It's hilarious how transparent a money grab this entire thing is.
"You need to show a Real ID for security, otherwise how do we know you won't hijack the plane?"
"Well I don't have a Real ID."
"Ok then, give us $45 and you can go through."
So it was never about security at all then, was it?
And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.
> So it was never about security at all then, was it?
Never was.
I flew every other week prior to covid and haven't once been through the scanners. For the first ~6 years, I opted out and got pat down over and over again.
Then I realized I could even skip that.
Now at the checkpoint, I stand at the metal detector. When they wave me to the scanner, I say "I can't raise my arms over my head." They wave me through the metal detector, swab my hands, and I'm done. I usually make it through before my bags.
Sometimes, a TSA moron asks "why not?" and I simply say "are you asking me to share my personal healthcare information out loud in front of a bunch of strangers? Are you a medical professional?" and they back down.
Other times, they've asked "can you raise them at least this high?" and kind of motion. I ask "are you asking me to potentially injure myself for your curiosity? are you going to pay for any injuries or pain I suffer?"
The TSA was NEVER about security. It was designed as a jobs program and make it look like we were doing something for security.
> The TSA was NEVER about security. It was designed as a jobs program and make it look like we were doing something for security.
To a great extent, it is security, even if it's mostly security theater, in the sense that it is security theater that people want.
A large portion, maybe even the majority, of travelers simply won't feel safe without it. I've had and overheard multiple conversations at the airport where somebody felt uncomfortable boarding a plane because they saw the screening agent asleep at the desk. Pro-tip, trying to explain security theater to the concerned passenger is not the right solution at this point ;-)
Even Bruce Schneier, who coined the term "security theater" has moderated his stance to acknowledge that it can satisfy a real psychological need, even if it's irrational.
We may be more cynical and look upon such things with disdain, but most people want the illusion of safety, even if deep down they know it's just an illusion.
> A large portion, maybe even the majority, of travelers simply won't feel safe without it. I've had and overheard multiple conversations at the airport where somebody felt uncomfortable boarding a plane because they saw the screening agent asleep at the desk.
I’d hazard that this may be true now, but this feeling was created by the same “security measures” we’re discussing.
Anyway, such major population-wide measures shouldn’t be about stopping people being “uncomfortable” - they should be about minimising risk, or not at all. If you start imposing laws or other practices every time a group of people feel “uncomfortable”, the world will quickly grind to a halt.
> I’d hazard that this may be true now, but this feeling was created by the same “security measures” we’re discussing.
Slight tangent but I recall travelling within the Schengen Zone for the first time and just walking off the plane and straight into a taxi. When I explained what I did to someone she asked "but what about security? How do they know you've not got a bomb?" I don't think I had the words to explain that, if I did manage to sneak a bomb onto the plane into Madrid, I was probably not going to save it for the airport after I landed...
Er, I don't get it. I do the same thing at every airport in the US: walk off the plane and straight into a taxi.
I think they're talking about international travel and not having to go through border control within the Schengen space even though you're traveling to different countries.
Yes, but border control isn't security. I don't go through security when I arrive in the US either. (I do have global entry but that just means I usually go through immigration faster.) If I have a connecting flight after arriving in the US I do sometimes have to go through security again with my carryon but that's a function of airport layout.
Looks like even OP was confused about it so I guess it wasn't something to be made sense of.
Just to be clear: I understand the difference. What I couldn’t do was explain to someone who has no concept that customs are not a security check. Or that you don’t need customs for (effectively) internal flights. I suspect part of this is that in the UK, we don’t get many internal flights (beyond connections), so people don’t have an experience of just walking off a plane and out of the airport.
Yes, I meant you were confused about the nature of the comment/question (like you mentioned in a sibling response somewhere). :)
I flew once from Iraq to Sweden (in a private capacity). There was zero controls other than stamping the passport, passport control but no customs inspection. No check of bags and no question of what I might have been doing in Iraq or why I would go from there to Sweden. It was shocking. Just welcome to sweden and off to the street.
Hopefully they haven't changed. It's nice to see a place still left without the paranoia.
Border entry at airports is concerned with a) smuggling and b) immigration control. Passport control may have been all you saw but there was almost certainly heavy profiling and background checking going on behind the scenes. If you had matched a more suspicious pattern than "high-power passport without suspicious history flying an unusual route", you likely would have faced more scrutiny.
I think the point is that some people expect security even where it would be pointless.
Basically this. She was confusing Customs with Security, I think.
Neither did I, thus why I didn’t really know how to respond.
> If you start imposing laws or other practices every time a group of people feel “uncomfortable”, the world will quickly grind to a halt.
I mean, yes, quite an apt description of our reality. This has basically been the modus operandi of the whole of American society for the last 3 decades.
Can't have your kids riding bikes in the neighborhood. Can't build something on your own property yourself without 3 rounds of permitting and environmental review. Can't have roads that are too narrow for a 1100 horsepower ladder truck. Can't get onto a plane without going through a jobs program. Can't cut hair without a certificate. Can't teach 6 year olds without 3 years of post grad schooling + debt. Can't have plants in a waiting room because they might catch on fire. Can't have a comfortable bench because someone who looks like shit might sleep on it.
Can't can't can't can't ...
It's an interesting thought experiment to consider how you would organise your ideal society.
I lived in Switzerland for a time and there are many notorious rules (e.g. don't shower or flush your toilet after 10pm; don't recycle glass out of working hours) governing day-to-day behaviour which initially seem ridiculous and intrusive. However, what you quickly realise is that many of these are rooted in a simple cultural approach of "live your life as you wish, just don't make other people's life worse" - an approach I came to appreciate.
This is it. It’s amazing how accepting people of this reality and how resigned they are about it.
Yeah, those people are welcome to drive if it makes them feel safer. Meanwhile lets focus on actually making sure planes are safe.
The problem with allowing "feels unsafe" to drive policy is that you get this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46866201 ; a lot of Americans (and other nationalities) get that "feels unsafe" feeling when they see a visible minority. Or a Muslim. Or someone who isn't a Muslim but (like a Sikh!) is from the same hemisphere as the Middle East.
You get one set of people's rights compromised to salve the feelings of another set, and this is not right.
The worst thing is that indulging it doesn't lessen the fear either. It just means people reach for something else to be "afraid" of.
Oh for sure, as a non-white, bearded person I've had more than my fair share of "random" screenings!
My dad, with similar features, had the additional (mis)fortune of several work trips to the Middle East and China on his passport. He was "randomly" selected pretty much every time on his US trips, until about ~10 years ago.
Hmmm, now I wonder. Like most other people I had suspected that the "random" screenings of people fitting a certain profile were just biases of the agents creeping in. But could it be, given that the whole process is rather public in view of the rest of the people in line, this is also part of that security theater... i.e. maybe the agents are sometimes pandering to the biases of the travellers?
[flagged]
The moment you encode your biases in policy, you create vulnerabilities.
What I’m hearing is that if I want to get something past your security policy, I need to route it through the Netherlands, possibly via a travel agency.
You don't have to profile people to police, and that's very poor policing. You need to assess actual risk, not fake proxy risk like the color of people's skin.
The problem with profiling is that it sucks both ways. People who are regular degular get fucked for the sake of fake policing, and then real threats are more likely to slip through.
> Nah I disagree. A charter plane with 200 Dutch tourists is lower risk than a flight coming out of Bolivia.
What a weird and random thing to say. There's literally no data that can support for or against and neither have a history of terrorism.
Ironically KLM ('dutch') has had more terrorism per flight than any Bolivian airline. Both minimal (Bolivia 1954, KLM 1973,1994). There's literally no other piece of data between these countries that I could find to support this "lower risk".
Further, the travel advisory for Denmark and Netherlands cite terror risk while Bolivia cites civil unrest.
While being woke is not helpful, neither is 'winging it' based on 'what feels white, ahem, right'. At least do a Google search.
How about a flight coming out of Bolivia with 200 Dutch tourists on board? Is it more or less risky than a flight coming out of the USA with 200 Donald Trumps on board? Is there a list?
[dead]
It is mostly security, but not to residents of the country. Those can enforce their rights. In my country, I can argue with airport security, and win. Foreigners can’t, so they follow whatever rules. A few times when landing in the US, security was extremely rude, I think just looking for an excuse (things like throwing your laptop a few feet away, while staring at you, etc). You take it bc you’re not home, and the cost of ruining your vacation is not worth it.
What I’m trying to say is that , while a lot of it is theater, TSA may be more effective security against foreigners but you as a resident don’t notice because you can opt out. Try going to the UK and telling them you can’t raise your arms while being a US citizen.
Reasonable hypothesis but not correct in the US.
The point where you present your ticket+ID is before and separate from the physical screening. It could be anywhere from a few meters to dozens of meters separating them.
At the screening stage, the agents do not know who you are or your nationality.
It's not about being recognized, it's about when you are asked to be patted down, having the courage to lie "I can't raise my arms over my head", knowing the risk of being caught is at worst not making this flight. For a foreigner it might be getting banned permanently from the country. Same concept as self censorship. You do what you're told and then you go enjoy your vacation.
Understood and reasonable but one correction:
> when you are asked to be patted down, having the courage to lie "I can't raise my arms over my head"
You only get a pat down if you trigger additional screening or opt out. Not being able to raise my arms is NOT opting out. Therefore, no pat down.
I don't think I've ever made it through the physical screening without betraying my accent at some point. Sure you can work your way out of an accent, but it's not easy, and requires years of practice, and probably the most reliable (but fuzzy) low-scrutiny indicator of someone who "aint from around here" in a multicultural society where looks are ~useless for such determinations.
I tried to opt out in the UK last time I was there a few years ago. The agent looked at me, confused, and said "so... you don't want to get on the plane?". She told me the the UK didn't allow opt-outs.
This was the only time I've gone through the machine since they were introduced.
Airport security in India is particularly infuriating on this point. Everything gets scanned and fed through over and over again, and everyone gets wanded and patted down over and over again, with maximum ‘fuck you’ to any passenger that dares to question the sanity of restarting your entire screening - because you left your belt on.
Meanwhile, I haven’t even had a western airports metal detector even fire on the same belt in years.
Most western countries also haven't had multiple attempted [0][1][2] and committed [3][4] mass casualty terror attacks nor a direct conventional conflict that for all intents and purposes was a war [5] in the past 2 years.
And airport security in Israel makes Indian airport security feel like a breeze and I found Turkish airport security to be similar to India's (I remember landing in IST a couple years ago post-COVID and how the news monitors all blared about the 3-6 Turkish soldiers who died in Turkish controlled Syria the day previously).
All three are in very tenuous neighborhoods where the risks of mass casualty terror attacks remains a very real possibility and no on-duty officer wants to be the one who's name comes up in an inquiry into a terror attack should they happen.
Also, from what I remember you are either a Chinese national or someone who has travelled significantly to China. It's the equivalent of a Russian national or Russian-origin person traveling to Poland or Estonia post-2022. Anyone with that profile falls under stricter scrutiny in India due to reciprocal treatment of Indian-nationals and Indian-origin people from Arunachal [6][7] and Ladakh [8] as well as the multiple recent India-China standoffs.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Delhi_car_explosion
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nowgam_explosion
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Bengaluru_cafe_bombing
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Reasi_attack
[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Pahalgam_attack
[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co...
[6] - https://indianexpress.com/article/world/who-is-prema-thongdo...
[7] - https://idsa.in/publisher/comments/china-ups-the-ante-in-aru...
[8] - https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/why-china-is-e...
India's airport "security" is one of the best examples of underemployment and security "theatre".
The needless repetition and duplication of tasks achieves little actual "security" and is more a jobs program for a population that is desperately underskilled, underemployed and borderline unemployable. Never mind the fact that airports like Bombay are literally meters away from slums, which are a far greater security risk than actual passengers.
Your list of citations is entirely meaningless because Indian airports are no more or less secure than the average airport in the west. What India manages to do extremely well is annoy the daylights out of travellers for mindless bureaucratic reasons.
Please can you explain how security stamping the back of your boarding pass meaningfully adds to "security" and how fifteen checks of your passport could have avoided a single one of the incidents you list?
> And airport security in Israel makes Indian airport security feel like a breeze
Not just in Israel, but even at other airports for flights to Israel! I was surprised to find that flights to Israel from JFK and EWR actually have a secondary security screening at the gate. In fact, the entire waiting area is walled off with only 1 or 2 controlled entries and exits. If you have to leave the area to go to the bathroom, well, you're just going to get screened again when you come back.
And they are very thorough. They WILL rummage through your carry on and purse and shoes.
(I wasn't even traveling to Israel, I was at an adjacent gate but got in the wrong line by mistake, haha!)
Note that for the most part, air travel into/out of the UK is international, so the constraints are stricter.
> The agent looked at me, confused, and said "so... you don't want to get on the plane?"
Brit here.
That's simply the British way of "calling you out" on your bullshit. Had you given a legitimate reason not to be scanned (and I can't think of one offhand), then I assure you, they would have been quite nice and helpful; certainly so in comparison to American standards of airport security staff!
I've felt more uncomfortable with the UK Border Force than US CBP. It's been a few years since I've been to the UK, but there was usually more tension for Non-European foreigners at the Airport than non-Americans at the US airports.
We people are extremely poor judges of our own emotions, particularly in hypotheticals.
Normalize having two lines; one with tsa, one without. See which airplane people actually board after a while. Let us put our time and money on the line and we’ll see what we really think. It’s the only way to tell.
I’m sure in a world with tsa for buses and trains some people would say the same things they do now about our tsa.
Let's not mix "emotions" with "think". If I am afraid (emotion) about something happening, I will be afraid where the maximum damage can be done - in the queue before the security check (think). Most airports optimized that to reduce the queues, but there are still at least tens of people in a very narrow space.
But I personally do not care that much, because I think most terrorists are dumb or crazy, and you can't fix all dumb or crazy. Some of the dumb and crazy become terrorists, some become CEO-s, some do maintenance of something critical. If something really bad happens I would not feel much better if it was a "dumb CEO" that caused it or it was a "dumb terrorist".
> Even Bruce Schneier, who coined the term "security theater" has moderated his stance to acknowledge that it can satisfy a real psychological need, even if it's irrational.
What about the real psychological need of not wanting to be surveilled that also quite a lot of people have?
Personally I agree with that sentiment. But unfortunately, as the success of Facebook and Google have shown, most people really don't care about their privacy.
> But unfortunately, as the success of Facebook and Google have shown, most people really don't care about their privacy.
In particular concerning Facebook:
The very radical stances that people have concerning Facebooks (i.e. both the success of Facebook, and the existence of people who are radically opposed to social media sites) rather shows that both stances are very present in society and the trenches between these stances run deep.
One issue is that security theater creates demand for itself. Do things that induce worry and a tendency towards paranoia in the more susceptible parts of the population and then you will gradually raise the general alertness of the population. This then manufactures a desire for these measures. It largely rides off of people's general unwillingness to entertain just how many of the measures are ineffective or nonsensical. "It can't all be pointless. Surely some of it must make us safer." It's not an unreasonable belief in itself, but everyone having that attitude lets security theater grow cancerously.
The situation re: psychological safety becomes very apparent when you mention to foreigners how often guns accidentally make it through TSA in peoples bags - and get discovered on screening on the return flight.
Saucers for eyes, saucers! Hah
The reality is that screening raises the bar enough that most casuals won’t risk it unless they’re crazy, which is worth something, and makes most people feel comfy, which is also worth something.
It’s like using a master lock on your shed, or a cheap kwikset on your front door.
Here we are specifically discussing the gold star on a USA driver license. When there is already the whole TSA kwikset fiasco in place. The gold star indicates that a person provided some pieces of paper that may be fabricated to a very busy DMV clerk. This is somehow meant to prove they would never do anything malicious.
Or... you could slip the TSA person a $50 and say "keep the change". Legally.
There is no risk in submitting false documents. They reject valid documents all the time. They don't report you to authorities when they reject your documents.
So neither avenue is like even a cheap lock. They are more like door knobs that keep the door closed until you twist the knob that is designed to be easy to twist.
> no risk in submitting false documents
Except the risk you'll miss your flight, which in most cases is the screw that is turned.
My wife and I both have RealID driver's licenses. She had to get a replacement, and apparently the machines used to print them for mailing out later (as opposed to going down to their office and getting a replacement in person) are just ever so slightly off - so her license won't scan. She was given a surprising amount of harassment on a flight not long ago over this matter. She got me to take a photograph of her passport and send it to her so she could show it on the return trip - where her license again failed to scan. This is a fairly well-documented problem. Reports from all over the country have it, and it always seems to be certain license printers that just fail.
So now she carries her Global Entry card, which is otherwise only used for access to the expedited line for land and sea border crossings but is a valid RealID in itself, for domestic flights. It scans correctly.
So there are two kind of security, one is preventing innocents who mistakenly brings things like gun or flammable liquid like gasoline. The other is preventing people who actually want to do harm like terrorism. There is no doubt TSA is effective for first group. However the evidence against second group is kind of murky as no country has ever caught anyone in the second group till now.
I think it's human nature to point at something you don't like and if it isn't 100% perfect then point to it and say it's flawed and must be taken down.
Repeated examples on HN
- TSA effectiveness
- AI Writing code free bug
- Self driving cars get into accidents
You are missing an important element. You can decide for yourself whether AI-produced code is worth the price. You don't get to decide whether the TSA is effective enough to pay for it.
Maybe you are willing to pay 15% for AI that saves you 20%. Even if it isn't very effective, you come out slightly ahead. Or maybe you pay 85% for something you deem to be 90% effective
With TSA you pay 300% for something you might judge to be 2% effective and you don't have a choice.
- TSA fails its own Red Team exercises 95% of the time.
- Self driving cars have measurably fewer accidents.
If you're confusing the two, I suggest you look into the data.
*Not sure on AI code yet.
If you offer the public FDA-inspected cinnamon for a 20% premium over not-inspected-and-may-contain-dangerous-levels-of-lead cinnamon, a lot of people will pay the premium. But a large percentage of people will opt for the cheaper cinnamon.
If you let it be known that the FDA inspection amounts to a high school dropout trying to read a manifest on a shipping container full of imported cinnamon, a lot more people will opt for the cheaper cinnamon. But a significant percentage will still pay the premium.
There is very little about that inspection that protects people, and just because something is not inspected doesn't mean it has lead in it. If you really want to be safe, you should run your cinnamon through your own detection lab.
What we need is an iPhone app that can detect guns, explosives, anthrax, covid, Canadians, and any other airplane hazard. Then let people carry that personal TSA sniffer onto the plane. They can feel safe and secure and the rest of us can save a fortune in taxes.
> What we need is an iPhone app that can detect guns, explosives, anthrax, covid, Canadians, and any other airplane hazard.
No doubt! Then strap it to our arms and call it a Pip Boy.
https://thedirect.com/article/fallout-season-2-us-canada
I would just let the airlines pick if they want TSA screening or not. Customers could buy flights with whatever security level they want.
If you fly intrastate in Alaska there is no screening on commercial flights (it seems TSA must not be required on non-interstate flights). Technically it's still illegal to bring a gun but no one would know one way or the other. It really didn't bother me that there was no security, in fact, it felt great, and at least I could be sure if a bear met us on the tarmac someone would probably be ready.
I know of one other story I heard secondhand from someone experiencing it, of a small regional airline in the South, where if you checked a gun, the pilot just gives it back to the passenger...
Security is a classic example of a public good where this doesn't work well. The cheapest ways to secure an airport (sharing queues, staff, protocols, machines, training, threat models) are going to also benefit those who opt out, creating a tragedy of the commons.
>small regional airline in the South, where if you checked a gun, the pilot just gives it back to the passenger...
If the passenger is white. They would call the cops on anyone else. The state dept of terrorism would get involved if they were 1/1000 middle eastern.
White people and passenger planes tend to get along well. They invent them.
Effectiveness and theatricality aside, that wouldn’t work: the risk that the TSA ostensibly controls for is primarily that of planes being used as weapons against non-passengers, and only secondarily passenger security/hijacking.
I've been applying this principle of behavior to... ahem... current events. I feel like this helps contextualize the behavior of the majority during the current economic and political turmoil. People can't help but pretend this wasn't coming for years, and they certainly can't admit to having a part in it.
If it's about satisfying a psychological need, then it should be compared as such to satisfying other psychological needs. Like, say, not getting groped by strangers.
Security Theater Blanket
Taxpayers haven’t agreed to fund theater they agreed to fund safer travel. The failed audits of TSA are totally unacceptable
The purpose of the system is what it does.
If enough people actually cared about the failed audits, we’d invest in making sure they didn’t fail.
As it is, it’s settled in this funky middle ground that seems to maximize cost/incompetence/hassle which is generally the picture of America overall.
Taxpayers don't universally agree it's ONLY theater, HN is biased echo chamber just like any other group.
> A large portion, maybe even the majority, of travelers simply won't feel safe without it.
Nonsense. Most of that is just because it’s been normalised - because it exists and the people manning it make such a song and dance about it. Going from that to nothing would freak some people out, but if it were just gradually pared back bit by bit people wouldn’t need it anymore.
Here in Australia there’s no security for a lot of regional routes (think like turboprop (dash-8) kind of routes) starting from small airports, because it’s very expensive to have the equipment and personnel at all these small airports, and on a risk-benefit analysis the risk isn’t high enough. Some people are surprised boarding with no security, but then they’re like, “Oh, well must be OK then I guess or they wouldn’t let us do it”…
We also don’t have any liquid limits at all for domestic flights, and don’t have e to take our shoes off to go through security domestically or internationally, and funnily enough we aren’t all nervous wrecks travelling.
Yeah security people (computer or otherwise), are mostly crypto fascists with hardons for humiliating people and telling them what to do.
It's been proven from time to time that the strength of a security system is mostly determined by its strongest element, and defense in depth, and making people jump through hoops contributes comparatively little.
That's why you can go reasonably anywhere on the web, and have your computer publically reachable from any point in the world, yet be reasonably safe, provided you don't do anything particularly dumb, like installing something from an unsafe source.
That's why these weird security mitigation strategies like password rotation every two weeks with super complex passwords, and scary click-through screens about how youll go straight to jail if you misuse the company computer are laughable.
A growing part of me doesn't care, and doesn't want to coddle fascist mental illness.
If it was "Glass Iraq or make people take off their shoes", then I'll take the shoes...
But honestly? Fuck these people. We have extended them unlimited credit to make social change, and they always want more and worse changes. Their insecurities are inexhaustible. We need to declare them bankrupt of political capital. We need to bully them and make it clear their views aren't welcome, frankly.
We are 25 years deep into "Letting the terrorists win", and I'm fucking sick of it.
What ethnicity are you? I went through an airport -- and nobody else got screened except me. What was special about me? I was the only non-white person in the airport. Upon complaining, this was the response:
> Random selection by our screening technology prevents terrorists from attempting to defeat the security system by learning how it operates. Leaving out any one group, such as senior citizens, persons with disabilities, or children, would remove the random element from the system and undermine security. We simply cannot assume that all terrorists will fit a particular profile.
I used to have a Sikh manager who wore a turban. Whenever we traveled together, he would get "randomly" stopped. While they were patting him down, he would inevitably chuckle and say something like "So what are the odds of being 'randomly' selected 27 times in a row?"
I don't know the specifics of the process for selection, but I can confidently say that the process is bigoted.
Same thing used to happen to me when I had dreadlocks. Made the same joke too. "what are the odds I'd get randomly selected 100% of the time I go through a checkpoint..."
Besides being racist this is kind of dumb. If you’re going to bring down the plane you’re defo not going to look like someone who gets randomly selected 100% of the time. Even the 9/11 terrorists knew this and shaved their beard instead of looking like the fundamentalists scumbags they were.
Just because it’s dumb doesn’t mean people won’t do it.
I mean TSA, but it also applies to other groups too.
Rastafarian hijackers are rampant.
In proper English usage it would only be a bigoted
check if it was unreasonable to suspect a Sikh of carrying a Kirpan.The Rehat Maryada would suggest that is in no way whatsoever an unreasonable suspicion.
Sure, your manager likely didn't carry one on airplanes .. but that still falls short of being an unreasonable check.
As a white guy who was caught accidentally carrying a large knife once through security, at the bottom of a carry-on backpack I'd had since high school, I don't think it's in any way essential to use racial or ethnic markers to figure out whether someone is taking something dangerous onto a plane. I didn't even know I was trying to bring a knife onto a plane at a regional airport. There's no reason to think that Sikhs are explicitly going out of their way to hide something.
Interesting that none of these comments seem to be questioning why we can’t just carry a small pocketknife on the plane. We used to be able to before 9/11. The 9/11 hijackings only worked because the policy was comply, land, and let the negotiators do their work. Suicide attacks using commercial airlines just wasn’t a thing. We now have armored locking cockpit doors and no airplane would give up control to hijackers anymore. United Flight 93 was already taken over and heard about the World Trade Center and they revolted.
Now, knives could only be used to commit a crime i.e. assaulting another passenger or crew. Banning liquids does more to prevent terrorists than banning knives. I can see banning them for the same reason concerts ban them, that it is a lot of people in a small space, but that is very different than “national security” or “preventing terrorism”.
it's still allowed across the EU (Mostly all of it)- up to 6cm blades are permitted in the cabin luggage.
A Sikh is far more likely to be carrying a little sword than the average population.
And far less likely to stab someone than the general population.
It's not a great analogy, but the same applies to registered concealed carry gun owners. They're not the people who shoot people.
Welcome to the club. I inadvertently traveled with not one, but two large box cutters in my carryon satchel for at least 20 flights before I discovered them while searching for some swag. I put them in there for a booth setup in Vegas years prior. Sent a completely calm, even sympathetic report to the powers that be, got put on the DNF list for my troubles.
Still screened and detained 100 percent of the time, sometimes for hours, sometimes having to surrender personal devices, decades later.
The message is very clear.
> Sent a completely calm, even sympathetic report to the powers that be, got put on the DNF list for my troubles.
What were you hoping to achieve by sending that report?
Most people would have just thought "wow, lucky I wasn't caught with that", taken it out of the bag so it didn't happen again and carried on with their lives.
Deviating from that normal response makes it look like you're just trying to cause trouble.
Yeah, if I had a "Crap, what was that doing in there?" I'd be very quiet about it.
As I wrote in a very different thread, I avoid putting anything in baggage that I might carryon that is even marginally prohibited. I used to do a lot more travel and it's inevitable that knives and the like would inevitable get left in a pocket.
Some of us genuinely believe all that "cops are there to help you, so try to be helpful to cops" stuff we were raised on. Right up until the point when you actually try to do it and find out how things really work...
At the time I was very naive. I actually thought it was my civic duty lol.
You sent a report saying you were not searched for 20 times and now you are searched all the time? Has it been over 20 times that you have been searched?
lol. No, I’m definitely winning the search transaction! I got way more than I paid for!
So here's me at Burbank:
Officer: Look at this knife. You're trying to take this on the plane?
Me: Holy shit I didn't realize that was in my bag.
Officer: Well do you want it back? Or do you want to fly today?
Me: I don't want it.
Officer: Don't mind if I keep it?
Me: It's all yours.
[flagged]
Honestly, I would just give them a pass to carry a ceremonial knife, if they could prove they were Sikhs and not someone pretending to be. But I guess that's why we can't have nice things and why the same rules have to apply to everyone. I think most reasonable people understand that they can't preserve every aspect of their personal beliefs or pride in a situation involving the safety of millions of people flying daily. Carrying a weapon is certainly a bit unusual as a pillar of faith, but there are plenty of others that could also be deemed antipathetic to the well functioning order of a modern society trying to move people safely from A to B. And the same way I would consider trained and licensed gun owners to be a relatively low threat and a rule-abiding group of citizens, that's how I would view Sikhs with their blades (or even more so). So if you're Amish, take a horse. If it's Shabbat, wait til Sunday. If you're the TSA and you want to be more efficient by discriminating, look at people who have no discrenable ideology, or those whose ideology actively conflicts with your mission of preventing attacks.
Sikh's carrying a knife, a bracelet, a comb, etc. has never bothered me in the slightest in all the decades I've known about this - the Khalistan movement in a particular location during a particular time aside, they're not exactly actual postcards for terrorism (despite what some might think when faced with people and turbans).
They always had a pass here in Australia for many years until things tightened up.
Not that I'm a fan, but in general Rules are Rules and making exceptions while fair in some senses will be unfair in others <shrug>.
Circling back to my initial comment- it is the case that there is an actual reason rather than a made up bit of bullshit, to reasonably suspect that a Sikh might be carrying a knife ... if they are they're almost certain to also have a comb .. so that's handy.
okee yeah, and rules are rules, and there's a reason to think that. It would be nice if we lived in a world where rules could be bent in some cases for individuals if they actually posed no theeat, but we all have to deal with the lowest common denominator wanting to cause the most damage, so here we are.
I must say, one thing that this reminds me of is what happens if you board an El Al flight. They don't racially profile you, they just ask you some fairly innocuous questions and watch your responses. I assume they have some way of monitoring your blood pressure, heart rate, and pupil dilation at a distance... but this hasn't really changed since the 1980s, when those things had to be read or guessed in realtime by a trained human. They have a phenomenally safe record, for a country under constant terror attacks.
My takeaway from flying El Al is that there is a much better way to deal with security, that analyzes and addresses the potentially bad individual motives of anyone getting on a plane, and mostly lets everyone else pass. Which is to say that security in its best form should be almost transparent to people without malicious intentions. Having good intelligence coupled with treating each person as their own potential bomb threat is far superior to superficially treating everyone as a threat and having no real security, and far better than just creating security theater around certain people because they're of one race or ethnicity. But El Al's methods probably don't scale well to the size of US or European air travel, because you need highly trained people to stand there in the airport make those calls on the fly for every single passenger.
If I were to guess - I'd guess El Al would let a Sikh bring a blade if they looked him in the eye for 10 seconds and decided he was okay.
The issue isn't really whether a Sikh might be carrying a knife (as Sikhs generally advocate non-violence and pacifism), but if an exemption is afforded to give Sikhs the right to carry weapons on a plane, whether a terrorist might then impersonate being a Sikh in order to get a weapon onboard.
The Sikh blade is ornamental, and usually blunted. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to carry a blunted blade that basically isn't even a knife. There is no concern of a terrorist using it anymore than any other blunted object, as Sikhs could be required to bring the blunted blade and the blade checked at security.
[flagged]
Not a hijacking, but also maybe a reason not to give all Sikhs a pass on airport security.
> The bombing of Air India Flight 182 is the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history and was the world's deadliest act of aviation terrorism until the September 11 attacks in 2001. It remains the deadliest aviation incident in the history of Air India, and the deadliest no-survivor hull loss of a single Boeing 747
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
I think you misunderstood me. That's exactly what I'm saying. And I'm saying that Sikhs with or without ceremonial blades are no more of a threat than Mormons wearing special underwear.
[edit] To be more specific: An individual with an extreme belief about anything is as dangerous as an extremist member of a group with extreme beliefs. So the smart thing is to look at the beliefs and extramicy of each person. If you find someone trying to board an aircraft who doesn't care if they make it to the end of their flight, that is a security problem.
I think the best and easiest idea is to prevent people from carrying weapons on airplanes. Taking over an airplane with special underwear is not a realistic threat.
In contrast, trying to interview and run background checks on every person boarding a plane to figure out if they are an extremist on a mission or not is (a) much more invasive, and (b) much less likely to work out. Especially when you actually don't want to prevent fundamentalists from flying on planes (I don't think preventing some major evangelical church leader or some radical rabbi from flying would even be constitutional, and clearly not a popular move if attempted).
Note that I am not at all advocating for extra security targeting of Sikhs or any other such religious or ethnic targeting. I am just saying that no one should be allowed to carry a weapon on board a commercial airplane, for any reason.
Congrats for being one of today’s 10,000! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_423].
Notably in India, there have been a few times where Sikhs have been at the head of violent revolts - and a few times where they have been targeted by violent purges/genocides.
They’re generally pretty chill, but they aren’t pacifists.
I'd say that incident falls under political extremism, not religious extremism. Which is all the more reason to check people's individual beliefs rather than their race or ethnicity. Anyone from any background can be radicalized; some formatting is more prone to it than others. Sikhs, as you say, are pretty chill. Not being pacifist doesn't mean you want to go out and kill anyone.
Anyone can lie about their beliefs, so I’m not sure what that really gets anyone either.
Indeed, I didn't know about this incident, thanks for sharing it.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to say that Sikhs are more or less likely than any other group to be pacifist. I was saying we shouldn't even be having this discussion, and simply scan people for weapons, and use things like actual random screening to help as needed. And that religious reasons for carrying weapons are not a valid excuse.
[flagged]
scuse me, is there another major religion in modern times whose popular leaders sanctify taking the lives of disbelievers to get to heaven? I'm waiting, I'd love to hear about another one.
Hangry, cramped, tired, entitled, redneck is easily #1 on the air rage list.
Not exactly an ideology though.
Air rage != plan to become shahid
Your specific singular focus might blind you to all the other reasons planes have been hijacked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
and potential incidental dangers from unrest in confined spaces.
@defrost: I apparently can't respond directly to you. It's a mistake to ascribe a singular focus to someone you don't know. There may be one out of ten thousand people in any group who might want to cause chaos or violence, and they may very well have their own reasons. It would be absurd, though, to not acknowledge that there are some "gospels", if you will take that term in the broadest sense possible, or sub-religions, which preach that violence is a path to salvation, and which tend to recruit people for the purpose of violence. There are also some political movements which fill the same vacuum for an aimless, angry human soul without religion.
It is not that I have a singular focus on one religion nor one political movement, so much as that the evidence suggests that, currently, some movements have more violent offshoots and a more violent profile. There are a handful of political and religious ideologies in the world that lead to more suicide bombings and hijackings per year than, say, the total number done by believers in Zoroastrianism, Sikhs, Confucians, Hindus, Yazidis, Jews, Buddhists, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, Freemasons and Christians combined.
If you had, for instance, Jim Jones's cult or the Aum Shinrikyo boarding airplanes and blowing them up on a regular basis, and your response was that a person had to be a single-minded bigot to notice the fact that most airplane bombings originated with this particular ideology, then I'd say you were ignoring facts or willfully making excuses for ideologies which brainwashed people into doing those things. Possibly for reasons related to disliking your own society, which is perfectly fair, but certainly not neutral or scientific.
No, not at all. I was simply combating the idea that the kinds of reasons that lead to people being less likely to become regular criminals (a religious reason to carry a weapon, being licensed and trained with a weapon) would apply to their risk profile on airplanes.
Isn’t that what the scanners are for? To find large metallic objects? Why do you need additional “random” screenings behind that? Or are you saying the scanners don’t work to find even obvious weapons? If so, we should get rid of the scanners.
To address all the questions you addressed to me.
> Isn’t that what the scanners are for?
Err, not that I know of, I generally use the OED to look up the various recorded uses of words.
> To find large metallic objects?
The OED is for finding words, "scanners" that I've used or made are for mapping background geological structures via seismic waves, gravitational waves, magnetic waves, gamma waves. Medical scanners I've worked with have generally not bee used for finding large metallic objects and some should not be used if a patient has large metal objects attached or within.
> Why do you need additional “random” screenings behind that?
In 40+ years of scanning things there's not been a single time I've needed an additioan "random" scan - a few times scans have been repeated due to various failures to save data.
> Or are you saying the scanners don’t work to find even obvious weapons?
In the comment you responded to I said that it is not unreasonable to think that a Sikh you meet, anywhere, might be carrying a knife, a comb, a bracelet, etc. I did not mention anything about scanners. No, seriously, go and recheck the comment.
> If so, we should get rid of the scanners.
We? All scanners? Okay, well, thanks for sharing that opinion.
I figure various groups of scanner users will want to keep using them, of course. I personally am in favour of scanners for exploration and medical work.
I used to work with a Kevin and a Mohammed.
Whenever we travelled to offsite offices Mohammed 100% of the time was picked for bag check, while Kevin was not picked once.
Mohammed was white, and Kevin was black.
It was completely racist, and never random.
A person can get mistakenly (or not) flagged for special screening and get it over and over again - it happened to me many years ago.
I fixed it by filling out a form requesting a review, after which I received a “redress number” which could be entered into my booking information. It reliably stopped after that.
[flagged]
Wait so when I get treated differently in China due to being white... it's not racist?
You're so far up your own virtue signalling you've lost touch.
They didn't know he was white when they picked him from the list.
An Irish man tries to enter the bar but is denied entry.
Not defending the practice but the Mohammed thing has a possible origin that isn't directly racist. The common names among Muslims and their propensity to appear on various watch lists lead to a lot of false alarms on those with those names.
It may be a racist result but there is a pretty reasonable and understandable reason it happens, ignoring the legality and morality of that kind of tracking as well.
I hope you extend this understanding to other patterns people recognize and act upon. :)
I'm brown, very brown. A Native American, in fact.
Same. Every border crossing. Every flight. Every interaction with police. I always get checked. I always get flagged. I always have by bags opened and my car searched coming back from Canada with officers holding large powerful machine guns and rifles in case I twitch to hard.
I haven't so much as gotten a speeding ticket in nearly a decade but law enforcement and border guards break out the microscope every time they see me.
I am a white male and have TSA pre-check and after walking through the metal detector, maybe one out of several times I get randomly selected for the body scanner. I've never gotten the dreaded SSSS though. I've very rarely traveled alone not on a work trip and never alone on a one way ticket so maybe that helps.
I get it not infrequently when travelling from europe. It's annoying that they pretend that "oh this is random" .. I'm even going up to the airport employees at hte gate and telling them "I'm told I'm here to make new friends today"
White male who always flies alone and on one-ways here, never gotten SSSS.
Snowden leaked the criteria of when you get SSSS. It’s about 15 things that can trigger it. For example, flying business class with your family.
It's screwed up that skin color is a marker that would lead an ignorant provincial quasi-cop to assume someone is of a particular ethnicity, and even more so that that ethnicity would lead them to believe an individual adheres to a belief system that might lead them to blow up an aircraft. Very poor set of assumptions and flawed tooling, to say the least.
I would never get randomly selected despite being brown. Then I grew out my beard. Now random selection loves to pick me.
When all you see is color, everything different is racism.
I'm the whitest white person you'll find, white bread and turkey sandwich. I get screened all the time. Most of the time the agents are not white, WTF would I blame the color of their skin?
Many ICE agents are Latino but it doesn't stop them racially profiling other Latinos.
When it comes to customs & border, it's more about being "ethnically terrorist", which is more so Middle Eastern than Black in US at this particular moment in time.
Not everything in the world is about ICE. It is a hot topic right now, but is like 0.001% of security/law enforcement, profiling etc..
Are you seriously pretending that state-sponsored racism is not a thing? In today’s environment?
Generic WASP checking in. I flew regularly for several years until covid and I'd get screened all the time too (about 50% of the time).
This just in, white person thinks racism isn't real. "Well, I've never experienced it", he says.
More at 11.
I once found myself in the "random extra screening" waiting room in LHR before boarding an El Al flight to Tel Aviv, everyone else in the room was Muslim. Random indeed...
I had like a +7 random screening hit streak once. Old and comfortable and that melts away as you become the system.
I was so confused last time I traveled as I watched this brown skinned family getting shaken down for ID by TSA and they literally just waived me past and said didn't need ID. Mind you I've never not been asked to show ID to TSA before this.
Curious about the downvotes here, it's 100% relevant to the conversation and is personal experience. I imagine it's tone policing to ensure we don't criticize the techo-facist edgelord take over?
Today was the second time in a year I went into one and my crotch got flagged because of my pants zipper. nothing in my pockets. no belt. nothing hidden. etc.
I was then subjected to full pat down and a shoe chemical test as a cherry on top.
Might need to try convincing them next time to let me do the metal detector instead.
What's the point of this higher fidelity scanner if it can't tell the difference between a fly and a restricted object?
This podcast episode might be of interest. https://www.searchengine.show/a-perfectly-average-anomaly/
Derek Smalls?
Are you sure it was the zipper?
it's a guess from looking at the screen where the red square is placed right around that zone.
/r/bigdickproblems
Almost always my back sweat from wearing a backpack shows up on the body scanner. Then a TSA agent has to put their gloved hand on my sweaty back. What a shit job lol.
Whenever my backpack has been pulled aside for various reasons (large metal tools, too many loose wires, water bottle), I'll often get the bomb sniffer wipe.
It's hard to put into words, but you're eroding the social contract through your actions. People with conditions get accused of faking it all the time, and it sounds like you're actually faking it.
If he was doing that to get faster treatment at a hospital or even just a restaurant or something then I'd agree. But by doing it to get faster treatment at the TSA check he's literally doing everyone else a favour.
The argument is that if tricks like this were to become widespread, they may start requiring certified medical documentation (or other hurdles) for said faster treatment, making life even more annoying for people with genuine issues.
In that case would actually increase security, right? Ans with genuine medical issues it should be no problem to get the necessary documentation. Either way, the consumers win.
If they opted for a pat down for 6 years, then faster treatment clearly wasn’t the goal. Metal detector + swabbing is not faster than the scanner either.
Depends heavily on where you fly from. From the original comment it clearly seems that it does make it faster.
Nice trick. I always opted out of the scanners, dozens of times, and just got used to bantering with guys while they were patting my balls.
I did that for a long time. My favorite part is when they say "Do you have any sore or sensitive areas?"
I always say "my penis" and they say "uh.. well.. I'm not going to touch that"
Me: "When you slide your hand up until you meet resistance? That resistance is my penis. You're going to touch my penis and it's a sensitive area."
hahah. I never really comprehended what "I'm going to slide my hand up until I meet resistance" meant. I guess it depends which way the camel's nose is facing, what kinda resistance they're gonna get.
I did meet a lot of older TSA agents who told me they tried to stand as far away from the scanners as possible all day, and they completely understood my position on not going through em. I'm from LA, and I remember when this happened [0] so my general view on letting anyone shoot any kind of imaging radiation through me is pretty dim, but more so if they can't count to ten or tie their own shoelaces.
[0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-oct-13-me-cedar...
oh my GOD I'm wheezing here :D
I fly next week, I will have to decide whether having this conversation is worth not trying to get out of the opt-out procedure. The difficulty will be keeping a straight face.
Hate to say it, but I finally just sold my soul and got Global Entry, and no one's even tried to touch my balls since hah
I’m genuinely confused by this take. Admittedly my knowledge of exactly how the TSA operates is quite shallow, but don’t they xray your bags and scan for weapons on your body?
Are we saying that if they stopped doing that there would not be an increase in incidents?
Or is it that they are overly performative? I’ve never been all that annoyed with raising my hands above my head, but it seems like, in your case, if a passenger can’t do that, they would make an exception for you anyways. Which seems fair?
I did this about a dozen times until I had too many TSA agents become extremely shitty and hostile towards me. The last two times they were making threats as I was walking away that they were going to "get me". I decided my protest opt out excuse wasn't worth dealing with attitude. They usually also made me stand there and wait sort of blocking everyone for 5-10 minutes until they even called someone over
> When they wave me to the scanner, I say "I can't raise my arms over my head."
IANAL but I would be very cautious about lying to a federal agent, or anyone acting in a capacity on behalf of a federal agent (this is all of TSA).
Yep. It's asking for FAFO with civil $$ or even criminal penalties.
From what I see, it's low risk, though the parent's smartass approach might get you some punishment. Not worth skipping the detector via lie.
Who said I'm lying?
It seemed implied by:
> Then I realized I could even skip that.
It would make sense that you weren’t injuring yourself prior to realizing this.
Again, implied. But agreed, you didn’t say it.
Don't take the bait.
Either they're joking (and should've added an emoji) or more likely, parent is being childish and phrasing points to finding a "clever hack" (i.e., not injured). There's nothing clever about unethical and criminal pro tips.
Fair! I was going to go back and edit, but my comment was more for other people who read your comment thinking it was a good idea for them to do (assuming they can raise their hands over their heads).
Since the TSA cannot force you to prove it - after all, they're not medical personnel to evaluate it and not willing to risk your injury - whether someone lies becomes irrelevant.
If they decide to follow up to make an example of you, they can easily record a video of you until you raise your arms over your head somewhere later in the airport or on the flight. You won’t have a good time proving your case.
Just because you can raise your hands over your head doesn't mean it isn't painful.
In any case, it's legal to opt-out of the scanners, so why would they care what method you use (really what language you use) to indicate you'd rather get a pat-down than go through the scanners? Either way you're complying with the law.
"i can't raise my arms over my head" doesn't contain the word "medically". could be religious reasons, or simply personal superstition.
Federal judges just love this kind of language lawyering.
it's legal to say "I can't raise my arms over my head". it is then prohibited to ask people about disabilities, should somebody think to inquire. I was not saying "tell this to a judge", i was telling HN that yall were making assuumptions. (assuumptions makes ass-of-you-and-you)
They are only making bad assumptions if they said this.
Any chance one gets to regain freedom, by any method, take it.
In this situation proving someone is lying would be news worthy. You will win in this situation if you stand your ground.
So... You're lying about having a health condition in a loud and obnoxious way? Not sure what the point is.
Just because you can get around TSA checkpoints doesn't mean it's not "about" security. There's only so much that can be done when we have to balance safety and convenience.
1) its okay to the lie to the TSA and troll them. the TSA is just low skilled jobs program.
2) those scanning machines have leaked their images before to the public so its okay not to want to go through them and have your.png on there forever.
And it’s been confirmed by red teams sneaking weapons through checkpoints that it’s not even doing the basic job. Lots of hassle and expense for little to no gain in security.
You sound insufferable. Why do they need to be a moron? As you state, designed as a jobs program. So, these workers are low paying government employees who likely have trouble attaining a job or maintaining high job security. You likely live a far more privileged life than these workers. You think they want to do this job? And you call them a moron for simply attempting to do their job?
Well, their job is literally to harass people, and they knew that getting hired.
This is brilliant. I continue to opt out and get the pat down every single time. Which is annoying because they deliberately make it slow and anxiety inducing with your bags are out of sight for quite a while.
I used to "punish" the rude or particularly slow ones by insisting on a private screening (since that involves two officers, and Is A Whole Thing) but I haven't gotten a rude one in a few years. But that also just makes it take even longer.
[flagged]
Holy shit that's genius, but I do worry about the minor degradation of respect for actual disabled folks if it becomes 'weaponized' in a widespread way
Serious question: why?
Most people I know who object to full-body millimeter-wave scanners either do so on pseudoscientific health claims, or “philosophical” anti-scanner objections that are structurally the same genre as sovereign-citizen or First-Amendment-auditor thinking.
I should not need to show an anonymous TSA agent my genitals, even if they are in black and white on some monitor theyre viewing in some back room, to get on a plane.
> I should not need to show an anonymous TSA agent my genitals
Unless you want to!
I'd agree with this, but TSA scanners do not show anatomical details.
At least currently the images are never seen by a person and are deleted after ATR.
Sure thing, and my Facebook account was hard deleted when I asked them to.
Are you implying that Mark Zuckerberg is a liar, sir?
You'll need to add a /s, else most here won't realize you're being sarcastic.
You are, right?
"Fool me twice...can't get fooled again"
I could ask the same serious question, why should I have to? There is zero reason to suspect me of being a suicidal maniac. Should we have such scanners to walk into a busy store or bus or subway system? Why don't private pilots and passengers have such screenings?
Tangential: Here in India we have security guards with hand-held metal detectors in malls, railway stations, and urban transit rails (metro) stations.
The first time I visited a different country I was surprised to see my friend accompany me to the check-in counter and even further to drop me off. In India they wouldn't let you enter the airport if your flight doesn't depart soon enough.
I don't think anyone in the US really cares about metal detectors, humans don't naturally contain metal and it is done completely hands off with no extra visual or biometric information or saved data. Plenty of people in this thread who opted out of other security measures still walked through a metal detector without any special note. Court houses and police stations have often have metal detectors that even a Senator or President would have to walk through. The same cannot be said of direct imaging of your body though or facial recognition or anything. If you wouldn't put your children through the process to go into school each day then it seems completely bonkers to require it for any form of mass transit.
It used to be normal in the U.S. to walk people to the gate until 9/11.
Now you can escort someone to the check-in counter and up to the security checkpoint, and meet people at the luggage area to help with bags.
But in practice it seems rare to do so if there isn’t a particular reason, probably because you’d have to pay to park or ride transit and it’s usually a trek beyond that. Honestly if they allowed you to go through security with the passenger and wait at the gate, I’m not sure how many people would even do it here (or how many passengers would want their loved ones to do so).
Pre 9/11 you could go through (useless) security without a ticket but longer ago there wasn't even security. And in some places the "gate" was...a gate. In a fence. So being at the gate meant walking from the street up to the fence. Good times.
You can walk someone to the gate, you just have to have a ticket.
Post 9/11 you could get a waiver from the ticket counter to escort someone thru security all the way to the gate. Dunno if that's a thing anymore, but I had them print out a paper and showed it at security several times in the mid 2000s.
A gate pass is a thing to pick up or drop off people who will be flying as unaccompanied minors. I don’t what other circumstances allow their issue, but when I did it a couple years ago, everyone seemed to know the process, so it’s not that rare.
not letting outside people at the luggage area seems fine to me, if anyone could enter there the number of stolen baggage would skyrocket.
There are legit health reasons to opt out of the scanner. I know because I have one of those conditions and have never been through the scanner.
That's fine, but you don't need a health condition, legit or otherwise, to opt out. It's enough to say "I would like to opt out."
Millimeter wave scanners have a health exemption? Like because it would always detect something on your body?
What is an example of such a condition?
Pacemaker, pregnancy, probably others.
Studies have all come out clean on pacemakers and mmWave. No detectable interference in the hardware or on an EKG while in a mmWave scanner.
I could imagine other conditions potentially but pacemakers have been ruled a non issue for mmWave by academic studies (albeit I can understand still exercising caution despite that).
Have they done thorough, decades-long studies on millimeter-wave machines to ensure they have absolutely no long-term adverse health effects?
Tbh I'm not sure but they've done accelerated dosage testing to simulate long term use by repeatedly exposing people to use of the machine over a more frequent period of time.
But mmWave really just is not dangerous. Current generation 5G cellular and WiFi standards are mmWave and they are just as harmless.
Molecular damage just starts showing up with THF/terahertz emissions band but mmWave is in the EHF and is has more than 10x the wavelength of THF (i.e. it is far wider/more gentle than THF). In a very real sense mmWave can't even interact with most of the molecules in your body.
mmWave can interact with the water in your body but at the levels it's being used it's only really useful for seeing the water. You'd needs orders of magnitude more powerful emissions than what these scanners use to actually cause damage at that frequency.
i.e. It's the difference between using the flashlight on your phone to see in the dark and using the concentrated light from solar-thermal heliostats to boil water or heat molten salt. No matter how hard you try, your flashlight is never gonna boil water.
Mass hysteria.
Then why do they routinely send kids through the (non-invasive) metal detectors, while adults get sent through the millimeter-wave scanners?
I think it’s a mistake to assume these policy decisions all have peer-reviewed science behind them.
To me it's just a vote against the profiteers who make those machines.
Also I kinda like the process better; the pat-down is nothin', and you can a full table to yourself to recombobulate.
> First-Amendment-auditor thinking.
Uhhh, I like that kind of thinking. Is there something wrong with first amendment auditors now?!
Perhaps I haven't gotten a representative sample, but in 100% of the content I've seen from self-described "first amendment auditors", they're acting unpleasant and suspicious for absolutely no reason other than provoking a reaction. To me this seems like antisocial behavior that degrades rather than supports First Amendment protections. I consider myself a pretty strong First Amendment supporter, but if I routinely found strange men filming me as I walked down the street, I would support basically any legal change required to make them stop.
> I consider myself a pretty strong First Amendment supporter, but if I routinely found strange men filming me as I walked down the street, I would support basically any legal change required to make them stop.
It strikes me that the first clause of this sentence and the last one are unambiguously contradictory.
I don't think so? The behavior of these auditors is not speech in any meaningful sense; they're not trying to communicate any message, they're just trying to make people around them uncomfortable. It's just hard to draw a clear line that would prohibit their behavior without chilling lawful speech.
Right now I don't think there are that many First Amendment auditors around, so there's not much point in passing new laws to deal with them. But if they became more common, it might be necessary to draw the line, as we did in the 90s with stalking.
> The behavior of these auditors is not speech in any meaningful sense;
I didn't suggest it was speech; it's press, no?
Again, I don't have enough context to cast judgment about them being assholes or violating some other law (like harassment, etc) - I don't support that _at all_.
However, the basic right to document one's surroundings in public is absolutely essential to liberty, especially now.
No, it's not press either. First Amendment auditors do things like this: https://www.independent.com/2025/07/09/first-amendment-audit...
You say "harassment", but that's precisely the problem. Many things that any reasonable person would identify as harassment are protected speech under the First Amendment. So these auditors go around harassing people, knowing that they're causing people emotional distress, because they're bullies who want to make people feel bad.
First Amendment auditors have usually been attention seeking individuals making click bait YouTube videos. It's been interesting seeing the transformation from that to what we're seeing with people monitoring ICE.
To be honest, I watch very little of that content, so I had no idea. If they're unkind, then obviously that sucks.
But walking around with cameras maintaining the unequivocal right to record what happens in the commons seems like a very important and thankless task.
This is genius, thank you for sharing. I don't fly often, mostly because it became from glamorous to brutal experience.
The Republicans say you should dress up better, then it’s glamorous.
Make sure you bring a change of workout clothes too for the exercise room between flights.
Lots of society is like this. For example, red lights. I run them all the time and nothing happens. You just have to pay attention. It's why the police won't ticket you in SF. It doesn't matter. If anyone else complains you just yell "Am I being detained" a few times and then hit the accelerator. Teslas are fast. They can't catch you.
Another pro tip is to not pay at restaurants. If you can leave the restaurant fast enough before they give you the bill, they must have forgotten to charge you and sucks for them! The trick is not to bring bags so you can fake a trip to the toilet!
if you're not joking, actions like these are why we can't have nice things in society, it's cancerous behavior and just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I think the two comments above yours are poking fun at the guy who is committing a felony by lying to federal agents. They're just making it obvious what he's doing is really shitty, anti-social behavior.
You are grossly misinformed and making an assumption.
You're thinking of being interviewed by a Federal agent. At no point are you being interviewed at a TSA checkpoint. Generally, they have two agents present for that so they can act as witnesses for each other. The FBI specifically uses the 302 for such an interview. Can you cite the relavant US Code here? I can.
Further, you're assuming I'm lying.
As someone who was present (in the room) as DHS was being formed and witnessed the negotiations around the TSA, the "really shitty, anti-social behavior" is sharing misinformation.
Lying to TSA and other government representatives is patriotic
This is a scam that the GOP has convinced many of, that taking from the government commons is the right thing to do. But the GOP is the embodiment of a low trust society. I'd rather live in a high trust society.
> This is a scam that the GOP has convinced many of, that taking from the government commons is the right thing to do.
You should look around carefully and see who is actively defending government fraud right now.
If you're honest, you may be shocked.
Please make your point without lurking in the shadows.
I'd also rather live in a high trust society, but that's impossible with the government that we have (and it's not just Trump, although he has certainly turned our slow creep towards authoritarianism into a speedrun).
I realized that the GOP has been taking advantage of weaknesses in high trust society. This is an easy thing for fascism to do. So while I want to live in one, they aren't stable and must be protected.
Exactly. It gets you your freedom back, enables you to what you need to, and undercuts the illegitimate governments authority - all in one!
A major win for the people.
"Obeying the law, no matter how pointless, wasteful, or destructive, is a virtue."
Does it make you feel good to participate in a meaningless charade of security theater? Or would you rather spend your time doing some of value?
> Does it make you feel good to participate in a meaningless charade of security theater? Or would you rather spend your time doing some of value?
I think there is a lot of value in being part of a democratic society that has structured dispute-resolution processes. Part of the cost of that is occasionally going along with something pointless (even if some things warrant civil disobedience, not everything does), and that's a vital democratic responsibility. So yes, I do feel good doing that - the same kind of good I feel when I pick up someone else's litter or give up my time for jury service. If anything, going along with a law you disagree with is harder, and more virtuous, than those.
So "Just don't be gay/smoke weed, it's not legal, if you don't like it there's a process to get that changed" is the kind of viewpoint that's compatible with your ideology then?
Law in a democracy ALWAYS lags public sentiment because without sentiment to pander to no politician will lift a finger. Overt sentiment always lags behind closed doors sentiment because practically nobody is gonna display overt sentiment until there's some indication from their experience that support for their sentiment is there. There MUST be room for petty noncompliance to let people discover that the noncompliance in some unknown case is perhaps not bad in order to kick start the process.
People like you are actively working to prevent and delay alignment between the people and the government/laws. If everyone subscribed to your ideology nothing would ever get done. If more people subscribed to it then things would change slower than they do.
You can tell yourself whatever you need to sleep at night but this sort of compliance as a virtue ideology you subscribe to is the evil that keeps our democracies from delivering good results promptly. I'm not saying go murder your neighbor because "fuck the law" or whatever, but an ideology that does not permit for deviance when such deviance is tasteful is a bad one.
> So "Just don't be gay/smoke weed, it's not legal, if you don't like it there's a process to get that changed" is the kind of viewpoint that's compatible with your ideology then?
Sure (although I don't think there's ever been a law against being gay, only against particular acts).
> There MUST be room for petty noncompliance to let people discover that the noncompliance in some unknown case is perhaps not bad in order to kick start the process.
Petty noncompliance isn't the only source of information, and even if it was, that doesn't negate the cost to society.
> People like you are actively working to prevent and delay alignment between the people and the government/laws. If everyone subscribed to your ideology nothing would ever get done. If more people subscribed to it then things would change slower than they do.
So the wild swings of public opinion will be tempered somewhat, and society's path will be smoothed. Yes, that's the point. Same spirit as having a constitution and a second chamber rather than making everything run on a simple majority.
> I'm not saying go murder your neighbor because "fuck the law" or whatever
But you are. That's where your ideology leads once people start following it in practice.
> Law in a democracy ALWAYS lags public sentiment because without sentiment to pander to no politician will lift a finger
Not always, just the last few decades.
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1431/
What if the police department has Teslas?
Quite a modest proposal.
I, too, dislike walking far. Here’s how I faked my way into a handicap parking tag.
> I, too, dislike walking far. Here’s how I faked my way into a handicap parking tag.
Cute analogy, but.
Handicap parking tags provide value to those who need them. Depriving them of parking makes their lives harder.
On the other hand, TSA is pure theater, as TFA makes clear. Avoiding this needless ritual saves time for the passenger, for the TSA officers, even for the other passengers, and does not increase risk at all. It's pure win-win.
That’s fine and it is of course security theater / jobs program. I was put off by the feigning of disability to avoid a scanner and/or some inconvenience. This kind of behavior is okay, even great, but please come up with a more tasteful way. Otherwise I hope it’s a parody.
There may be no more tasteful way, this is likely the only way.
It may be many things, but I very much doubt the motivation is a money grab. A few people paying $45 isn't lining the pockets of some government official, or plugging a hole in any possible budget.
Dealing with the presence of travelers who haven't updated their driver's licenses requires a bunch of extra staff to perform the time-consuming additional verifications. The basic idea is for those staff to be paid by the people using them, rather than by taxpayers and air travelers more generally. As well as there being a small deterrent effect.
There is no legal requirement to show id or answer any questions to establish identification before flying. In other words there is no extra work required by law which the fee would cover.
The TSA is literally doing all this extra work though, whether or not you think it's required by law. They're not just pocketing the $45 and then blindly waving you ahead.
Let's be more precise. The TSA has created extra work for themselves, and are charging us for it, whether it's legally required or not (because they pretend that it is).
Sure. But it's not "pretend". It's genuine regulatory policy they've created because they believe it's necessary for security, and this has been a decades-long project. The article is arguing they don't ultimately have the legal authority to make that regulatory policy. Maybe that'll go to court and be tested, maybe they'll win and maybe they'll lose. If they lose, maybe Congress will pass explicit legislative authorization the next day, and maybe that'll be brought to court, and the Supreme Court will have to decide if it violates the 14th amendment or not. But it's not "fake work", it's actually doing a thing.
No, it's not "regulatory policy". It's been done entirely with some combination of secret "Security Directives" and "rulemaking by press release". As the article and the linked references explain, the TSA never issued any regulations, published any of the required notices, or obtained any of the approvals that would have been required even if Congress had passed an (unconstitutional) authorizing statute (which it didn't).
No. Policy or regulation would have a basis in law. This administration has aptly demonstrated their contempt for the law. Nobody gives a shit about some grunt federal employee getting extra work.
This is just a way to compel compliance and to push the agenda for ID with higher documentary requirements, ultimately to deny the vote.
As I mentioned[0] a few months ago after the TSA announced the $45 "fee":
And now the birds are coming home to roost. No real surprise there, IMHO.[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46128346
I mean I could hire someone to continuously dig and refill the a hole in the ground. That would certainly be them doing a thing, but it would also definitely be fake work. There's been plenty of rhetoric thrown around but no real evidence has been produced that suggests the TSA isn't engaging in a bit of circular digging at the taxpayer's expense with this.
Ah, digging holes and refilling them - that'd be literally the NREGA program in India
It's security theatre, someone has to pay the performers
Flying without ID just gets you the full patdown treatment. It’s not like they’re tracking down people to vouch for you.
I don't know what you mean by "full patdown treatment", but they're absolutely tracking down your information in databases and interviewing you about it. See replies to:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46864182
It's absolutely not just enhanced physical screening.
It's not just a patdown. They take you to a phone booth that has a direct line to some portion of the FBI IIRC, and they ask you a bunch of questions to confirm your identity. At least this is what happened to me about ten years ago when I lost my wallet in a different state and needed to fly home.
... and the law in most states requires only that you give your name and possibly your DOB to the authorities upon detainment. So as a purely academic exercise, what can they even do if you refuse to answer beyond that? Obviously in practice they will fuck with you or just straight up violate the constitution, but theoretically I'm unsure how they can continue to seize you after that.
...they don't let you fly.
They can't detain you (if you're not otherwise some kind of suspect, and you're not trying to assault them or sprint past security or anything), but they don't let you fly.
... if you aren't detained you are free to go. And if you are free to go, you are free to stay, unless the property owner has trespassed you. TSA doesn't own the airport, at least in my state. So how can they trespass you from the airport or otherwise continue to detain you from moving forward?
I mean, I know you're right, and I know you will always lose if you try, but I don't understand the legal basis.
You are free to leave. You aren't free to go wherever you want. You aren't free to go into the employee areas, or out onto the runway. If you don't clear security, you aren't allowed in the secure portion of the airport. Not allowing entry into an area is not "detaining you from moving forward".
If the government is requiring the property owner to submit to TSA, that's a public act and not a private one, which means it is bound by the bill of rights and most importantly the 4th 5th and maybe even 6th amendment. The government cannot punish you for exercising your rights by refusing you to move forward into the private place you could otherwise lawfully go. If you can't go to the employee area, that's because certain individuals are trespassed from going there from the private owner, not because the government is forcing it. If you can't go to the boarding area, because of the TSA by public act strong arming the property owner, that is not an act of the private owner, and if it's done because you refuse to answer questions it is a violation of your rights.
The ruse here is to pretend like the property owner is agreeing with TSA because TSA forced them to this agreement by government act. But that is just the government trying to have their cake and eat it by forcing someone to do something and then pretending it is a private act which isn't bound to the constitutional right to not have to answer additional questions.
What are you talking about?
The government can absolutely pass laws prohibiting you from entering a privately owned location. There is no constitutional right of access to private property.
And more specifically, the commerce clause of the constitution allows the government to regulate air travel, which means regulating airports. The fact that they're privately owned doesn't change anything. If a private airport owner allowed you to proceed through security, they'd be breaking the law.
There's no public access doctrine for airports the way there is for streets or parks.
You clear seem to wish it was otherwise. But it's easy to do the research to understand where the authority comes from and why it's entirely constitutional.
Constitutional right of access, which as you say doesn't exist, isn't the same as allowing access but conditioning it upon you relinquishing your bill of rights.
If the difference between access and not having access is relinquishing your civil rights, then the reason for denial is exercising your civil rights. Those are explicitly protected. So while you're right they could make a law that says 'no one on the plane' they cannot make a law that says "everyone on the plane except those who won't give up their 4th or 5th amendment rights not to answer additional questions."
There have been prior SCOTUS cases narrowly allowing asking name, DOB, addresses, as well as inspection of your items during certain inspections, but this is something entirely different beyond that asking further probing questions about your identity.
And that brings us back to the tagline of the article:
The TSA is violating the law, and the constitution, and making it up as they go.Just wait until you find out how the feds enacted the 55mph speed limit or are using the threat of revoking Medicare funding for hospitals that perform certain medical procedures that the feds would like to have not happen...
Presumably the airport or airline has agreed to (or would agree if asked to) have TSA decide whether you are “free to go that way, towards the airplanes”.
You are already free to go that other way (towards the street), but not necessarily free to go the way you want.
I don't think it's a matter of whether or not you are free to go. It's a matter of whether they let you on the plane.
It's just federal law.
Cities don't own restaurants either but can fine them and close them if health inspections fail, because there's a law for that.
The legal basis is the federal laws written specifically around airport security.
I think the question here is, which laws?
LMGTFY: Aviation and Transportation Security Act
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ71/html/PLAW...
The confusion in this thread shows me that even here, no one understands even the question, let alone the answer.
As far as I can tell, a person is free to go if they refuse screening: They won't be getting on a flight, but they can just leave. There's no detainment involved in this process.
Whether they can then elect to stay is a different matter, I think.
But so what? How long would a person have to stand in a screening area before someone who properly represents the ownership of that space shows up and authoritatively tells them to GTFO, do you suppose?
at least, hold or delay you long enough to make you miss your flight.
Like someone who would deliberately show up to work in a speedo because "show me where in the employee handbook it says I must wear pants"
A better analogy would be a legally protected right to show up to work dressed in street clothes, your boss imposes an illegal requirement to wear a specific uniform, and then attempts to charge you if you show up without one.
Is this the case, I didn't see it in the article.
If they have to perform extra work then I'd say it's justified. If it's just a punishment for not getting a real ID I'm not sure if that's fair
$45 x millions of people (some multiple times) = an incredibly consequential amount of money
It's not millions of people, most people get Real ID. In the context of airport security budgets, it's not that much. And it's used for hiring the additional staff required and putting together the identity verification systems they use.
> It's not millions of people, most people get Real ID
Those that did had to pay $30-$60 plus fees (actual cost differs by state) to get one and will have to pay that again and again each renewal. This is certainly making money somewhere for somebody and not at all about security
What states do you have to pay for your Real ID every time? Yes, you have to pay to renew your license or photo ID, but the Real ID fee in my state (PA) is one-time. Renewal costs are the same whether it's a Real ID or not.
WA state it is an extra $56 every time you renew for Real ID
California would be one, because they issue Real IDs to non-citizens that are tied to their documentation, which needs to be reviewed each time.
to add, fee for Real ID marker on Limited Term license covers 5 years, so if one gets lets say a license for 2 years (& had to pay for 5 years), the next renewals/updates within those 5 years are free.
“Most” people can have it and there’d still be millions (tens of millions, even over 100mill) of people who don’t. Multiple states don’t even require it. That guarantees several million people right there.
I think New York is one, so well over 10mill people don’t require it. Do you seriously think most of those people are getting one anyway? Guarantee you there are millions of people without it if not tens of millions. I’d put money on it.
So back to the point, we’re talking likely 100’s of millions of dollars. That is nothing to sneeze at. The TSA is an $11bill operation based on a quick search. $500mill (~11mill people) would be 5% of their annual budget.
America only has 340 million people to begin with. Then, half the population doesn't even fly in a given year. Those that do are mostly aware of the RealID requirement and either got it whenever they last renewed their driver's license, or renewed early because their DMV kept mailing them warnings about needing to do so if they wanted to fly. Yes, most people who fly either have it, or are getting it before their next flight. Part of the $45 fee is also to incentivize people to get the RealID, as that will obviously be cheaper for them over the long run.
That's the point. It's not to make money. The primary purpose is to get people to use RealID, and to cover the costs of the extra screening for those who don't. For however much more money they take in, you need to subtract the cost of the additional staff they need to hire and pay to handle it, plus the tech systems.
Also, remember you can just use a passport instead. That hasn't changed.
There’s quite a bit of evidence to say there are still millions without one, especially depending on the state, this article is from 9 months ago:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/real-id-deadline-weeks-away-mos...
I personally have a hard time believing that a “Real” ID that does not verify citizenship or residency is meaningfully different from my current one. I certainly do not believe there are increased costs associated with my existing ID, that would be alleviated with a Real ID. At no point have I ever heard Real ID exists to reduce costs (though if that’s true, I’d love to read how). IMHO it may not be a “cash grab,” but it’s certainly punitive. And, for what it’s worth, there have been no extra steps I’ve had to take or increased screening when using my existing ID for the past year. Same photo machine, same scanner, as everyone else.
I will personally just renew my passport to avoid the fee until I need to renew my drivers license.
> I personally have a hard time believing that a “Real” ID that does not verify citizenship or residency is meaningfully different from my current one.
I guess that's because you haven't renewed your driver's license yet?
I did last year, precisely because I had to fly, and had to bring a bunch of new documentation I never needed for my previous driver's licenses, including, yes, multiple proofs of both citizenship and residency, and then had to go through a whole additional process because of a slight name discrepancy between documents that they had to get a supervisor to make a judgment call on. It's a totally different verification process that is actually quite meaningfully different.
I thought that too, having seen the requirements, but it turns out it does not really do anything (at least as far as I can tell):
https://reason.com/2025/12/31/dhs-says-real-id-which-dhs-cer...
Allow me to remind you of what you said:
> I personally have a hard time believing that a “Real” ID that does not verify citizenship or residency is meaningfully different from my current one.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that residency was part of the discussion. DHS hasn't contested REAL ID as a means to verify your identity or your residency. They have contested it as a means to verify your citizenship and they are correct because it was never intended to be proof of citizenship or legal residency status.
You do need to show your residency paperwork or prove citizenship when applying as only lawfully present residents are eligible to receive a REAL ID, but only citizens and permanent residents have indefinite legal status and REAL ID doesn't track your status.
I would argue this is a silly gap, but Congress intentionally did not establish a National ID which you would expect to identify nationality. Instead, they created a system which makes it difficult to create ID in multiple states concurrently or under multiple names.
I would further argue that the database required to make REAL ID work ends up with all of the negatives of a national ID, without the most useful benefits. So really, we all lose.
I mean, that's one agency making a highly contested claim for obvious controversial political reasons.
It's absolutely a totally different and much stricter vetting process from before. Whether you or some other government agency thinks it still doesn't go far enough is a separate question.
You keep saying “most” which I agreed with for starters and still leaves a ton of people.
Also almost half the population flies annually, so we’re starting around 150mill.
You need numbers at this point. I am willing to bet millions flying don’t have it.
Here’s an article from April 2025: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/real-id-deadline-may/
As of the imposition of start of this new fee/fine, about 200,000 people a day fly without ID or without REAL-ID: https://papersplease.org/wp/2025/05/28/200000-people-a-day-f... - At $45 a pop, that would bring in >$3B a year. "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
That's a really disappointing source. The headline is '200,000 people a day fly without REAL-ID', which starts out quite interesting.
It then goes on to explain that the TSA has reported 93% of traveler's complied with REAL ID, citing a TSA blog from a week prior which in fact states the same.
They then take this and couple it with a single day, which they state was the busiest travel day of the Memorial Day weekend, and extrapolate that 7% of the travelers that day must've failed to provide a REAL ID.
For the sake of conversation, this is a reasonable statement. Going back and using it to suggest 200k fly without it on a typical day is not reasonable, nor is your suggestion that a 6 months later it's still at 7% (or even typical travel volume hasn't changed.) There has to be better data available.
I was curious about this, so I looked up travel volume. YTD the daily average is 2,130,136 passengers. At 7%, this is 149,109.5 passengers or $2.449 B a year in fees. This ignores that you only pay the fee once very 10 days and assumes that all travelers pay the fee on every occurrence.
The most recent press release from the TSA claims that it's now 6% of passengers not showing ID or not showing REAL ID: https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/12/01/tsa-intro... So down only slightly since May 2025 when they started "enforcing" a "requirement" to show REAL-ID.
So, 1 to 2 billion dollars, depending on how many round trips are above or below 10 days. You're right, I thought this was real money, like 3 billion. But 1 to 2 billion? You find that between the couch cushions every week. I'm so glad people like you are out there debunking these ridiculous claims.
The number you came up with is still in the same order of magnitude of the source...
This is such an odd point that some of you are arguing. You’re nitpicking numbers (some of you incorrectly) and sidestepping the main issue entirely. None of you are providing sources, you’re just handwaving away saying “this will barely impact anybody” basically. It’s such an odd argument and I don’t get the point.
The point is that lots of people will pay this fee and it will equal a large amount of money and it does nothing of value. It’s just a fee for the fee’s sake. It serves no practical purpose, it’s just punitive.
What is the actual legitimate purpose of this fee that millions will likely pay? Almost half the country flies annually and multiple states don’t require a RealID in the first place. So we’re talking millions of people, some of which will pay it multiple times, per year until full compliance. This is built to net a consequential amount of money and it doesn’t seem like it’s for any purpose other than to generate revenue at people’s expense.
It does not make flying safer. It doesn’t even pretend to make flying safer. It doesn’t cover some cost. You can fly without it.
It’s an arbitrary tax that will mostly be paid by people who can’t or won’t take the time to go to the DMV to get an ID that is not even required to replace the perfectly good one they already have. At the end of the day this is why nobody has gotten it! They keep saying you need to get it (years now) but you don’t actually need to. If it’s that important then they should say “you cannot get on an airplane without one.” But it isn’t, so they don’t, and now that’s just a revenue opportunity.
The roughly 7.6 million CLEAR members paying $209/yr grosses them north of $1 billion/year. It's not hard to see why TSA wants to get in on it.
CLEAR members are going out of their way to register their info in a biometric identification system. I don't think the people avoiding REAL IDs are the same demographic.
Laziness comes in many forms
Assuming 100M "classic" ID checks (being generous): congrats, you just paid for two days of running the military!
5% of TSA’s annual budget ain’t nothing to scoff at.
So trump can use this money to invade and finish taking over Greenland!
Right after he finishes the wall Mexico is paying for I’m sure
But everyone would have to take advantage of that benefit not having ID have with themselves.
> "Ok then, give us $45 and you can go through."
It's not pay $45 to go though, it's pay $45 for someone to take you around back and look you up based on secondary identification, and if they can't positively identify you based on that you still can't go through.
This is a system that has been in place for a long, long time. You could always say you don't have ID and they'll look you up. The change is they're now charging for it.
> And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.
This is also not accurate. If you're talking about Clear, you just skip to the front of the normal line. If you're talking about Pre, those people are individually background-checked before hand, and it costs $19/yr, so it's not exactly a tophat and monocle only program. Especially since that's half the price of a one-way taxi ride to the airport, let alone the ticket. The airport self-selects for the fairly well off to begin with.
> If you're talking about Pre, those people are individually background-checked before hand, and it costs $19/yr,
The lowest amount I see on https://www.tsa.gov/precheck is $58.75.
Fully agreed with you. Amazing how blatant misinformation gets to the top here.
It's not a money grab, it's a tactic to encourage compliance. This isn't evidence of a change in security posture, you've always been able to travel without a Real ID. They've been pushing Real ID for more than a decade, 90% of people have one already anyway, the remaining stragglers simply don't care because there have never been any consequences.
Now TSA is offering an ultimatum. Pay $45 once to renew your ID or pay it every time you travel. For most people this is enough motivation to renew the ID and never think about it again.
Exactly. I wish it was about money. It's about surveillance. The TSA even flatly says the quiet part out loud. "The fee is to make you _comply_."
That's madness.
For the $45 I should get a "TSA ID" that lets me fly for a year. That would be a cash grab. They don't even care enough to do that. They want to blur the line between state and federal and they're going to use your need to fly to accomplish that.
s/tactic to encourage compliance/blatant coercion/
FTFY
They've been trying to push this BS for over a decade but some of the states haven't been adopting it the way they'd like. The threats to ban travel without one were ultimately toothless as there would have been far too much backlash (and that would presumably be unconstitutional). This is what they figure they can get away with.
> the remaining stragglers simply don't care because there have never been any consequences
The default ID that my state issues has historically not been RealID compliant and I think that's a good thing. I have no interest in actively participating in the latest authoritarian overreach attempt.
If the $45 is meant to be temporary, it can reasonably be looked as a fine to encourage people to get their RealID.
I don’t think the existence of the fine itself is necessarily evidence of a cash grab.
If it isn’t temporary and extends beyond a year or two, then it probably is just meant to be a cash grab.
The word for that is tax
And since Congress never approved it, well, that makes it illegal.
My wife, who was on a H1B visa and managed to fly without an ID a few years back. They took her to some side room, asked a bunch of questions and looked her up based on name, DOB, address etc.
I knew the Real ID requirements wouldn't be enforced, at least here in California, about a year before, after I saw the requirements: California can't enforce it because it would prevent too many undocumented people from flying.
Although, I thought it would just be delayed indefinitely. I suppose it effectively has been.
Too much of our economy depends on them.
It was about immigration. I remember around 2015 when I was on F1 visa - in Michigan - you could get drivers license and it would expire when your visa expired. However my few lucky friends in NY/NJ/CA? Just got blanket 5yr expiry on their licenses from the day of renewal. I.E. their visas could expire well before their ‘IDs’ could. RealID was introduced to eliminate these discrepancies. And to get a realId now you need to show your visa documents/approvals.
Real ID is/was needed because every state has different requirements to get one.
The whole debate is hilarious, you need one or two extra documents to get RealID. The exact same amount of time and trips to DMV.
The fact that Real ID was introduced when I was in college and has been pushed back every year since shows that we don't actually need it.
That's because many Americans are against national ID at all cost for some reason. The very same Americans think that immigrants need to have their "I'm legal" folder with them at all times.
What are the practical benefits we're supposed to get from the RealID system? All I've ever heard is "national security" which is the excuse for every harmful thing.
For started, we stop talking about "Is Real ID worth it" and annual "Real ID for sure will be required next year"
Cancelling RealID would have those same benefits.
For example, all those stupid voter debates becomes moot.
RealID has nothing to do with voting. Residency and citizenship is already verified when you register to vote. RealID is not a requirement to vote.
Blatant strawman. I'm a concrete counterexample if you insist on having one. The federal government should not have any involvement in routine photo ID. If that makes certain things difficult I see that as a feature, not a bug.
> The very same Americans think that immigrants ...
Only half of the opposition to federal IDs comes from the right wing people who are hand wringing about ""The Mark of the Beast"" while saying that immigrants need to identify themselves. The other half of the opposition to federal IDs comes from the left who insist that federal IDs are a conspiracy to stop poor people from voting. This is a bipartisan issue, but you only acknowledged one half.
I had the option to get a "Real ID" the last time I renewed my driver's license, and did not. I forget which stupid bit of paper gave me trouble, but I had a valid passport (the Mother of All IDs), which was both insufficient to get a "Real ID" and sufficient to fly. It's a joke, a nuisance, and now a revenue source.
You're not going to believe it, but if you already have a passport - you don't need Real ID (in ideal world). I only got Real ID because I want to have zero questions about my immigration status.
>You're not going to believe it, but if you already have a passport - you don't need Real ID (in ideal world). I only got Real ID because I want to have zero questions about my immigration status.
DHS says they don't consider RealID to be reliable "proof" of immigration status[0][1], so you might consider rethinking that strategy.
[0] https://www.biometricupdate.com/202601/dhs-agent-tells-court...
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alsd.76...
> DHS says they don't consider RealID to be reliable "proof" of immigration status[0][1], so you might consider rethinking that strategy.
I did, I became American and now have a US passport. That is just moving of the goal post by current admin.
Major points are also missed. The fee is enabled at the federal law level: 49 U.S.C. § 114 & 49 U.S.C. § 44901
A general reminder that every extra obstacle to getting a valid ID (or voting) disproportionately impacts the poor. They often lack the paperwork, the free time, and the money to deal with the extra process involved.
Absolutely. With Real ID, the biggest pain for a lot of people is proof of residency.
Rich people just print out some combination of a bank statement, a pay stub, and a copy of their mortgage or lease or the electric bill, but poor people may not have much of that. Think of someone staying with family and getting paid by a gig economy job to a Cash App card or just working under the table/doing odd jobs.
Once you start with less common documents, there seem to be more arcane rules, and the documents poor people do have often don’t quite fit the rules that were basically written around what people middle class and up are likely to have.
You need two documents for proof. It's really not that hard. Poor that can't produce these documents probably can't afford a plane ticket either, so how is it a problem? Y'all have some weird ideas about how poor people are incapable of have two pieces of paper that have: 1) their name 2) their address
If only it were always that easy.
In order for me, myself, to get a Real ID in Ohio, I need to produce documents demonstrating all 5 of the following elements[1]: Full legal name, DOB, legal presence in the US, SSN, and Ohio street address -- with the Ohio street address element requiring two separate documents.
Most of this is easy. I can rummage around in the paperwork pile and find most of what I need.
But the only acceptable document that applies to me (a single white male born in the US who has never had a reason to get a passport) is an original or certified copy of my birth certificate. That's kind of a pain in the ass: I have a copy, and that copy is on the fancy green cardstock the health department uses where I was born, and that copy was good enough to enlist and get paid in the US military, but it's not a certified copy and therefore is not good enough to prove my full name. My original DD214 is also not good enough.
So I'll have to round that up (which will cost me money). And then I'll have to go to the BMV (which costs money and time), and wait in line (which costs more time), and then pay for these documents to be reviewed. Eventually, they'll mail me a new ID.
Achievable? Sure. I'll get it done.
But it's quite clearly more arduous than having "two pieces of paper that have: 1) their name 2) their address", which is rather oversimplified.
---
And meanwhile: Air travel doesn't have to be expensive. In my direct experience, a person can fly from Ohio to Florida and back in cattle class for as little as $37 if they're not picky about dates.
Until last month, that is. This month: It costs an extra $45, or a Real ID.
[1]: https://dam.assets.ohio.gov/image/upload/publicsafety.ohio.g...
Rather you lack perspective on the wider world. It is not uncommon to have an "unofficial" living situation and work under the table. In that scenario which documents would have your name and address on it? Will the DMV accept a purchase order from Amazon? Get real.
Even when I worked under the table and was out of status, I always had enough documents to get Real ID (but couldn't due to status).
For context, at one point I couldn't even get AB60 license in California because I didn't have a single photo ID that isn't expired, and you just need some photo id and pulse to get AB60.
> Will the DMV accept a purchase order from Amazon?
DMV accepted my marriage license and bank statement. Bank accepted "I will mail you my card, bring back in sealed envelope".
> Rather you lack perspective on the wider world.
I don't think so.
That's an interesting point about the bank statement. However you still need a second document IIUC. And to even open an account in the first place won't you need similar documentation? I've never tried opening one while in that position - I've always just brought my passport in with me while cursing KYC laws.
So assuming you already have a regular driver's license and a bank account this would make the requirement to fly 1. verify address with bank 2. figure out an additional piece of documentation 3. pay fee for "real" ID 4. wait a while.
How does that improve security? Why do I need any ID at all in the first place? If the concern is weapons or explosives then just search for those ... which they already do.
Another thought occurs to me. What if I grab a homeless person off the street and attempt to fly with him? So now there's an additional $45 "no ID" fee? That hardly seems reasonable. Will they even be able to verify much of anything in that scenario to begin with? (Granted that's an edge case but that doesn't mean it's okay to ignore it.)
> However you still need a second document IIUC. And to even open an account in the first place won't you need similar documentation?
Nope, KYC rules are different from Real ID rules. Banks accept more documents ad PoA. It comes down to: does the person have access to banking or not because it's the easiest PoA.
> How does that improve security? Why do I need any ID at all in the first place? If the concern is weapons or explosives then just search for those ... which they already do.
Like I said in the original message - every state has different requirements for IDs. I was able to get California AB-60 with just paper (no RFID) foreign passport that looked like I made it myself and laminated at it at FedEx.
> 3. pay fee for "real" ID 4. wait a while.
I don't know how other states do it, but I'm pretty sure in CA it's the same time it takes to get a regular ID. and the fee difference is like $20?
> Another thought occurs to me. What if I grab a homeless person off the street and attempt to fly with him? So now there's an additional $45 "no ID" fee?
Well, that person still needs some ID to fly? I'm against that tho, I'd start enforcing real id years ago if it were up to me.
TSA pre-check, Global Entry, and Clear _infuriate_ me. It is privatization of public transportation and a net negative for society. In New York, JFK has closed off half of the security entrances for priority lanes, meaning a majority of passengers are forced into 50% of the entrances. The airport was built with state+federal funds, and now tax-paying residents are second-class to those who can afford $100/year. It's not even the amount, it's the principle.
And before people start to argue that planes aren't public transportation - over 10 million _passenger_ flights a year. It is critical to the functioning of all aspects of society.
Airlines are not public transportation. Usually they're all privatized.
>TSA pre-check, Global Entry, and Clear _infuriate_ me
And these additions are the opposite of privatization, they are federal requirements, de facto socialization.
Any time the TSA comes back into the news I always go through old Remi videos all over again. They are masterpieces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrof3Rf3_L8
terrorists don’t have $45 each
It's meant to deter poor people, but it sounds better the way you said it.
Or the fact that you have to re-up for Pre-TSA -- they already know who we are, they already have their databases, it's intentional money grab. But then again, so is PreTSA...
Awwwww. I was going to hijack this plane and use it as a weapon in a divide attack, but $45?! You got me, TSA! That's just too rich for my blood!
> And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.
It wasn't just pay for play! TSA-PreCheck and Global Entry approval requires a thorough background check of your residential, work, and travel history, also in-person interview. Unfortunately, some Privacy activists prefer not doing that over occasional convenience.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tsa+precheck+eligibility
Global Entry requires an in person interview, Precheck by itself does not
> Precheck by itself does not
Now! But, when it started it definitely required.
It is like the government loooed at Ryanair and thought "what if we were like that!"
It was never about security only control of you and everyone else.
would love to know the revenue generated by bottled water pre and post 9/11
The TSA are literally terrorists. Their job isn't to stop terrorism, their job is to keep memory of terrorism fresh in the public's mind, to keep them afraid, to constantly remind people that they must be subservient to the federal government or else more people will die. It's flat out terrorism.
$45 pays for the cost of a much more tedious identity verification process.
No. In the early 2000s we called it security theater. Do we think that somehow they went from theater to serious? Hell no, it's all downward spiral. I constantly pen-test the TSA using humorous methods while traveling, it's a complete joke.
"My ID? I identify as Andrew Jackson twice and Lincoln"
> Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.
Are these the same poor people that reputedly cannot get IDs to vote because of a government conspiracy to suppress their votes, yet can afford an airline ticket and commute to an airport?
No generally not, there's not any real connection between the two groups.
The $45 pays for extra checks and scrutiny.
What are these checks and scrutiny and how are they applied in the time available? Given the time available is not great ("I'm on the next flight") and the amount of money is modest if humans are involved I'm intrigued to know what could be done that $45 would cover.
It's a database lookup that takes 5-15 minutes once you get to an available officer, but then depending on what it returns you may need additional screening, which will also need to wait for someone available.
That's why if you don't have an ID, you should get to the airport at least an hour earlier than otherwise (already accounting for long security lines), and more during peak travel times. If you get slowed down, you're going to miss your flight. They're not going to speed it up for you.
To me this makes no sense at all. The visual (or computational) ID check takes a second. Why is a manual entry of someone's name/DOB something that takes 5-15 minutes? This is a process control issue, not a technical problem.
You're misunderstanding. What's preventing me from finding someone on Facebook who looks kind of similar to me, finding out their address and phone number, and then claiming I'm them but forgot my ID? Or if I'm a serious criminal planning ahead, applying for a legitimate driver's license in that other person's name with easily-forgeable documentation that less strict DMV's accept when they aren't RealID?
That's what they're guarding against. There's is no secure enough visual or computational ID check that takes a second when you're not already carrying a RealID or passport, that's the point. They have to start getting a bunch of information from databases, determining if it seems like a real person, and quizzing you on information you should know if you're the real you, and seeing if it all adds up or not.
How about we restrict airport and aircraft access based on individual's ability to do harm, rather than on the information in some trusted database? It sure seems like the major incidents in my lifetime would have been better prevented by keeping people with guns and bombs out than people with poor paperwork skills…
The most "major" incident in recent history was 9/11 which involved neither guns nor bombs. So I don't know what you're talking about.
9/11 hasn't been a relevant threat since halfway through 9/11
Because we closed the door. Like was policy already.
9/11 could not have happened had the doors been closed.
The door being closed is how the Flight 93 terrorists prevented passengers from re-taking the flight.
Don't forget about the critical check for whether or not you possess JD Vance meme contraband.
If you are able to follow simple written instructions and enter several pieces of information on a keyboard in less than five minutes... why would you work for the TSA?
5 minutes for $45 bucks seems expensive. Also, they don't have to check your ID if you don't have one so less time spent on that
This happened to me once, they just brought out someone (supervisor?) who asked questions about what addresses I've lived at, other similar questions I'd probably only know the answer to.
It does take longer than regular screening (most of the time was just spent waiting for the supervisor -- I'm not sure they were spending time collecting some data first), if that causes you to miss your flight you miss your flight.
It seems plausible to me that $45 could be about a TSA employee's wage times how much longer this takes. In aggregate, this (in theory) lets them hire additional staff to make sure normal screening doesn't take longer due to existing staff being tied up in extra verifications.
Data brokers already know everything about every American so the TSA is just buying existing information from them. Then they can quickly quiz you on the information to verify that you are you. https://network.id.me/article/what-is-knowledge-based-verifi...
Bullshit. Also not legally required.
Got a bridge to sell you
what the fuck extra checks and scrutiny could they possibly need? They already go through an x-ray machine and get molested before we get on the plane, "real ID" or not.
There are more criteria to get through security than "not carrying prohibited items". Several of those are dependent on identity, which is why they verify identity.
It seems to me that all those other consideration only matter for international travel, while for domestic travel its an obvious waste of time from every angle.
Why would you think that? All four of the hijacked flights that led to the creation of the TSA were domestic flights.
And how many of those would additional federal ID have prevented?
Pre 9/11 you didn’t even need an ID to board a flight. And you could take a knife with you.
Having a reliable ID system is only useful if you have a security apparatus to check them, which literally did not exist then.
What difference does it make if it's a foreign or domestic terrorist on a domestic flight? If you're a foreign terrorist and you get can get in the USA, you've probably have some excuse to be in the US, whether that's as a tourist or with a work visa or something. So you can probably board a domestic flight either way.
The justification for all of the security theatre after 9/11 was that it would stop terrorist attacks. Makes no difference what passport they have as long as you can determine they're not smuggling a bomb up their ass.
Not to mention that you can't take down a plane with a box-cutter anymore. The only way the 9/11 hijackers were successful is that the remaining passengers thought that the hijackers were pirates. It's a burned 0-day.
You could just enact a policy of shooting down all planes within a certain radius of large buildings. I wouldn't be surprised if the annual cost would be orders of magnitude less than the annual cost of TSA. As long as you could ensure that aircraft couldn't be weaponized against major infrastructure, hijacking a plane would be no more dangerous than hijacking a train.
I'm almost positive they get paid the same at the end of the day either way and the $45 just lines the pockets of someone on the top.
It's not that they'd pay individual employees more, it's that they'd hire more workers to account for the fact that their existing workers are tied up doing extra verification.
Though they might not do that either.
Even that fails a sanity test. They're not doing anything more than they would have done 25 years ago when the whole damn thing started.
I wasn't flying 25 years ago but I'm not sure what you mean, or how that's relevant actually. The point is just that it takes them more time to do the "extra screening" if you don't have your ID than the standard screening if you did have your ID.
Sure. A couple of things to clarify:
1. They're not doing screening. The screening comes later. At this stage, they're attempting to identify someone. That has never been the job. The job is to prevent guns, knives, swollen batteries, or anything else that could be a safety threat during air travel.
2. Regardless, the reality is that they do identify travelers. Even so, the job has not changed. If you don't present sufficient identification, they will identify you through other mechanisms. The only thing the new dictate says is that they don't want this document, they want that document.
> That has never been the job. The job is to prevent guns, knives, swollen batteries, or anything else that could be a safety threat during air travel.
A job that by their own internal testing, they do well less than 5% of the time (some of their audits showed that 98% of fake/test guns that were sent through TSA got through checkpoints).
Do you not see how an organization discouraging the use of something inefficient benefits as a whole?
Thats why cashless businesses exist, why you pay more for things that involve human attention instead of automated online solutions etc.
Who does it benefit? Not me. Maybe it benefits Mastercard and Visa.
Yes it benefits the consumer through lower prices, and in the case of cashless specifically, less tax fraud, etc
Most businesses near me offer lower prices to people paying with cash.
High interchange fees?
https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/interchange-fees-by-cou...
or tax fraud, otherwise cashless is obviously cheaper
I am only guessing but I'd be surprised if it was a money grab. My instinct is that it's a way of highlighting RealID citizenship verification.
RealID is unrelated to citizenship.
It's a proof of an address, akin to soviet-style "propiska", which was very important and hard to get without (it also affected ownership/inheritance).
What's more fun is that even though they accept different types of residence, they mostly trust utility bills -- but to set up utilities on your name even for your personal home utility company will ask a lot of documents, including credit score checks.
I personally felt that it's utility companies who do the heavy proof checking, not DMVs.
I think the comparison to the propiska system is incorrect. This Soviet system heavily controlled internal migration and was what ultimately dictated where someone was permitted to live. You couldn't relocate without one, and having this permission was tied to all sorts of local services. This system anchored people to where they were, and usually barred them from moving unless they had a good reason to.
The US currently has freedom of movement. You don't need the government's permission to live somewhere or to move somewhere else. An ID with your address listed isn't propiska. At best, you could compare it to the 'internal passport' that the USSR and most post-Soviet countries had, which acted as a comprehensive identity document and was the ancestor to modern national ID cards that are used in many countries.
>RealID is unrelated to citizenship.
Except that it appears one of the primary reasons this has become a thing is that the Feds are angry at states like Washington that don't verify citizenship when issuing driver's licenses. The whole point was that Washington (as an example) wanted to make sure people were able to get an identification and driving with a license (IE: some degree of documentation, had achieved some degree of driver's education and testing somewhere along the line...) regardless of their immigration status - and that pissed off the Feds. So it shouldn't be related to citizenship but that's part of how we got here.
It's hardly proof of address. At best, I'd say it's proof of state residency.
I've moved several times since getting my Colorado driver's license (a REAL ID). Technically, you are supposed to submit a change-of-address form to the DMV online within 30 days of moving. They don't send you a new card when you do that; the official procedure is to stick a piece of paper with your new address written on it to your existing ID yourself, and then just wait until your next renewal to actually get a card with the new address on it. The change of address form does not require utility bills or any other proof of the new address-- that's only required when you initially get the driver's license.
I certainly got a new plastic ID card within 2 weeks after filing the change-of-address form on DMV website, with a new address on it. They sent it to the new address. But mine was not RealID compliant (nor before nor after).
My passport card is RealID compliant and doesn’t have my address anywhere on it.
Real ID/Drivers License being a proof of address is laughable. In my state (NY) they accept the following as proof of address for getting a new Real ID:
- Bank statement
- Pay stub
- Utility bill
- Any other state ID with the same last name, which I can claim is my parent or spouse.
I can change my mailing address on any of them with a few clicks online, no actual verification needed.
What they do NOT accept as proof of address:
- My passport
How does that make any sense?
> What they do NOT accept as proof of address: > - My passport > How does that make any sense?
It makes sense because, if you look closely, you will see that your passport does not indicate your address.
Doesn't matter, Passport is considered to be a real id.
> - Bank statement
> - Pay stub
> - Utility bill
It should be noted, and I don't understand why people aren't angry about this: Account numbers unredacted on the statements. The numbers are redacted the documentation gets rejected.
> I can change my mailing address on any of them with a few clicks online, no actual verification needed.
Yes, but you’d have to be able to retrieve mail from that address?
Why, when you can access your bill online and print it?
Citizenship or lawful status, sorry! And you’re right.
But it’s totemic when you dig into conspiracy theories about undocumented immigrants voting. RealID comes up a lot.
Let me just for one second give them the benefit of the doubt.
Could the $45 be a way to pay for some extra manual screening? Maybe? Or do they not deserve any benefit of the doubt.
They do not.
From what I've heard, the no-ID process does indeed feature additional screening. I think the passenger would fill out a form and the TSA would cross-check it with their information. This was free prior to the new ID push, but since now people need a special ID to fly instead of using their normal one, I'm guessing they made the process cost extra to disincentivize people from sticking with their IDs and just doing the free manual process every time. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying that this is probably why they decided to try this.