Unanswered questions at Dulles Airport

VS wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

There is usually a fella standing (*not* walking up to anyone)
where the line to the security checkpoints starts, checking folks'
boarding passes and IDs - presumably, to make sure that only people
with boarding passes get past the checkpoint. ``hasbrouck'' walked
up to them, not the other way around.

Yes, but his point is that there is apparently no way to confirm that
the person, or place, you are talking to is actually connected to TSA.

Let's get one thing clear: ``hasbrouck'' does not have a point.
He is a bloviator with a bad case of verbal diarrhea, never hesitating
to spew out 5000 words where a sane person would use 5, and 10000
words where a sane person would shrug and walk on.
Now back to the subject...
[snip]

Actually, he does. And yes, he is verbose. However, you seem more
interested in expending 5000 words missing the point.

mrtravel wrote:
[snip]
Obviously, if an ununiformed person asked me for my ID, I would ask for
his first.

However, this person was "uniformed". Of course, so is the janitor,
and the shuttle bus driver..... The problem is that none of these are
TSA uniforms.

If there was a question about it, then I wouldn't give it to
him, unless I verified who he was.
[snip]

And that is sorta the point. If you question someone who is
actually
an agent for the TSA, you can be found to be in violation of TSA
regulations an subject to various penalties for being "difficult".
Furthermore,
apparently, depending upon where this agent believes you are, you
can be prevented from leaving without satisfying their demands.

In article .com,
wrote:

However, this person was "uniformed". Of course, so is the janitor,
and the shuttle bus driver..... The problem is that none of these are
TSA uniforms.

Why is this a problem? TSA employees aren't the only ones who check
passengers' IDs. Airline check-in agents, for example, do not work
for TSA. Nor do rent-a-cops who check boarding passes and IDs before
security checkpoints. Somehow, hundreds of millions of passengers
know what they are there for (to stop people without boarding passes
from going through security). So does ``hasbrouck,'' of course, but
he is a professional provocateur trying to see what he can get away
with in the spare time before his flight.

If you question someone who is actually
an agent for the TSA, you can be found to be in violation of TSA
regulations an subject to various penalties for being "difficult".

If you get stopped by a traffic cop and question him in the same manner
``hasbrouck'' questioned the TSA agent, you'll spend the night in your
local jail. Not because you are a criminal, mind you, but because
that's how law enforcement types treat any challenge to their authority.

VS wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
[snip]
If you question someone who is actually
an agent for the TSA, you can be found to be in violation of TSA
regulations an subject to various penalties for being "difficult".

If you get stopped by a traffic cop and question him in the same manner
``hasbrouck'' questioned the TSA agent, you'll spend the night in your
local jail.

Actually, no, and that is sorta the point. If you get stopped by a
traffic cop, first of all you can choose within some reason the point
you
pull over. And that point can be fairly far from the initial
encounter.
You can also request ID. You can request a business card of theirs.
You can call on your cell phone to the dispacher and have them confirm
that they are actually a cop acting in performance of their duties.

Not because you are a criminal, mind you, but because
that's how law enforcement types treat any challenge to their authority.

And they will be in a heap-o-trouble if they don't watch
themselves.
Unfortunately, TSA agents, and those that cover them, aren't required
to do any of the same things. They don't even have to take you to
court
to remove your right to fly on commercial aircraft. They can put you
on
their "don't fly" list and they don't even have to tell you why.

If you think the federal government doesn't have enough power, or
abuse the power they have, you need to have a long talk with
Richard Jewell.

In article .com,
wrote:

If you get stopped by a traffic cop and question him in the same manner
``hasbrouck'' questioned the TSA agent, you'll spend the night in your
local jail.

Actually, no, and that is sorta the point. If you get stopped by a
traffic cop, first of all you can choose within some reason the point
you pull over. And that point can be fairly far from the initial encounter.
You can also request ID. You can request a business card of theirs.
You can call on your cell phone to the dispacher and have them confirm
that they are actually a cop acting in performance of their duties.

In *theory*, you are right, but have you actually tried this - pretend
that you don't believe the traffic cop is real and call the dispatcher
to confirm that they are actually a cop? Try it some time. Just make
sure you don't need to be anywhere 'cause you won't get there any
time soon.

Anyhow, you can do all of the above at an airport security checkpoint,
but why would you? Unless you lived in a cave for the last 5 years
(or are a professional kook like ``hasbrouck''), you know who these
rent-a-cops are, what they do, and why.

Staging provocations and bloviating about them afterwards may get you
an honorable mention in the World's Most Boring Blog contest, but it
won't remove the requirement that only passengers are allowed beyond the
airport security checkpoints, nor get rid of the drones who enforce it.

Unfortunately, TSA agents, and those that cover them, aren't required
to do any of the same things. They don't even have to take you to
court to remove your right to fly on commercial aircraft. They can put you
on their "don't fly" list and they don't even have to tell you why.

Indeed they can, and this may or may not be a good thing. But how
does throwing hissy fits at security checkpoints help? Do you really
think TSA would remove the passengers-only requirement in response to
bloviations of a disgruntled Internet hasbrouck?

If you think the federal government doesn't have enough power, or
abuse the power they have, you need to have a long talk with
Richard Jewell.

The way to control the power of the federal government is through
elections and court action. Challenging airport ID checkers, TSA
agents, and such serves no purpose whatsoever. Normal people sigh,
shrug, and go on about their business. As long as privacy rights are
advocated by hasbroucks and similar left-of-Mao loonies with personal
hygiene problems, nobody in this country will get any meaningful
privacy.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:33:31 -0700 (PDT),
(VS) wrote:


In *theory*, you are right, but have you actually tried this - pretend
that you don't believe the traffic cop is real and call the dispatcher
to confirm that they are actually a cop? Try it some time. Just make
sure you don't need to be anywhere 'cause you won't get there any
time soon.

There have at times been police imposters trying to pull people over.
The local police department recommended what you scorned

Brian wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:33:31 -0700 (PDT),
(VS) wrote:



In *theory*, you are right, but have you actually tried this - pretend
that you don't believe the traffic cop is real and call the dispatcher
to confirm that they are actually a cop? Try it some time. Just make
sure you don't need to be anywhere 'cause you won't get there any
time soon.


There have at times been police imposters trying to pull people over.
The local police department recommended what you scorned

Can we get back on topic? The guy asking for ID's is at the entrance to
the security line. We aren't talking about an non-uniformed guy chasing
people around the terminal. The last time I was asked for ID
mid-terminal was at LHR and the guy was wearing a police uniform.
Should I have told him to wank off?

In article .com,
wrote:

Do you really
think TSA would remove the passengers-only requirement in response to
bloviations of a disgruntled Internet hasbrouck?

His methods are far from perfect. But neither is acting like blind
mindless sheep in the face of beauracratic stupidity. Their
methods are capricious and shouldn't go either unchallenged or
shrouded in mystery.

``hasbrouck'' did not encounter anything capricious or bureaucratic.
Following the standard procedure in all US airports, a TSA-authorized
ID checker requested his ID and boarding pass when he attempted to go
through a security checkpoint at Dulles. With time to spare before
his flight, ``hasbrouck'' decided to dump his load right there and
then and had to be subdued by DC police, which occasioned reams and
reams of bloviation on his so called ``blog.''

That's it, that's the story. Nothing to do with privacy, civil
liberties, or transportation security. Just a random Internet kook
exploding in a geyser of verbal diarrhea.

In article .com,
wrote:

``hasbrouck'' did not encounter anything capricious or bureaucratic.

Actually, he did, but I suspect you didn't read that far.

Hey, shoveling through piles of ``hasbrouck''s verbal diarrhea ain't
easy. I doubt there is a man alive who managed to read one of his
screeds end to end. But I try, I try...

Actually, what happened was that he offered to proceed in the manner
in which they had offered in front of the supreme court that passengers
would be allowed to proceed and was refused.

You have a very limited understanding of what the government argued in
front of the Supreme Court. TSA never promised that any hooligan who
confronts airport security personnel, refuses to comply with standard
security procedures and requires police presence before he follows TSA
instructions will be allowed to proceed through the security checkpoint
without showing his or her ID.

VS wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
[snip]
Actually, what happened was that he offered to proceed in the manner
in which they had offered in front of the supreme court that passengers
would be allowed to proceed and was refused.

You have a very limited understanding of what the government argued in
front of the Supreme Court. TSA never promised that any hooligan who
confronts airport security personnel, refuses to comply with standard
security procedures and requires police presence before he follows TSA
instructions will be allowed to proceed through the security checkpoint
without showing his or her ID.

Well, this is a vague point, and one I think is illuminated by
these
kinds of incidents. The court made repeated note of the option, one
which was referenced by the government in their case. However,
his point is that in the unique circumstances of his own creation,
the opportunity was denied to him. What is never discussed by
the court or the TSA is what the significance of this feature was
and why it was important. One is left with the impression that it
was understood that one could avoid Identification by the TSA
(but not the airlines) by accepting the alternative.

This is the sum and substance of his lengthy confrontation.
The contractor was represented by the letter as acting on
behalf of the airline. The TSA on the scene was relatively
vague on the point. The airline represented that person
as working under the direction and supervision of the
TSA. The most significant point in all of this is whether
that person constitutes having "entered the check point"
since once one has, they can't go back. You can't simultaneously
say that the person is working on behalf of the airlines
AND claim that meeting that person constitutes having
"entered the check point". The ability to proceed without
showing ID as much was an attempt to determine just how
far through the process he had passed. By telling him
he had to proceed, the implication is that he had "reached"
the checkpoint. By telling him he had to show the ID,
the implication was that he was still in the clutches of
the airline.