Comments on: TSA ID Requirements

By: joe

joe — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:45:34 +0000

Two thoughts on this topic:

1. The government has to deal with immigration issue and whether or not to give illegal aliens driver's licenses or some other form of identification, or else lose their dollars from the flying industry and their ability to move about the country.

2. People are free to protest and not show their IDs, however the airlines and airports are also free to deny them service, it has to be a two way street.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:16:50 +0000

James: if there's a means of checking on people who say they've lost their ID, then there is a means of checking on people who refuse to present their ID. And given how easy it is for someone who doesn't want to present an id to "lose" it, this is a fairly obvious sign of "security theatre"

By: Deathlok

Deathlok — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:59:16 +0000

Sad!

I work everyday in the labs that develop the technologies to locate the threats to this country. When I speak with the Scientist and Engineers. . . .You have no idea how great a job TSA and DHS are doing.

People are lucky that they don't get searched using the train.

When the remnants of a plane are falling from the sky, the people that survive the initial blast are all probably thinking "I wish they would have searched everyone a little more thoroughly.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:32:24 +0000

Further, there is no extra security provided by allowing people who "lost" their ID on board but not allowing people who don't wish to provide them on board.

Presumably, there's a means of checking on people who say they've lost their ID. Surely, TSA has a means of accessing, say, the Virginia DMV to check my driver's license photo.

By: Ugh

Ugh — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:54:28 +0000

I recall reading (perhaps at volokh's place) that one of the reasons that the TSA won the court case of the ID requirement was that a person could still board the plane without an ID as long as they agreed to be subjected to additional search procedures. Now the TSA has essentially said "Uh, guess not." Further, there is no extra security provided by allowing people who "lost" their ID on board but not allowing people who don't wish to provide them on board. This is just stupid. Do they really think a terrorist is going to chose the "I don't wish to provide" route rather than "I lost it" route?

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:30:52 +0000

Imagine if there was a first amendment exception to the ID rule. It would follow that the TSA shouldn't be able to impose additional scrutiny toward those exercising such a freedom. Otherwise the freedom of speech would be chilled (e.g. if you knew exercising your freedom of speech would result in a strip search, would you?). So the next logical conclusion would be that a terrorist would not use an ID as it would be one less thing to catch them up.

By: mike

mike — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:16:28 +0000

Steve - what about security for a high school sporting event - lots of people esp young people and zero security - or a mall

I don't have a problem w/ this requirement but I don't think airlines will be the biggest terror tool b/c everyone is so on edge about 9/11 and if a terrorist(s) tried to take over a plane, everyone would do all they could to stop it.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:10:04 +0000

It's not a question of whether there's expressive content. It's a simple time, place, and manner restriction. If you think the tolls over the George Washington Bridge are too high there are all sorts of ways to express that thought. Getting into an argument with the toll-taker is not protected by the First Amendment.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:12:22 +0000

I am very concerned about infringement upon personal liberties since 9/11, but have no problem whatsoever with presenting my ID to enter secure areas of the airport or to fly. We don't have a "right" to access secure areas or a right to fly.

By: Steve Plunk

Steve Plunk — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:09:16 +0000

Air flights have been and will continue to be the number one target for terrorists. For effort expended the potential for catastrophic property damage and loss of life is very high. Knowing that it will always be a target it's security should be a priority.

The minor inconvenience and minor intrusion into privacy are trivial. Local authorities will do more damage to our constitutional rights than the TSA ever will. But the TSA was formed during the Bush years (with congressional approval) so it must be bad and it's employees insulted on a regular basis.

The more serious people out here can understand the difference between reasonable security and constitutional rights violations.

By: Patrick T. McGuire

Patrick T. McGuire — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:50:57 +0000

What a surprise! After spending years at doing their best to immitate the Keystone Cops while providing "security", they finally do something that actually improves security.

And how many years did it take them to come up with this advanced security idea?