Cato @ Liberty: ID checks are about control, not security

[Dumpy Dooby]

ID Checks are About Control, Not Security

If there was ever any doubt that ID checks at airports are about control and not security, the Transportation Security Administration is clearing that up. Starting June 21, it says, “passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint [sic] will be denied access to the secure area of airports.”

The claim is that this initiative is “the latest in a series designed to facilitate travel for legitimate passengers while enhancing the agency’s risk-based focus - on people, not things.” So let’s take a moment to look at how refusing airport access to the willful enhances security.

. . . OK! We’re done!

No terrorist or criminal would draw attention to him or herself by obstinately refusing an ID check. This is only done by the small coterie of civil libertarians and security experts who can’t stand the security pantomime that is airport identification checking. The rest of the people traveling without ID have lost theirs - and TSA officials at airports have no way of knowing which is which.

This new rule will do nothing to improve airport security, but watch for the incident when a TSA agent “doesn’t believe” someone who has truly lost his or her driver’s license and tries to strand a traveler in a faraway city.

In defense of the TSA (didn't expect me to say that, did you? ), by saying, "No access beyond this point without proper ID," they are able to speed up the security checkpoint process. The reason is because anyone without ID does not have to be searched or taken off to the side to prove that they are free to leave the country. They are simply told to leave.

[motivez]

Control isn't an aspect of security?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Control isn't an aspect of security?

I came in here to post that

[Kytro]

It does not improve security. I would expect if this is challenged in court the TSA will be told to allow people to travel.

Last case the courts decided someone could refuse ID, but had to submit to a more intrusive search

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Last case the courts decided someone could refuse ID, but had to submit to a more intrusive search

fine by me.

[JaJae]

I think CATO has lost its marbles on this one. How does restricting "secure areas of airports" with ID checks have nothing to do with security? Over the last few years CATO has been getting more and more absurd.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think CATO has lost its marbles on this one. How does restricting "secure areas of airports" with ID checks have nothing to do with security? Over the last few years CATO has been getting more and more absurd.

why should I need to show an ID to get through airport security?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think CATO has lost its marbles on this one. How does restricting "secure areas of airports" with ID checks have nothing to do with security? Over the last few years CATO has been getting more and more absurd.

I think the point is in the article - nobody who's looking to get in to cause trouble is going to refuse to show ID, only a civil libertarian would be interested in doing that.

The argument is that showing ID provides no additional security, just the illusion of security. I believe all or nearly all of the terrorists on 9/11 had valid IDs anyway.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

why should I need to show an ID to get through airport security?

You don't think it's reasonable that they'd want a list of everyone who passed through security checkpoints?

I mean, if something goes wrong, at least they could cross off names that checked out to narrow it down..

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I think the point is in the article - nobody who's looking to get in to cause trouble is going to refuse to show ID, only a civil libertarian would be interested in doing that.

The argument is that showing ID provides no additional security, just the illusion of security. I believe all or nearly all of the terrorists on 9/11 had valid IDs anyway.

That's an excellent point and while I agree, I still think keeping track of who's been through checkpoints is at least indirectly related to security. Should someone try to pass off a fake ID there's a potential for it to be caught

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by motivez

That's an excellent point and while I agree, I still think keeping track of who's been through checkpoints is at least indirectly related to security. Should someone try to pass off a fake ID there's a potential for it to be caught

That's a good counter. Of course, knowing who was there after the explosion occurrs isn't going to help much more than in the identification of bodies

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

You don't think it's reasonable that they'd want a list of everyone who passed through security checkpoints?

No.

I mean, if something goes wrong, at least they could cross off names that checked out to narrow it down..

The point of security is, I thought, to make sure the area is secure.

If they search me then they know I don't have weapons, contraband, etc..........why do they need to know my name? They know I didn't bring anything "forbidden" in so what's the point of having my name?

[motivez]

An area is more secure if you know the people in that area are supposed to be there

I think there's more to a threat than just having contraband.. what if the evil-doer is a ninja who can snap people's necks?

And, at least with ID you have another chance to detect someone shady. Maybe they're nervous about showing something if the details are fake.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

An area is more secure if you know the people in that area are supposed to be there

I had a ticket so you know I was supposed to be there.

I think there's more to a threat than just having contraband.. what if the evil-doer is a ninja who can snap people's necks?

Would having to show an ID magically take that ability away?

And, at least with ID you have another chance to detect someone shady. Maybe they're nervous about showing something if the details are fake.

maybe maybe maybe........

[motivez]

And if something happens and they don't prevent it, there will be a chorus of people saying things like: ...maybe if they had done this, that wouldn't have happened.

I'd say when it comes to security, a business is going to run with the idea that it's better to be safe, than sorry.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

And if something happens and they don't prevent it, there will be a chorus of people saying things like: ...maybe if they had done this, that wouldn't have happened.

but they did that, and 19 hijackers still killed thousands.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

but they did that, and 19 hijackers still killed thousands.

not really, airport security prior to 9/11 was lax. It has become so invading since then, that even I, kinggovernor, don't like flying. In fact I fact it degrading. Absolutely fucking degrading, but you certainly can't accuse them of "well we would have done this while screen passengers into air terminals"

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

not really, airport security prior to 9/11 was lax. It has become so invading since then, that even I, kinggovernor, don't like flying. In fact I fact it degrading. Absolutely fucking degrading, but you certainly can't accuse them of "well we would have done this while screen passengers into air terminals"

It doesn't have to be degrading.

Try this:

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Phantom

It doesn't have to be degrading.

Try this:

Or those silver nano-particles socks

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Phantom

It doesn't have to be degrading.

Try this:

The last time I flew was Spring Break.

"Sir can you please take your sandals off&qu