ACLU Statement on TSA's new ID policy

reposted from http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/tsa_every_voter_counts_(at_the_airport).shtml

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) set off a minor firestorm in the blogosphere over its new ID policy, which went into effect this past Saturday. At least one passenger has reported that he was asked which political party he is registered to vote for, as part of TSA's new authentication process.

TSA's new rules relate to passengers who attempt to fly without ID -- itself a relatively rare occurrence. According to TSA, of the 2 million people who fly every day, approximately 300 do not show ID.

Many of these have lost or forgotten their identity documents, but in some cases, these passengers have ID, and refuse to do so, citing their belief that US citizens have the right to travel without showing papers to government agents. The most famous of these activists is John Gilmore, who took his case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2006. While Gilmore lost his case, the court did at least confirm TSA's policies (which had been a secret up until then), which were that passengers could fly without ID if they were willing to undergo a more stringent level of security screening.

Fast forward two years, and TSA has now changed the rules -- In a way that seems to clearly target Gilmore and other activists. Passengers who refuse to show ID citing their rights not to do so will be denied boarding. Passengers who claim to have lost or forgotten their ID, will be permitted to fly, after going through an even more extensive security check than before.

Security experts have blasted TSA's decision as "security theatre" -- that is, a decision done for show, which does nothing to improve security. On the legal front, GW Law Professor Dan Solove has also chimed in, stating that he thinks that the new rules "may run afoul of the First Amendment."

While the new policy just went into effect on Saturday, details of the new security process are already leaking out. One traveler sent a detailed report to the Consumerist blog. Highlights include:

"So you know how the new TSA regulations went into effect yesterday, where you can only fly without ID if you "cooperate" with the TSA? Well, it turns out you also have to take a test about your personal life. They call up a service to administer it, and the last question they asked was which political party am I registered under (I correctly answered "democrat" and they still let me on board)."

"Finally satisfied that I didn't have ID, Laurie took my boarding pass and went away. She came back a few minutes later having photocopied it, and also had an affidavit that she requested I sign. It asked for my name and address, and stated in small print at the bottom that I did not have to fill it out, but if I didn't I couldn't fly. It also said that if I choose to fill it out and then provided false info, I would be in violation of federal law."

After filling out the affidavit, Laurie called a service to verify my address. The service needed me to then correctly answer three questions about myself, which Laurie relayed to me. The first was my date of birth, the second was a previous address (which I only got right on my second try), and the third was "You are registered to vote. Which political party have you registered with?" I got all three right, and only then did Laurie clear me to go through security."

TSA quickly responded to the allegations on its own official blog. TSA head honcho Kip Hawley issued the following statement:

"It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."

Unlike in other past controversies, this is not one where TSA can merely blame a poorly trained screener or a badly written policy. In this case, the screener relayed the questions to the passenger that were asked by whomever was on the other end of the phone. This may be a private contractor, or it may be TSA's national counter-terrorism ops center. In either case, the problem here is more systemic, and frankly, speaks volumes about the fact that this change in policy was rushed out, with no public comment period.

We applaud TSA for taking rapid action to ensure that no more passengers are asked for their political affiliation. However, we believe that this minor controversy is merely the tip of the iceberg -- and that problems with this new policy may go far deeper. If the TSA is relying on private databases, the same types of databases which are riddled with errors and cause invalid and false information to end up on credit reports, how can this information possibly be used as a reliable security indicator? Furthermore, if the information is publicly available, a terrorist could also look up correct answers to the expected questions before arriving at the airport.

TSA needs to thoroughly re-examine this new ID policy. It needs a full privacy impact assessment (as it has done for other projects) and an opportunity for public comment so that the agency can develop a plan that ensures that due process, privacy, and free speech rights are being properly respected at all levels of the system.

TSA asks about party affiliation, records your information to fly without ID

Reposted from http://consumerist.com/tag/tsa-id-policy/?i=5018844&t=privacy-what-its-like-to-fly-with-no-id-under-the-tsas-new-regulations

So you know how the new TSA regulations went into effect yesterday, where you can only fly without ID if you "cooperate" with the TSA? Well, it turns out you also have to take a test about your personal life. They call up a service to administer it, and the last question they asked was which political party am I registered under (I correctly answered "democrat" and they still let me on board).

Anyway the full story is that I had to go Florida for a funeral, and accidentally left my driver's license in my apartment in Manhattan. I made it through LaGuardia on Thursday the 19th in about 3 minutes, but when I tried to fly back through Fort Lauderdale Airport yesterday, it took about 45.

When I first approached security, I told the initial guard screening all passengers for ID that I had none. Instead of immediately calling the supervisor over like at LaGuardia, he paused and asked if I was sure I didn't have any ID on me, like a social security card or something. I said I only had a credit card, so he then radioed for the area supervisor. She arrived in just a few seconds. Her name was Brenda, and she very politely and apologetically informed me that things had changed, and that the TSA supervisor for the whole airport needed to handle this situation because of the new regulations.

Luckily I had arrived an hour early so had plenty of time. I chatted with Brenda while we waited for the main supervisor to arrive. I started to get a little nervous that I wouldn't be allowed on board, and Brenda repeatedly assured me it wouldn't be a problem — they just had a few additional steps to go through.

After about 15 minutes, the main supervisor, Laurie, arrived. Again, Laurie was exceedingly nice and professional, but seemed a little more concerned than Brenda. She asked if I was sure I didn't have photo ID, like a credit card with my picture on it, or even a CostCo card. I wound up going through my wallet in front of her to show that I didn't, and she pointed to various cards and receipts in it to ask if they were IDs. I wound up showing her everything to prove I was telling the truth. She repeatedly said they had no way of "verifying" that I was who I said I was, and that someone could have stolen my credit card and traveled under my name. I didn't want to mention that they shouldn't need to verify who I am, because I was afraid they could then say I wasn't cooperating and deny travel on that ground. In fact, I even mentioned several times that I wanted to fully cooperate with them because I was aware that was a component of the new regulation, and they assured me that I was.

Finally satisfied that I didn't have ID, Laurie took my boarding pass and went away. She came back a few minutes later having photocopied it, and also had an affidavit that she requested I sign. It asked for my name and address, and stated in small print at the bottom that I did not have to fill it out, but if I didn't I couldn't fly. It also said that if I choose to fill it out and then provided false info, I would be in violation of federal law.

After filling out the affidavit, Laurie called a service to verify my address. The service needed me to then correctly answer three questions about myself, which Laurie relayed to me. The first was my date of birth, the second was a previous address (which I only got right on my second try), and the third was "You are registered to vote. Which political party have you registered with?" I got all three right, and only then did Laurie clear me to go through security.

Of course, I still had to submit to secondary screening, including a full-body pat-down and total luggage search. Brenda and Laurie stayed with me to make sure the process went as quickly as possible, and were again incredibly helpful and nice. They kept explaining over and over how necessary it was to "verify" who I was, and how times have changed, and how these new regulations must have been as a result of someone trying to get away with something, because there's always a reason for these thing but they don't always know what those reasons are. They were so nice and considerate that I waited until the very end before I finally said that I do not agree with the new regulations, but that I was thankful that the two of them acted so professionally and considerately to me. Laurie actually seemed a little dejected when I said this, because I had been playing along the entire time out of fear that I would not appear cooperative otherwise.

But I made it onboard my flight, and am back in Manhattan. I have flown without ID in the past, a couple years ago, and it was no problem. I almost preferred it because I got to skip the line. This time around though, it was incredibly burdensome, and involved the full attention of two high-level local TSA employees for a considerable period of time. I kept wondering if Laurie and Brenda were so busy with me for so long, what if someone really bad was doing something in another terminal or area? So even though I cannot say enough good things about how these particular TSA employees handled it, I still feel the new regulation is entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. Why do you need to provide a home address to fly? And what if I refused to answer the question about my political party allegiances? Luckily I kept my cool and even befriended the screeners just so they couldn't resort to the subjective lack-of-cooperation carve-out, but 45 minutes of standing at security not knowing if you'll make your flight seems specifically designed to test people's mettle and upset them. The TSA has turned flying without ID into an overly cumbersome and almost unmanageable chore.

Your papers please: TSA bans ID-less flight

This is reposted from Chris Soghoian's blog.

In a major change of policy, the Transportation Security Administration has announced that passengers refusing to show ID will no longer be able to fly. The policy change, announced on Thursday afternoon, will go into force on June 21, and will only affect passengers who refuse to produce ID. Passengers who claim to have lost or forgotten their proof of identity will still be able to fly.

As long as TSA has existed, passengers have been able to fly without showing ID to government agents. Doing so would result in a secondary search (a pat down and hand search of your carry-on bag), but passengers were still permitted to board their flights. In some cases, taking advantage of this right to refuse ID came with fringe benefits--being bumped to the front of the checkpoint queue.

For a few years after September 11, 2001, TSA's policies when it came to flying without ID were somewhat fuzzy. The agency, like many other parts of the Bush Administration, has hidden behind the shroud of classification--in TSA's case, labeling everything Sensitive Security Information.

Seeking to clarify the rules, activist John Gilmore took the U.S. government to court in 2004. Gilmore chose to take a particularly hard line, by refusing to show ID to TSA and also by refusing to undergo the more thorough "secondary screening" search. He eventually lost his case before the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

While the judges were not willing to let Gilmore avoid the secondary screening search, they did at least recognize the right to travel without showing ID--providing that passengers are willing to be subject to a pat down and a bit of probing:

"The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and consistent with a full recognition of appellants constitutional right to travel."

Since then, in at least two letters to citizens, TSA has re-affirmed this right. In March 2008, a TSA official wrote that:

"If a traveler is unwilling or unable to produce a valid form of ID, the traveler is required to undergo additional screening at the checkpoint to gain access to the secured area of the airport."

A change in policy

In a press release issued on Thursday with little fanfare, TSA announced a major change in its rules.

"Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity."

This new procedure will not affect passengers that may have misplaced, lost or otherwise do not have ID but are cooperative with officers. Cooperative passengers without ID may be subjected to additional screening protocols, including enhanced physical screening, enhanced carry-on and/or checked baggage screening, interviews with behavior detection or law enforcement officers and other measures."

To clarify: Passengers who refuse to show ID, citing a constitutional right to fly without ID will be refused passage beyond the checkpoints. Passengers who say they have left their ID at home, will be searched, and then permitted to board their flights.

While TSA's announcement stated that the goal of the change was to "increase safety," this blogger disagrees. The change of rules seems to be a pretty obvious case of security theater. Real terrorists do not refuse to show ID. They claim to have lost their ID, or they use a fake.

TSA's new rules only protect us from a non-existent breed of terrorists who are unable to lie.

Fixing flaws vs. security theater

In a research paper published in 2007, I outlined a number of glaring loopholes allowing the total circumvention of the much criticized no-fly lists. The two main flaws were that passengers can modify boarding passes, and that they can refuse to show ID.

In December 2007, TSA began testing out a secure, authenticated, tamper-proof boarding pass scheme. It has since been rolled out to a number of major airports around the country.

With hundreds of millions of dollars having already been spent on the various no-fly lists, it is at least interesting to see that someone at TSA is now spending time on fixing the loopholes in the system. The most glaring of this has long been the fact that passengers can refuse to show (or claim to have forgotten) their ID. Simply put, without being able to know who is walking through a checkpoint, there is no way to know that the "bad guys" have been caught by the no-fly list.

TSA's new rule, while perhaps motivated by a desire to beef up security, is significantly flawed. Terrorists will lie, and claim to have lost their ID--while law-abiding citizens wishing to assert their rights will be hassled, and refused flight.

Of course, all of this is premised on the idea that the no-fly list is actually a useful safety tool--something that I, and a number of other prominent security experts, strongly disagree with. Simply put, terrorists do not pre-register their intent.

As Bruce Schneier has noted before, the no-fly list is a collection of hundreds of thousands of people who are too dangerous to fly, but not guilty enough to be charged with a crime.