> The main reason for the TSA to outsource the questioning of travelers and scoring of answers is to evade the rules applicable to collection and use of personal data by Federal agencies. … The nominal “fly/no-fly” decision will still be made by the TSA, not the contractor. But that “decision” will be a rubber-stamp approval or disapproval based solely on whether the app shows a “pass” or “fail” score, or whether the would-be traveler doesn’t have a suitable smartphone or is otherwise unable or unwilling to complete the app-based process.
You hear the drug trade is really lucrative but you're not allowed to sell drugs, so you send your money to a contractor that sells drugs, they give you more money back, and you technically haven't "sold drugs."
Somehow, thinking breaks down at the boundary between systems, because inexplicably the constraints or guarantees of the consuming system do not propagate to the providing system.
TSA could and should be (made) identity-agnostic, with its mandate to protect vehicles and occupants. Immigration is what should care about the individual that's being allowed into the country.
You just had your servers hacked into and all your database are belong to them. The black hats demand X number of BitCoins as ransom, but you cannot pay because it violates certain laws. So you hire an intermediary who pays for you, thereby avoiding the legal problem.
The killing example still bites you because the intent to kill, knowing & abetting, etc still matters, regardless of method to do so. It's not just the murder, but also everything around the murder that gets swept into it.
It seems to me data collection is illegal, so TSA doesnt do it directly -- the problem is that TSA intends to collect, and knowingly (and provably?) works around it, but is not being punished for it.
This is not really true. The TSA does not intend to collect, but to obtain an "ok person", "not-ok person" stamp. Then they decide with the info they gathered in the conversation with the person in question. They are not obtaining the data and have no intention of doing so. Yet a stamp like "criminal activity in the past" would be a questionable one. I don't know how they stamp the person.
Nevertheless I think they are doing a bad thing, because you can rest assured that this collected data won't get deleted, possibly even sold to 3rd parties.
This also seems like it pretty unambiguously still breaks the law. Has it been tested in court yet?
I wonder if it's kind of a "it's small fry, and these businesses are getting their data back, we'll turn our backs to it unless it's actual violent terrorists receiving ransom money" sort of thing.
> I wonder if it's kind of a "it's small fry, and these businesses are getting their data back, we'll turn our backs to it unless it's actual violent terrorists receiving ransom money" sort of thing.
1. It's difficult to believe that organized crime isn't involved in at least some ransomware schemes.
Strange, this is kinda what Huawei is being accused of in Iran. They used a proxy company to do business with a sanctioned country. Although Huawei seemed to directly control the company management, whereas Arete IR is technically an independent company hired as a contractor.
Super common for everything happening with Iran/Sudan/N. Korea. Shell companies inside of shell companies. Demands & markets don't stop just cuz of sanctions...
"You hear the drug trade is really lucrative but you're not allowed to sell drugs, so you send your money to a contractor that sells drugs, they give you more money back, and you technically haven't "sold drugs.""
Funny how these things turn out; convicted arms trafficer Oliver North ended up running the NRA for a while, before he was pushed out by the current head, Wayne LaPierre, who is currently under investigation by the NY AG for stealing organisational funds.
And notorious ghoul Elliot Abrams, who lied to congress about the involvement of the US Government trafficking weapons in Iran and Nicaragua during the Contra affair was just made United States Special Representative for Iran by Trump.
Of course they were all pardoned by Bush right before he left office to complete the coverup per the advice of Bush's corrupt Attorney General, William Barr.
They're like despotic little cats with how many political lives they have. We really need to start prosecuting corruption at this level if only to keep these criminals out of office in the future.
The same NY AG who ran for office on a platform of investigating the NRA for nakedly political reasons (ie. because of their political influence and stance on gun rights).
Have you read about all the improprieties at the NRA under LaPierre? He hired his wife and daughter and then expensed private jets for vacations because they were "doing work". He hired a contractor to pay his credit card bill to hide the fact that he was expensing hundreds of thousands of dollars of clothing.
You'd think people dedicated to gun rights would be mad that millions of their dollars went to enriching a dozen already rich dudes, instead of whatever the charity is for.
Don't forget serving as the bag-man for foreign money being funneled to the GOP; the NRA is a straight line to GOP coffers.
The NRA hasn't represented the rights of gun owners for years, but sure is happy to push for gun manufacturers, and anyone else willing to donate money.
My money says that, while Ollie North is a hard-right former USMC officer who is willing to bend rules for the CIA -- "exitus acta probat", etc. -- he wasn't down for blatant corruption and shilling for foreign powers.
The CEO has no fiduciary duty here under any law whatsoever.
The NRA is a private organization. The morals of corporate decision making (or lack thereof) is an internal matter that should be resolved internally according to org docs in a civil court.
There is nothing criminal to hire your wife as an employee.
There is nothing criminal about using the company issued credit card for expenses.
The company is of course free to bring litigation for malfeasance of company assets, but that would be the company, referring to the contract between employer and employee that defines what is allowed and what is not. The DA is nowhere to be seen.
If either was the case, 20% of corporate managers would be in jail.
The DA has nothing to do with this. Except of course its a political overreach which is repugnant.
The problem is they don't believe it. The NRA publishes like a dozen or more political magazines that tell the members its all a lie, meant to shutdown their organization that is standing up for their rights against the evil liberals. The members have been conditioned over the last 15 years or so not to believe in the media except their own propaganda outlets. The problem is on one point they are right the NY AG campaigned on shutting them down. So now when she says she has evidence of financial impropriety and there internal propaganda arms says "see she is dong what she said she would do, she is making it up to get ride of us so she can take your guns" they ignore the evidence of wrong doing.
Of course they never heard about Oliver North trying to kick LaPierre out for this because LaPierres cronies kicked Oliver out instead then turned around and lied to their members that Oliver North was the one stealing. Its insane.
> So under your scenario you are in Maine vacationing, living, etc… and you lost your weed. OH NO! Who do you call? The INCREDIBLES.ME Psychic Service! We have Psychics roaming all over Portland communicating with their deity, their spirit guides, and having religious moments of clarity. We can guarantee to find your LOST WEED!! (For a small, but very worth while fee!).
> Just login to this site, and select the cannabis or cannabis products you lost, and give us your address. We will find YOUR weed and get it back to you ASAP. Fees vary based on the time it takes us to find your weed, the quantity of weed we have to locate, and the distance in which we have to travel to get YOUR LOST weed back to you.
...
> If you are under 21 or near a school maybe it is best that you lost your weed.
Bureaucratic policies do not specify what is ethically or legally permissible, they specify how an organization has decided to do things.
Contracting with an outside organization whose policies are more suited to the task at hand is usually easier than refactoring the bureaucracy you live in.
Not always. For things that matter, government is perfectly capable of instituting harsh penalties for trying to game the system and boundaries between systems ( check sanctions and OFAC regulations with their strict liability; no messing around, the end result is what matters ). I am certainly not suggesting they should do it the same in TSA, but it is more of an indication that flying is not an issue here.
"A traveler who shows up at a TSA checkpoint would, it appears, be told they have to install the mobile app, pay a fee through the app (which presumably would require a credit or debit card or bank account), complete the in-app questioning, and show a “pass” result from the app to the TSA staff or contractors in order to “complete screening” and proceed through the checkpoint."
Install an app that does god only know on your cell. Hard pass. I keep debating just downgrading to dumb phone, but something always stops me ( right now it is playing with Pinephone ).
This, naturally, does not change the actual outcome ( can't fly without complying with TSA demands ), but I thankfully do not fly a lot these days.
Most people don't fly a lot these days... That's still not an excuse for allowing TSA expansion of authority beyond that which is reasonably essential for their function.
I agree completely. I do feel a little ashamed that I abdicate my responsibility to resist this idiocy, but I am also pointing it out as a matter of fact. The few times that I do fly, I opt out.
Do you simply show your phone screen to them? Seems like a bit of a security flaw, given that I can just mock up a “pass” screen and show it to the TSA agent, no?
The system shall be able to generate both a human-readable and machine-readable result.
i. The objective is to display to a Transportation Security Officer (TSO) that a
passenger has a “pass” or a “fail” status
ii. A machine-readable form factor should include the capability to be read by TSA’s
Credential Authentication Technology (CAT) machine, e.g., a PDF 417 barcode or a
Checksum format
1. Data in the machine readable zone would include Name, DOB, and Gender
to facilitate real-time Secure Flight screening
So I guess the machine-readable output could include some verification that it was not just a "PASS" JPG.
It actually is a decent enough RFI.
I've had to fly (accidentally) without an ID a few times and it is kind of annoying. I'd be happy if I could have used something like this instead.
I literally don’t have enough space on my iPhone se and always forget my App Store password because I so rarely use it. And I make decent money so I could afford a new phone.
But people who can’t afford a new phone, I’ve met many, will be unable to fly in the same circumstances that people with money can without a problem.
It’s a class system.
Not to mention older people who are sometimes technologically challenged.
If the app is purely optional and has no influence on the decision other than efficiency, then it’s acceptable.
Someone else could use the app and send their image to the friend who wants to fly. Though I imagine it could be something smart like the app for UK bus passes where the background contains an animation or Apple when you scan a phone to upgrade from.
Why not use double phone? I’m afraid you need a bit cash to afford privacy but you can use a cheap smart phone to install this app then put it to faraday cage throughout your travels. Basically a travel only phone.
Right, the people who still don't allow you to board with an excess ounce of water or makeup suddenly care about making air travel a pleasant experience.
It is somewhat depressing to watch American Graffiti, or for that matter soviet movies, and see people just going out to the boarding stairs and getting on the plane like they would a bus.
In some places it still happens. Around 2004 I boarded a plane with stairs in Cancun.
My wife’s Aunt and Uncle have been serial travelers for decades. One time her uncle forget his briefcase in the 80s. She convinced the counter person to get someone to take his briefcase to the taxing plane. The pilot opened the window and a maintenance guy threw him the briefcase. When the pilot handed him his briefcase he said I don’t know who you are or how you pulled this off but it’s impressive it worked. The uncle had no idea he left it until that point.
So according to the request for information[1], it looks like the TSA wants a system that can validate an identity exists (given name, date of birth, address, phone number) and that the identity belongs to the person using the app. The first part looks pretty trivial, given the enormous corpus of databases out there (credit reports, public records, etc.), but what about the second part? Presumably you'd need some sort of database linking identities to photos, and validate that photo against the user's selfie or something. The question is, where would that photo database come from? State DMVs? If your photo is in the DMV database, wouldn't that also mean you have a drivers license, and therefore could use that rather than the app? What's preventing someone from impersonating someone else by scraping the internet for "similar" faces to their own, finding the associated id, and claiming that they're that person?
Record linkage and master data management are far from trivial. In any large number of people there will be enough duplicate values and data errors to cause a large number of false positive and false negative matches. We deal with this constantly in the healthcare industry because patient records arrive from a variety of different sources and there is no single reliable source of truth. A sophisticated matching algorithm can do fairly well but it's impossible to achieve 100% accuracy.
> If your photo is in the DMV database, wouldn't that also mean you have a drivers license, and therefore could use that rather than the app
Perhaps today, but if the REAL ID rules ever actually kick in, just having a driver's license won't necessarily be enough. It got pushed back from an Oct start date to some unspecified future date.
There's been some press about this, but when these rules do go into effect, I suspect there will be stories about people that have trouble taking their flight.
I think the TSA's theory is that if you can answer questions about the data in the Accurint record about person X correctly (i.e. your answers match the Accurint record, even if it is erroneous), you must be person X. That's the essential assumption behind the current IVCC scheme, except that it is operated by the TSA rather than a contractor.
Most DMVs feed photo data to law enforcement. There are also vendors who slurp up or facilitate the slurping of social media profiles.
Also don’t assume that this is preventative. End of the day, the point of this stuff is to leave breadcrumbs behind. In the process, they’ll hassle a few former felons or brown people with beards.
> If your photo is in the DMV database, wouldn't that also mean you have a drivers license, and therefore could use that rather than the app
Three only time I've encountered the current system for folks without ID was when I was at the airport and realized that my driver's license was in my yoga back at home. I got offered to go through the current process.
I once tried to rely on a mobile boarding pass to get through security. The process required Internet access, and I wasn't able to pull it up.
It wasn't until I was on the other side of security (via a paper pass) that I realized the airport WiFi was falsifying DNS results, and that was preventing me from pulling up the pass on the mobile device. But handling "DNS server is reachable but being actively man-in-the-middled" wasn't a code path the developer had thought of (I know I wouldn't have…). I needed to open a browser and agree to some inane ToS or watch an ad, or something, before I could get unadulterated Internet access.
Sorry, but where have you been for the last decade? This is how every free WiFi I've used all around the world has ever worked. It's not specific to airports.
I really like that I can add boarding passes to Apple Wallet and they're available totally offline. There's not a lot Wallet is good for (adoption is too low) but it's great at Boarding Passes.
I absolutely never do this. Maybe because I'm paranoid, and especially if I'm flying internationally, I never, ever, feel comfortable handing my mobile device to security or Immigration. I still get a paper one every time.
While I get your point this is really unnecessary when you fly within Europe. Specifically within the Schengen area.
Usually you don't hand your boarding pass to anybody. Instead you self-scan it once when you enter the passenger / transit area and a second time, when boarding the plane through a self-service gate.
This may vary by airport, but on most of my flights through a number of European airports access is pretty much automated.
Sure, but that doesn't solve my (perhaps somewhat irrational) issue with physically handing my phone to people I don't really trust, especially when out of my home country.
I think that the only reason to use airport wi-fi is when you arrive from abroad and don't have a local SIM card yet, and your existing SIM card is for a plan that does not provide data roaming.
Otherwise, the mobile internet is vastly superior. It's even superior when it's the slow and expensive international roaming data plan. Airport's wi-fi can end up equally or more expensive and slow; I tried, both in Europe and in the US.
Non-US folks who are wondering what Real ID is, and why this site seems to hate it so much, the United States is best considered in the context of the European Union but with US internal politics regarding data sharing between the federation and its member states.
There are fifty member states with full privileges and around ten member states with reduced privileges.
The federation issues government IDs in two ways.
First, the federation government issues federation IDs in the form of passports. These are accepted as proof of identity only, and grant no additional privileges beyond proof of residency within the federation.
Second, each member state issues their own photo IDs following their own independent processes. These are neither proof of citizenship to the federation’s border control, nor to other countries, and data sharing agreements historically did not exist between the states and the federation.
The member states of the EU issue passports as the state ID card, and requires each member state to accept those passports as approximately equal to their own for most intents and purposes. The US federation also requires its member states to accept both any member state IDs and also federation passports.
“RealID” is an effort by the federation to be able to determine from your state ID card whether you are a federation member. It defines a minimum burden of proof of citizenship that states must require and verify, and presumably share with the federation, in order to issue an ID card with a federation membership indicator. For political reasons, many member states and many citizens do not believe it is appropriate for the federation to make this demand of the member states. I believe this is in contrast to the EU, where data sharing between authorities of member states regarding federation passports is required by the foundation, but I’m not 100% certain.
I hope this helps. Please treat this as a teaching example and do not make immigration, travel, taxation, or citizenship decisions based on it. I am not your lawyer.
Just a minor nitpick: A US Passport is more than proof of residency. It’s proof of citizenship. When you get a job in the US, your employer needs to check your citizenship. A passport alone does the trick. Otherwise, you need both an ID and some other proof of your right to work, like a birth certificate (birthright citizenship), naturalization card, or a work permit of some kind from the US government (green card and such).
For teaching purposes, I didn't address social security numbers and other such tangents, as it isn't strictly necessary to help non-US folks understand how the US federation compares to the EU's for the purposes of RealID.
Social security numbers are a second federation ID (but not a photo ID) that anyone who pays you money is required to ask you for. You're only required to present the 9-digit ID number, not the actual ID card, oddly enough. Temporary worker visa holders are exempt for whatever reason.
Untangling the intricate web between proof of birth, proof of residency of state, proof of residency of federation, and proof of taxability in federation is beyond the scope of my time available here. Disclaimer, I am not your lawyer, please seek professional guidance when making decisions.
This will be a disaster as is usually the case with government outsourcing duties to the less qualified private sector. Surely there must be a "law" named after this by now.
Realid itself is a clusterfuck. I tried to get a driver's license with it. Presented all the paperwork. Was told my signed lease was not acceptable proof of residence and that it would be impossible. I'd have to get a regular driver's license or come back at a later time, pay again and more this time for a second license. Fuck that. What a clusterfuck of stupidity. I'll try again when it renews, assuming the pandemic in the US is completely done. Or not. It's just a fact of life that to fly from state to state, one needs to carry a passport now. In a "free" country. How ridiculous.
What annoys me about realid is the time it takes to make it. It takes weeks ( as opposed to being able to get one the very same day at dmv ). So average user is told tuff noodles, while average person who uses fake, working id has criminals working 24/7 to ensure easy access ( https://www.fox5ny.com/news/shipments-of-nearly-20000-fake-d... ).
And when you point it out people say something along the lines "Well, that's why you need realid!". It gets depressing fast.
God... "CBP said most of the fake IDs were for college-age students. Many had the same photo but different names. But one alarming discovery was that the barcode on the fake Michigan licenses actually worked, CBP said. "
Yes I've been telling everyone who'll here this. The PDF417 bar code at the back is just plain text without any kind of digital signature. Anyone could generate a new one. There are apps that do it for you. Since there's no digital signature, there's no way of verifying that it is authentic. There's nothing ALARMING about this. The bar code is an open standard and anyone can generate a new one. It would be alarming if they faked the digital signature.
You can't have digital signatures without all of the attendant PKI baggage. And if you're going to implement all of the PKI baggage, might as well go all the way and start issuing people smart cards.
It doesn't need to be full PKI. Just link to some internal website ran by the State that spits out DB info about how "Joe's license, numberd 01010101 is valid". Georgia already does this for temporary license plates (Pardon the TLS 1.1): https://www.gada.com/index.php?module=FileShare&func=downloa...
It just means that because this is a federal requirement that needs to be implemented by the states, we're going to see 50 different implementations. Some will work better than others.
My state doesn't require real id and I see no reason the get the realid compliant id my state offers. I have a passport, passport card, and global entry which are all federaly issued and "real" ids.
Why is it so hard to just travel with a passport or passport card?
Yeah not really a surprise. Most of the surveys I've read show something like 10-12% of people have never left their state, and 40% or more of Americans have never left the US.
HN is overwhelmingly technical, educated, well-off, and travels a lot -- most of the US (and other places, for that matter) aren't.
> there was no constitutional violation because air passengers could still travel without identification if they instead underwent the more stringent "secondary screening" search
I wasn't aware that I could decline to show ID at an airport security checkpoint in favor of undergoing a secondary screening. Does this actually work in practice?
(Also, I wonder how it squares with automated facial recognition and similar biometric technology?)
So theoretically if I show up at the airport and claim that I lost my license but had proof that I purchased the tickets, what would happen? Would they just search me in more detail than they already do?
> 1. The TSA admits that people can and do fly without ID.
> Prior to the COVID-19 National Emergency, TSA encountered over 2.5 million passengers a day and, on average, 600 instances of passengers without acceptable ID. These individuals are able to verify their identity via telephone through our National Transportation Vetting Center (NTVC).
Why is it not considered a privilege to occupy space in a flight in state-controlled airspace? At what point does it become a de facto travel ban, e.g. one can of course travel, so long as they are walking, and of course not on private or government-owned land.
Which is odd to say the least, because the documentation for a US passport (as of a couple years ago) was less stringent than that required by the REAL ID act.
The reason you can fly without any ID (even today - try it) is that feds cannot stop citizens from freely moving in the country (see multiple filings from TSA in various cases, incl, for example, Gilmore v. Gonzales). They do not like acknowledging this but you can do it. The procedure is secret and they refuse to explain it (even to the court), but you can do it. i've done it just to see how it would go a few times. It works. You do need to press them on it a bit.
This fee approach will not work for the same reason: it is an impediment to free movement (fee).
You need to be prepared for this by arriving to the airport with plenty of time. They will not be in a hurry to help someone with someone with no identification.
>You need to be prepared for this by arriving to the airport with plenty of time. They will not be in a hurry to help someone with someone with no identification.
I forgot my wallet (actually I'd packed it in my bag) and got through security in SFO without issue. They just had a secondary person come over and ask me several questions while looking directly into my eyes, then asked if I had anything with my name on it. I had an old prescription bottle (that I could have made with a laser printer) and that was plenty, other than them swabbing my hands.
I've passed through security without valid ID once or twice, and it amounted to the same level of checking that you get when your bag gets pulled out of the x-ray for something that looks off. Full pat-down, explosive-residue swab, and they took a look at the contents of my wallet (assorted credit, library cards and corporate ID). It wasn't a serious delay.
Your milage may vary though, if things are already busy then you might be left waiting for a while. Best to err on the side of earlier.
I wouldn't recommend it at all to people who are regularly profiled and hassled by TSA even with ID, of course...
You can also get the check mentioned in the article where they call somewhere and try to identify you with silly questions culled from public and private databases, not unlike some id checks you get from online banks. This can take forever as you're literally playing telephone.
I flew without ID in Dec 2019 within the USA. I forgot both my wallet with my (non-REAL) ID, and my phone (which is a nokia dumb phone), at home and didn't realized till after the long car ride to the airport. There was no time to go back home.
We tried flying anyway. They pulled me off to the side in the security line and called up someone they said was in washington DC. The local TSA said the DC people would do a search into my life and who I claimed to be. They then asked me a series of questions about buildings (ie, a church) near where I lived, the university I went to, my father's birthday, etc. I passed despite not knowing quite a bit about my own life and they let me on the plane. But with an escort through all the security screening section.
It was nerve wracking the entire trip not knowing if I'd be able to fly home. The same process was repeated but again I answered to their satisfaction and was able to fly. I don't recommend doing this intentionally.
"The procedure is secret and they refuse to explain it (even to the court), but you can do it."
I think you're overblowing this ... as it is neither secret nor unexplainable. Any ticket agent at any airport knows exactly how to process a frantic ( mom + 2 kids ) who forgot her ID at home and the flight leaves in 75 mins.
The ticket agents, the security personnel and the gate personnel all know how to deal with (forgot ID at home).
So... Please explain it then. Or link to a document from the TSA that explains it.
Just because it's known by a lot of people doesn't mean it's not a secret. The ticket agent might not even know the full system, just what they have to do to get that frantic mom and 2 kids off their back.
Enter airport. Walk to departures agent of your airline and explain that you forgot your ID and there is no way that someone can bring it to you, or that you can retrieve it, in time to make the flight.
You get extra screening and a specially marked boarding pass and you get on the plane with everyone else.
My wife did this as recently as 12 months ago. SFO->MSP.
You know very well that that's not what "explain it" means. If you think the process isn't a secret, then find a document detailing the entire process, with specifics, end to end.
What happens in the extra screening? Is it the same throughout the country? What might vary in the process (YMMV, after all), etc.
You have a purely anecdotal account of what can happen at an airport that isn't even staffed by the TSA (https://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo/safety-security). What everyone else is looking for is a specific, detailed, transparent description of the entire process.
There definitely is some opacity to the process, though.
I've heard anecdotally of people showing up and saying "I chose not to bring ID", and... that can fail. I wouldn't be surprised if those are most of the ones who were actually denied no-ID travel.
I got home from a business trip a couple years ago, unpacked my bags, and found the switchblade I'd lost a few months prior. I went through security twice with those bags...
Similar thing happened to me, I had 1/8 ounce weed in my hand bag I unknowingly packed, flew in from Los Angeles -> China -> India. I went through rigorous security checks with police dogs and fully body scanners at both LA and China. I panicked when I opened my bag when I reached home.
Better idea of course - abolish the TSA. I mean harshly enough the pandemic proves they don't really care about tens of thousands of lives so their justification for existence is even more moot - on top of their ineffectualness.
9/11 will never happen again because the idea of a plane hijacking for ransom no longer exists in passengers' minds. If someone hijacks a plane now, the passengers assume the hijackers have suicidal intent and will curb stomp the hijackers to death or die trying. So in that regard I think TSA confiscating scissors and pen knives is just silly. A simple metal detector is sufficient for finding large weapons like guns.
On the other hand, terrorists' only option now is to just destroy the plane and kill all the passengers onboard. Cabin doors are locked, so this involves blowing up a bomb concealed somewhere (checked luggage, shoes, liquid explosives, etc). How do you propose we detect whether someone is trying to smuggle a bomb on a plane without something like the TSA? Just keep an eye out for nervous passengers and report them?
In other words, if we abolish the TSA tomorrow and replace it with metal detectors, what's to stop someone from bringing a few gallons of chemical explosives in their backpack, mixing them in the lavatory, and blowing up the plane? TSA has always caught when I accidentally left a full water bottle in my backpack.
>In other words, if we abolish the TSA tomorrow and replace it with metal detectors, what's to stop someone from bringing a few gallons of chemical explosives in their backpack, mixing them in the lavatory, and blowing up the plane?
The reality is that it's already feasible to sneak conventional weapons and explosives past TSA. Here are two fairly recent investigations on the TSA's efficacy, one from 2015 [1] and one from 2017 [2]. Both of these undercover investigations were performed by the Department of Homeland Security. The first one found that in 67 out of 70 tests, agents were able to get weapons past TSA, including a fake IED strapped to an agent's back. The second found that this failure rate dropped from 2015's staggering 95% to "in the ballpark" of 80%.
Yes, the TSA always stops you when you bring a full water bottle. Eight times out of ten, they won't confiscate your gun or bomb. Even if they did, what's to stop someone from mixing chemicals to cause an explosion on a bus? Or in a crowded hotel? Or an elementary school? Or a mall? Or...
In my opinion, there simply aren't that many people with both the desire and means to do these things.
And let's not ignore the fact that someone could just kidnap the pilots families and blackmail them into "hijacking" their own plane. An organisation with the money and motivation doesn't care about the TSA and their security theater.
Meanwhile I can't pack through sun-tan lotion in a carry on so I can use it before I tear into my suitcase in a hotel room. I think the actually most dangerous thing in my bag was the laptop's lithium ion battery, though there were the lovely cellphone issues a year or two ago as well.
Meanwhile, I hear it's possible to carry on a whole pumpkin pie. As if someone couldn't hide a good bit of volatile material in that format, or an improvised weapon in the form of it's carrying container.
As much as I dislike profiling, I do believe it has a place of use in focusing actual suspicion based fact finding and proving. It should be used to exclude suspects and focus investigations and judicial review for search requests to cases that might matter.
Well I mean what stops anyone now from bringing a few gallons of chemical explosives and blow up the line at the TSA checkpoint, I think the locking of the cockpit doors was the fix and the TSA is mostly security theater/job creation scheme.
It's always grimly funny to see how a TSA officer confiscates somebody's bottle of water, on the grounds that it might be a can of liquid explosive, and casually throws it to a bin full of other such water bottles, possibly full of liquid explosive, positioned right next to a large crowd of people in front of a TSA checkpoint.
That is, they are actively showing they themselves don't believe in what they are doing.
Seems like a perfect way for a terrorist to have a time bomb landed inside a 2L "soda bottle" in that confiscated bottles bin, and go board a plane, all clean.
TSA agents aren't serious people because the agency itself is not treated as serious - as many have pointed out in this thread, it was invented by people who were essentially larping as "serious people", staffed by more of the same, and then given a mandate that is, in fact, very serious.
If we treated TSA as serious we would deputize them as part of DoD, or as part of CBP and abolish the "checkpoint" version of this security theatre we're all complaining about. The Theatre doesn't make sense, we all know it, and as you point out the people working for TSA implicitly know it. A serious TSA agency would have armed troops, along with a myriad of other detection technologies, patrolling airports as is done in other major transportation hubs like Penn Station.
I've accidentally gotten pocket knives, lighters, actual ammo (shame on me, was coming from a military reunion where we spent time at a range) through security in my carry on. Once I was randomly pulled out and had the "sniff" test run on my bag (admittedly one that was in Afghanistan with me), where they wipe it down with a small piece of cotton and put it in a machine that does some magic I'm not smart enough to understand.
> whats' to stop someone from bringing a few gallons of chemical explosives in their backpack, mixing them in the lavatory, and blowing up the plane?
Same thing that stops people from blowing up buses, trains cars, shopping malls, movie theaters, etc: not much. There just isn't a sufficient incentive and will to do such things.
I think in general there are more crowded and easily accessible places to blow up than a plane if you aren't planning on hijacking it, so I don't see anyone doing that anyway.
I don't remember the actual statistic, so I'll lowball, but in an internal audit the TSA did not catch 70+% of contraband that was intentionally brought through security by the auditors.
it would be totally ok to be a federal jobs program if it actually provided unintrusive security. rather, the problem is that it's corrupt, funneling large amounts of tax dollars to private enterprise for no benefit and a boatload of individual slights. instead, the tsa should turn half of the nearly 50K screeners into canine teams roaming all the ports, letting people walk through with just an electronic bag screen.
That would be a better jobs program. You’d employ the various purveyors of dog care products, vets and other services, some of which benefit society in a more meaningful way than a rent a cop.
If the government wants to make jobs programs, it makes more sense to have the people getting the jobs do something productive rather than non-productive(if that is what you think the TSA is). For example, a lot of manual, mostly unskilled labor is needed for road maintenance and repair - why wouldn't the government just create/expand a jobs program for that instead?
Given that TSA continues to absorb increasing amounts of boondoggle in return for actually making me LESS safe (giant lines outside the security perimeter are a wonderful target) I'll take the trade, thanks.
And airline personnel have to abide by the law since they can be taken to court. That's a VAST improvement over the unaccountable TSA.
And, oddly, the airlines actually didn't cut corners. What "needs to get caught" is well-defined, and all holy hell breaks over the heads of people if it doesn't get caught.
Now, that means that airlines train their security to recognize the test firearm rather than actual general firearms, but that's a failure to define the problem correctly rather than cutting corners.
Bush era South Carolina passed a law, and thus created a related form, that required terrorists to register themselves as such at the DMV.
I used to have it on file somewhere, now it's buried in an old hard drive. Would love to have one again. Would love even more to do a FOIA request to see if they ever actually got any filled out.
It reminds me of the paper forms I'd have to fill out when entering the US on a UK passport. The forms would ask questions like whether or not I was a nazi that participated in the holocaust.
They still ask that. They will ask those questions whenever you need a visa issued or renewed.
I wondered if anyone has ever said yes to the genocide questions.
Their purpose isn't to get accurate information, they're there to give immigration authorities an easy legal way to kick someone out for something that would otherwise require a higher standard of evidence. I.e. anyone answering yes to that question is obviously a red flag but a former SS officer who writes in no can be kicked out by proving he knowingly lied on the forms due to his past as an SS agent without proving he was involved in or knew about the atrocities, which could be a lot harder.
Same thing for a lot of the security clearance forms. "Check here if you have ever tried to overthrow the US government", etc.
Mostly an IQ/reading comprehension thing -- like, an actual spy who isn't a moron is going to leave it blank -- but I've heard a defense of it that's something to the effect of "well, you never asked, so I never disclosed [X]."
They claim that requiring a REAL-ID to fly is illegal, and link to this PDF (https://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IDP-f...) which appears to be a sort of letter from The Identity Project attempting to explain that what the TSA is doing is illegal. So, I don't know if I buy that it matters. If I show up on Oct 2, 2021, without a REAL-ID (i.e., a pre-realID california driver's license, which is what I have because DMV lines are fucked and appointments are fucked too), I think I won't be able to fly, no matter how much I wave a PDF in the face of TSA officials.
Get a passport. In CA it’s the only means of getting a second ID, aka a backup ID. I once almost didn’t get a job, because DMV was late sending me my driver’s license renewal, and for one week I had no valid ID, and that was the week I needed to start work.
Requiring any form of ID to fly is illegal. The TSA simply has to verify that you are who you are claiming to be (and aren't on any no-fly list etc.) They do this today through some additional questioning, and that won't change post-realID. Basically, showing up with an old drivers license will be the same as showing up without one.
As a side note, not sure where in CA you live, but I had to renew my license last month (it expired) so I went and got a realID. I waited two minutes in line without an appointment and was completely done after 25 minutes. The whole process was efficient and I never came within six feet of another human.
I did all my paperwork online which gave me the cut in line pass, and I went to a special "License only" DMV. There is one in San Jose, and probably others throughout the state.
San Jose? I'll drive down and try this. I'm in San Francisco. Last time I went to the downtown one, saw a line around the block, went to Daly City, saw the same, and gave up. I tried scheduling appointment and they were booked out for something insane like 6 months lol.
So I just renewed my Texas ID online in 5 minutes, slapped my California address on it, and called it a day. The other day I got pulled over and the cop wasn't too happy about it though, said I had to carry my CA id to demonstrate that I'm allowed to drive in California. Silly but whatever.
> They even have graphs with historical wait times so you can time it for a low point.
I no longer trust those measurements.
Needing to visit the DMV for whatever paperwork (maybe in-person license renewal), I checked the DMV website. One of the local offices had a very short wait time compared to all of the others (maybe 5 minutes versus 1hr+). I went to the office with the short wait time displayed on the website only to find out they had a ridiculously long line outside the office to get the ticket, which starts the timer. They were gaming the per-customer timer by metering the rate at which customers outside the building could enter the building to get the ticket.
I thought it was both terrible and creative at the same time. Decent example of Goodhart's Law[1].
I don't trust the estimates online either, but I do trust the relative data within each DMV. So I think the graphs that tell you number of people per hour are relatively correct and can be used to predict how busy a DMV will be.
Texas lets you put a California address on IDs? Didn't even know that was possible. I thought states only allowed IDs with addresses in the same state? Do they not validate their forms? I know they are suppose to match where you domicile, so a California address on a Texas ID does sound like a red flag.
Interesting, looked it up and found a thing saying that military personnel and their spouse or dependents are allowed to have an address outside of Texas on their Texas licenses and IDs. So I guess I learned something new haha.
You're now able to upload your documents online and you'll be able to print out an Express Entry document that lets you skip the line. I went to Daly City last week and I was in and out in about 20 minutes.
Here in Washington State, it's $4/year more for a Real ID driver's license than for a non-Real ID license, and licenses are good for 6 years.
A passport card is $30 and is good for 10 years, so effectively $3/year.
Passport card vs Real ID license cost is interesting. Going for the passport card is more expensive for the first 6 years, but then for years 7-10 the passport card wins. For years 11 and 12 the Real ID license again wins. And then for years 13 onward the passport card wins.
However, the assumes you already have a valid passport or passport card. If you do not, so this will be a new one rather than a renewal, there is an additional $35 fee.
If you don't actually need a passport or passport card other than to use as a substitute for a Real ID license, that extra one time $35 fee makes quite a difference.
It makes the Real ID license come out ahead for years 1-18, then the passport card wins years 19 and 20, then it is back to the Real ID card being cheaper for years 21-36, then the Real ID license for years 41 and 42, and then finally the passport card from years 43 onward.
So, for Washington State residents, in summary:
• If you already have a passport, but don't want to use it for domestic travel or other things that a Real ID license can do that a regular license cannot, getting a passport card is a good deal.
• If you don't already have a passport, and so have to pay the extra first time $35 fee to get a passport card, then it is probably not worth it unless you actually need a passport for purposes other than being a Real ID substitute.
I can't find any site that lists the Real ID extra fees, if any, for driver's licenses in other states. Checking a couple of individual states it seems we are getting a bad deal here in Washington. It appears that there is no extra fee in California, New York, and Illinois, for example.
Given that either of these is going to involve some amount of driving, public transit, and/or hired cars, and the fact that you probably should have a passport anyway, and the fact that flights cost quite a bit, the 35 bucks should barely go noticed either way.
I bet that those responsible for 9/11 couldn’t have hoped in their wettest dreams that Americans will be subject to random strip searches and patdowns in their own country for decades to come. Terrorists and US gov response made that happen.
Time for the citizens to ask - whether that response was right.
“Those willing to give up a little bit of freedom to gain a little bit of security deserve neither and will soon lose both”
To me this isn't a question of liberty or not. I find that silly. You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. You probably have a constitutional right to free movement within the US (whether it's walking, driving, etc).
The bigger issue with these pat downs, scans, fluid limits, etc is whether they're effective.
Bruce Schneier has written at great length (and very smartly) about this stuff. And I agree with him that the single most effective deterrent to the next 9/11 is secure cockpit doors, and a close second is passengers not willing to "allow" a plane to get hijacked anymore (whereas hijackings in the past had a sliver of hope that you'd get out safely, after 9/11 I think passengers know there might be certain death, so why not fight?)
You do have the right to travel. The constitution does not specify a mode. Ergo, all modes are protected equally, and no-fly lists are unconstitutional. It's not like you get a background check to buy a printing press.
The ACLU mounted an attack on the no-fly list that was credible enough government changed procedure.
This would imply drivers licenses and car registration are also unconstitutional. You can tax them and have traffic laws, but not do those things.
I'm aware, my view is the court's current views are incomplete. Courts can be wrong.
What draws the most interest is the right to enter states freely. Combine that with the need to travel and participate in commerce and you quickly arrive at the conclusion the right to travel in general must also be protected, and indeed we can see the hardships brought upon people when they are unable to drive, etc.
Good luck arguing your opinion though - go watch a few videos of "sovereign citizens" trying to argue they don't need a driver's license to "travel" when pulled over driving.
If you fly between states you're engaging in interstate commerce. So the federal government can ban it.
Even if someone offers you a flight for free, that takes away from alternatives like driving(which funds gas stations, hotels, restaurants, etc.). So your choice to fly affects interstate commerce, and they can ban that too.
It seems you’ve misunderstood the constitution. It limits thegovernment, ensuring our freedom. The govt has no right to prevent us from flying, domestically at least. Other countries are free to make demands at their borders.
The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) limit the government. The Articles of the Constitution assign the rights and responsibilities of the government.
> The govt has no right to prevent us from flying
You have also misunderstood the Constitution. The government does have the right to limit our individual rights either because we have lost them after due process (eg. you have no right to fly if you are serving a prison sentence) or due to national security actions (eg. you have no right to fly if the country grounds all flights like it did immediately after 9/11).
Inalienable rights cannot be taken away by governments, which don't have rights. That there are temporary exceptions for prisons and emergencies is inconsequential to this thread.
Has that even been tested in court? If you live in Hawaii not being able to use airlines would be a massive restriction. The right to free movement has been written into most every constitution because the framers had actual experience with oppressive government that issued internal passports to silence revolutionaries.
That's why I made the distinction. Nobody can prevent you from moving around as a human being. But people absolutely can prevent you from entering their car, van, bus, or their plane. That is their private property.
The TSA made this weird (where government employees are enforcing things on "private" land like an airport for a "private" flight) but that's post 9/11 weirdness for you.
Of those examples, bicycling is the only one I've never seen taken away. Drivers licenses are required to drive and they get taken away for violations all the time. Fare Evasion or gross misbehavior can have you "excluded" from my city's mass transit system. Walking on the interstate is generally forbidden except in emergency situations.
There's a difference between driving a car/plane and being a passenger in a car/plane.
I don't know of a case of someone being barred from being a passenger in a car, and doubt very much that this would stand up to legal scrutiny. The state does have a public safety interest in mandating who can operate fairly heavy machinery in public though.
The right to bicycle in general is not licensed in the US. However, some roads allow bikes and some do not. This seems to mostly be done in a way to not overly restrict freedom of travel. For example, in densely populated places like the Northeastern US, it's not allowed to bike on Interstates, but that's deemed okay because there's usually a parallel smaller highway that allows bikes. While in sparsely populated parts of the Western US, it's sometimes allowed to bike on the shoulder of Interstates, because it's the only road. However, governments aren't perfect, so there are gaps in the logic, like some bridges that don't allow bikes even though they're the only way to cross a large body of water for miles and miles. I'd like to believe that a legal challenge to allow bikes on such bridges, or to require the government to ferry bicyclists over such bridges, would succeed.
I got stuck on the non-downtown side of Shanghai once because I assumed that I'd be able to walk or bike across at least one of the bridges. But I couldn't find any way to get across. I had to wander around until the metro opened back up in the morning to get back across (and make it to flight in time).
When i first visited Shanghai in 1989, there were no bridges or tunnels between the Bund sid eof the river and the Pudong side, only the ferries. (pudong was mostly farms.) The ferries are less used now, but there are still some in operation, incluidng some that run 24 hours a day:
> Walking on the interstate is generally forbidden except in emergency situations.
It is actually prohibited even in emergencies. Pedestrians absolutely have no right of way in an interstate. You must ask for rescue if you get stuck as a result of collision or a car failure.
That depends on the state and the section of highway. There is no Federal prohibition on walking or bicycling along an Interstate highway right-of-way. State laws vary.
In California, for example, bicycling or waling on freeway shoulders is permitted except where specifically prohibited and signed. Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibted from most California Interstate highways where there are alterantives bicycle and pedestrian routes, but there are mnay California Interstates on which bicyclists and pedesrians are allowed, including sections of I-5, I-10, and I-80.
In California, state law expressly allows walking along a freeway in an emergency:
Your "right to travel" is part of the 5th amendment, a right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Constitutional rights can still be restricted if they meet the relevant test, for due process it is generally rational basis. Requiring licensed drivers, registering cars, meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional. Restricting interstates/freeways to vehicles capable of 55+(when there are other roads available, there are some areas where bicycles or walking is allowed on freeways) also generally meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional.
Traveling is not the same thing as driving. Being a passenger, vs driving. You could have your right to drive restricted because you were convicted of a crime and pose a danger to others, but that doesn't usually mean your right to travel is restricted.
You generally do have a right to use public transit, unless you have been given due process and lost that right.
This is a very real concern in the desert West where I live. We have few highways exiting the city with large expanses in between. This weekend the three to the north (I17), north-east (SR87) and east (SR60) were all closed. The 87 and 60 are the only ways out that cross the Verde river, making that particularly problematic. The remaining interstate, the I10, regularly closes as well, and while somewhat unlikely it wouldn't be shocking to find that Phoenix residents are literally stuck where they live.
Additionally, much of the land surrounding the city is closed for fire restrictions, or as the result of the Bush fire burn scar being ecologically fragile.
Practically, this isn't more than an annoyance as people find they can't return home from weekend vacations up north. But ideologically being literally prohibited from legal travel is unbefitting of somewhere once called "the land of the free."
You're leaving out an important distinction. You don't have a right to do those things _in harmful ways_. If you are an unsafe driver (whether it's excessive speeding, drunk driving, etc) you absolutely should be barred from the roads.
I am actually very much a live and let live type person. Where I start having issues is when your lifestyle puts others in danger. Drink all you want... at home. Or in a bar. But get a taxi home. If you are going to be a belligerent drunk that's harassing others, you absolutely should be kicked out of even public transportation.
I am totally against MANY of the policies of the TSA (mostly on grounds of what's effective, and also what's unnecessarily invasive from a privacy standpoint). But I am not against the existence of something like a TSA.
Taken away illegally, hence a "murder". It's not a right if it can be legally taken away by your government. Speech is a right. Driving is a privilege.
Driving a car means operating a machine. Flying a plane is analogous to that. Being a passenger on an airplane is not analogous to driving a car.
Do you not have a right to be a passenger in a car? Does the government have a right to prohibit you from accepting rides from your friends, or paying a licensed cab driver?
I don't think it's about operating a machine per se, it's about the danger level of the machine. As others have pointed out, there's been no attempts to regulate operating a bicycle.
A car requires a license because it's a particularly dangerous machine, obviously not all machines require licenses. A car passenger could cause a car accident (have you seen the video of a woman attacking a bus driver, causing the bus to fall off a bridge, killing 15 people?) Yet we only require the operators of such machines to be licensed.
When it comes to public transport the public-private distinction becomes artificial, public transport is national infrastructure. To the traveller it makes no difference if the bus belongs to the city council or if the city contracts bus company X for transportation.
Also, private transportation can be thought as operating under a license from the state on the use of the land/air space, or some parts thereof, which can include the passing of private property belonging to others, given that the ownership of real state itself is regulated (for example, on the use of vertical column of space). Therefore, private transportation can be forced to abide to restrictions imposed by that license to operate.
I find this line of argumentation wrong. You don't have a constitutional right to use internet, computer or even to jack off, but it is generally assumed that as long as you don't get in other's people space, you will not be bothered.
Similarly, while there is no explicit right, the argumentation of "it is a privilege" seems.. not sure what the proper word would.. self-serving for the government.
I think the distinction between natural rights vs legal rights comes into play here. Society has changed a lot in the time since the Constitution was written, and government isn't exactly incentivized to limit its own power in ways that reflect these changes.
What rights are being denied? A private company running a private plane is providing you transportation. You don't have ANY rights there. Hell, even under normal circumstances, you could buy a ticket and end up in an overflow situation and the Airline decides who makes it in.
This general argument only makes sense when there is vibrant market competition. Otherwise, it is just couching authoritarianism in some illusion of choice. There is little difference between a bona fide government and a corporation that has become so entrenched that people are forced to interact with them. Especially when the entrenched companies cooperate to set industry wide policies.
Bruce Schneier writes very well on this, but he also holds up Israel's method as the way to do things, where people are "profiled" by "trained agents" for extra scrutiny, based on their behavior.
In other words, if you look like an Arab, you get treated very differently than if your last name is Schneier [1].
And while I'm dubious about claims that all those brown people are "randomly selected" in the USA, there would be serious pushback if the official public policy at US airports was one of racial profiling.
A restriction of your freedoms, whether protected or not, is a restriction of your liberties.
Some liberties are constitutionally protected. Some are protected by state law. Some aren't protected at all. They're all still liberties though.
Similarly, an employer restricting topics of conversation in the workplace is in fact placing restrictions on your free speech. It's just not constitutionally protected in that instance, is generally permitted by state and local law, and seems to be largely culturally acceptable.
It is in the constitution that your right to travel cannot be suspended without due process. From the 5th amendment, "No person shall be held to answer ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" This applies to flying as it does to all other forms of travel, as restricting flights does not mean the rational basis test
I seriously doubt that a lot of the “such-and-such mean that the terrorists won” would score very highly on the actual terrorist’s criteria for success... they seriously desired to destroy the West and institute a theocratic Caliphate in the Middle East, and that hasn’t occurred. This is just infra-Western rumination.
I'm sure people have also quoted this in defense of not wearing a shirt at a restaurant. Not everything is absolute - the degree matters. Having to wear a mask in public during a pandemic is a much lighter imposition of liberties than a habitual search of possessions and belongings, and arbitrary "random" strip-searches when one boards a flight.
The crucial difference is "the right to swing your arms ends at my nose" essentially. The actual impact on other people is what makes the limitations acceptable.
That is an important distinction compared to random searches because you "might" have done something wrong.
My thoughts are this: The statement sounds powerful and appealing. But if you think about what it means, really, it turns out to be an extremist viewpoint with little meaning. People who give up freedom for security don't "deserve" neither. We give up freedom for security all the time, and we are often better off for it. I would argue that without security you cannot have freedom; some security is necessary to achieve a free society. How free are you if you must constantly look over your shoulder to see if someone is coming to take what you have or hurt who you love?
So sure, we can talk about the trade offs and whether we should require IDs at the airport. But the quote, I think, is a misrepresentation of the stakes.
I was curious what the process was ~4 years ago for this so I “misplaced” my ID flying from SF to LA and the first agent at the beginning of the line looked me up on LinkedIn then they did a bag inspection and they let me through (I had a pass on my phone).
This is an encouraging step in the right direction, though I wonder what data this external service might capture.
I have never heard an explanation of why the name of the ticket holder should matter. The stupid thermometer tests always make me think of this so-called requirement.
Is this website really arguing that you should be able to fly without identifying yourself?
I'm a big proponent of privacy and not identifying yourself to government official unless needed, but it seems like proving identify to fly is a pretty reasonable rule.
proving identify to fly is a pretty reasonable rule
Why would that be so? People don't show ID to get on the train, the bus or a boat, and what you are called isn't the transport company's or the government's business.
Before 2001 we never had to show ID. You just had to have a ticket. Any ticket. Frequent flyers used to buy tickets and sell them for a markup because they came with first class upgrades and other frequent flyer benefits.
Also people who couldn't make their trip would resell their tickets to someone else at a discount to recoup some of their costs. Also some people would buy cheap tickets on flights they knew would get popular and then resell them higher. They were arbitraging the airlines.
The airlines wanted to stop these practices, and had been demanding the government require ID since the 80s.
The government took advantage of the tragedy of 9/11 and pushed through an ID requirement.
There is no security benefit to ID. It turns out it's really easy for a terrorist to get a fake ID to match a fake name. The only purpose of this policy is to protect airline profits.
I disagree. I am mildly ok with them ensuring there are no bombs on the plane. I don't see a reason why government needs to know I am flying to WI. If I think they don't need to know why, why on earth would I want to volunteer the who.
Are you under the impression that the government doesn't already have access to this information from the airlines?
Showing an ID card at the airport is about verifying the person getting on the plane has the same identity as on the reservation; it's not about being able to track you -- that's already done much more efficiently.
I agree there's a difference between intending to volunteer this info, but I'm pretty sure you have to use your legal name on your flight reservation in the USA, so the tracking is done whether you show your ID card at the airport or not.
Unlike many other countries, the US and Canada don’t check your passport when you exit the country. That’s because the airlines give each government the passenger lists for each flight and it’s linked back to your entry.
It is generally not reasonable for traveling domestically. Imagine having to show ID to take the bus/metro. Sounds absurd? Well, think of the children.
The rationale is that the potential damage is higher with a flight. Bombing a bus/metro might a dozen or so people. Bombing a plane can easily kill hundreds.
Metro bombs have done incredible damage. And as mentioned elsewhere, it is trivial to manufacture id and so is not a solution. But, conveniently it sure does fill govt databases.
That is complete bullshit. They not only don't need to board but if they pulled a gun the TSAs would be an unwitting accomplice in letting them reinact "No Russian" with their bullshit security theater gathering hundreds into a massive shooting gallery with no cover. Really that is why there was such outrage over the level - it illustrated vividly how the TSA failed on the most basic logical level.
This actually came up after the 2015 attacks in France. Most crowded locations became heavily protected, bags were all checked, etc. The result: a massive crowd in front of theaters, concert and sport venues, etc. Israeli consultants basically summed it up by saying that these procedures were creating massively vulnerable areas with potentially 100+ victims if a guy detonated a bomb in front of the venue.
I remember seeing a documentary showing how in Israeli airport one of the main goals was to always avoid long lines and big groups of people.
Context: "a controversial level in the 2009 video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. In the level, the player can participate in a mass shooting at a Russian airport.".
That assumes you have a perfect list of who's a security risk and who's not, and the TSA is not Santa. The 9/11 hijackers boarded with their real names, and in practice there are plenty of easy ways around this, like radicalizing someone.
Because in a free society, a system that stops crimes half of the time and arbitrarily denies people their rights half the time is considered unjust.
Would it be okay for police to stop suspicious-looking people on the streets and ask them for ID and run background checks if it caught criminals 50% of the time?
I don't understand, if you actually assume that ID screening is actually 100% useless (in reality it probably has some reduction), you wouldn't screen at all yes.
If you disagree with the premise that ID screening is 100% useless, then dig up some evidence of its effectiveness.
Showing your id does absolutely nothing to prevent weapons from getting on the plane. If you are so dangerous that your mere identity is enough to prevent you from getting on a plane, then you need to be arrested.
Identity is extremely easy to fake. If you are planning in such a way that you have a realistic chance of hijacking a plane, getting a fake ID good enough to fool the two-second check at the TSA checkpoint is the least of your problems.
There is some argument that a properly built luggage and human screening system could actually prevent weapons from making it on the plane. But ID doesn't really come into it.
But even if we can't develop a system that prevents weapons from getting on planes, it doesn't follow the id checks would be a suitable alternative.
A large Crowded bus easily hold 72 people all of whom would likely die in a bomb attack on the bus. And that’s not counting anyone near by on the street.
What's the danger of letting these people into planes? Flying into buildings is passé, measures have been taken to prevent that now. If it's about crashing a plane and hurting its inhabitants, a busy train or even a busy airport terminal would probably be way more effective.
So far the TSA haven't really prevented any terrorist attacks yet. Don't fall for their security theater, they're just there to take your water and feel important.
The 9/11 scare made everyone wary of airplanes but airport security so far has failed to catch mock explosives and weapons[1]. When they were tested again, they failed again[2]. They picked up their game when nothing less than a TV crew tried to repeat the experiment[3], but a whistleblower warned that flight security as of now is "hopelessly inadequate"[4] to prevent a second 9/11.
So, as far as security goes, they're not that good. For this mediocre protection, travelers pay in theft[5], sexual assault[6][7] and racism[8].
I think the goal of the TSA is noble and just, but as it functions right now, the system is broken. There is the potential for the TSA to protect the US from terrorists, but the truth is that terrorism targeting the West isn't that common in airplanes anymore. If the TSA cannot or will not be fixed, I'd say yes, the world is better off without the TSA. The price to pay for protection is too steep.
I’ve had my ticket tagged a couple of times with ‘SSSS’ which means I got an additional security check.
What gets me about this is it’s well known and easy to see on the ticket, and if someone was up to something that day they would surely just see it on their ticket and walk out of the airport.
Like many policies, it’s been really poorly implemented and I don’t believe it enhances security whatsoever.
We have laws that clearly state the criteria for being disqualified from owning a gun, and laws that require licensed dealers to perform a background check to ensure that a potential purchaser passes based on that criteria.
The system being proposed here would be able to deny boarding to a passenger who fails an arbitrary and completely unknown set of criteria, based on no laws and (most likely) violating existing law.
Actually we don't have clearly defined criteria, see red flag laws.
But regardless, even with clearly defined criteria, people get through that shouldn't. So going back to the original comment, if the system isn't 100% perfect, does that mean we should just not do it?
> Should we eliminate gun background checks entirely
After you own 1, 2, 5, 12 guns, what purpose does this background check serve? How about the 10 day waiting period?
The background check could be completed in seconds - it's a API call to DOJ effectively, and you get a "Pass/Fail" indication back - based on the laws that allow you to own guns.
So... this process could effectively be immediate for anyone who already owns guns.
But! We somehow sleep better at night knowing someone with 12 guns has to wait 10 days before getting their 13th... because that prevents them from committing murder or something?
Some things are simply Security Theater. We should stop pretending.
> But! We somehow sleep better at night knowing someone with 12 guns has to wait 10 days before getting their 13th... because that prevents them from committing murder or something?
Well the waiting period might be useful when going from zero to one right? At least it shows premeditation.
And, the federal government isn't permitted to run a gun ownership registry[1], so the DOJ api wouldn't know if you already had a gun, so everybody has to wait.
[1] As I understand it, firearms dealers have to record purchases on paper and keep the records for a significant amount of time, and respond to requests for data, which is sort of a registry, but not online and not centralized.
> Well the waiting period might be useful when going from zero to one right?
Absolutely. I was more getting at why wait 10 days for your second gun... or 12th...
> And, the federal government isn't permitted to run a gun ownership registry[1], so the DOJ api
The DOJ check is with your local state, and many states such as California do keep a registry. For the states that don't have a registry, bringing in paperwork from your most recently purchased firearm, showing the registration to yourself, would be sufficient.
> firearms dealers have to record purchases on paper and keep the records for a significant amount of time, and respond to requests for data
In order for the DOJ to know which dealer to ask for records, they have to know where you bought the gun.
Yes. People buy knives without permit and background checks all the time, because society weighed a risk of having knives around against people wielding knives with intent to commit crimes and decided it is not a good idea to have background checks for them. I would argue guns are in a similar category.
Yes, if we want the Second Amendment to mean anything.
Now I'm certainly in favor of the argument that we should be honest with ourselves and repeal the Second Amendment instead of pretending that we care about it but only in useless ways. But so long as we believe that both bearing arms and traveling are human rights and not privileges, neither should be gated by IDs and background checks, and you should only lose that right in the form of a punishment under due process of law.
You hear the drug trade is really lucrative but you're not allowed to sell drugs, so you send your money to a contractor that sells drugs, they give you more money back, and you technically haven't "sold drugs."
Somehow, thinking breaks down at the boundary between systems, because inexplicably the constraints or guarantees of the consuming system do not propagate to the providing system.
TSA could and should be (made) identity-agnostic, with its mandate to protect vehicles and occupants. Immigration is what should care about the individual that's being allowed into the country.