Friday, June 5, 2009

Is TSA Really Taking Fingerprints of Passengers???

I’ve been seeing this around the blogosphere, so I thought I’d attempt to clear this up a little bit.

Is TSA Really Taking Fingerprints from Passengers??? Yes, but only at Atlanta checkpoints from non-US citizens leaving the country. Our sister component, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is conducting the same tests in Detroit.

This is all part of the Department of Homeland Security’s US VISIT pilot program. Fingerprints (biometrics) are already collected from incoming non-US citizens applying for visas and also at ports of entry and are used to stop criminals and immigration violators. Exit prints will help identify when non-US citizens exit the country, how long they’ve been here, or if somebody has stayed in the states illegally.

TSA is assisting with this pilot program and fingerprints about 800 passengers at ATL daily.

The US VISIT pilot program will end in July. The Department of Homeland Security plans on launching the new exit procedures within the next year.

By the way, these are digital fingerprints, so you don’t have to worry about ending up with an accidental ink mustache or a trendy fingerprint patterned shirt or tie. For more information on US VISIT, you can read the press release , web page, or the privacy impact assessment.

Bob

TSA Blog Team

99 comments:

Anonymous said...

So, as a visitor is leaving, we take a record of how long s/he may or may not have been illegally prolonging his/her stay? I think many of us lurkers would appreciate a more thorough justification; a realistic example scenario would be helpful.

Digital fingerprints are, to my mind, far more risky and insecure than paper prints: will these digital fingerprints be verifiably retired/deleted after a time, or will they persist, subject to the perpetually-embarrassing cycle of digital security problems already plaguing bureaucracies such as those of the USA and UK?

Anonymous said...

Why do we care about catching illegals who are leaving the United States. After all, they're LEAVING. Would you rather them not?

Trollkiller said...

Where does the TSA get the legal authority to implement immigration procedures? (Title, section and paragraph please)

Anonymous said...

YAY, even slower air travel, and longer queues.

Flying is such a huge pain in the butt these days that it makes going by car, boat, or train that much more interesting.

The worst part is that if you step back and look at it logically, none of it is really required. You shouldn't have to get to the airport an entire additional half hour to an hour early JUST for security screenings.

When terrorists do strike again I'm sure they will pick one of thousands of soft targets.

Bruno Kush said...

At first I thought they were going to take fingerprints of everything and everyone, but apparently it's only in some major cities with non citizens that are leaving the state. I don't understand why this procedure wouldn't be done everywhere? Is it because there's more illegal aliens in those parts and states? It be interesting to know.

David said...

Surely having a trial run at only a few select airports encourages those who choose to avoid this procedure to fly via a different airport.

As Trollkiller asks, I would also like to see where the TSA has suthority to conduct immigration procedures.

As Anonymous asks, would the digital fingerprints be deleted afterwards, or would they be filed and linked to a Passport and used as part of a record of visits.

Anonymous said...

It is only a matter of months before they roll this out to anyone that *looks* foreign and then a year or so until they just fingerprint everyone.

TSM, been.... said...

Quoted
"Trollkiller said...
Where does the TSA get the legal authority to implement immigration procedures? (Title, section and paragraph please)

June 6, 2009 2:55 AM"
-----------------------------
Trollkiller strikes again!
So quick to jump on the "Where does the TSA get the legal authority...."
bandwagon that he obviously missed the "TSA is ASSISTING...." sentence.
TSA is not authorized. It is assisting an agency that IS!!

HappyToHelp said...

How long is information retained?



Air Exit information is retained by US-VISIT in accordance with the approved IDENT retention schedule of 75 years. The IDENT PIA is available at: www.dhs.gov/privacy.
Data stored on the mobile device is no longer needed once it is loaded into IDENT and is immediately deleted from the device upon confirmation of its successful transfer to the IDENT system.

-Tim "H2H"

EoS Blog Team

GSOLTSO said...

I think that this has a chance to be an effective system to do several things.
1) It can locate people that are here illegally and allow the CBP to track more info on the travels of illegal persons.
2) It can help identify trends in locations (for example, what areas have higher than anticipated traffic in illegal persons).
3) It can help with assuring the proper departure and listing of individuals that have entered illegally.
4) It can help identify persons that are abusing the privileges given to them as a visiting person by extending past their designated deadline.
5) It can also allow the CBP to prevent repeat offenders from returning if they show a tendency to stay past their alloted time.

I like this, it seems like a good idea to help develop more info on illegal persons and how they move through the country so preventative steps can be taken in the future. It will allow CBP to use it's resources more effectively.

West
TSA Blog Team

BubbaLoop said...

1 - Don't airlines collect the visa slips when foreigners leave so that immigration knows the date? How does fingerprinting add to this information? Immigration already gets the fingerprints on entry. Why do they need an extra copy?

2 - I am a "foreign national" who happens to have a perfectly legal US-issued driver's license which has nothing printed on it stating my nationality. How do you plan to find out that people like me are "foreign nationals"?

3 - Haven't you had enough with making foreigners feel unwelcome? The fingerprinting and photographing on entry make all of us feel like criminals. Now we get to be further belittled by the TSA too. Disgusting.

Trollkiller said...

TSM, been.... said...

Quoted
"Trollkiller said...
Where does the TSA get the legal authority to implement immigration procedures? (Title, section and paragraph please)

June 6, 2009 2:55 AM"
-----------------------------
Trollkiller strikes again!
So quick to jump on the "Where does the TSA get the legal authority...."
bandwagon that he obviously missed the "TSA is ASSISTING...." sentence.
TSA is not authorized. It is assisting an agency that IS!!



Maybe you missed this paragraph

"Is TSA Really Taking Fingerprints from Passengers??? Yes, but only at Atlanta checkpoints from non-US citizens leaving the country. Our sister component, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is conducting the same tests in Detroit."

The wording of this along with this sentence

"TSA is assisting with this pilot program and fingerprints about 800 passengers at ATL daily."

informs me that the TSA is NOT assisting U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As the sentence says they are assisting WITH THIS PILOT PROGRAM.

Contrary to DHS's assertion separate components DO NOT have the same authority.

Once again I ask, where does the TSA get the authority to conduct immigration policy? The answer should not be hard to come up with, unless they don't have it.

Tomas said...

Er, I fail to understand how TSA will determine which of two people standing in front of them with real government issued picture ID (driver's licenses, for example) they need to fingerprint...

How does one differentiate the illegal alien with a state issued picture ID from the US citizen with same?

Does this mean a good number of illegal aliens will not be fingerprinted, or, to alleviate that possibility, will a good number of US citizens be 'printed?

Tom

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Why do we care about catching illegals who are leaving the United States. After all, they're LEAVING. Would you rather them not?

-------

so they (cbp) know who overstayed? and not let them come in again.

HappyToHelp said...

What specific legal authorities, arrangements, and/or agreements defined the collection of information?



In addition to the legal authorities that oversee implementation of US-VISIT, the legal authorities, arrangements, and agreements that specifically define the collection of Air Exit information are found in the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007 (STCPA). The STCPA directs the Secretary of DHS to establish an exit system that records the departure information of non-U.S. citizen visitors to the United States.
The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, Div. D (Department of Homeland Security Act Appropriations, 2009) directs US-VISIT to implement a pilot where limited biometric and biographic data is collected from non-U.S. citizen visitors departing the United States by air.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, authorized the creation of an entry-exit system that integrates non-U.S. citizen visitor arrival and departure information. The Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (DMIA) requires the entry-exit system integrate all authorized or required arrival and departure data in electronic format.
The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, Section 205 (October 30, 2000), provides for the creation of a system that contains a record of the arrival and departure of every non-U.S. citizen visitor admitted under the Visa Waiver Program at air or sea ports of entry. The provisions of the DMIA subsequently resulted in the integration of the Visa Waiver Program arrival/departure information into the primary entry-exit system component of US-VISIT.

-Tim "H2H"

EoS Blog Team

Oyvind said...

Well, you do at Minneapolis airport too now, don't you?

Sandra said...

Where are the brochures at the MMW machines? Do you not have any because brochures are "portable" and through one brochure many people would learn they are being strip searched at this machine and therefore refuse to use is, thereby reducing your "acceptance rate?"

Bob, or rather Lynn who is more responsive, where are the brochures?

P.S. Signs don't count - the PIA calls for BROCHURES.

Anonymous said...

I never cease to be amazed at how people make assumptions about and/or criticize agencies, policies and procedures, with which they are obviously not familiar, except as a spectator!
For example, I don't pretend to understand all that is involved in repairing a problem with my automobile at various levels, but I must have some trust in my licensed mechanic that they DO, and the problem can hopefully be fixed.
It is our right and responsibility to ask questions and become better informed and educated, but to think for a moment that we are ever going to get ALL of the answers to questions that are a matter of National Security is ludicrous! (Security being a key word, here!).
The issue at hand is keeping our country safe from the likes of 911, NOT the inconveniencing of passenger travel.
Let's get our focus straight and our priorities in order!

Anonymous said...

I don't understand you people. If TSA has been given the duty of assisting with this pilot program, then they HAVE the authority. Some of you guys are way too literal when saying TSA should stick to the "security" of airline transportation. Yes, that is where they started b/c of 9/11, but who says agencies can't branch out. Just b/c you don't think they should/should not have other duties, doesn't make it so. If they are expanding on their duties, then they have been given the authority to perform those duties by the government apparently. If they choose TSA to carry out or assist with something new, then I think that is great. The best thing agencies can do is network all their efforts for the best results possible. It's called communication. Why wait until something happens and be reactive? I think TSA is trying to be proactive and doing things you may not understand, but it'll show in the long run.

HappyToHelp said...

How is the information collected?



CBP Officers and TSA Security Officers (TSOs) facilitate the collection of biometric and biographic information using a briefcase and/or handheld biometric and biographic collection device. Certain non-U.S. citizen visitors with an international destination are directed to areas near the departure gate or by TSOs at the TSA checkpoint for biometric and biographic information collection. The collection devices scan fingerprint data and Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTD), such as passports and visa documents.
CBP uses temporary signage at the gate for a flight identified for participation in the Pilot. The signage directs non-U.S. citizen visitors as to the procedures for complying with the program (e.g., where to line up, which fingers to present for scanning, etc.). CBP Officers, acting on behalf of US-VISIT, collect biographic information from the MRTD using the mobile collection device. After confirmation that the individual is in-scope, the CBP Officer facilitates the collection of biometrics.
TSA determines in-scope individuals by reviewing the presented form of identification and the destination indicated on the boarding pass. If the individual is initially determined to be in-scope, the individual is directed to the biographic/biometric collection area. The TSO, acting on behalf of US-VISIT, will swipe the MRTD through the mobile collection device to collect biographic information. Based on the biographics, these devices are capable of alerting the officers as to whether the individual is in-scope or out-of-scope.(If the individual is not in-scope, the TSO will delete that individual’s biographics from the mobile device, and the individual will be escorted to the TSA screening checkpoint.) After confirmation that the individual is in-scope, the TSO facilitates the collection of biometrics. After the TSO has completed the information collection, the individual is escorted to the TSA screening checkpoint.

-Tim "H2H"

EoS Blog Team

Cory said...

"Where are the brochures at the MMW machines? Do you not have any because brochures are "portable" and through one brochure many people would learn they are being strip searched at this machine and therefore refuse to use is, thereby reducing your "acceptance rate?"

Bob, or rather Lynn who is more responsive, where are the brochures?

P.S. Signs don't count - the PIA calls for BROCHURES."


SANDRA ARGUE THE POST ON THE WBI THREAD NOT THIS ONE. THIS IS WHAT I HATE ABOUT THIS BLOG, STAY ON TOPIC WITH THE THREAD,IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ANOTHER TOPIC KEEP POSTING IT ON THE CORRECT THREAD

Anonymous said...

How about a new blog on the incident at PHL where an employee took an unloaded gun through and employee screening checkpoint and then gave it to the passenger it belonged to who then carried on-board a US Airways flight. Why is the employee screening apparently not as stringent as passenger screening? And if it is supposed to be the same as passenger sceeening how did this happen?

Frank
BOS

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

"TSA is assisting with this pilot program and fingerprints about 800 passengers at ATL daily."

informs me that the TSA is NOT assisting U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As the sentence says they are assisting WITH THIS PILOT PROGRAM."

You really love to argue semantics don't you, and as such lose much of your credibility.

It is clear from what you cited that TSA is only assisting with this program.

However, I'm sure many of the poster to this blog cheer at what you say simply becasue they hate TSA.

Trollkiller said...

HappyToHelp said...

What specific legal authorities, arrangements, and/or agreements defined the collection of information?

snipped due to post length being too great. sorry




Bless your heart Tim, I see by the time stamp of your post you really put forth the effort in order to get me the information. I really appreciate it.

Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009

united states visitor and immigrant status indicator technology

...Provided further, That no funding under this heading shall be obligated for implementation of a final air exit solution pursuant to the notice of proposed rulemaking (DHS-2008-0039) published on April 24, 2008, until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive a report on pilot tests of the air exit solution, which shall be reviewed by the Government Accountability Office, and which shall test at least two scenarios: (a) where the airlines collect and transmit biometric exit data as proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and (b) where U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects such information at the departure gates.


Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1365a)(d)

(d) Deadlines
(1) Airports and seaports
Not later than December 31, 2003, the Attorney General shall implement the integrated entry and exit data system using available alien arrival and departure data described in subsection (b)(1) of this section pertaining to aliens arriving in, or departing from, the United States at an airport or seaport. Such implementation shall include ensuring that such data, when collected or created by an immigration officer at an airport or seaport, are entered into the system and can be accessed by immigration officers at other airports and seaports.


Has the TSA become an arm of U.S. Customs and Border Protection? If it hasn't the TSA is once again acting outside its legal authority as provided by law.

Do me a favor, please link to the statutes or the page you got the information from.

It appears they can have a half a dozen bills with the same title. I spent a good amount of time (between races and cartoons) tracking it down and running into dead ends.

In any case I really do appreciate the effort. Thanks. (too funny my word verification is uncontsa)

Ordis said...

When terrorists do strike again I'm sure they will pick one of thousands of soft targets.

Anonymous said...

Questions for the Public from a TSO.

1. Why do you care?

2. Does it affect you?

3. So you want it to be easier for immigrants to overstay and then come back in?

Anonymous said...

Sandra said...
Where are the brochures at the MMW machines? Do you not have any because brochures are "portable" and through one brochure many people would learn they are being strip searched at this machine and therefore refuse to use is, thereby reducing your "acceptance rate?"

Bob, or rather Lynn who is more responsive, where are the brochures?

P.S. Signs don't count - the PIA calls for BROCHURES.
___________________________________
Wow, everyone was on subject until you!

RB said...

Why the total silence on last weeks news?

Yet another TSO stealing from checked luggage and an unscreened airline/airport worker taking a gun through a workers entrance for a person who was a passenger on a flight?

It would seem these are notable events that would merit some attention by TSA.

You guys are never at a loss of blowing your on horn when you confiscate a homemade battery pack or such.

Tell us how this fingerprint boondoggle is keeping us safer when your security plan leaks like a sieve..

Unanswered Questions said...

Are there to be separate lanes for international passengers?

What happens if a non-citizen does not comply? Will they be prevented from leaving the country?

How will one distinguish between a citizen and on-citizen? Passports may not be required for a non-citizen to return to their home country to to travel to a third country.

How does this effect greencard holders?

Will someone who has overstayed their visa be prohibited from leaving the country, or will their overstay be recorded in order to later deny re-entry?

Is a similar effort being applied to land/sea entry into the United States?

carp said...

>I think that this has a chance to be
> an effective system to do several
> things.

Effective? Interesting.

> 1) It can locate people that are here
> illegally and allow the CBP to track
> more info on the travels of illegal
> persons.

How exactly does it do that? I am not aware of anyway to remotely track a person by fingerprint. They don't give off any signal. They can only really be used to verify that a person was in a specific place and touched a specific item, and then, dependant on the material and conditions. (try to take fingerprints from a car thats been sitting in the sun all day and see if you find anything, except maybe on the glass surfaces that people tend not to touch often)

> 2) It can help identify trends in
> locations (for example, what areas
> have higher than anticipated traffic
> in illegal persons).

Seems to me that could be done without fingerprints. All you really need is a database that people can enter info into. In fact, you can do that with a database that doesn't keep a lick of personally identifiable information.
(which is, generally speaking, what I consider the responsible way to study something like this, so that those being studied are not exposed to unintended consequences of being in said database)

> 3) It can help with assuring the
> proper departure and listing of
> individuals that have entered
> illegally.

Wouldn't you need to have their fingerprints first to do that? Also, how does fingerprinting help with that? Do we have a lot of illegals named Spartacus?

> 4) It can help identify persons that
> are abusing the privileges given to
> them as a visiting person by
> extending past their designated
> deadline.

If you fingerprint them on exit... how does this help you if they don't show up?

> 5) It can also allow the CBP to
> prevent repeat offenders from
> returning if they show a tendency to
> stay past their alloted time.

And if they show a tendency to not enter through your defined checkpoints?
Or a tendency to steal the ID of someone who looks like them and enter with "valid" credentials?

> I like this, it seems like a good
> idea to help develop more info on
> illegal persons and how they move
> through the country so preventative
> steps can be taken in the future. It
> will allow CBP to use it's resources
> more effectively.

Meh, illegal immigration has been a red herring issue for years. Exactly the same xenophobic anti-imigrant rhetoric was used during the Irish Potato Famine, and pretty much every other time a new group of immigrants has come here.

Its almost as bad as the terrorism excuse really.

-Steve

carp said...

One question... what about people without fingerprints?

Its not like everyone without them is a criminal. In fact, at least one medication, and two genetic disorders have been linked to lack of fingerprints.

There is also the question of misidentification as shown in this story here: http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2002/2002_05_27_fingerprint.html

Overall, fingerprints seem like a great technology when you have a small group of people and need to figure out which one of that group is the cuprit. (6 people have keys to the house, one of them has fingerprints on the murder weapon....)

However, I would imagine that, as the number increases, you quickly start to run into a birthday paradox issue. You can't garauntee that any individual fingerprint is globally unique. This means the likelyhood of your fingerprint and mine matching is very very slim. However, once you get a large enough group... what are the chances that "any two match"?

A group of 10 has 55 pairs. A group of 5 has 15. Scale that up to thousands and, well, I can't do that math on the back of an envelope.

-Steve

opendna said...

Anonymous#1 and Anonymous#2: CBP wants to know who is leaving when in part because anyone who over-stays their immigration authorization automatically voids their entry visa (which is otherwise typically valid for 10 years). The information is shared with CBP officers at ports of entry (so they know who no longer has a valid visa) and with DoS visa officers (who then know who should not get a renewed visa).

Trollkiller: 8 U.S.C. 1187, 1365a and note, 1379, 1731–31, as reported on page 482 of the Federal Register Vol 69 No 2 on January 5 2004. see http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/usvisit/USVisitnotice1-5-04.pdf

The short version is: Congress gave authority for US-VISIT to the Department of Homeland Security, and granted the Secretary the power to delegate implementation. As both CBP and TSA are DHS agencies, TSA does not require specific legislation authorizing the program.

shanice said...

Very cool! They need this system implemented at MSP. I cannot wait until they move this program to all airports nationwide. Great idea TSA!
From one fellow TSO to another. . .

Anonymous said...

Wes sez:
I think that this has a chance to be an effective system to do several things.
1) It can locate people that are here illegally and allow the CBP to track more info on the travels of illegal persons.
2) It can help identify trends in locations (for example, what areas have higher than anticipated traffic in illegal persons).
3) It can help with assuring the proper departure and listing of individuals that have entered illegally.
4) It can help identify persons that are abusing the privileges given to them as a visiting person by extending past their designated deadline.
5) It can also allow the CBP to prevent repeat offenders from returning if they show a tendency to stay past their alloted time.

I like this, it seems like a good idea to help develop more info on illegal persons and how they move through the country so preventative steps can be taken in the future. It will allow CBP to use it's resources more effectively.

West
TSA Blog Team

June 6, 2009 7:22 PM

Thanks, West, for confirmation that this has ZERO to do with security and 100% to do with illegal immigration. In other words, just another example of TSA finding anything to do other than its duty of keeping guns, explosives and incindiery devices off the plane.

MYOB

carp said...

In my last post (not approved yet, but I imagine its only a matter of tie), I mentioned the Birthday problem. I did a bit more searching, and I really recommend anyone involved in this program check out this tale:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/a_sad_tale_of_b.html

Essentially, a health club trying to use fingerprint scanners finding all manner of trouble. In this case, they had several factors involved (finger shape change from being in the water, or patterns left by barbells).

In any case, given the potential numbers we are talking about, I have to imagine that this would be a real problem and I am curious as to what steps are being taken to prevent misidentification.

I am still not exactly sure what it intends to accomplish, or why its actually going to make much of a difference. Seems that anyone we really need to worry about that much is already being fingerprinted.

-Steve

Mike said...

Why is the TSA involved at all? What does the TSA have to do with tracking illegal immigrants? Or is this simply an extension of the workfare program?

Mike

Omar said...

Yay, more making visitors feel unwelcome.

Wonder how long before we US citizens can no longer travel abroad with the current favorable/minimal rules we enjoy from other nations-- sooner or later there will be reciprocity and US citizens will be subject to the same lack of welcome visitors to the US experience.

And there's a move towards biometric authentication in the world-- that means things like fingerprints or retina scans instead of passwords. So the Feds will get to keep a database of every visitor's potential passwords for 75 years?? Super, we just KNOW the feds would never abuse that, I mean are there any historical examples of such?? (dripping sarcasm)

Anonymous said...

A few of the comments here mention the Illegal aliens that have valid state IDs or the legal aliens who have valid state ID's with no indication that they are temporary or visitors.
This is one reason the Feds have been trying to get states to make IDS standard or at least have specific information on them.
The comments are correct in that illegal aliens can get REAL state ID's because the states don't enforce the Federal laws.

The states need to correct this problem. I think the Feds should help pay for the standardization of the Drivers License/ID for all states to get on the same page.

Anonymous said...

as for caring if an illegal alien is leaving the country, "why should we care?" or "why would we want to stop them?".
Suppose this person has committed a major crime (murder, drug trafficking, smuggling, billion dollor fraud, planting an explosive) and is fleeing back to home, or somewhere else to disapear. By checking those leaving the country and maybe matching a fingerprint, we would have a chance at seeing where they fled to for future apprehension.

bmvaughn said...

That's awesome... I first skimmed the title and thought it said that TSA was taking footprints.. that'd work well with taking off shoes ;)

BubbaLoop said...

Hey, how about some answers to our questions??

RB said...

If they are expanding on their duties, then they have been given the authority to perform those duties by the government apparently.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
So you assume TSA has been given the authority to perform those duties.

You know what happens when you assume?

The legislation spells out what TSA or any othe federal agency can and cannot do.

TSA pushes the bounds of its enabloing legislation on a regular basis.

This particualr function was not given to TSA and they have no legislation that gives them the right to collect fingerprints.

Anon_TO said...

In response to "Questions for the Public from a TSO."

1. Why do you care?

Because I am entering your country to spend money, not be treated like a common criminal

2. Does it affect you?

I don't know; and probably won't find out until I am "selected".

Someone else asked what happens if someone refuses to be fingerprinted - I will let you know if/when it happens.


3. So you want it to be easier for immigrants to overstay and then come back in?

No, I want to be treated with basic human dignity; I do not want my biometric data feed into "the beast"

I want to be welcomed when I turn up somewhere with money to spend.

Is that some difficult to understand?

HappyToHelp said...

TK said...
“Bless your heart Tim, I see by the time stamp of your post you really put forth the effort in order to get me the information. I really appreciate it.”

No prob... The information can be found here under 1.6.

Other places to checkout:

DOCID:fr03jn09-93

DOCID:fr19de08-1

-Tim

TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

"SANDRA ARGUE THE POST ON THE WBI THREAD NOT THIS ONE. THIS IS WHAT I HATE ABOUT THIS BLOG, STAY ON TOPIC WITH THE THREAD,IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ANOTHER TOPIC KEEP POSTING IT ON THE CORRECT THREAD"

Cory, TSA has ceased updating existing threads about its strip search machines. Ergo, citizens seeking answers about TSA's apparent refusal to follow its own policies must do so in active threads. Don't worry yourself; it's not like these questions will be answered, anyway. Poor Bob and Lynn refuse to even answer how TSA makes sure every passenger knows that they can decline the strip search, so why should we expect an answer about the brochures?

Sandra said...

West wrote: "I like this, it seems like a good idea to help develop more info on illegal persons and how they move through the country so preventative steps can be taken in the future."

What in heavens name does this mean, West? It's a totally nonsensical statement.

To Cory and Anonymous: tough darts.

carp said...

Anonymous (well one of you)...

Actually illegal aliens being able to get state IDs could be argued to be a good thing. (and has been)

State ID databses, and specifically drivers licenses, are the most complete databases of people that are available to law enforcement. Period.

If illegal aliens can't get state IDs, then they just wont have ID, and there will not be a record of them and where they live anywhere.

From http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html a discussion of REAL ID:
"REAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This makes no sense, and will only result in these illegal aliens driving without licenses -- which isn't going to help anyone's security. (This is an interesting insecurity, and is a direct result of trying to take a document that is a specific permission to drive an automobile, and turning it into a general identification device.)"

-Steve

George said...

Cory, TSA has ceased updating existing threads about its strip search machines. Ergo, citizens seeking answers about TSA's apparent refusal to follow its own policies must do so in active threads.

They actually still are posting comments to the posts about the strip search machines. They're delayed a bit, but that's presumably because moderating this blog is not Bob's full-time job and (I hope) he has more important priorities.

That said, I'm still waiting for Bob to answer my question about whether TSA rules actually require TSOs to honor passenger requests for assistance in keeping their belongings in view during the strip search procedure. I believe this is a legitimate question raised by Bob's comment.

I have to assume that the silence means there is no such rule or requirement. So a passenger's ability to protect his identity papers from which the strip search "security protocol" separated him depends entirely on the whim of the TSO.

V L said...

Anonymous said...
Questions for the Public from a TSO.

1. Why do you care?

2. Does it affect you?

3. So you want it to be easier for immigrants to overstay and then come back in?
-----------------------------
1. Yes, as an American who believes in freedom for all people I find it troublesome when our government treats large quantity of people as criminals with no basis for doing so.
2. Not directly and not yet. When things like this go unchecked it is possible for them to expand. I would not be surprised if everyone traveling by air will have to be fingerprinted as a form of ID checking.
3. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” We are a land and people of immigrants.

carp said...

ANswers inline....
> Questions for the Public from a TSO.

Fair enough, I will bite.

> 1. Why do you care?

Thats the million dollar question now isn't it. In the grand scheme of things I don't care about the specifics so much as I do care that we
a) Try to spend money and man hours in ways that actually make a difference
and
b) Try to avoid doing things that have negative unintended consequences that outweigh the intended effect

In short: I am a policy wonk.

> 2. Does it affect you?

Well, I guess thats a good question. However, it possibly missing one point. Its not "does it affect me" as much as "do I envision it effecting me in the future".

The answer is, maybe. If this program works out, it will probably be expanded. Afterall, I think we have seen ample evidence that many policy directing minds think more about what they can do and less about what they should.

> 3. So you want it to be easier for
> immigrants to overstay and then come
> back in?

I don't really care that much, immigration isn't my issue. I tend to view it as a red herring, a distraction from the real issues.

I also don't see how this makes it so much harder. Its not like they are going to come back in through a door with a fingerprint scanner.

-Steve

Caps said...

Flying is such a huge pain in the butt these days that it makes going by car, boat, or train that much more interesting.

I hate to fly

Biometric Scanners said...

this is going to become more and more commonplace. Especially in places that revolve around using identification for travel or obtaining government IDs.

Canada is just announcing this to be implemented within the next 2 years as well.

Trollkiller said...

opendna said...
Trollkiller: 8 U.S.C. 1187, 1365a and note, 1379, 1731–31, as reported on page 482 of the Federal Register Vol 69 No 2 on January 5 2004. see http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/usvisit/USVisitnotice1-5-04.pdf

The short version is: Congress gave authority for US-VISIT to the Department of Homeland Security, and granted the Secretary the power to delegate implementation. As both CBP and TSA are DHS agencies, TSA does not require specific legislation authorizing the program.


Thank you for the info, one point of correction. Everything I have read gives the authority of US-VISIT to the Attorney General using CBP.

The only thing I see that may give the TSA an out is C.F.R 8 § 215.8

Requirements for biometric identifiers from aliens on departure from the United States.
top
(a)(1) The Secretary of Homeland Security, or his designee, may establish pilot programs at land border ports of entry, and at up to fifteen air or sea ports of entry, designated through notice in the Federal Register, through which the Secretary or his delegate may require an alien admitted to or paroled into the United States, other than aliens exempted... who departs the United States from a designated port of entry, to provide fingerprints, photograph(s) or other specified biometric identifiers,...


The above raises the question of what outranks, a law in the C.F.R. or one signed by the President?

It appears like the TSA is allowed under the DHS Secretary’s authority to create a PILOT program but not implement a working program without Congressional approval.

Trollkiller said...

HappyToHelp said...
TK said...
“Bless your heart Tim, I see by the time stamp of your post you really put forth the effort in order to get me the information. I really appreciate it.”

No prob... The information can be found here under 1.6.

Other places to checkout:

DOCID:fr03jn09-93

DOCID:fr19de08-1

-Tim

TSA Blog Team


So the argument is that this is a SEPERATE pilot program?

(one for the airlines, one for CBP and an extra one by the TSA)

Looking over the documentation you and opendna provided it does appear that the TSA has the authority to do a limited pilot program and remain within the law.

See folks, this is how to make the Trollkiller happy. I asked and the appropriate statutes appeared, now if that would only happen on the illegal ID verification query.

TSORon said...

For those who missed this one:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_tsa_wbi.pdf

Gwen M. said...

TSORon referred us to a link to the PIA for WBI, wherein is written:

"Informational brochures regarding the program will be made available at each WBI site that will show a WBI image that the technology will create."

and

"Individual participation and consent is exercised by the individual’s selection of the screening method and no individual is required to use WBI for screening. Consent is informed by the availability of brochures that explain the technology and show a sample image."

As others have asked, where are the brochures?

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

"now if that would only happen on the illegal ID verification query."

Trollkiller, you are just too funny. I didn't know a dead horse can be beaten this long.

But if you really consider yourself a champion of constitutional rights, as you claim. Why are you not doing something about it? Seriously, what is that saying? Put your money where you mouth is?

If it is illegal as you say, buy an airline ticket, goto an airport, refuse to show your id, and when you are denied access through the checkpoint, goto court and win the victory you think you will win.

Other than that, you wasting your own time yapping on here.

Otherwise, can you give me a reason why you shouldn't be ignored? I actually won't ignore you - your post usually make me laugh.

Anonymous said...

RB said...

"So you assume TSA has been given the authority to perform those duties.

You know what happens when you assume?"

RB maybe you should heed your own advise! You make ALOT of assumptions in many of your post.

Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

"now if that would only happen on the illegal ID verification query."

Trollkiller, you are just too funny. I didn't know a dead horse can be beaten this long.

But if you really consider yourself a champion of constitutional rights, as you claim. Why are you not doing something about it? Seriously, what is that saying? Put your money where you mouth is?

If it is illegal as you say, buy an airline ticket, goto an airport, refuse to show your id, and when you are denied access through the checkpoint, goto court and win the victory you think you will win.

Other than that, you wasting your own time yapping on here.

Otherwise, can you give me a reason why you shouldn't be ignored? I actually won't ignore you - your post usually make me laugh.


I can tell you have not been reading my posts. The ID verification issue is not a Constitutional issue at this point. My argument has been consistently a statutory issue. Please pay attention.

I will beat that horse until I get a proper official response showing where the TSA gets authority, the TSA changes the C.F.R. to give them the authority, or until it is taken to court.

As for your "put your money where your mouth is" comment, hard to do when the money simply is not there.

If you would like to donate a round trip ticket I would appreciate it.

BubbaLoop said...

Can someone please explain to me how non-citizens are being identified????

We all seem to agree both legal and illegal non-citizens can have ID that does not identify their nationality.

Anonymous said...

to Carp

I was the annonymous talking about Illegal Aliens getting IDs.

I agree that an alien having an ID has its benefits, such as when soomeon said they now have a ecord and are driving legally (know the rules, took a test).

On of the things needed on that ID is a date that says when they should have left the country. I see DL's that expire years after a person was supposed to leave (visa expires etc.) and unless the police have no way of knowing because they aren't going to ask for a visa/passport.

Also, a standard ID, just for reference sake is a great idea and would help everyone including - Bartenders, police, TSOs, and anyone else that works where ID is checked. Having the same info in the same spot formatted the same way would just make sense and be easy. The states could still make it their color, have a logos etc but be in a standard format so when I am looking for a bi of info, i look in one spot, all the time.

Sandra said...

Hey, Ronnie, why did you link us to the PIA for whole body imaging when this thread is about fingerprinting?

Did you get it wrong yet again? ;-)

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

"I can tell you have not been reading my posts. The ID verification issue is not a Constitutional issue at this point. My argument has been consistently a statutory issue. Please pay attention.

I will beat that horse until I get a proper official response showing where the TSA gets authority, the TSA changes the C.F.R. to give them the authority, or until it is taken to court.

As for your "put your money where your mouth is" comment, hard to do when the money simply is not there.

If you would like to donate a round trip ticket I would appreciate it."

_____________________________

Actually, I can tell that YOU haven't been reading your own post, or the replys to your own post. But first...

Why would it have to be a round trip ticket? I mean, if you do it, you won't end up flying, right? So why not a one way ticket? You can get those for somewhat less than $100 easy. I don't know your finiances, and I really don't want to. But I assume the topics you bring up on here are important to you (maybe my mistake, you know what they say about making assumptions), but not so important that you would not spend $100?

Ok, now the other topics.

Again, read your own post, and the reply. The claim I made about you claiming to be a champion of the Constitution comes from a reading of your own web site. Thats right, I clicked on your name and went to you web page.

The very the first sentence from your site reads:

"I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United".

You did tell me in another post to check out your site to see what you were about. I did, and the first thing I read at the very top of your site under the name "Trollkiller" was a pledge to protect the Constitution. Was I wrong then to cite that? I think a very strong argument can be made that when you put that pledge at the top of your page you are implying a very strong, protective attitude toward the Constitution. That you are its supporter; that you enjoy the ideals of the Constitution. I can infer more, but will stop there. I do not think it irrational to conclude you champion the Constitution. You may disagree.

Next, you demand to see what statutory right gives TSA authority to check passengers identification. Why? Haven't you read your own post and the replies to your post?

It has been pointed out to you before that TSA issues Security Directives, as was done with the identification check, and this particular Directive was kept secret per SSI.

Courts have ruled that Security Directives are as effective as laws, and are constitutional. They are not statutory.

A court reviewed this particular Directive "in camera" and concluded:

"It is clear from the Ninth Circuit opinion that there
exists a TSA Directive requiring a traveler to present
government-issued identification before entering the gate
area of an airport or boarding a plane".

This eventually was appealed to the Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case, which in effect allows the current ruling to stand.

You wrote you will continue to beat this dead horse untill you get an official answer where "TSA gets authority, the TSA changes the C.F.R. to give them the authority, or until it is taken to court."

Ok, I know you didn't read anything post before, because then you would have known it was taken to court. TSA won. So now, according to your own words, you can stop beating that horse. Its over.

So you will not ever find a statutory law to cite. This Directive will remain secret untill TSA decides to release it. Understand, I am not saying it should be secret, just say that it currently is.

Again, this information was made available to you before, on various occasions. You chose to ignore it, and then tell me to make sure I read carefully. Sound advice. You should take it.

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

"See folks, this is how to make the Trollkiller happy. I asked and the appropriate statutes appeared, now if that would only happen on the illegal ID verification query."

Well golly-gee-whiz! I didn't know it was all about Trollkiller! Now that I know how to make him happy, I can sleep better at night.

Construction machinery said...

TSA issued a press release last week notifying the public that effective May 15, 2009 new identification requirements will be in place Passengers are required to enter their full name - as it appears on the government issued identification they will be traveling with - when making airline reservations. TSA states that in the near future, small discrepancies. E.g. use of a middle initial (or not) - will be allowed. In the meantime, check your id BEFORE you purchase! Airlines are not likely to offer refunds if a passenger makes a mistake and is not allowed completing the screening process.

Warm Regards By
David James

GSOLTSO said...

carp sez - "How exactly does it do that? I am not aware of anyway to remotely track a person by fingerprint. They don't give off any signal. They can only really be used to verify that a person was in a specific place and touched a specific item, and then, dependant on the material and conditions. (try to take fingerprints from a car thats been sitting in the sun all day and see if you find anything, except maybe on the glass surfaces that people tend not to touch often)"

Good point, however when you begin the database, ask questions and interview illegal persons that are identified, you can begin to identify trends in where they are, have been, perhaps even what they have been doing. It is basic "grunt" work for CBP, the same thing they do every day at other locations.


And - "Seems to me that could be done without fingerprints. All you really need is a database that people can enter info into. In fact, you can do that with a database that doesn't keep a lick of personally identifiable information.
(which is, generally speaking, what I consider the responsible way to study something like this, so that those being studied are not exposed to unintended consequences of being in said database)"

A person travelling as an illegal is by definition illegal, and therefore subject to the collection of fingerprints and further processing. This info will be added to all of the normal information systems that any criminal being identified would be. It is the same as if an illegal person were caught stealing and processed accordingly.

And - "Wouldn't you need to have their fingerprints first to do that? Also, how does fingerprinting help with that? Do we have a lot of illegals named Spartacus?"

Having their fingerprints would not always be necessary, if they have other documentation it would be a simple paper trail that you could follow. If they ahev an expired Visa or some other clearance that has expired, then in some circumstances they are illegally extending their stay and you would be able to identify that on the spot.

And - "If you fingerprint them on exit... how does this help you if they don't show up?"

I do not understand what you are asking here.

And - "And if they show a tendency to not enter through your defined checkpoints?
Or a tendency to steal the ID of someone who looks like them and enter with "valid" credentials?"

Then there will be other charges that can be applied if discovered, and it gives you the chance to identify some highly used avenues of approach. Some people will not get caught every time, some people will not talk when found out and some people will just want to go home once they are processed. There are others that will get caught, some that will talk when caught, and others that will even give you the entire story of their time in the US. This is information that can be used to help staffing in locations, trends, etc, etc.

And finally - " Meh, illegal immigration has been a red herring issue for years. Exactly the same xenophobic anti-imigrant rhetoric was used during the Irish Potato Famine, and pretty much every other time a new group of immigrants has come here.

Its almost as bad as the terrorism excuse really."

I think that immigration is great, it brings the best people here to help our country become better. Illegal immigration is, once again, ILLEGAL by definition, therefore a criminal situation that should be dealt with as such. The laws on the books right now indicate how to come into the country, how to process correctly and how to become a citizen. If someone violates these laws, then they should be prosecuted.

West
TSA Blog Team

GSOLTSO said...

Sandra sez - "West wrote: "I like this, it seems like a good idea to help develop more info on illegal persons and how they move through the country so preventative steps can be taken in the future."

What in heavens name does this mean, West? It's a totally nonsensical statement."

Uhhh, it means that if you develop info on how Illegal persons are travelling, where they are going/coming from, you can take appropriate steps to increase your interdication where the Illegal persons are. If you have a high concentration of illegal persons in Podunk, Massachussets, then you increase the presence of CBP in that highly concentrated area. Basic analysis and response.

West
TSA Blog Team

Bubbaloop said...

I am still waitning for an answer on how foreigners are being distinguished from US nationals.

Anonymous said...

" Bubbaloop said...

I am still waitning for an answer on how foreigners are being distinguished from US nationals."

If they are well dressed, think that a football is spherical, or speak English well, you have a likely candidate. Or they might be from either US coast and have been exposed to "foreigners".

Trollkiller said...

Snipping quotes for brevity.

Anonymous said to Trollkiller

Actually, I can tell that YOU haven't been reading your own post, or the replys to your own post. But first...

Why would it have to be a round trip ticket? I mean, if you do it, you won't end up flying, right? So why not a one way ticket?


I wish I could do it for $100. For this to make a good test the destination will need to be somewhere that other travel options would be to overly burdensome.

While my argument is about statutory authority, being denied access to the sterile would hamper the freedom of travel right and bring up the Constitutional issue.

I would require a round trip ticket because the TSO may screw me up and allow access. I sure would not want to be stuck in the middle of nowhere with no return ticket.

Again, read your own post, and the reply. The claim I made about you claiming to be a champion of the Constitution comes from a reading of your own web site. Thats right, I clicked on your name and went to you web page.

Thanks for reading, now post some comments. I assumed by the wording of your previous post that you were arguing the Constitutionality of the forced ID verification. I have re-read your previous post and I still come to the conclusion that you were assuming mine is a Constitutional argument. Sorry you were not clear the first time around.

It has been pointed out to you before that TSA issues Security Directives, as was done with the identification check, and this particular Directive was kept secret per SSI.

Courts have ruled that Security Directives are as effective as laws, and are constitutional. They are not statutory.


The authority is statutory and if a directive violates the law or Constitution the directive loses.

A court reviewed this particular Directive "in camera" and concluded:

"It is clear from the Ninth Circuit opinion that there exists a TSA Directive requiring a traveler to present government-issued identification before entering the gate area of an airport or boarding a plane".


Do you mind telling me where you got the quote? If it is pertaining to the Gilmore ruling it is DEAD wrong or just a flat out lie.

continued next post------

Trollkiller said...

part 2

The justices in the Gilmore ruling reviewed the directive and said this:

Gilmore next alleges that both options under the identification policy — presenting identification OR undergoing a more intrusive search — are subject to Fourth Amendment limitations and violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures....

...Gilmore argues that the REQUEST for identification implicates the Fourth Amendment because "the government imposes a severe penalty on citizens who do not comply." Gilmore highlights the fact that he was once arrested at an airport for refusing to show identification and argues that the REQUEST for identification "[i]mposes the severe penalty of arrest." Gilmore further argues that the REQUEST for identification violates the Fourth Amendment because it constitutes "a warrantless general search for identification" that is unrelated to the goals of detecting weapons or explosives.

The REQUEST for identification, however, does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. "[A] REQUEST for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure."


Do you see a theme brewing? The Justices stated that the REQUEST for ID does not violate the Constitution.

Gilmore also suggests that the identification policy did not present a meaningful choice, but rather a "Hobson's Choice," in violation of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. We have held, as a matter of constitutional law, that an airline passenger has a choice regarding searches:

[H]e may submit to a search of his person and immediate possessions as a condition to boarding; or he may turn around and leave. If he chooses to proceed, that choice, whether viewed as a relinquishment of an option to leave or an election to submit to the search, is essentially a "consent," granting the government a license to do what it would otherwise be barred from doing by the Fourth Amendment.


Let's review, the court says a REQUEST for ID is allowed, the court says that an administrative search is allowed. The court did not say that FORCED ID verification as a criterion for granting access is allowed.

Gilmore had the OPTION to either acquiesce to the request for ID or submit to a search. The court ruled that because of this choice Gilmore's 4th amendment rights were not violated.

The TSA changed the directive making FORCED ID verification a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.

The directive that was ruled on in the Gilmore case is no longer valid as it allowed a choice by the person requesting access to the sterile area. The new directive does not allow that choice.

In spite of your assertions the court has NOT ruled on THIS directive, but thanks for playing.

Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Well golly-gee-whiz! I didn't know it was all about Trollkiller! Now that I know how to make him happy, I can sleep better at night.


Of course it is all about Trollkiller, don't believe me just ask my Momma.

Anonymous said...

Bubbaloop said...
I am still waitning (sic) for an answer on how foreigners are being distinguished from US nationals.

Well, if they present a non-U.S. passport for ID, that’s a pretty good sign.

Bubbaloop said...

Anonymous said: "Well, if they present a non-U.S. passport for ID, that’s a pretty good sign."

But what if they don´t? You obviously are not following the discussion here: Many foreigners have perfectly legal US driver´s licenses which do not state their nationality! The validity of these licenses far surpasses that of our visas. There is no way a TSO can tell if a person is a US citizen by looking at a driver´s license.

Anonymous said...

I love it. Everytime we explain something, we get "where does the legal authority come from?" It is called cooperation between two agencies....Customs have offices at the airports, to enforce regulations. TSA cooperates with customs in enforcing those regulations. Its that simple. Some of you need to get a life.

Anonymous said...

"The court did not say that FORCED ID verification as a criterion for granting access is allowed."

Then why does Congress want DHS to verify passengers identity to be allowed to fly?

Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

"The court did not say that FORCED ID verification as a criterion for granting access is allowed."

Then why does Congress want DHS to verify passengers identity to be allowed to fly?


First the Court is NOT Congress, separate branch of the Government.

Second, please go look at the laws that govern this.

If you have a specific rebuttal to the evidence I have presented, please post it.

HappyToHelp said...

GSOLTSO said...
“Uhhh, it means that if you develop info on how Illegal persons are travelling, where they are going/coming from, you can take appropriate steps to increase your interdication where the Illegal persons are. If you have a high concentration of illegal persons in Podunk, Massachussets, then you increase the presence of CBP in that highly concentrated area. Basic analysis and response.”

I thought your first post was clear enough.

I do agree that the premise of US-VIST is spot on but I'm not a big fan of the implementation. I don't think Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR's) should fall under the program. That's just my opinion of course.

-Tim “H2H”

TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

"The directive that was ruled on in the Gilmore case is no longer valid as it allowed a choice by the person requesting access to the sterile area. The new directive does not allow that choice.

In spite of your assertions the court has NOT ruled on THIS directive, but thanks for playing."


I thought you read Gilmore? And I thought you read what I post? Yet you certainly didn't respond to either what was in Gilmore nor what I wrote.

I said courts have ruled on whether or not government agencies can issue Directives. This was a general statement. Re-read it, please.

I said the courts have reviewed the Directive in the Gilmore case. This was a specific statement. Re-read it, please.

But it is fun to read you armchair legal expert advise. Gilmore no longer applies? Actually it does till its overturned.

Come on, you know how our legal system works.

The conditions might have changed since Gilmore first came down, and that MIGHT be a reason for another attempt to fight the identification requirement in the courts. But simply stating the conditions changed therefor Gilmore does not apply shows a great lack of understanding of our legal system.

And it is fun playing with you. But be careful, I don't like playing with amatures that long. It gets boring.

Anonymous said...

Investigate: Operation Northwoods, and understand that the TSA is creating an entire population of Sheep. TSA has no legal authority, and yet it still attempts to detain, interrogate and harrass millions of travelers.

Mark Denton said...

Hopefully the fingerprints will be kept on file and kept forever...ad why not? This is a fast, easy, non-intrusive way to catch the "bad guys"

Donald Hawthorne said...

No way. No how.
I am a citizen of the United States with no criminal record whatsoever.
I have watched my personal liberties eroding for the last thirty years and this is where I draw the line.
Whoever is gearing up for the class-action suit against this latest absurdity, sign me up.

Shareef Defrawi said...

This pilot program is a step in the right direction. Yes, it may bach up lines at the occasional check-in counter, but only at first. Any such program will have kinks that need to be worked out and will undoubtedly be subject to public scrutiny, the final product will, however, help automate and secure the air travel process.

ziare said...

i dont agree with this thing.i travel a lot and i dont like being fingerprinted all the time like a criminal.if i come and leave us 5 time in one year.do you fingerprint me as non-us citizen 5 times?:(and why would you fingerprint me AFTER im gone?

Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

"The directive that was ruled on in the Gilmore case is no longer valid as it allowed a choice by the person requesting access to the sterile area. The new directive does not allow that choice.

In spite of your assertions the court has NOT ruled on THIS directive, but thanks for playing."


I thought you read Gilmore? And I thought you read what I post? Yet you certainly didn't respond to either what was in Gilmore nor what I wrote.

I said courts have ruled on whether or not government agencies can issue Directives. This was a general statement. Re-read it, please.

I said the courts have reviewed the Directive in the Gilmore case. This was a specific statement. Re-read it, please.

But it is fun to read you armchair legal expert advise. Gilmore no longer applies? Actually it does till its overturned.

Come on, you know how our legal system works.

The conditions might have changed since Gilmore first came down, and that MIGHT be a reason for another attempt to fight the identification requirement in the courts. But simply stating the conditions changed therefor Gilmore does not apply shows a great lack of understanding of our legal system.

And it is fun playing with you. But be careful, I don't like playing with amatures that long. It gets boring.


Speaking of amatures or as we call it in English, amateurs, attempting to pollute an argument with outright lies about what you said will not fly among those of us with a brain.

The half witted attacks and lies a TSO tells a LEO or supervisor don't work here. Sorry try again.

You claimed "A court reviewed this particular Directive "in camera" and concluded:

"It is clear from the Ninth Circuit opinion that there
exists a TSA Directive requiring a traveler to present
government-issued identification before entering the gate
area of an airport or boarding a plane".

This eventually was appealed to the Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case, which in effect allows the current ruling to stand.


The quote you wrote is a lie. As I previously quoted straight from the court's ruling, there was NO obligation by Gilmore to show ID.

I don't give a hoot what some lawyer wrote in an attempt to get the Supreme Court to take the case.

As has been pointed out to you before, the court ruled on a Directive that allowed the CHOICE between showing ID and a secondary.

The current Directive, if the TSA press release is to be believed, does NOT allow for this choice.

Therefore the court did NOT rule on this particular Directive.

The directives are apples and oranges, the court ruled on the apples.

If you are so weak minded as to be unable to understand this, please eat with a padded spoon.

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

edited.


"The directive that was ruled on in the Gilmore case is no longer valid as it allowed a choice by the person requesting access to the sterile area. The new directive does not allow that choice."

------------------------------

From Gilmore:

"Gilmore does not possess a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel for him. Moreover, the identification policy's "burden" is not unreasonable."

The burden is the secondary screening you love to refer to, and you seem to believe the Gilmore ruling is no longer valid because that part of the Directive and SOP no longer exist.

Here is why you are wrong, yet again.

From Gilmore:

"Airport screening searches of potential passengers and their immediate possessions for weapons and explosives is reasonable so long as each potential passenger maintains the right to leave the airport instead of submitting to the search."

I will quote that part again because you do not seem to understand this and it is important:

"...is reasonable so long as each potential passenger maintains the right to leave the airport instead of submitting to the search."

This means the option for a secondary search is not what is important, the right to leave is. Or read it this way. If you don't want to show you id, you can turn around and walk away. Which is true to this day.

And notice that the court specifically says a passenger does not have a constitutionally protected right to fly.

Are you able to put it together now?

You claim that what made Gilmore valid was the fact that an option for secondary screening exist Gilmore was valid, and now that it does not exist, Gilmore is not valid.

However, the court has stated differently.

What made TSAs Directive valid was that a passenger has the right to LEAVE, not the right to receive additional screening.

This option still exist, right? Will you confirm that a passenger has the right to leave if he refuses to show identification.


So the "Directives" are not "apples and oranges" as you claim. Both allow a passenger to turn around and walk away, which is why the court ruled for TSA in Gilmore, and this is why Gilmore has not fought TSA on this since the policy change. He will still lose.


But since you never were able to put this together, even though you claim to have read Gilmore, I'll clean off my padded spoon, and share it with you. I only slobbered on it a little bit.

Charter Jet Service said...

It is a shame things have come down to this but yet we as travelers must understand that the things being done these days that make our travel plans more hectic than ever are all being done to protect this country. Why would we want to catch illegals leaving the country? Well if a terrorist is in the USA and leaving the country I would prefer our officials catch them rather then let them go back to their own country and give them the opportunity to continue the practice of terrorism. This may make our travel arrangements take longer than we would like but I for one am willing to deal with it in order to be more secure.

Ordis said...

It can locate people that are here illegally and allow the CBP to track more info on the travels of illegal persons.

Anonymous said...

My wife, being a non-US citizen was fingerprint-scanned in September 2009... well past the trial period. She was scared. She thought she was going to be arrested. TSA gave no explaination or briefing prior to the finger printing, or afterward. I think finger printing is a good thing, and wouldn't bother me to be scanned upon country egress/ingress. However, a little briefing to reassure couldn't hurt. Might even prevent a lawsuit or two.

satcom39 said...

taking a circuitous route to avoid finger print scanning would be the logical course of action, but I'm sure there are measures in place for that, such as; discrete facial recognition (requiring only an HD camera, internet connection, and a dist mainframe), computer tracking of "round-about" tickets. Also, individuals are logged coming into the country. It might seem backwards to scan fingers leaving, but it lets authorities know who may be lingering beyond their stay in country.

Sentry Safe said...

I don't see what the big deal is with recording a fingerprint for travel.

Heck, if you buy a ticket at disneyland, they take an image or your fingerprint to make sure that you don't leave and resell the ticket. As long as data is kept secure I think this is a leap in the right direction for the TSA and for the safety of all passengers.

Sentry Safe said...

Again, I don't see the big deal in this. Even Disneyland is requiring a biometric scan to enter and leave the park to make sure that the ticketholder is who they say they are. Why wouldn't we apply this to travel? Do we now want to make our airports and borders more secure?

Cat Jarritt said...

I don't know what the world is coming to when people complain about being kept safe.

If there are loopholes in any system they will be found. The more we can do to be safe, the better. All employees should also be put through the biometric checking procedure. There are too many stories of inside infiltration. Its an obvious line of attack but still all too easy to get away with.

Amy Aselia said...

I think we need to take some consequences if we want to ensure the security up to a certain level.

Anonymous said...

Wow, some of the comments on this site are amazing. That is not in a good sense either. Why is it that the general populace refuses to see the slippery slope we have allowed ourselves to be put upon? Just for the sake of "security."

Security is EVERYONES RESPONSIBILITY, not just for a few to administrate. When you are willing to fork over your rights and liberties to move about in America freely, (the true) America seizes to exist. One can‘t acquiesce these rights and liberties in exchange for security. Once they are given away, they cannot be gotten back without bloodshed. These liberties and rights are your human rights, once you give them away, you make yourself the slave of the person you give them. Will a slave master ever willingly give up a slave? That question has been answered throughout history. The founding fathers of this nation warned against corruption, tyranny, giving over liberties and rights for a (false) sense of security. This cannot be done, without dire consequences.

In the years since 9/11, we have gone from being recommended to comply with benign security measures to being told now (in essence) "if you want me to do this (keep you safe) you need to get in line, shut up, don't ask any questions, or don't fly. Oh yeah, by the way, you no longer have any rights. You forfeited those when you handed the responsibility of security over to me."

I REMEMBER when all these "extra" security measures were started. The process was rather benign: put your stuff in the bins, you could still have 4ozs of liquid or less, bring special diets with MD prescription, go through the metal detectors, if nothing went off; you went on your merry way. Then the slippery slope: take off your belt, take off your jacket, take off your shoes, "random" extra wan-ding, without provocation, now full body pat downs and body scanners, without provocation, now finger-printing for foreigners. If you refuse some of these measures, you are not "free to turn around and leave." People literally are detained, and arrested. Some measures you can refuse: I refused the "random" full body pat down, as I had already gone through the primary checkpoint. For how long will I have the right to not be violated without provocation? The time is running out, like the sands in an hour glass. CON'T

Anonymous said...

Wow, some of the comments on this site are amazing. That is not in a good sense either. Why is it that the general populace refuses to see the slippery slope we have allowed ourselves to be put upon? Just for the sake of "security."

Anonymous said...

CON'T
For those who like to yammer about the "laws," which are really statutes and color of authority," again remember slavery use to be "lawful", and to not own over 5 ounces of gold use to be a "law." Just because our legislative, judicial, and executive branches make "laws," it doesn't mean WE THE PEOPLE are to check our brains and automatically acquiesce to ignorance and stupidity. It is our duty and responsibility to stand up and ask questions of our leaders, demand logical lawful answers (based on the Organic Natural Law Constitution), and to stomp out ANY and ALL Actions of tyranny.

In closing, I did stay true to the topic of fingerprinting. It is just one more nail in the coffin of the American citizen, who is all too eager to "give away hard fought for liberties" under the rouse of allowing the "government" to protect you. If you will not speak up and fight for the human RIGHTS of your human brethren, you do not deserve to have any rights of your own, and you won't for very long.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the TSA IS taking fingerprints--and it is not just from non-citizens entering or leaving the country. On June 30, 2011 my 79-year-old, born and always lived in the USA husband, who was traveling in the USA, not reentering or leaving it, was fingerprinted--no buzzer went off, he had his liquid meds in a quart plastic bag, had taken off his shoes, belt, jacket, put them and all his IDS, wallet, and valuables in the scanner box as told. There was no problem with him or his things but he was then taken across the huge room, made to leave his IDS and valuables in the open box out of his control to be possibly stolen for money or identity theft, and fingerprinted for no probable cause. On the first leg of this trip at another airport, he was scanned (he has no pacemaker or artificial joints) and they found nothing but he was then patted down. WHY SCAN YOU AND PAT YOU DOWN TOO IF NOTHING IS FOUND??? I believe his rights were violated and I certainly don't think it made him any safer. This is a man who has never in his life even had a traffic ticket except once for going 5 miles over the 30 mile speed limit. After being "randomly" chosen for extra checking almost every time we fly, we have decided to QUIT FLYING. We are tired of being humiliated and harrassed in the name of making us safe because we are smart enough to know this kind of stuff does not make you safer.
ANGRY SENIOR CITIZEN

Camere de supraveghere said...

Yet another TSO stealing from checked luggage and an unscreened airline/airport worker taking a gun through a workers entrance for a person who was a passenger on a flight?