New TSA ID Requirement

The TSA has a new photo ID requirement:

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.

That's right; people who refuse to show ID on principle will not be allowed to fly, but people who claim to have lost their ID will. I feel well-protected against terrorists who can't lie.

I don't think any further proof is needed that the ID requirement has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with control.

EDITED TO ADD (6/11): Daniel Solove comments.

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM • 70 Comments

Comments

legionJune 11, 2008 1:49 PM

I'm missing something. I thought the right to fly without requiring ID had already been ok'd by the courts - how can the TSA administratively override something like that?

MinkJune 11, 2008 1:51 PM

I thought it was actually illegal to ask for identification for domestic travel? Did TSA get the law changed or something? Or is this only for international flights?

FNORDJune 11, 2008 2:00 PM

I thought the courts had decided that it was unconstitutional to absolutely ban flying without ID, which this seems to violate.

The decision did allow increased screening for those without idea, including enhanced searches.

noahJune 11, 2008 2:10 PM

"or otherwise do not have ID" probably covers people who do not have an ID at all, so there probably isn't a constitutional violation.

paulJune 11, 2008 2:15 PM

This would seem to run as thoroughly afoul of the constitution as it is possible to do while still being completely ineffective against the ostensible threat.

I wonder how they will treat people who admit, after prolonged questioning, to having lost or mislaid their ID deliberately because of a disagreement with the TSA's position. Or what about people who don't produce ID in a fit of pique rather than on deeply-held principle?

You have to work really hard to be this offensively stupid.

JohnJune 11, 2008 2:20 PM

@Fnord:

I'd imagine the legal work around here is that they haven't actually banned flying without ID - You can still fly if you're willing to swear that you've lost it/don't have it/etc.

What they've banned is flying after having _refused_ to produce ID. Because after all, if you refuse to produce ID, there must be a reason, and since it's obvious that only a criminal/terrorist/"Really Bad Person"(tm) would _want_ to avoid identification, TSA now has probable cause to detain you for further questioning.

Oh, and by the way, you can be certain they'll be looking extra-hard for the ID you claim to have lost when they hand-search you, and I'd imagine the treatment won't be courteous if they find it.

ImmigantJune 11, 2008 2:25 PM

This is possibly aimed also at immigrant control as well. If you look at all like you may be from, oh, say, the Middle East, Africa, or South of the Border, and you don't how ID I'm guessing your grilling will be significantly more thorough than someone who looks like a WASP.

xd0sJune 11, 2008 2:42 PM

You don't need to look any further than the title of that linked posting to see the propaganda is already the driving force behind this.

The phrase "to increase safety" is added to the announcement title, as if there are other TSA actions that aren't to increase safety?

Nah, more likely the invocation of the fear and safety demons is needed up front to avoid the questions about constitutionality and jurisdiction. Or maybe the TSA is so heavily into the "securocracy" game that they actually believe that everything they do needs to be labeled with "for safety", "to protect the children", or the nearly obligatory "to protect you from terrorists".

If, in fact, the move did something other than theater and control measures, and wasn't noticably dodging the issue of ID requirements to travel (they cite restricting access to areas of the airport, not restricting your ability to travel), then it would simply state they were moving to require IDs. No need to invoke the 4 horsemen of terror if the move was rational and justified.

derfJune 11, 2008 2:44 PM

For some reason, creating the American version of Nazi occupied France seems to be the aim of our Department of Homeland Security. The elephant in the room is that there is no credible threat - they are simply creating a police state because they can.

SpiderJune 11, 2008 3:09 PM

I had no idea that you could fly without an id. I thought that was one of the first changes with the first patriot act. The current requirement of lying or having an id is a bit ridiculous. I'd rather they made it impossible to fly without id, or not require one at all.

Maybe they could improve the system by also requiring passengers without id to solve three minute mysteries. That way we ensure only very clever terrorists will succeed, instead of just those that can lie.

Peter HentgesJune 11, 2008 3:17 PM

Now I'm protected against terrorists that can't lie and against terrorists that can't get a fake ID! How great is my expanded sense of protection!

jkJune 11, 2008 3:45 PM

I was waiting to see you weigh in on this Mr. S, and your post has the links that show me "you've already commented before" - and really, nothing has changed.

It's a sad state of affairs. I think the standard line will now be to "I seem to have misplaced it. I had it, I took it out of my wallet to make sure I had it before I left home. Now I can't find it. " - and conveniently put it in the paperback as a bookmark or something. *Shrug*

Thanks for keeping watch Mr. S. ;)

RavanJune 11, 2008 4:06 PM

"Geheimstatz polizei, papieren bitte" (spelling may be off)

"Homeland Security, ID and tickets please" (TSA is part of "Department of Homeland Security".)

Pray tell, what is the difference? Papers are now required for internal travel.

SeerJune 11, 2008 4:25 PM

Re: Spider

Well, it looks like I've gotta stay in Vegas because after I lost my ID after a long night here, I can't get back on my flight. What a wonderful honeymoon! :-)

REBELJune 11, 2008 4:56 PM

Hey people, how bout a revolt? Ya know the kinda thing that got us here in the first place? I mean then the kind that got "EVERY" American citizen equal rights? We all have "equal" rights don't we??
So next time you're at the airport, everyone turn to the person in fornt and behind you and let's see how many of you get past the TnaziSA security. I'll be the gyuy getting by showing my legal ID , gimme a break. Bleeding hearts.

Brian GreerJune 11, 2008 5:06 PM

Of course it has everything to do with control and very little to do with safety. The vast majority of changes brought since 9/11 appear to be about control and fear.

~June 11, 2008 5:11 PM

Why don't they just make buying food without an ID illegal? If we can really catch terrorists by using the ID cards, then the terrorist can' buy food and will starve to death, and problem solved.

Clive RobinsonJune 11, 2008 5:22 PM

Is it just me or have other people noted that this action is almost gaurenteed to have the oposit effect.

Previously it was (sort of) up to you if you carried photo ID or not.

Now you will take care to make sure you do not carry it (unless you must)

Are the TSA / DHS realy that stupid?

Answers on a postcard to 1600 Pensilvania Ave (or whatever other slime encrusted rock GWB is currently resident under)

@ Bruce,

The BBC Panorama prog about "wheres the 23Billion" is probably online now it might well make you (put appropriate facial response in 8)

EGJune 11, 2008 5:27 PM

The way they are getting around this is that flying isn't the *only* way of transportation in the country. You can take your personal car, a bus, train, horse or even walk if you like. I hear rickshaw travel is popular this time of year....

I actually sat down today and read the Gilmore decision paper. The summary above was what I got from it.

I don't agree with the paper, but i can see why his case was dismissed.

He cited a number of different things as being unconstitutional. He said he was denied: Freedom to travel, freedom to associate and was unable to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
He also said he was subject to an un-reasonable search as outlined in the 4th amendment...

The court said all of the reasons he cited were actually the best rebuttal to his argument.

thiefhunterJune 11, 2008 5:58 PM

Huh. I fly all the time, and TSA always demands ID. In fact, I have an INSPASS, the US gov issued ID, that TSA will sometimes accept and sometimes refuse. When they refuse it, I try to stand my ground, go through layers of supervisors, etc., until they either accept it or deny boarding -- in which case I pull out my driver's license, which I hate using, or a passport. I can't imagine being let through with NO ID. Is that really possible?

Alex NewmanJune 11, 2008 6:27 PM

> You can take your personal car, a bus, train, horse or even walk if you like.
Uhm.. their are many places in this country that require a plane. I would even argue that hawaii is one of those places although I suppose one "could" take a boat.

Phillip MocekJune 11, 2008 6:35 PM

Some background for those who weren't familiar with the current policy follows:

Although TSA would like you to believe otherwise, you are not required to show ID to government agents in order to fly domestically in the United States.

After I filed a complaint with TSA about incorrect TSA signs at the Kansas City International Airport that incorrectly state that passengers must present ID, Jeanne Oliver, Associate Director, TSA Office of the Executive Secretariat, wrote to me in response (PDF available at The Identity Project, "ID Still Not Required to Fly", March 31, 2008), confirming the lack of ID requirement, but providing no indication that the signs would be corrected.

See also: "Although airport security tells passengers they must show ID to board planes, they really don't," Scott Canon and Mike Rice, Kansas City Star, April 9, 2008. (The Star has placed that story behind their pay-per-view archives, but it is also available at the Seattle Times and also at the Arizona Daily Star.

AMJune 11, 2008 8:05 PM

Yes, it is quite true that you don't NEED an ID to fly. They just make you go through extra security. Kind of pointless, but whatever. It has been the status quo for some time. TSA gets to keep their theatre, airlines get to protect their revenue, and conscientious objectors get to opt-out.

This new ruling is downright disturbing. If you assert your rights, you get the boot to the neck. If you play dumb and smile, they pat you down and you breeze on through. It basically endorses the most primitive methods of social engineering.

My thinking is that these rules come from people who assume that all previous decisions are rational and correct. They are honestly trying to improve the system and close down holes they see. Unfortunately, they vigorously guard the main entrance while the service entrance is propped open with a cinder block and the security camera is shrouded with a nicotine fog.

wJune 11, 2008 8:42 PM

@ EG: "The way they are getting around this is that flying isn't the *only* way of transportation in the country. You can take your personal car, a bus, train, horse or even walk if you like."

This may be a surprise to you, but some of us actually have reasons to travel outside of our country of residence, and are even bold enough to consider traveling to other continents. In most of these cases, there is no viable option other than air travel. If I'm planning to visit my relatives who live on an island over 10K miles away, I don't think any of the options you listed will allow me to reach my destination.

scoobydooJune 11, 2008 9:21 PM

@w: "If I'm planning to visit my relatives who live on an island over 10K miles away, I don't think any of the options you listed will allow me to reach my destination."

How about boat?

AnonymousJune 12, 2008 1:16 AM

Wait... if I can get through by lying about my ID, why would I tell the truth - that I am, in fact, refusing to show ID?

Only reason I can think of is political speech. With no chance of putting anyone at risk, congress (and agencies created by the congress) do not have the power to act against you in retaliation for your speech. Flagrantly illegal.

KilianJune 12, 2008 1:45 AM

"Geheimstatz polizei, papieren bitte" (spelling may be off)
That would be:
Geheime Staatspolizei, die Papiere bitte!

SejanusJune 12, 2008 2:40 AM

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

- Benjamin Franklin

stephJune 12, 2008 4:52 AM

"This may be a surprise to you, but some of us actually have reasons to travel outside of our country of residence, and are even bold enough to consider traveling to other continents."

In which case you will need ID. More specifically, you will need a passport.
Your right to travel within your own country without ID is, funnily enough, confined to your own country.

Well, I thought it was a right

gregJune 12, 2008 5:02 AM

You can travel internationally without ID.

What s the big deal with showing ID. I mean i get the rest, separation of powers, oversight that sort of thing.

But what is so bad about them knowing your name? Really?

They probably already have your visa card number anyway.........

But then I live in the EU, what do I know about freedom . . . . . . . .......

gregJune 12, 2008 5:04 AM

Sorry, first line should say...

You *can't* travel internationally without ID.

Vote For SaleJune 12, 2008 5:36 AM

My vote is for sale. The presidential candidate who most convinces me he will restore my constitutional rights, gets my vote.

UghhhJune 12, 2008 5:56 AM

There are so many other ridiculous circumstances that require picture ID, is this really that big a deal? Show your ID, and get on your flight. What liberties are being taken from you by showing an ID?

JoJune 12, 2008 6:38 AM

Can I just ask, what "powers" do the TSA actually have? I see they can detain you, question you, probe into your life (and your body). How come they are allowed to do this? They are not the police. This kind of thing would not happen in a supermarket, so why is it allowed to happen in airports? What's so special about airports anyway?

SejanusJune 12, 2008 6:45 AM

"This kind of thing would not happen in a supermarket, so why is it allowed to happen in airports? What's so special about airports anyway?"

I believe you know what's so special about airports and plains as opposed to supermarkets.

BillJune 12, 2008 7:03 AM

Is it about security or about control? When the TSA employees have more control, then they feel safer themselves, so they assume that everyone is safer. After all, your safety is their job, so if they have more control, you must be safer, right? No? Huh.

One of threeJune 12, 2008 8:53 AM

Sweet. I never need to bring my ID again. I'm my brother now, whenever I fly.

Jared LesslJune 12, 2008 10:10 AM

This is right up there with letting people opt out of the draft for religious reasons but not for ethical or moral ones. Note that it took nearly 2 centuries, until 1965, to get that changed in the US.

JeffHJune 12, 2008 11:31 AM

Every night, I cry myself to sleep praying to all the gods that I don't believe in that come 1/20/2009 whatever new administration comes into 1600 Penn. Ave. will have a V8 moment - "<thwock> WHOA! This is REALLY stupid! TSA - You're FIRED!"

please?

confusedJune 12, 2008 11:55 AM

i don't understand why Bruce thinks this is about control, not security. he says, "I feel well-protected against terrorists who can't lie."

but, i thought Bruce was all about avoiding reliance on id, and instead emphasizing an assessment of danger based on other factors like behavior.

if anything, the only passengers who stand a chance of being properly scrutinized are those who do NOT present ids.

why is this new policy even interesting?

i'm used to Bruce complaining about over reliance on ids, not scrutiny of those who lack ids.

so now a terrorist without an id is more likely to be denied entrance, not less so.

the main security threat continues to be over reliance on (possibly faked) ids, doesn't it?


JackJune 12, 2008 12:23 PM

@ confused

The concern is that, however much effort is spent protecting a non-existent threat, that much less effort is spent protecting against real threats.

We're providing our own diversions and ruses to confuse our security forces and keep them busy checking for problems which don't exist. We don't require firefighters to check each home and each room to make sure it isn't on fire every hour of the day; we just want them to go where someone has reasonably decided there might be a fire.

Nomen PublicusJune 12, 2008 1:49 PM

Exactly how does having ID reduce the chance that a random person is going to blow up the plane by means of a cunning device constructed from plastic forks, paper napkins and the contents of an airline lunch?

The non-terrorists obviously are nothing to worry about. Real terrorists will either have no history and so cannot be detected as a threat; or will have perfectly clean papers from a friendly government and cannot be detected as a threat.

So, demanding ID is a pointless exercise that annoys the vast majority of passengers for no useful reason.

Why the TSA is obsessed with ID is curious but probably explained under the general rule...

"Something must be done; this is something, so it must be done."

OwthingsJune 12, 2008 2:37 PM

You actually can travel internationally without ID: inside the so called "Schengen space" in European union the borders can be crossed without any control. I can drive from Belgium to Italy through Luxembourg, Germany and France without never beeing asked any paper (from Germany to Luxembourg, short of a sign along the road, you don't even know you crossed a border).

ChristophJune 12, 2008 3:04 PM

Owthings: You are absolutely right, of course--though I believe that officially, you are required to have an ID with you when you are abroad, even in most "Schengen countries". Normally, no one will ask you for it, but I mostly take it along, just to be on the safe side.

jsJune 12, 2008 3:41 PM

@Owthings: in practical terms I think one could drive from the Arctic ocean (Norway) to the Mediterranean (Italy/Spain) without anybody asking for ID, since the Scandinavian passport-free zone and the Schengen space overlap. If one manages to land in either zone, almost all of Europe is reachable without border controls. I, for example, recently drove from Finland to Sweden (at Tornio/Haparanda) and could not tell where the border was. My friend knew it and pointed it out. There's not even a sign that says "Sverige". The telltale signs begin at the next roundabout where the road signs are slightly different and the gas stations advertise in Swedish currency.

...oh, and @One of three: from now on, when it comes in handy, I will also be your brother...

jsJune 12, 2008 3:57 PM

@Owthings: another thing - a Schengen resident is technically required to carry a government issued photo ID (such as an EU driver's license or a passport) for international travel within the Schengen space. Additionally, member countries may perform identity checks as per their respective legislation. (I think at least France requires that people be able to produce ID on request.)

Kyle HuffJune 12, 2008 4:18 PM

It's quite simple, and it's a sensible policy from their perspective. There's no point putting the squeeze on people who have lost their ID. No blood from a stone.
However, people who simply refuse to provide it can be pressured into compliance.

gregJune 13, 2008 4:26 AM

Yet no one has explained to me why showing a ID is such a breach of civil liberties ....

I mean oh my god, they know your F*&^%ing name. So what?

SumDumGuyJune 13, 2008 6:43 AM

>> I mean oh my god, they know your F*&^%ing name. So what?

EXACTLY! So what if they know people's names - that doesn't tell them if you are going to blow up the plane. So why the F are they wasting so much time on IDs in the first place?

bobJune 13, 2008 6:48 AM

What every happened to the idea of "government of the people, by the people and FOR the people"?

When did we become its servants and not the other way around? (rhetorical question - 14 Aug 1935)

And finally why does anyone vote to put someone in office who does not swear on their lives to immediately dismantle every government program which thinks (so to speak; obviously thinking and government programs are opposite ends of a line stretching to infinity) that IT is more important that the people it was meant to serve?

BillJune 13, 2008 7:10 AM

The 9/11ers had ID and were co-operative.

So instead the TSA should ask
"Are you a terrorist?" (Y/N)
"Are you sure?" (Y/N)
"OK"

Then to cut cost eliminate the operative and replace with a windows machine.

Perfect.

ConstitutionJune 13, 2008 9:37 AM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If government can't allow prayer in public schools, due to it being an "establishment of religion", surely the TSA shouldn't be "abridging the freedom of speech" with its rules on T-shirts and rules about mentioning "terrorist" or "bomb" while folks are in line to be unconstitutionally searched and seized.

SumDumGuyJune 13, 2008 3:18 PM

Your question is a non-sequitur - the real question is what value does requiring ID add? Why expend resources on something that does not add value?

One might as well ask why it would be a violation of civil liberties for the TSA to write down the hair color of each passenger. Hair color, like ID, is irrelevant to intent and intent is all that matters with respect to airline security.

JackJune 14, 2008 2:35 PM

IDs themselves don't give away any real information, but an ID has one and only one purpose: to /identify/ you, so that authority-types can /look up information about you in their giant databases/. Whether you're on a no-fly list, whether you purchased a ticket from the airline or from a third-party, whether there are warrants for your arrest, whether you payed your taxes on time last year, whether your traveling companion is your spouse, who you supported in the last election, whether you've ever signed any petitions or attended any demonstrations for or against a particular issue, what your religion is.

The mere existence of an ID may or may not be a civil liberties issue, but every possible use of one is, so it's reasonable and right to get concerned about civil liberties whenever IDs are mentioned.

ID DissenterJune 17, 2008 9:19 AM

The TSA rules should henceforth be referred to as the 'shAIRia'.

JeffJune 17, 2008 1:45 PM

Unbelievable. I can't believe how many people actually think they are intelligent, yet say things like "America is like Nazi Germany" and "shAIRia" law.

Why don't some of you get off your duffs and put your supposed intellectual superiority to use and save the day? Wait, just like the Monday morning quarterbacks, you're only good when you aren't responsible for anything--free to cricitize since you live in America (that you compare to Nazi Germany), but safe from scrutiny since you never actually have to do anything.

Anyways, back to the topic. First, people cannot hardly do anything without an ID. I don't see what the big deal is for an ID requirement. Most people here would advocate IDing someone to use their own credit card or checkbook. I certainly would feel much safer knowing that security knew who was on a plane. Most people would if they were thinking clearly (I'm no fan of bush, but I'm not so clouded by hatred of the man that I look for anything stupid to whine about).

Second, making it illegal to ID someone is probably judicial activism that they have no business engaging in. Any supporters are probably the same people who would want to know why "the dots weren't connected" after the fact.

I've also been to over a dozen countries, and I've been IDed at every one of them. Yet, the one that gets the most grief for it is the USA (because everyone hates us, unless of course they need help, then we're the first nation that gets called.)

I shouldn't allow myself to get pulled into rants like this.

RolfJune 19, 2008 1:11 PM

Jeff, yes you are ranting. Criticizing where it is warranted does not make us any less American or less concerned about the safety of air travel.

It is good to heap scorn on ineffective laws. Kindly look at penetration rates through airport security before and after these ineffective TSA mandates?

This "willful refusal is wrong but forgetting an ID is premissible" does nothing beyond harassing a 'conscientious' objector. It makes no difference to the real threat. That was the point behind Schneier's post.

Robert AccetturaAugust 12, 2008 2:25 PM

I think I'd be more alright with it if people just admitted it has nothing to do with security.

so the identity verification questions are about addresses? Couldn't you just use one of the many search engines that query public records to gather that before heading to the airport? You can then impersonate someone. Zaba Search anyone?

Arthur Davidson FickeAugust 12, 2008 4:09 PM

'This "willful refusal is wrong but forgetting an ID is premissible" does nothing beyond harassing a 'conscientious' objector.'

Exactly the point.

The 'conscientious objector' was probably too much of a pain in the ass to deal with, and wasted time for everyone - time that could be spent checking on others.

Currently what happens if someone refuses to present credentials? Is a lot of time wasted trying to deal with this individual?

The new regulation makes total sense to me. This way they don't have to deal with people wasting their time trying to make some political statement; the security personal get just point to the rule and move on.

JJAugust 13, 2008 7:13 AM

Interesting stuff.

By the way, as to Bruce's statement that "the ID requirement has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with control.":

When it comes to control, how likely could it be that some of the following types of websites...
-social network
-image/video sharing
-email service providers

...are located on NSA's servers?

RickAugust 14, 2008 7:47 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought showing and ID started after the TWA flight blew up over the Atlantic ocean which was later determined to be faulty wiring in the fuel tanks.

tkAugust 15, 2008 1:55 PM

> The 'conscientious objector' was probably too much of a pain in the ass
> to deal with, and wasted time for everyone - time that could be spent
> checking on others.

This is an excellent point. But how much more time could be saved by
simply not screwing around with this particular checking at all? You'd
save all the time of checking concientious objectors AND all the time
of checking everyone else. Plus, you wouldn't have degraded real
security because (excepting lists of enumerated badness that we all
know are the wrong approach to security) knowing who someone is
doesn't tell you their intent or whether they're a threat. And even
that assumes that IDs tell you who someone is, which is true for
the non-threats, but probably not true for the real threats.

Also, if concientious objectors are taking up so much of the TSA's
time, perhaps the TSA should look to address the cause of their
collective objections instead of trying to simply quash it. Choosing
to quash objection rather than address it openly runs contrary to
American ideals of freedom, and sounds chillingly like a
totalitarian regime.

DaleJuly 3, 2012 11:07 AM

"Geheimstatz polizei, papieren bitte" (spelling may be off)
"Homeland Security, ID and tickets please" (TSA is part of "Department of Homeland Security".)
Pray tell, what is the difference? Papers are now required for internal travel.
@Kilian: How about: "Vaterland Politzei, papieren bitte"?!?! Your "Geheimstatz" ("Geheimstadt" translates as "secret city"), doesn't seem to translate via "Google translator", even though it "detects" as being "German"!!! "Any way you slice it", it sucks to live in a budding police state, imagine how much it's going to suck when the "security" becomes even "tighter"!!!

DanMarch 18, 2013 1:19 PM

With TSA's Amazing ability to catch terrorists a total of ZERO in four years. 'And their ever increasing total of 400 plus employees fired for stealing from Passengers, including one employee connected to $800 thousand in passenger property theft. TSA has not proven itself in any way as a valuable organization.
Instead they have terrorized hundreds of thousands with searches and invasion of privacy. They have permanently damages children's faith in their parents as protectors at the same time.

Reason For ID At Airport Secure ZoneMarch 24, 2013 10:52 AM

No one has mentioned this: They check the databases and no-fly lists when your ticket is purchased. They insist on ID when entering the secure zone to ensure you are the same person they have already screened through the ticketing process.

Anonymous CowardAugust 2, 2013 10:02 AM

Use a passport card -- it does not include your address. If the TDC rejects it, call over the LTSO or STSO immediately -- and record the TDC's info for filing a complaint.

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..