Man Acquitted In Lawsuit Over Filming The TSA And Not Showing ID

from the good-for-him dept

Mon, Jan 24th 2011 2:05pm — Mike Masnick

A few folks have sent in variations on this story, involving how a guy named Phil Mocek has been acquitted of charges filed by the TSA after he refused to show TSA officials his ID back in 2009. Mocek had no ID on him and noted (correctly) that you do not, in fact, need ID to fly. He filmed the entire incident and then was charged with four misdemeanors: disorderly conduct, concealing his identity, refusing to obey a police officer, and criminal trespass. You can see the video here: It turns out that Mocek was completely correct in that he did not need to have ID and he was well within his rights to film the encounter. At no point did he raise his voice or act in a "disorderly" manner, and it appears that the jury recognized that -- and also recognized that the TSA and the police appeared to simply be annoyed at the guy for doing what was completely within the law.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: airports, filming, id, phil mocek, rights, tsa

83 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Scote, 24 Jan 2011 @ 2:20pm

Good thing this took place in New Mexico and not in Illinois where it would be a felony with a possible 15 year sentence under a very stupid and hypocritical state law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff, 24 Jan 2011 @ 10:23pm
  
  Re:
  That's why I call it Failinois.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marie, 9 Mar 2011 @ 6:31pm
  
  Re: TSA
  I don't even know what country I am in anymore!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HrilL, 24 Jan 2011 @ 2:33pm

Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
Since this man did nothing that was illegal and the officers broke the law by arresting him without any criminal conduct shouldn't they get in some type of trouble? Sure they can hold someone with no charge for 72 hours but they in fact tried to charge him with laws that he did not in fact break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 2:41pm
  
  Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
  The forgiving part of me wants to say that these TSA officers and Law Enforcement Officers were simply ignorant of the law, or confused at what the law really says-- I mean, they can't know the ins and outs of every law. Then, I recall what *every* cop and lawyer and judge will tell you if you break a law you didn't realize you were breaking: Ignorance of the law is no defense. If I, as a non-lawyer, non-law enforcement functionary, am expected to know the laws that bind me such that *not* knowing is a fault on my part, then surely we can hold the very people who are binding us to these laws to the same standard.
  
  I say they should be held accountable, to the maximum extent of the law. They'd do the same to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Duncan Yoyo, 24 Jan 2011 @ 3:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
    Even if the cops don't know the law the prosecutors office should. One wonders what this cost the nation. This is where the system is supposed to catch this sort of error.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2011 @ 6:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
    There was ancient Chinese law that requires the Judge passing the maximum punishment in the law that's been charged to someone who is knowingly suing the innocents (with exception to law enforcements - i.e. police and prosecutors of course). Perheps it's good idea to bring back this law too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 24 Jan 2011 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
  Wouldn't that be awesome if this would happen. Would sure put the skids on frivolous arrests. Would also be nice if when you sue someone and lost, you had to pay their court costs. That would put the skids on frivolous lawsuits. But we know neither of these things will happen as the courts must continue to feed the system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 2:09am
    
    Re: Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
    Would also be nice if when you sue someone and lost, you had to pay their court costs.
    
    Actually you do...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 7:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
      Actually that's a bad idea. Because MegaCorp, Inc. just uses 100 lawyers billing towards the case when you sue. Can you afford to be on the hook for those costs if you lose?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 25 Jan 2011 @ 9:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
      Actually, you MAY...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kim, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
    That's the English system. In the U.S., you can try suing for court costs and attorneys fees as a counter suit, but it will rarely succeed. While that sounds great in theory (wouldn't every private citizen with something to lose want to feel protected from free loading bastards thinking they can extort a settlement?), the problem is that, if you have a large corporation doing a lot of harm, it makes it nearly impossible for anyone to bring suit against them. I mean, think about it . . . what if that lawsuit against Ford over the Pinto had failed because they hadn't found the smoking gun evidence that Ford CLEARLY chose to let people die instead of paying a few bucks for some small piece of equipment? You'd have the victims and families of victims paying massive attorneys fees to Ford because they couldn't trudge up the evidence to prove that Ford was responsible for those deaths and injuries.
    It might reduce frivolous lawsuits to a certain extent (although, in general, paying YOUR OWN attorneys fees discourages that), but it would also restrict just about any average citizen from pursuing justice against a wealthier adversary.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 25 Jan 2011 @ 6:17am
  
  Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
  Uh, the police are not actually held to the same standards as everyone else, they hold more power than any citizen and never get into trouble for making an arrest on charges that are overturned.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- talon0409, 7 Mar 2012 @ 2:30am
  
  Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
  Actually the courts have ruled that someone who resists arrest during an unlawful/illegal arrest is in fact not resisting arrest but is self defense and the officers is commiting ASSAULT so ya he sould. Personally I think it sould be more then just assault seeing as how he is suppose to be law enforcement, or in this little piggys case THINKS he IS the LAW. look up Adams v. State 121
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 24 Jan 2011 @ 2:37pm

I wish more people would do this..
I wish more people would do this and more of us would stand up for not only our rights, but what is right. Of course most of us don't have the guts to risk ourselves to stand up to tyranny. I include myself in that group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MD2000, 24 Jan 2011 @ 2:52pm

No, the TSA won
This guy probably had to spend tens of thousands on legal defence. Unless he's swimming in cash and $30,000 is chump change, the TSA has done what I call "the OJ defence" - "innocent or guilty, your life is ruined because you're broke. Serves you right for arguing with the man."

The only satisfaction is if he can recover some of that money from the airport authority.

However, from the video - I don't blame the officers. They are only following the rules as they were explained to them; they at no time became belligerent or physical, they handled him exactly how a difficult but not physical or belligerent individual should be handled. Good for them, such restraint is rare in newsworthy police videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip Vector (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re: No, the TSA won
  "they at no time became belligerent or physical"
  
  What part of "Do not touch me" did you not hear (0:38)?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MD2000, 24 Jan 2011 @ 3:08pm
    
    No, the TSA won
    There's a big difference between guiding someone firmly by the arm and dropping him to the ground and tasering him, while his face inexplicable gains a broken nose or cheekbone...
    
    While you may debate the merits of assault vs. guiding firmly, based on camera movement and overall video, at no time did either side degenerate into a contest of force. GOod for the (non)cops.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 24 Jan 2011 @ 3:40pm
      
      Re: What part of "Do not touch me" did you not hear (0:38)?
      There's a big difference between guiding someone firmly by the arm ...
      
      Where I live, I believe the term for an act like that is �common assault�.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MD2000, 24 Jan 2011 @ 5:27pm
        
        Re: Re: What part of "Do not touch me" did you not hear (0:38)?
        Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 3:40pm
        
        There's a big difference between guiding someone firmly by the arm ...
        
        Where I live, I believe the term for an act like that is �common assault�.
        
        -Everyone says that, but I'd love to see a real-life case where a police officer calmly says "I'm going to escort you outside" and then does only that while holding the person's arm... and ends up being charged, let alone convicted, of assault. OTOH, yes, if you lay hands on the police uninvited, you WILL be charged with assualt.
        
        The whole episode is stupid, the charges a waste of money, but I stand by my statement. The agents were calm and controlled, even if the rules they were told to enforece were wrong. For that - I give them credit.
        
        As for proving a point - I still don't see people freely walking onto planes without ID, and I bet it doesn't happen down there yet either.
        
        So the guy's proved nothing yet. But good for him anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Aerilus, 24 Jan 2011 @ 8:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: What part of "Do not touch me" did you not hear (0:38)?
        yes all ten or so of them behaved well on camera, did i also hear a guy in the background claiming to be a witness to the whole thing. every body behaves well on camera and when other people are around. notice how there were about ten guards around him though blocking the view and isolating the incident.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phil mocek, 24 Jan 2011 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re: No, the TSA won
  I'm paying for my defense out-of-pocket, and it's reasonable to say that the verdict was less a victory than a stop to my losses. I don't have the final bill, but the retainer fee I paid was exhausted prior to trial, and two lawyers worked three long days on preparation and trial after I arrived in Albuquerque last week. They're not going to bill me for all the work, but it's likely that I owe them another $10,000. I'm not a wealthy person. Donations to my legal defense fund will be gratefully accepted via PayPal, or by postal mail to my lawyers' office: Phil Mocek legal defense
  Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan PA
  20 FIRST PLAZA CTR NW STE 700
  ALBUQUERQUE NM 87102-5802 This information and more can be found on an FAQ maintained by the Identity Project.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigPoppa (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 9:10pm
  
  Re: No, the TSA won
  Okay, so the officers harassed, detained, and ultimately arrested a 100% law abiding individual. He was breaking no laws, was not disturbing anybody's peace, and posed no threat whatsoever.
  
  And you really want to praise them for showing "restraint?" They deprived him of his liberty without cause. To me that's anything but showing restraint. That's clearly abusing their authority. The key is, again, the guy was breaking no laws whatsoever. If the cops believed he was, they were wrong, NOT HIM. They require discipline, NOT HIM.
  
  Jeeze.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 2:57pm

My post was deleted??
ITs amazing the laws we create.
The law is for protection of Private property.
You cant TAPE ME on my own property, without permission.
YOU CAN tape me if I am on YOUR property.

Public places and locations...OPEN to anyone that wishes to record you. THAT is how Business works and can get away with recording Thieves in stores. Unless they DECLARE they are private property, which means you MUST have permission to record.

A police building is a PUBLIC facility. Only protection you have is IF' you declare it and in the restroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Scote, 24 Jan 2011 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re: My post was deleted??
  "ECA (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 2:57pm
  
  ITs amazing the laws we create.
  The law is for protection of Private property.
  You cant TAPE ME on my own property, without permission.
  YOU CAN tape me if I am on YOUR property.
  
  Public places and locations...OPEN to anyone that wishes to record you. THAT is how Business works and can get away with recording Thieves in stores. Unless they DECLARE they are private property, which means you MUST have permission to record.
  
  A police building is a PUBLIC facility. Only protection you have is IF' you declare it and in the restroom."
  
  Please don't over simplify. What is or isn't illegal depends on whether you are being charged under Federal or State law, and if state, which state. It isn't so simple as public vs. private property. Laws about wiretaping, consent and surveillance, BTW, are not about the protection of property rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ECA (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 6:21pm
    
    Re: Re: My post was deleted??
    But that is ONLY what privacy laws were for.
    AND what they maintain to BE FOR.
    
    And each state, has different suggestions on the point...
    "CAN 1 person record a private conversation or does BOTH PARTIES NEED TO KNOW" is the only concern.
    
    I have said it before...CONGRESS and the REPS, are public servants..Why arent they photograph as much as our Movie stars? and the only reason is ITS ILLEGAL...WHY?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 26 Jan 2011 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re: My post was deleted??
    Wiretapping isn't an issue, since everyone clearly knew they were being recorded.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 3:06pm

disorderly conduct - nope.
concealing his identity - nope - im sure his name was on the ticket.
refusing to obey a police officer - nope
criminal trespass - nope - he had a ticket and was supposed to be there.

I was sitting on the hood of my car with friends when a pig pulled up and said he heard "loud engines and tire squealing." I guess because we were sitting on a 72 split bumper Camaro and an 81 Firebird it MUST have been us.
He then proceeds to grab my arm and throw me on to the hood of my car and search me, then my car. He found nothing and seemed irritated by this then told me I was being arrested for disorderly conduct. Never checked the hood or engine to see if it was hot, never looked at the back tires for rubber on or in the wheel well. Nothing. Just another stupid pig bastard that lost a court case. Of course nothing happened to the pig.

disorderly conduct = bullshit excuse for pigs to arrest you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2011 @ 3:15pm

Who knew?
You mean the TSA are not Gods who have been given absolute power over us mortals? But I thought they were all seeing and all knowing deities who punished any questioning of their devine status?

Well obviously they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coach George (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 3:17pm

you do not, in fact, need ID to fly
"Mocek had no ID on him and noted (correctly) that you do not, in fact, need ID to fly"
Really????

Is the ID requirement a regulation and not a law???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2011 @ 7:08pm

Mocek had no ID on him and noted (correctly) that you do not, in fact, need ID to fly.

That's just plain wrong. The law REQUESTS you be able to provide valid ID AT ALL TIMES. Either on the street, in a restaurant, or in your own home. If an officer of the law requests ID, you have to provide it; otherwise be detained while they verify your identify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- joh6nn, 24 Jan 2011 @ 7:39pm
  
  Re:
  [citation needed]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phil Mocek, 24 Jan 2011 @ 9:08pm
  
  Re:
  It's not possible for a law to request something. Nowhere in the United States are people required to *have* documentation of their identities, much less to carry it with them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 1:16am
  
  Re:
  The law REQUESTS you be able to provide valid ID AT ALL TIMES. Either on the street, in a restaurant, or in your own home. If an officer of the law requests ID, you have to provide it; otherwise be detained while they verify your identify.
  
  No, the law requires you to identify yourself. This is not the same thing as owning and carrying a government-issued ID.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Phil Mocek (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It varies by state, but the law requires you to identify yourself under certain circumstances. A police officer can't simply approach you on the street and compel you to identify yourself simply because he feels like doing so.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gary (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 5:59am
  
  Re:
  You DONT need to have government issued ID on you. There is no law that says you do. Now if your driver in a vehicle then yes, DL is needed, but not if your in a public area on foot.
  You do need to identify yourself if ask. My name is John Doe is ID.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 7:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    And if you answer that way to an officer, then you are guilty of concealing your identity :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 25 Jan 2011 @ 7:47pm
  
  Re:
  No, this is not Soviet Russia. We are not required to walk around with our "papers."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Savatage, 26 Jan 2011 @ 12:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    In Soviet Russia, papers walk around with you!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re:
  Absolutely incorrect, see hibble v. Nevada.
  There are NO stop and identify laws in the US
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Phil Mocek, 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:57pm
    
    Re: Hiibel
    It's Hiibel, not Hibble. See Dudley Hiibel's page on the Identity Project site.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2011 @ 7:57pm

TSA are not cops, the airport authority is a cop, TSA can "Recommend" charges and there are real cases where TSA calls cops on people whom do not wish to comply with TSA.

One vary odd issue came up when someone was informed he had to submit to a search after passing through immigration. In this case he only wanted to leave the airport and had been searched in Europe and by INS and simply said, no thank you I do not wish to be searched.

TSA is not a well trained group whom know the rules and how to make them stick. If we're going to have a group like this then should we at least use well trained officers and not rent a cops?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PandaMarketer (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 8:53pm

Really
There's a right way and a wrong way to do things in life. The video does not show what happend before, how he was asked for ID and thus not producing it.

If he was asked to produce ID and he didn't have it, he has a choice in relating the info or not. "I don't have any ID on my right now, but my name is Fname Lname" is how I might say it.

"I don't have to show you my ID, sir" is antagonistic if you don't have any ID to produce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 1:17am
  
  Re: Really
  "I don't have to show you my ID, sir" is antagonistic if you don't have any ID to produce.
  
  So? It's the truth, so what's the difference? Are private citizens required to be meek sheep nowadays?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2011 @ 10:43am
  
  Re: Really
  If I was being harassed by law enforcement who didn't know the law, I'd probably be antagonistic too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re: Really
    I think being harassed by ignorant LEOs is pretty antagonistic in the first place, so a response with an attitude is appropriate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phil Mocek (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re: Really
  PandaMarketer, you're correct that the video does not show what happened before the video begins. Mr. Breedon, the airport security guard who is pictured in the video first, testified in court about what happened prior to him noticing that I was using my camera. He testified that I was cooperative and did not yell. Audio of his testimony and of most of the trial is available for download or streaming on Internet Archive. The Identity Project published a helpful index to the audio, with direct download links to various segments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ken, 24 Jan 2011 @ 9:30pm

What Carolla would say...
at what point does he get to sue the shit outta them for them being wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2011 @ 12:32am

Well I'm interested in seeing how they will deal with security now that Moscow was shown that there are places inside an airport people can still strike and be successful at bringing terror and horror to the people.

People now need to have a pornoscan at the door of the airport with groping for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 7:14am
  
  Re:
  there's an 'improvised explosive device' joke in that pornoscan booth somewhere
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2011 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re:
  then the crowd backs up outside the front door and the bomber doesn't even have to enter the building. yep, solved it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny, 25 Jan 2011 @ 12:37am

Power tripping a*holes
These officers are real power tripping a*holes. Just inventing things on the spot. The only people disturbing the peace were the officers themselves.
They should be charged with disturbing the peace, false imprisonment, and abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 1:18am

I'm still trying to figure out why his attitude mattered. Is it alright to arrest someone for being a jerk nowadays or what? I'm reasonably sure that we haven't legislated politeness into law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob, 29 Jan 2011 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  "Not doing what someone asks you to do" is not exactly the same as "jerkiness" or "criminality". If it were, we'd have no robbery or rape -- at least not technically.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 25 Jan 2011 @ 4:57am

A jerk?
Rose M. Welch: "Is it alright to arrest someone for being a jerk nowadays or what?"
I fail to see why he should be regarded as a jerk just because he was upholding his rights. All the "officials" concerned were obviously making things up as they went along just because the poor guy was questioning their actions. To be captured on video doing this doesn't exactly show above-average intelligence. Very similar to the police here in the UK (and across the pond as well, I believe) who have been harassing (and in one case located near me, actually arresting, see http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/) photographers in the street for no good reason. Once again, making it up as they go along. As can be seen in the follow-up to the UK story, the arrest was deemed "unlawful" by no less an authority than the police complaints investigators and I would assume there will be some legal action forthcoming, as, indeed there will presumably be in this case. Sue the pants off' em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 6:26am
  
  Re: A jerk?
  I fail to see why he should be regarded as a jerk just because he was upholding his rights.
  
  Everyone fails to see that, because no one said it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
-, 25 Jan 2011 @ 4:59am

Since today, youtube videos stopped working with noscript and any configuration that disallows youtube scripts here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proffer (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 6:01am

accountability?
Ok where is all the government/police accountability?

These people can just twist the law into their favor and not get punished for doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 7:20am

He gets my "Hero" award this week! WTG dude! I just wish I were as brave as he was to put those asshats (TSA) in their place ... :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2011 @ 9:18am

from TSA website
"Passengers who do not or cannot present an acceptable ID will have to provide information to the Transportation Security Officer performing Travel Document Checking duties in order to verify their identity. Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane."

So, indeed, you DON'T have to show photo ID, but there is no guarantee that you will get on the plane if you don't. By the way, how to you propose to verify identity without a photo ID? Presumably identifying yourself verbally is not the same as verifying that you are who you say you are.

By the way, if I was standing in line at security and ended up missing my flight because of some smart aleck in front of me trying to prove a point, I'd be pretty pissed. Not that it happened in this instance, but just saying, in case a significant number of you are getting any bright ideas about trying this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 9:41am
  
  Re: from TSA website
  By the way, how to you propose to verify identity without a photo ID?
  
  The better question is: How does verifying identity make flying safer? Furthermore, when I was 17 I had a fake ID. If *I* can do it, you think it will be tough for a well-funded and motivated terrorist organization to get one? Really?
  
  By the way, if I was standing in line at security and ended up missing my flight because of some smart aleck in front of me trying to prove a point, I'd be pretty pissed. Not that it happened in this instance, but just saying, in case a significant number of you are getting any bright ideas about trying this.
  
  "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"-- Mario Savio's Sproul Hall speech December 3, 1964.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re: from TSA website
    Good article on the topic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/3/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 12:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: from TSA website
      A small thanks for the link. It would be a bigger thanks if you didn't start me on page 3. :P
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 11:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: from TSA website
        Oh. Oops. Hehe, I bookmarked it for future reference after I read it, so I was probably on page 3. :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2011 @ 3:13pm
  
  Re: from TSA website
  I've actually been through the process after my wallet was lost on a trip once. You show up at the airport and tell them you don't have ID. After the front-line TSA agents spend sufficient time trying to make you feel stupid and making sure you realize how hard you are making their lives, they then hand you off to another agent who runs you through their verbal identification process. That process involves the agent getting on the phone with someone else who is presumably in front of a computer with access to various databases. They then quiz you on various aspects of your identity, social security number, past addresses, details about where you live. I am pretty sure they had google maps (or similar) open as they asked about what are the major cross streets and highways near my house.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jan 2011 @ 4:14am

TSA = The Security Assholes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mouka, 20 Jul 2011 @ 3:40am

ignorant
TSA officers and Law Enforcement Officers were simply ignorant of the law, or confused at what the law really says because the are poor the don't make no money the think hay because the have uniform and gun that"s it no money no honey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicole, 20 Dec 2011 @ 9:58am
  
  Re: ignorant
  Maybe that was what they were trained to do? To ask for an ID. Of course they didn't do it the right way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Medina, 6 Nov 2011 @ 9:40pm

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dohbill (profile), 9 Apr 2012 @ 3:17pm

But why act like that? He has a right, so what? I have a right to insult people everywhere I go, why do something on purpose that is irritating just because you can? Stupid idiot, I wish he would have been charged with more offenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phil Mocek (profile), 9 Apr 2012 @ 8:04pm
  
  Re:
  Why act like what? I presented my boarding pass as required, and then calmly and respectfully declined to stop recording. I had previously contacted TSA at that airport and learned that there were no rules barring photography. Nearly everyone else involved later lied about the incident, so it's extremely fortunate that I had a recording of what really happened.
  
  What other offenses do you wish I had been charged with? I didn't commit any of the four offenses of which I was accused. I didn't violate any law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 9 Apr 2012 @ 10:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He has a right... I wish he would have been charged with more offenses.
    
    That pretty much tells you what you need to know about this mindset.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dohbill (profile), 10 Apr 2012 @ 12:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    That exactly, there is no reason to act any differently than everyone else. Walk up to them, present your boarding pass and identification which is required and you did not present, and then go on about your way. If you had presented your i.d. and boarding pass everything would have been fine. You know exactly "like what". Like everyone else, don't be playing that game of "what did i do?" Not acting like everyone else, that is what.
    
    You contacted TA to see if theres any rules against it, in other words, you went in with a mentally to cause a scene. You refuse to show ID which everyone needs to present so they know it is your damn boarding pass. Common, don't tell me you had no plans to make a scene.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 10 Apr 2012 @ 4:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's right. Shut up, get in line, and do as you're told. Just like our founding fathers did. /s
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2012 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you want to be like a founding father, go to a top notch university, become a lawyer and aspire to be be president some day, not to make a scene at an airport and with all Cuba being communist, and hundreds dying of starvation all over the world, homeless children, poor education in schools, etc. etc. etc. why bother with this? Join the peace corps if you feel a need to be like a founding father, a revolutionary leader, etc. Donate your time to Oxfam, become an environmental volunteer.... not a clown in an airport.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Phil Mocek (profile), 10 Apr 2012 @ 10:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't want to be a founding father or a revolutionary leader. I want to be left alone to go about my lawful business without interference from agents of our government unless they have good reason to suspect I've done something unlawful.
        
        When someone's lawful behavior -- whether it be as calm and respectful as my behavior at the airport that day or more rude and distasteful than I ever behave -- *bothers* agents of our government, I want those agents not to lock that person in a cage and lie about that lawful behavior in an attempt to justify having taken away that person's freedom.
        
        I want agents of our government who engage in such misconduct to be removed from their positions of power.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phil Mocek (profile), 10 Apr 2012 @ 7:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Dohbill, there is no requirement to present documentation of identity to the airport security guards at the TSA barricade in order to proceed into the terminal -- just a boarding pass. I did that.
      
      As for prior contact, that was an unrelated project. It had been something like eight months since that contact, and I had contacted 50 U.S. airports at the suggestion of TSA staff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2012 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You do not have to show I.D. and if you don't show it, guess what, they will sit you down, call someone and it will take about half hour but your identity will be confirmed, you do not need your I.D. to fly, but your identity will be proved. How is that any better than showing your I.D.?
        
        You could have walked up with the cam, said "I don't have my I.D." and waited, like I have done, they will pull you aside, and confirm your identity but you will be identified. Who told you that you can fly ONLY with a boarding pass, saying "yes, that is me" without any kind of verification done to see if the person presenting the boarding pass is the real person? Wouldn't that make it EXTREMELY easy for just about any felon to fly out?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2012 @ 8:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Like everyone else, don't be playing that game of "what did i do?" Not acting like everyone else, that is what.
      
      So not acting like everyone else is a crime now?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2012 @ 11:33am

As I said earlier become a leader, or be different, be different in another way... become a lawyer, doctor, senator, or donate your time and money to Oxfam, or become a Marine, be a volunteer at a hospital, join the peace corps, sweep streets, or give out hugs and smiles.... does it matter if something is a crime or not to do it?

It is not a crime either to hammer in your own nuts, and not everyone else is doing it, why don't more people do that? Why don't you protest about things that matter, not airport security which the majority of people will only go thru 2 or 3 times a year.

And you do not have to show I.D. and if you don't show it, guess what, they will sit you down, call someone and it will take about half hour but your identity will be confirmed, you do not need your I.D. to fly, but your identity will be proved. How is that any better than showing your I.D.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marissa, 13 May 2012 @ 3:28am

So they don't normally ask for an ID when you present your boarding pass? How come they asked this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 13 May 2012 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  Since the TSA started I've always been asked for ID at airport security. Of course, before that they didn't even ask for your boarding pass at security, let alone ID. Remember when you could see someone off or pick them up at the gate?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phil Mocek (profile), 13 May 2012 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re:
  Marissa wrote, "So they don't normally ask for an ID when you present your boarding pass?"
  
  No, my experience has been that airport security guards do ask for documentation of identity of people who wish to cross the TSA barricade. But they don't demand it. TSA publishes lots of false information about this topic, but the truth is that they do not require us to show any paperwork other than a boarding pass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]