the flight. But this could be done by waiting to load a piece of luggage until the boarding pass associated with the ticket associated with the piece has been used by someone to board -- no ID check necessary. Positive passenger bag matching does not require identification of passengers.
In the case of suicide bombers, any such bag matching would be ineffective.
I remain unconvinced that the federal government knowing the true identities of airline passengers, much less knowing what names happen to be printed on the ID cards they show government agents, can improve air travel safety.
Others here, including someone who spent time in the Middle East, have disputed that assertion.
I'll admit that the ID check allows us to find some criminals and criminal suspects. However, doing so is not the duty of TSA. I believe that we should leave law enforcement up to law enforcement agencies and that the Transportation Security Agency should focus on transportation security.
It's interesting to note that most of the instances of passengers being caught with falsified I.D. cards and passports that are described on TSA's "Travel Document Checker (TDC)" Web page (under "Travel Document Checking Success Stories") were arrested on charges of immigrations violations, possession of illegal drugs, or credit card theft. Even more interesting is that none of them is described as having been found to be carrying anything that, had he brought it onto his flight, would have put other passengers or crew at risk.
An airport identification checkpoint is no more reasonable and no more useful for ensuring transportation security than would be a roadblock at which travellers were required to identify themselves. I suspect that such a dragnet operation is currently allowed to happen at our airports for two reasons: 1) those who participate do so voluntarily (we're not required to show ID, though are fooled into doing so by false information on TSA airport signs), and 2) many Americans are still so frightened by a horrendous crime (one that clearly could have been avoided) that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution is subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous than was Communism during the Cold War.