Hacker News Reader

Comment by asdf_snar | Hacker News Reader

I think I must be confused, but after reading many of the replies, I can't figure this out. Is the standard American perspective that one shouldn't have to show any form of identification to go through security, get on a plane, and travel anywhere within the United States? How does anyone associate your ticket to your identity?

View on HN

My American perspective is unless I'm participating in an activity that definitely requires carrying and presenting ID, I don't need to.

Driving is such an activity. Transiting national borders as well. Maybe opening a bank account, but really it should be up to the bank if they want to see my ID.

If I'm travelling but not operating the vehicle, why should I need to carry and present ID? I'm pragmatic, and it's convenient to carry and present my papers to the nice officers, but I shouldn't need to.

Demanding ID when unnecessary is a hallmark of a police state.

> Maybe opening a bank account, but really it should be up to the bank if they want to see my ID.

KYC rules make it require much more than showing an id.

You don't need to carry ID/license to operate a vehicle. People (including I'm sure some cops) think you do but you only have to possess the license and present it to the cops if asked. Presenting can include going home to retrieve it from your dresser drawer. The US isn't (or wasn't) a "show me your papers" country.

Can't speak for the "standard American perspective," but no, you should not have to show identification. Why should someone need to be tracked to travel? Why does a ticket need to be associated to identity?

I'm not stating that they should be. I first want to make sure this is not just a question of the "Real ID". I can think of a couple of reasons that would throw a wrench in the works:

- passengers on no-fly lists or criminals

- anyone who is underage -- do we let 10 year-olds fly alone? how do you assess age without ID? what if the child gets lost while traveling, and you can't even determine whether the child boarded their flight or not? (if you attach ID to the ticket, then that just seems like ID with extra steps? I could be missing something)

- baggage claim: if there is no link between ticket and person, what's to stop me from claiming anyone's luggage as my own?

I'm not firmly attached to any of these objections, actually -- and perhaps they're not even issues, because I'm missing something fundamental about the assumption. I admit my personal bias is that "taking a plane = passport" even when traveling domestically (I'm not a US citizen), so I have not thoroughly considered the possibility that "taking a plane = taking a bus".

> anyone who is underage -- do we let 10 year-olds fly alone? how do you assess age without ID?

Most children don't carry ID. And most ID for children doesn't even have a photograph. For travel that doesn't require a passport, you just have to deal with asking the child or their travel companions.

> baggage claim: if there is no link between ticket and person, what's to stop me from claiming anyone's luggage as my own?

I can't recall being challenged as to my identity for any luggage I've picked up from the carousel. This was as true in 1997, when it was the focus of a major motion picture [1], as it is today. Regardless, having possession of the matching luggage receipt for a tag should really be sufficient to pick up a bag.

> I admit my personal bias is that "taking a plane = passport" even when traveling domestically (I'm not a US citizen)

That's a reasonable personal bias, but presuming you're subject to mandatory alien registration and you're eighteen or older, you have a legal requirement to register and carry proof of registration. Citizens are not generally required to be registered with the federal government, or to carry proof of registration or other identity documents; although enough things require a social security number that the vast majority of citizens are registered and enumerated by SSA, and enumeration at birth is the default, but a very small number of citizens manage to be born without a birth certificate being issued.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Heads_in_a_Duffel_Bag

We do have to show ID. But the federal government said it's not enough to use a normal state driver's license or passport. You need a special "Real ID" that's somehow allegedly better. Your old driver's license that you can pay for booze with, open a bank account with, and you know, drive with, isn't proof enough of who you are to ride on a plane.

Edit: I should note that I have one. But lots of people don't, because most people never replace their driver's license card.

Passport works. You don't need real ID. Its only purpose is to deal with states where the normal driver license issuing process isn't up to whatever standards the feds dictate.

A passport is just as tedious to get as a real id. As far as I'm aware, there's no compelling security benefit that the government has articulated about how standardizing licenses improves security.

I think this is where my confusion lies. It seems like many people are saying no ID of any kind -- passport, "real ID", driver's license, ... -- should be provided, period. So ostensibly a 10 year-old could show up at the airport and decide to travel on their own (and if we only ID "young-looking people" then we get into a similar discussion as to why one should always ask for proof of age when buying alcohol).

To be clear, I'm refraining from judgment on this (despite what the downvotes seem to suggest), I just want to make sure I'm understanding the distinction is not plain driver's license vs. Real ID. I don't like it very much that I have to show my ID (such as passport or European ID card) when I'm on a train in Switzerland. It seems like the majority perspective is that we shouldn't _at all_ be controlling the ID of people who get on a plane, and that's just interesting to me (it would force me to articulate what the difference is between a plane and a train ride).

> How does anyone associate your ticket to your identity?

Why does anyone in this picture need to associate my ticket with my identity?

Just replying here in case it's more visible, but:

- what if you're on a no-fly list? wanted criminals?

- underage?

I'm not of the opinion that any of those should be valid reasons to prevent someone from boarding a plane.

Why would there be a need to associate my ticket to my identity?

Just replying here in case it's more visible, but:

- what if you're on a no-fly list? wanted criminals?

- underage?

I don’t think a no-fly list should exist. Either a person has committed a crime and should be prosecuted, or not. It doesn’t make sense to me to say, you’re too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but not dangerous enough to put in jail.

Catching wanted criminals would be nice, but that’s not considered sufficient justification in other places. Requiring an ID to enter the grocery store would help catch wanted criminals too, but few think that would be wise.

I don’t think kids flying when they shouldn’t be is an actual problem. You’d still need a ticket, which costs a substantial amount of money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com