TSA changing the rules again

[dbaker]

I was required to show ID again at security yesterday, for the first time in several months. When I asked why, I was told that it was a new policy that started this week.

This occured at AUS checkpoint 2 around 4pm. Anyone else have a similar experience?

[Nugget]

No ID shown at AUS checkpoint 2 at around 1pm on the same day. Maybe they just didn't like your looks.

I did notice one procedural change -- the guards monitoring the metal detectors now stand directly in the detector blocking the path through when they're idling between pax. When they're ready for eac person to walk through they sidestep out of the way. I wonder if anything happened to encourage that change in policy?

[mduell]

Its been that way (with them standing in the metal detector) here for a while now...

[Cowbert]

hmm i was wondering about the ID rule the other day, and found this thread somewhere in the general travel mix.

I haven't been able to find an TSA documentation on specifically the requirement for photo ID. You are probably already aware of SD 96-05, but apparently the FAA has no online obtainable copy of security directives, so there's no way to tell if there was one which made photo ID a requirement.

A dig into 49 CFR doesn't reveal a mandatory ID check either, only you are prohibited from boarding the aircraft if you refuse to allow a baggage and person *search*, specifically baggage search and metaldetector passage.

Also, you might have noticed that this issue is now in the courts with Gilmore (of EFF) vs. Ashcroft; not sure what the outcome would be, but it appears from some of the transcripts that the airlines still use the guidelines set out by SD 96-05 (no ID -> pax marked as selectee -> manual search of baggage and wanding of pax plus loading of baggage after pax boarding).

[Nugget]

The canonical site on the subject is John Gilmore's http://freetotravel.org. Gilmore has a lawsuit in progress in the attempt to settle the issue. It's an interesting read, imho.

[merchanb]

Maybe they just didn't like your looks.

Were you, perhaps, improperly dressed?

I used to travel in a khaki-colored safari shirt and pants with many pockets in both. Very comfortable and very practical. I would get 100% checked, the wand, unpack the rollaboard, empty the pockets, the shoe check, etc. Once, in Houston, I even had my billfold carefully gone through and each individual bill examined. (I suppose they were looking for that deadly dollar bill hidden in the secret pocket.)

Then I accidentally happened to wear stone colored Dockers® and a matching Gland Slam® polo shirt. It must not have fitted the profile of someone who would care to have anything happen to an aircraft they were sitting in because I breezed right through. Tried it again with the same result. Having learned what a terrorist doesn’t look like, I haven’t been checked out since.

Note: When boarding Continental in Narita for the Tokyo to Guam flight it doesn’t matter what you look like. For several years now they have had three tables sitting in the jetway and been grabbing the first three people although you already went through security or just got off another flight. Don’t be first in line and hurry through before they finish with the first three. (On the other hand, if you have the time, those cute little security gals are so sweet “May I touch you prease?” that you just might want to be first in line.)

It does makes me feel really good to know that (1) security apparently does have advanced techniques for identifying probable terrorists (Your tax dollars at work) and (2) I can manage to get on board without first being disassembled.

[Nugget]

Note: When boarding Continental in Narita for the Tokyo to Guam flight it doesn’t matter what you look like.

I got basically strip searched by the blue-jumpsuited goons at Narita on my last NRT-D>IAH flight. They were, as you say, imminently polite about it though. I'll never be first in line again.