Flying Faster Without ID 528
jjh37997 writes "A Homeland Security's privacy advisory committee member finds that flying without a photo ID is actually faster than traveling with proper identification. According to Wired the committee member, Jim Harper, accepted a bet from civil liberties rabble-rouser John Gilmore to test whether he could actually fly without showing identification. He found that traveling without ID allowed him to bypass the long security lines at San Francisco's International Airport, and get in faster than if he had provided his driver's license."
If everyone did what he did (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lucky Him (Score:5, Interesting)
This works for Customs as well (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I never understood this (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, its to save the airlines from "terror" against its profit margins by disallowing people from swapping vouchers or tickets. Showing ID will ensure that only the person they're made out to will use them. No safety issue, aside from the shadowy watchlist that nobody knows about.
A guy I know was jailed for refusing to show ID... (Score:5, Interesting)
Last year, he tried to board an airplane... without showing an ID, and without submitting to a secondary search.
He was carrying only his boarding pass and a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Cheeky fucker!
He spent several days in jail, and got some really scary letters from the FBI (hi guys!).
Scanned copies of the letters, photos of the event, and his own musing are posted here [tinyurl.com].
Now, I don't agree with Russell's focus on "civil disobediance" -- I prefer to focus on political change (ie, getting good people elected into office, passing good laws, repealing bad ones, etc). In addition, I think this particular act of Civil Disobedience was poorly chosen -- he was trying to make the point that it should be the airlines, not the government, that sets the rules for any particular flight.
But still, ya gotta admire the sheer cojones of standing up to the FBI, and doing it with a sense of humor (see the letters he wrote back to the Feds, they're hilarious!)
Russ is just one of the hundreds of pro-Liberty activists out here in New Hampshire, one more member of the Free State Project [freestateproject.org]
Ft Lauderdale Reagan (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lucky Him (Score:5, Interesting)
I was pulled over for speeding (106mph in a 70mph zone). Since the ticket was for "Exceeding 100mph", it was a mandatory court appearance. I showed up in a dress shirt, nice slacks and a tie. I plead guilty, and was fined $600. I was driving a Mercedes (A 1979 Mercedes, which is pretty inexpensive), but I'm sure the judge thought that me driving the Mercedes meant I have money.
The guy behind me shows up, and was charged with doing 105 in a 70, in the same exact location as I was pulled over, on the same day, by the same officer, but about 20 minutes after I was pulled over. He was dressed in worn out jeans & a wife beater, and was driving a rental Mustang. His fine was $250.
I'm still pissed about that, but I kept my mouth shut since the judge didn't suspend my license, and I was afraid he would hold me in contempt of court.
The Bakersfield, Ca courtroom is making the state a ton of money. The day I was in court, there were about 45 people in there, all charged with exceeding 100mph. I would imagine that they are one of the largest contributors to Bakersfield's economy.
Re:Lucky Him (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, but what you can "quite clearly see" is often extremely biased by things like "what you're expecting to see" and a misunderstanding of base-rate phenomena. (That's just a fancy term for what another commenter pointed out to you: you probably see more white people being searched because there are more white people overall, not because there is actually a higher proportion of white people searched.)
That's why I want to see references whenever a claim like this is made.
Re:This works for Customs as well (Score:1, Interesting)
In the line for customs, everybody walked thru with a cursory examination. No baggage search, no cavity search. Just look at the passport and ask if there was anything to declare. Everyone passed thru - except me.
My bags were inspected. My identity scrutinized (the agent's tone was different with me than with others in my group). It took longer. It was intimidating. Etc.
I was the only one in my group who didn't get a haircut while in Europe (for 30 days), and I was wearing my favorite jeans jacket - a bit torn and threadbare. I'm white (caucasian), mostly, or at least look white. But apparently I didn't look affluent or otherwise non-suspicious, and so I was profiled and subject to scrutiny.
Funny thing - the peppy cheerleader in our group, who looks like Barbie and all-american-apple-pie all of the time, who didn't get searched and who was totally believed when she said had nothing to declare, I had given her all the stuff I knew would cause me customs delay. I'm not reselling anything, but I'm sure carrying an antique dagger thru customs would have set off some kind of siren. Even long before 9/11.
Go figure. It's not which line you take or the color of your skin that gets you profiled and searched, it's the color of the money you wear on your skin.
Attempted - not recomended (Score:4, Interesting)
As a bit of background, my license had just expired and I was in the process of getting a new one. I checked the law ahead of time and discovered that for a Canadian citizen to travel to and from America via land, sea or air the only identification that you *need* is a birth certificate. Picture ID is strongly encouraged. A Passport is an even better idea.
I got stopped at just about every possible interval on the trip - checking my bags, passing through security, getting through customs, getting on the plane, getting back through customs when I landed - by people that apparently had no understanding of the law.
Every single person insisted that I could not travel without a Driver's license. Flashing the yellow sheet of paper that passes as a temp license in BC didn't get me very far. I even had to ask the customs official to ask their manager to look up the information. Neither one of them knew what was going on.
It is possible to do these trips without proper identification, but it's such a pain in the neck it's not really worth it.
No ID in the seat - guy flies in a box as LUGGAGE! (Score:2, Interesting)
He was arrested when he jumped out of the box at his mother's house after the delivery guy dropped him off - and the delivery guy SPOTTED him getting OUT of the box!
Feel safer now, folks?
Lee Darrow, Chicago
Re:Lucky Him (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, a brief mathematical point. If most Arabs are not terrorists, and most terrorists are Arabs, it does not follow that your highest probability of finding a terrorist will be by examining Arabs
I'll make a concrete example for you. Suppose you pick a group of people at random, and it happens to contain: 10 Arab Terrorists, 5 Non-Arab Terrorists, 90 Arab Non-Terrorists, and 10 Non-Arab Non-Terrorists. Now, you might argue that this does not reflect probabilities in the larger population, but... let me use this as an example, to make a mathematical pont.
In that situation, it is true that: Most Terrorists are Arabs. (10-to-5: among the terrorists, there are twice as many Arabs as Non-Arabs.)
In that situation, it is also true that: Most Arabs are NOT Terrorists. (90-to-10: among the Arabs, there are 9 times as many non-Terrorists as there are Terrorists.)
However, now look at the probabilities: If you examine Arabs only, your chances of finding a terrorist are 10% (there are 100 Arabs in the sample, 10 of them are terrorists). On the other hand, if you examine Non-Arabs only, your chances are finding a terrorist are 33% (there are 15 Non-Arabs, 5 of them are Terrorists).
I know these numbers seem skewed, but I want to make a mathematical point: just because most Terrorists are Arabs DOES NOT mean that you are more likely to find a terrorist by searching Arabs.
Re:Lucky Him (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always thought that the right solution to this is to reduce that governmental body's tax income by exactly as much money as it takes in in fines. This way the government has no financial incentive one way or the other, and will presumably only pass and enforce laws when they're actually in the interest of the community. And those fines would reduce the tax burden on the supposedly-harmed society, reimbursing the citizens who had been transgressed against in the most direct possible way.
Re:Lucky Him (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not that shocking... (Score:3, Interesting)
well you say we are at war... but I remember the war ending
You will never remember that. This war is designed to never end.
Please Remove Your Shoes (Score:2, Interesting)
The test rate on screeners was 70 percent before 9/11 and remains 70 even after adding all the new standard proceedures. So what exactly is the benefit of standing around on a dirty, often wet floor in my socks?
Re:SFO experence (Score:3, Interesting)
On topic? Oh, I'm surprised that the TSA people don't have something like the book that the bar tended pulled out. I've never seen them look, and they don't even seem like they care. It's just a quick glance at the name and picture, whether it's official looking, and let them through.
Re:Not if... (Score:4, Interesting)
Then your civil engineering buddies are wrong. I was big into transportation when I was in college. I did more research on that topic than all my other subjects combined. I found books published by the state of Texas that said the *worst* following distance was 2 seconds. That's the following distance that guarantees the worst possible crash. At closer distances, the two cars strike with less force, even though they are both moving. At longer distances, the following car is slowing and the front car is stopped, lessening the impact.
And you'll never talk your way out of a ticket with the truth. It's better to be polite than explain. You'd ba hard pressed to come up with something that every rookie doesn't hear on his first week, and cops are lied to on a regular basis, so even if you are telling the truth and it is valid and reasonable, they will presume you are lying unless proven otherwise.
And, just so you know, more fatal car crashes involve someone traveling under the average speed than over the average speed. So, if you are at the average speed or a little above, you are statistically safer than those below the average speed. And, had you actually talked with competent engineers that worked on roads, they would have told you that going with the flow above the speed limit is *safer* than going the limit. The limits are supposed to be set at a speed above the average speed in the absence of limits. However, political pressures and practial reasons get them set below the engineering standards. The City of Dallas was found to be setting the limits so low that it violated state law. Real engineers (and not imaginary ones) would have gone on a rant about how the politicians muck up their proper engineering and don't follow the 85% rule, even when specified in state law.
So, care to try again and tell us about how all the "experts" think that traveling 55 on a road packed with everyone else going 80 mph is safer than going 80? The only "experts" that would say that are either worried that saying it will get them fired, or they are paid spokespeople for organizations with political motivations (often not "experts" except in their own minds - see Ralph Nader for an example).
Go, Jim Harper! (Score:5, Interesting)
He testified to help us pass an anti-RealID bill, which came within a hair of becoming law.
As I wrote in another post, see
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=830740502
for footage from a big protest against REAL ID here.
I had a long argument with NH Senator President Gatsas about the "id requirement" issue in flying and we (Jim and I) insisted he was wrong, that we could fly without any ID, if we were willing to submit to a secondary search. Kudos to Jim for proving us right!
(For those wondering what politics in New Hampshire is like... Yes, not only did I have an argument with the Senate President, but he called me back within 5 minutes of my sending him an email. We have that sort of an open and accessible legislature. Come and see it in action, there is nothing like it anywhere else. 400 State Representatives, 24 Senators, all paid a mere $100 a year, and little in the way of staff or offices.)