[HN Gopher] TSA considers new system for flyers without ID
___________________________________________________________________
TSA considers new system for flyers without ID
Author : walterbell
Score : 120 points
Date : 2020-08-11 16:29 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (papersplease.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (papersplease.org)
| curiousgal wrote:
| Right, the people who still don't allow you to board with an
| excess ounce of water or makeup suddenly care about making air
| travel a pleasant experience.
| option wrote:
| I bet that those responsible for 9/11 couldn't have hoped in
| their wettest dreams that Americans will be subject to random
| strip searches and patdowns in their own country for decades to
| come. Terrorists and US gov response made that happen.
|
| Time for the citizens to ask - whether that response was right.
|
| "Those willing to give up a little bit of freedom to gain a
| little bit of security deserve neither and will soon lose both"
| qubex wrote:
| I seriously doubt that a lot of the " _such-and-such_ mean that
| the terrorists won" would score very highly on the actual
| terrorist's criteria for success... they seriously desired to
| destroy the West and institute a theocratic Caliphate in the
| Middle East, and that hasn't occurred. This is just infra-
| Western rumination.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I wonder how many people have quoted this in defense of
| refusing to wear a mask.
| whynotkeithberg wrote:
| I love this response... It is pretty much a perfect
| encapsulation of the delusions of most libertarians. I agree
| with a portion of their ideals... But they really have no
| logic behind it that isn't extremely wishy-washy and what
| they really are wanting is anarchy as long as it benefits
| them and they are vying for a society that cannot function
| with any safety unless you have the means to buy it.
|
| Society needs to have controls in order to provide for the
| weaker people. A huge portion of the tech libertarians
| literally would have no way of protecting themselves outside
| of their money. They just want less restrictions on their
| ability to earn money not the actual freedom they are
| supposedly arguing for.
|
| The founding fathers were not libertarians, capitalism is not
| the issue it's crony capitalism
|
| Tax cuts do not trickle down
|
| You didn't become rich on your own & the poor don't deserve
| to stay that way and a vast majority of them did not do
| something to deserve to be that way. It's the same as
| religious people arguing that other religions belong in hellb
| ecause they were born into that religion so of course they
| believe it.
|
| Libertarians believe in property rights... So therefore they
| obviously believe in government intervention because who else
| is going to protect those rights?
|
| Libertarians motto is basically just "Semper I fuck the other
| guy" I gots mine I don't care what happens to you... But they
| want government and protections to protect them and their
| belongings. They champion the rights of people who deny other
| peoples rights and try to shift the blame to the person being
| persecuted. Yet anytime something happens they don't agree
| with they yell persecution and demand intervention to fix it.
| option wrote:
| wearing the mask is much more about respect/protection for
| others than for the one who wears it.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| That's true, though you shouldn't entirely discount the
| protection it provides to you as well.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| I'm sure people have also quoted this in defense of not
| wearing a shirt at a restaurant. Not everything is absolute -
| the degree matters. Having to wear a mask in public during a
| pandemic is a much lighter imposition of liberties than a
| habitual search of possessions and belongings, and arbitrary
| "random" strip-searches when one boards a flight.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| My thoughts are this: The statement sounds powerful and
| appealing. But if you think about what it means, really, it
| turns out to be an extremist viewpoint with little meaning.
| People who give up freedom for security don't "deserve"
| neither. We give up freedom for security all the time, and
| we are often better off for it. I would argue that without
| security you cannot have freedom; some security is
| necessary to achieve a free society. How free are you if
| you must constantly look over your shoulder to see if
| someone is coming to take what you have or hurt who you
| love?
|
| So sure, we can talk about the trade offs and whether we
| should require IDs at the airport. But the quote, I think,
| is a misrepresentation of the stakes.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| The crucial difference is "the right to swing your arms
| ends at my nose" essentially. The actual impact on other
| people is what makes the limitations acceptable.
|
| That is an important distinction compared to random
| searches because you "might" have done something wrong.
| atonse wrote:
| To me this isn't a question of liberty or not. I find that
| silly. You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. You
| probably have a constitutional right to free movement within
| the US (whether it's walking, driving, etc).
|
| The bigger issue with these pat downs, scans, fluid limits, etc
| is whether they're effective.
|
| Bruce Schneier has written at great length (and very smartly)
| about this stuff. And I agree with him that the single most
| effective deterrent to the next 9/11 is secure cockpit doors,
| and a close second is passengers not willing to "allow" a plane
| to get hijacked anymore (whereas hijackings in the past had a
| sliver of hope that you'd get out safely, after 9/11 I think
| passengers know there might be certain death, so why not
| fight?)
| Reelin wrote:
| > To me this isn't a question of liberty or not.
|
| A restriction of your freedoms, whether protected or not, is
| a restriction of your liberties.
|
| Some liberties are constitutionally protected. Some are
| protected by state law. Some aren't protected at all. They're
| all still liberties though.
|
| Similarly, an employer restricting topics of conversation in
| the workplace is in fact placing restrictions on your free
| speech. It's just not constitutionally protected in that
| instance, is generally permitted by state and local law, and
| seems to be largely culturally acceptable.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| It is in the constitution that your right to travel cannot be
| suspended without due process. From the 5th amendment, "No
| person shall be held to answer ... nor be deprived of life,
| liberty, or property, without due process of law;" This
| applies to flying as it does to all other forms of travel, as
| restricting flights does not mean the rational basis test
| lisper wrote:
| > You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly.
|
| Of course you do. Read the Ninth Amendment.
| atonse wrote:
| What rights are being denied? A private company running a
| private plane is providing you transportation. You don't
| have ANY rights there. Hell, even under normal
| circumstances, you could buy a ticket and end up in an
| overflow situation and the Airline decides who makes it in.
| lisper wrote:
| The OP answers this question in excruciating detail.
| mindslight wrote:
| This general argument only makes sense when there is
| vibrant market competition. Otherwise, it is just
| couching authoritarianism in some illusion of choice.
| There is little difference between a bona fide government
| and a corporation that has become so entrenched that
| people are forced to interact with them. Especially when
| the entrenched companies cooperate to set industry wide
| policies.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| You do have the right to travel. The constitution does not
| specify a mode. Ergo, all modes are protected equally, and
| no-fly lists are unconstitutional. It's not like you get a
| background check to buy a printing press.
|
| The ACLU mounted an attack on the no-fly list that was
| credible enough government changed procedure.
|
| This would imply drivers licenses and car registration are
| also unconstitutional. You can tax them and have traffic
| laws, but not do those things.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > You do have the right to travel. The constitution does
| not specify a mode
|
| The constitution does not specify the first bit either;
| it's all been inferred by court rulings [0]
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_
| Unit...
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| I'm aware, my view is the court's current views are
| incomplete. Courts can be wrong.
|
| What draws the most interest is the right to enter states
| freely. Combine that with the need to travel and
| participate in commerce and you quickly arrive at the
| conclusion the right to travel in general must also be
| protected, and indeed we can see the hardships brought
| upon people when they are unable to drive, etc.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I find this line of argumentation wrong. You don't have a
| constitutional right to use internet, computer or even to
| jack off, but it is generally assumed that as long as you
| don't get in other's people space, you will not be bothered.
|
| Similarly, while there is no explicit right, the
| argumentation of "it is a privilege" seems.. not sure what
| the proper word would.. self-serving for the government.
| Floegipoky wrote:
| I think the distinction between natural rights vs legal
| rights comes into play here. Society has changed a lot in
| the time since the Constitution was written, and government
| isn't exactly incentivized to limit its own power in ways
| that reflect these changes.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| It seems you've misunderstood the constitution. It limits
| _the_ _government,_ ensuring our freedom. The govt has no
| right to prevent us from flying, domestically at least. Other
| countries are free to make demands at their borders.
| thephyber wrote:
| The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the
| Constitution) limit the government. The Articles of the
| Constitution assign the rights and responsibilities of the
| government.
|
| > The govt has no right to prevent us from flying
|
| _You_ have also misunderstood the Constitution. The
| government does have the right to limit our individual
| rights either because we have lost them after due process
| (eg. you have no right to fly if you are serving a prison
| sentence) or due to national security actions (eg. you have
| no right to fly if the country grounds all flights like it
| did immediately after 9 /11).
| option wrote:
| I would have no problem with a private company demanding
| strip search/patdown before boarding their plane.
|
| I have a problem with the gov demanding this for everyone.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| Bruce Schneier writes very well on this, but he also holds up
| Israel's method as the way to do things, where people are
| "profiled" by "trained agents" for extra scrutiny, based on
| their behavior.
|
| In other words, if you look like an Arab, you get treated
| very differently than if your last name is Schneier [1].
|
| And while I'm dubious about claims that all those brown
| people are "randomly selected" in the USA, there would be
| serious pushback if the _official_ public policy at US
| airports was one of racial profiling.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling_in_Israel#
| At_...
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| _You don 't have any constitutional "right" to fly._
|
| Has that even been tested in court? If you live in Hawaii not
| being able to use airlines would be a massive restriction.
| The right to free movement has been written into most every
| constitution because the framers had actual experience with
| oppressive government that issued internal passports to
| silence revolutionaries.
| atonse wrote:
| That's why I made the distinction. Nobody can prevent you
| from moving around as a human being. But people absolutely
| can prevent you from entering their car, van, bus, or their
| plane. That is their private property.
|
| The TSA made this weird (where government employees are
| enforcing things on "private" land like an airport for a
| "private" flight) but that's post 9/11 weirdness for you.
| gruez wrote:
| How far can you extend this?
|
| * you don't have the right to drive (I think this widely
| affirmed in the courts)
|
| * you don't have the right to use public transport (after
| all, if they can ban planes, why not trains or buses?)
|
| * you don't have the right to bike (after all, if motor
| vehicles are regulated, why not all vehicles?)
|
| * you don't have the right to walk on interstates
| atonse wrote:
| You're leaving out an important distinction. You don't
| have a right to do those things _in harmful ways_. If you
| are an unsafe driver (whether it's excessive speeding,
| drunk driving, etc) you absolutely should be barred from
| the roads.
|
| I am actually very much a live and let live type person.
| Where I start having issues is when your lifestyle puts
| others in danger. Drink all you want... at home. Or in a
| bar. But get a taxi home. If you are going to be a
| belligerent drunk that's harassing others, you absolutely
| should be kicked out of even public transportation.
|
| I am totally against MANY of the policies of the TSA
| (mostly on grounds of what's effective, and also what's
| unnecessarily invasive from a privacy standpoint). But I
| am not against the existence of something like a TSA.
| liability wrote:
| Driving a car means operating a machine. Flying a plane
| is analogous to that. Being a passenger on an airplane is
| not analogous to driving a car.
|
| Do you not have a right to be a passenger in a car? Does
| the government have a right to prohibit you from
| accepting rides from your friends, or paying a licensed
| cab driver?
| shard wrote:
| I don't think it's about operating a machine per se, it's
| about the danger level of the machine. As others have
| pointed out, there's been no attempts to regulate
| operating a bicycle.
| liability wrote:
| A car requires a license because it's a particularly
| dangerous machine, obviously not _all_ machines require
| licenses. A car passenger could cause a car accident
| (have you seen the video of a woman attacking a bus
| driver, causing the bus to fall off a bridge, killing 15
| people?) Yet we only require the operators of such
| machines to be licensed.
| brewdad wrote:
| Of those examples, bicycling is the only one I've never
| seen taken away. Drivers licenses are required to drive
| and they get taken away for violations all the time. Fare
| Evasion or gross misbehavior can have you "excluded" from
| my city's mass transit system. Walking on the interstate
| is generally forbidden except in emergency situations.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| Bicycle registration (for a fee) is mandatory in some
| states. Bikes can be seized and impounded if they are not
| registered.
| [deleted]
| monocasa wrote:
| There's a difference between driving a car/plane and
| being a passenger in a car/plane.
|
| I don't know of a case of someone being barred from being
| a passenger in a car, and doubt very much that this would
| stand up to legal scrutiny. The state does have a public
| safety interest in mandating who can operate fairly heavy
| machinery in public though.
| dripton wrote:
| The right to bicycle in general is not licensed in the
| US. However, some roads allow bikes and some do not. This
| seems to _mostly_ be done in a way to not overly restrict
| freedom of travel. For example, in densely populated
| places like the Northeastern US, it 's not allowed to
| bike on Interstates, but that's deemed okay because
| there's usually a parallel smaller highway that allows
| bikes. While in sparsely populated parts of the Western
| US, it's sometimes allowed to bike on the shoulder of
| Interstates, because it's the only road. However,
| governments aren't perfect, so there are gaps in the
| logic, like some bridges that don't allow bikes even
| though they're the only way to cross a large body of
| water for miles and miles. I'd like to believe that a
| legal challenge to allow bikes on such bridges, or to
| require the government to ferry bicyclists over such
| bridges, would succeed.
| swimfar wrote:
| I got stuck on the non-downtown side of Shanghai once
| because I assumed that I'd be able to walk or bike across
| at least one of the bridges. But I couldn't find any way
| to get across. I had to wander around until the metro
| opened back up in the morning to get back across (and
| make it to flight in time).
| gnopgnip wrote:
| Your "right to travel" is part of the 5th amendment, a
| right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
| without due process of law.
|
| Constitutional rights can still be restricted if they
| meet the relevant test, for due process it is generally
| rational basis. Requiring licensed drivers, registering
| cars, meets the rational basis test and is not
| unconstitutional. Restricting interstates/freeways to
| vehicles capable of 55+(when there are other roads
| available, there are some areas where bicycles or walking
| is allowed on freeways) also generally meets the rational
| basis test and is not unconstitutional.
|
| Traveling is not the same thing as driving. Being a
| passenger, vs driving. You could have your right to drive
| restricted because you were convicted of a crime and pose
| a danger to others, but that doesn't usually mean your
| right to travel is restricted.
|
| You generally do have a right to use public transit,
| unless you have been given due process and lost that
| right.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| This is a very real concern in the desert West where I
| live. We have few highways exiting the city with large
| expanses in between. This weekend the three to the north
| (I17), north-east (SR87) and east (SR60) were all closed.
| The 87 and 60 are the only ways out that cross the Verde
| river, making that particularly problematic. The
| remaining interstate, the I10, regularly closes as well,
| and while somewhat unlikely it wouldn't be shocking to
| find that Phoenix residents are literally stuck where
| they live.
|
| Additionally, much of the land surrounding the city is
| closed for fire restrictions, or as the result of the
| Bush fire burn scar being ecologically fragile.
|
| Practically, this isn't more than an annoyance as people
| find they can't return home from weekend vacations up
| north. But ideologically being literally prohibited from
| legal travel is unbefitting of somewhere once called "the
| land of the free."
| pb7 wrote:
| * you don't have the right to drive
|
| Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? You can
| definitely be prohibited from driving for things like
| DUIs.
|
| >* you don't have the right to walk on interstates
|
| This is already the case.
| Fargren wrote:
| > Is it a "right" if it can be taken away?
|
| Of course. Every person that was ever murdered had a
| right to live, even when it was taken away. Would you say
| that they didn't?
|
| Rights exists regardless of whether they are respected,
| that's what makes them rights.
| pb7 wrote:
| Taken away illegally, hence a "murder". It's not a right
| if it can be legally taken away by your government.
| Speech is a right. Driving is a privilege.
| Fargren wrote:
| Rights are not granted by governments, they are
| recognized by governments. They exist as part of our
| culture.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| When it comes to public transport the public-private
| distinction becomes artificial, public transport is
| national infrastructure. To the traveller it makes no
| difference if the bus belongs to the city council or if
| the city contracts bus company X for transportation.
| ggrrhh_ta wrote:
| Also, private transportation can be thought as operating
| under a license from the state on the use of the land/air
| space, or some parts thereof, which can include the
| passing of private property belonging to others, given
| that the ownership of real state itself is regulated (for
| example, on the use of vertical column of space).
| Therefore, private transportation can be forced to abide
| to restrictions imposed by that license to operate.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Better idea of course - abolish the TSA. I mean harshly enough
| the pandemic proves they don't really care about tens of
| thousands of lives so their justification for existence is even
| more moot - on top of their ineffectualness.
| umvi wrote:
| 9/11 will never happen again because the idea of a plane
| hijacking for ransom no longer exists in passengers' minds. If
| someone hijacks a plane now, the passengers assume the
| hijackers have suicidal intent and will curb stomp the
| hijackers to death or die trying. So in that regard I think TSA
| confiscating scissors and pen knives is just silly. A simple
| metal detector is sufficient for finding large weapons like
| guns.
|
| On the other hand, terrorists' only option now is to just
| destroy the plane and kill all the passengers onboard. Cabin
| doors are locked, so this involves blowing up a bomb concealed
| somewhere (checked luggage, shoes, liquid explosives, etc). How
| do you propose we detect whether someone is trying to smuggle a
| bomb on a plane without something like the TSA? Just keep an
| eye out for nervous passengers and report them?
|
| In other words, if we abolish the TSA tomorrow and replace it
| with metal detectors, what's to stop someone from bringing a
| few gallons of chemical explosives in their backpack, mixing
| them in the lavatory, and blowing up the plane? TSA has always
| caught when I accidentally left a full water bottle in my
| backpack.
| fuzxi wrote:
| >In other words, if we abolish the TSA tomorrow and replace
| it with metal detectors, what's to stop someone from bringing
| a few gallons of chemical explosives in their backpack,
| mixing them in the lavatory, and blowing up the plane?
|
| The reality is that it's already feasible to sneak
| conventional weapons and explosives past TSA. Here are two
| fairly recent investigations on the TSA's efficacy, one from
| 2015 [1] and one from 2017 [2]. Both of these undercover
| investigations were performed by the Department of Homeland
| Security. The first one found that in 67 out of 70 tests,
| agents were able to get weapons past TSA, including a fake
| IED strapped to an agent's back. The second found that this
| failure rate dropped from 2015's staggering 95% to "in the
| ballpark" of 80%.
|
| Yes, the TSA always stops you when you bring a full water
| bottle. Eight times out of ten, they won't confiscate your
| gun or bomb. Even if they did, what's to stop someone from
| mixing chemicals to cause an explosion on a bus? Or in a
| crowded hotel? Or an elementary school? Or a mall? Or...
|
| In my opinion, there simply aren't that many people with both
| the desire and means to do these things.
|
| [1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-
| fin...
|
| [2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-
| undercover-...
| scaryclam wrote:
| And let's not ignore the fact that someone could just
| kidnap the pilots families and blackmail them into
| "hijacking" their own plane. An organisation with the money
| and motivation doesn't care about the TSA and their
| security theater.
| ladberg wrote:
| I think in general there are more crowded and easily
| accessible places to blow up than a plane if you aren't
| planning on hijacking it, so I don't see anyone doing that
| anyway.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I don't remember the actual statistic, so I'll lowball, but
| in an internal audit the TSA did not catch 70+% of contraband
| that was intentionally brought through security by the
| auditors.
| adamhearn wrote:
| They had a 96% failure to catch rate in 2015.
|
| https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/tsa-has-
| made-a...
| rootsudo wrote:
| The IDEA of the TSA is to standardize all port security, not
| just the x-ray of your stuff and making you wait in line.
| bsder wrote:
| Fine. Push TSA into non-public roles and give airport
| security back to the airports/airlines.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I disagree, it's a federal jobs program under the guise of
| security theater.
| clairity wrote:
| it would be totally ok to be a federal jobs program if it
| actually provided _unintrusive_ security. rather, the
| problem is that it 's corrupt, funneling large amounts of
| tax dollars to private enterprise for no benefit and a
| boatload of individual slights. instead, the tsa should
| turn half of the nearly 50K screeners into canine teams
| roaming all the ports, letting people walk through with
| just an electronic bag screen.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That would be a better jobs program. You'd employ the
| various purveyors of dog care products, vets and other
| services, some of which benefit society in a more
| meaningful way than a rent a cop.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| If the government wants to make jobs programs, it makes
| more sense to have the people getting the jobs do something
| productive rather than non-productive(if that is what you
| think the TSA is). For example, a lot of manual, mostly
| unskilled labor is needed for road maintenance and repair -
| why wouldn't the government just create/expand a jobs
| program for that instead?
| monocasa wrote:
| Because half the government thinks that the government
| shouldn't be doing things other than security theater?
| liability wrote:
| That's the excuse, not the motivation.
| jedberg wrote:
| Except that every port is allowed to choose if they use the
| TSA or not. San Francisco for example does not use the TSA.
| clairity wrote:
| afaik, the tsa is still in charge of port security at sfo,
| but the screening is outsourced to a private company.
| jedberg wrote:
| The TSA selects the contractor and gives them the rules
| of operations, but the contractor is in charge of
| execution. So, sort of?
| supercanuck wrote:
| You don't need a Federal Agency to do that.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| The reason you can fly without any ID (even today - try it) is
| that feds cannot stop citizens from freely moving in the country
| (see multiple filings from TSA in various cases, incl, for
| example, Gilmore v. Gonzales). They do not like acknowledging
| this but you can do it. The procedure is secret and they refuse
| to explain it (even to the court), but you can do it. i've done
| it just to see how it would go a few times. It works. You do need
| to press them on it a bit.
|
| This fee approach will not work for the same reason: it is an
| impediment to free movement (fee).
|
| You can read more here:
| https://papersplease.org/wp/2015/04/09/why-did-the-tsa-preve...
| rsync wrote:
| "The procedure is secret and they refuse to explain it (even to
| the court), but you can do it."
|
| I think you're overblowing this ... as it is neither secret nor
| unexplainable. Any ticket agent at any airport knows exactly
| how to process a frantic ( mom + 2 kids ) who forgot her ID at
| home and the flight leaves in 75 mins.
|
| The ticket agents, the security personnel and the gate
| personnel all know how to deal with (forgot ID at home).
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| So... Please explain it then. Or link to a document from the
| TSA that explains it.
|
| Just because it's known by a lot of people doesn't mean it's
| not a secret. The ticket agent might not even know the full
| system, just what they have to do to get that frantic mom and
| 2 kids off their back.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| TSA literally said it is a secret. They even agreed to show
| it to a judge only under seal. I literally linked to the
| case....
| ipsin wrote:
| There definitely is some opacity to the process, though.
|
| I've heard anecdotally of people showing up and saying "I
| chose not to bring ID", and... that can fail. I wouldn't be
| surprised if those are most of the ones who were actually
| denied no-ID travel.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You need to be prepared for this by arriving to the airport
| with plenty of time. They will not be in a hurry to help
| someone with someone with no identification.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >You need to be prepared for this by arriving to the airport
| with plenty of time. They will not be in a hurry to help
| someone with someone with no identification.
|
| I forgot my wallet (actually I'd packed it in my bag) and got
| through security in SFO without issue. They just had a
| secondary person come over and ask me several questions while
| looking directly into my eyes, then asked if I had _anything_
| with my name on it. I had an old prescription bottle (that I
| could have made with a laser printer) and that was plenty,
| other than them swabbing my hands.
| roywiggins wrote:
| I've passed through security without valid ID once or twice,
| and it amounted to the same level of checking that you get
| when your bag gets pulled out of the x-ray for something that
| looks off. Full pat-down, explosive-residue swab, and they
| took a look at the contents of my wallet (assorted credit,
| library cards and corporate ID). It wasn't a serious delay.
|
| Your milage may vary though, if things are already busy then
| you might be left waiting for a while. Best to err on the
| side of earlier.
|
| I wouldn't recommend it _at all_ to people who are regularly
| profiled and hassled by TSA even with ID, of course...
| pvg wrote:
| You can also get the check mentioned in the article where
| they call somewhere and try to identify you with silly
| questions culled from public and private databases, not
| unlike some id checks you get from online banks. This can
| take forever as you're literally playing telephone.
| refurb wrote:
| Is this website really arguing that you should be able to fly
| without identifying yourself?
|
| I'm a big proponent of privacy and not identifying yourself to
| government official unless needed, but it seems like proving
| identify to fly is a pretty reasonable rule.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| _proving identify to fly is a pretty reasonable rule_
|
| Why would that be so? People don't show ID to get on the train,
| the bus or a boat, and what you are called isn't the transport
| company's or the government's business.
| [deleted]
| the_svd_doctor wrote:
| Within Schengen, it's actually quite easy to fly without IDs.
| Sometimes the airlines asks for it, but more often than not
| they don't.
|
| That being said, most country requires you to carry your
| national ID at all time. So well.
| _visgean wrote:
| They ask you to carry it it around however they don't ID you
| without reason in most places.
| jedberg wrote:
| Before 2001 we never had to show ID. You just had to have a
| ticket. Any ticket. Frequent flyers used to buy tickets and
| sell them for a markup because they came with first class
| upgrades and other frequent flyer benefits.
|
| Also people who couldn't make their trip would resell their
| tickets to someone else at a discount to recoup some of their
| costs. Also some people would buy cheap tickets on flights they
| knew would get popular and then resell them higher. They were
| arbitraging the airlines.
|
| The airlines wanted to stop these practices, and had been
| demanding the government require ID since the 80s.
|
| The government took advantage of the tragedy of 9/11 and pushed
| through an ID requirement.
|
| There is no security benefit to ID. It turns out it's really
| easy for a terrorist to get a fake ID to match a fake name. The
| only purpose of this policy is to protect airline profits.
| kube-system wrote:
| Technically speaking, not having a particular ID card is not
| the same as "not identifying yourself".
|
| (hence the alternative identification methods already employed,
| which were discussed in the article)
| jeroenhd wrote:
| What's the danger of letting these people into planes? Flying
| into buildings is passe, measures have been taken to prevent
| that now. If it's about crashing a plane and hurting its
| inhabitants, a busy train or even a busy airport terminal would
| probably be way more effective.
|
| So far the TSA haven't really prevented any terrorist attacks
| yet. Don't fall for their security theater, they're just there
| to take your water and feel important.
| refurb wrote:
| Bombs. And we already know the TSA misses most of those when
| they conduct tests.
|
| So you're arguing that if we did zero screening of passengers
| and luggage that nothing much would change with regards to
| terrorism targeting airlines?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The 9/11 scare made everyone wary of airplanes but airport
| security so far has failed to catch mock explosives and
| weapons[1]. When they were tested again, they failed
| again[2]. They picked up their game when nothing less than
| a TV crew tried to repeat the experiment[3], but a
| whistleblower warned that flight security as of now is
| "hopelessly inadequate"[4] to prevent a second 9/11.
|
| So, as far as security goes, they're not that good. For
| this mediocre protection, travelers pay in theft[5], sexual
| assault[6][7] and racism[8].
|
| I think the goal of the TSA is noble and just, but as it
| functions right now, the system is broken. There is the
| potential for the TSA to protect the US from terrorists,
| but the truth is that terrorism targeting the West isn't
| that common in airplanes anymore. If the TSA cannot or will
| not be fixed, I'd say yes, the world is better off without
| the TSA. The price to pay for protection is too steep.
|
| [1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-
| tests-fin...
|
| [2]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-
| undercover-...
|
| [3]: https://fortune.com/2018/01/19/fake-bomb-newark-
| airport/
|
| [4]: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/13/flight-security-
| hopele...
|
| [5]: https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/the-tsa-stole-
| over-2-bill...
|
| [6]: https://filtermag.org/tsa-sexual-assault/
|
| [7]: https://www.denverpost.com/2020/02/24/tsa-agent-adams-
| county...
|
| [8]: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/tsa-
| employees-vent-...
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I disagree. I am mildly ok with them ensuring there are no
| bombs on the plane. I don't see a reason why government needs
| to know I am flying to WI. If I think they don't need to know
| why, why on earth would I want to volunteer the who.
| thephyber wrote:
| Are you under the impression that the government doesn't
| already have access to this information from the airlines?
|
| Showing an ID card at the airport is about verifying the
| person getting on the plane has the same identity as on the
| reservation; it's not about being able to track you -- that's
| already done much more efficiently.
|
| I agree there's a difference between intending to volunteer
| this info, but I'm pretty sure you have to use your legal
| name on your flight reservation in the USA, so the tracking
| is done whether you show your ID card at the airport or not.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| It is generally not reasonable for traveling domestically.
| Imagine having to show ID to take the bus/metro. Sounds absurd?
| Well, think of the children.
| refurb wrote:
| The rationale is that the potential damage is higher with a
| flight. Bombing a bus/metro might a dozen or so people.
| Bombing a plane can easily kill hundreds.
| gruez wrote:
| And how does requiring ID mitigate that danger?
| refurb wrote:
| People who are security risks can't board.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| That is complete bullshit. They not only don't need to
| board but if they pulled a gun the TSAs would be an
| unwitting accomplice in letting them reinact "No Russian"
| with their bullshit security theater gathering hundreds
| into a massive shooting gallery with no cover. Really
| that is why there was such outrage over the level - it
| illustrated vividly how the TSA failed on the most basic
| logical level.
| dudul wrote:
| This actually came up after the 2015 attacks in France.
| Most crowded locations became heavily protected, bags
| were all checked, etc. The result: a _massive_ crowd in
| front of theaters, concert and sport venues, etc. Israeli
| consultants basically summed it up by saying that these
| procedures were creating massively vulnerable areas with
| potentially 100+ victims if a guy detonated a bomb _in
| front_ of the venue.
|
| I remember seeing a documentary showing how in Israeli
| airport one of the main goals was to always avoid long
| lines and big groups of people.
| thih9 wrote:
| > "No Russian"
|
| Context: "a controversial level in the 2009 video game
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. In the level, the player
| can participate in a mass shooting at a Russian
| airport.".
|
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Russian
| geofft wrote:
| That assumes you have a perfect list of who's a security
| risk and who's not, and the TSA is not Santa. The 9/11
| hijackers boarded with their real names, and in practice
| there are plenty of easy ways around this, like
| radicalizing someone.
| refurb wrote:
| Why does it have to be perfect? It could still be
| effective if it stops 50% of security risks.
| geofft wrote:
| Because in a free society, a system that stops crimes
| half of the time and arbitrarily denies people their
| rights half the time is considered unjust.
|
| Would it be okay for police to stop suspicious-looking
| people on the streets and ask them for ID and run
| background checks if it caught criminals 50% of the time?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| There's no proof it stops even 2%. Anyone with a week's
| preparation could defeat it. Yet the innocent will be
| punished every day.
|
| Remember the German pilot who crashed on purpose? Good
| thing they had ids on everyone.
| refurb wrote:
| Well, we know screening luggage is useless too, as the
| TSA doesn't catch 10% during tests.
|
| So we should just let anyone into a plane with no
| screening at all?
| compiler-guy wrote:
| As long as they have no weapons, we should let anyone on
| a plane that has a ticket.
| dudul wrote:
| How many terrorists have been caught before boarding a
| plane because they didn't have an ID?
| refurb wrote:
| I have no idea.
|
| But Israel, who is clearly a major target for airline
| bombings hasn't had one in what? 50 years?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| That's due to their extensive interviews. The id is not
| relied on as a magic safety card.
| refurb wrote:
| You're not getting on an Israeli flight without ID.
|
| But yes, they interview heavily.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| I don't believe there are israeli domestic flights, but
| if there are they are insignificant.
| ehasbrouck wrote:
| FWIW, during non-pandemic times there are scheduled
| airline flights from Tel Aviv (TLV) and Haifa (HFA) to
| Eilat (ETM).
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Metro bombs have done incredible damage. And as mentioned
| elsewhere, it is trivial to manufacture id and so is not a
| solution. But, conveniently it sure does fill govt
| databases.
| techdragon wrote:
| A large Crowded bus easily hold 72 people all of whom would
| likely die in a bomb attack on the bus. And that's not
| counting anyone near by on the street.
| refurb wrote:
| Right, dozens, versus potentially 500+.
| golemotron wrote:
| The 9/11 hijackers had ID. Turns out terrorists don't care if
| you know who they are.
| refurb wrote:
| Plenty of people pass the background check and commit crimes.
| Should we eliminate gun background checks entirely?
| geofft wrote:
| Yes, if we want the Second Amendment to mean anything.
|
| Now I'm certainly in favor of the argument that we should
| be honest with ourselves and repeal the Second Amendment
| instead of pretending that we care about it but only in
| useless ways. But so long as we believe that both bearing
| arms and traveling are human rights and not privileges,
| neither should be gated by IDs and background checks, and
| you should only lose that right in the form of a punishment
| under due process of law.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Ownership of destructive devices is permitted but you
| have to pay a hefty fee to get permission. This is the
| same idea.
| Alupis wrote:
| > Should we eliminate gun background checks entirely
|
| After you own 1, 2, 5, 12 guns, what purpose does this
| background check serve? How about the 10 day waiting
| period?
|
| The background check could be completed in seconds - it's a
| API call to DOJ effectively, and you get a "Pass/Fail"
| indication back - based on the laws that allow you to own
| guns.
|
| So... this process could effectively be immediate for
| anyone who already owns guns.
|
| But! We somehow sleep better at night knowing someone with
| 12 guns has to wait 10 days before getting their 13th...
| because that prevents them from committing murder or
| something?
|
| Some things are simply Security Theater. We should stop
| pretending.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Freedom of movement and use of weapons are considered
| differently, thankfully.
| jaywalk wrote:
| They probably shouldn't be, but that's really beside the
| point here.
| refurb wrote:
| Both are constitutionally protected, so why are they
| considered different?
|
| The courts have stated that reasonably limitations on
| freedoms are allowed.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| They are for obvious reasons, and limits are not applied
| to movement in public.
| kube-system wrote:
| I don't necessarily agree with the above analogy, but
| there are definitely limits applied to movement in
| public.
|
| Crowd control, occupancy laws, trespassing laws, curfews,
| checkpoints, etc.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Yes. People buy knives without permit and background checks
| all the time, because society weighed a risk of having
| knives around against people wielding knives with intent to
| commit crimes and decided it is not a good idea to have
| background checks for them. I would argue guns are in a
| similar category.
| jaywalk wrote:
| We have laws that clearly state the criteria for being
| disqualified from owning a gun, and laws that require
| licensed dealers to perform a background check to ensure
| that a potential purchaser passes based on that criteria.
|
| The system being proposed here would be able to deny
| boarding to a passenger who fails an arbitrary and
| completely unknown set of criteria, based on no laws and
| (most likely) violating existing law.
|
| Do you see the difference?
| refurb wrote:
| Actually we don't have clearly defined criteria, see red
| flag laws.
|
| But regardless, even with clearly defined criteria,
| people get through that shouldn't. So going back to the
| original comment, if the system isn't 100% perfect, does
| that mean we should just not do it?
| tass wrote:
| I've had my ticket tagged a couple of times with 'SSSS' which
| means I got an additional security check.
|
| What gets me about this is it's well known and easy to see on
| the ticket, and if someone was up to something that day they
| would surely just see it on their ticket and walk out of the
| airport.
|
| Like many policies, it's been really poorly implemented and I
| don't believe it enhances security whatsoever.
| gruez wrote:
| >if someone was up to something that day they would surely
| just see it on their ticket and walk out of the airport.
|
| or... have two tickets prepared (shouldn't be too hard,
| it's not like they have security features on them), and
| swap them if your ticket gets marked.
| kube-system wrote:
| IIRC, all tickets are marked. If you are good-to-go you
| get some sort of identifying mark for the person who
| checked your ID.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| "A traveler who shows up at a TSA checkpoint would, it appears,
| be told they have to install the mobile app, pay a fee through
| the app (which presumably would require a credit or debit card or
| bank account), complete the in-app questioning, and show a "pass"
| result from the app to the TSA staff or contractors in order to
| "complete screening" and proceed through the checkpoint."
|
| Install an app that does god only know on your cell. Hard pass. I
| keep debating just downgrading to dumb phone, but something
| always stops me ( right now it is playing with Pinephone ).
|
| This, naturally, does not change the actual outcome ( can't fly
| without complying with TSA demands ), but I thankfully do not fly
| a lot these days.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Do you simply show your phone screen to them? Seems like a bit
| of a security flaw, given that I can just mock up a "pass"
| screen and show it to the TSA agent, no?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Most people don't fly a lot these days... That's still not an
| excuse for allowing TSA expansion of authority beyond that
| which is reasonably _essential_ for their function.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I agree completely. I do feel a little ashamed that I
| abdicate my responsibility to resist this idiocy, but I am
| also pointing it out as a matter of fact. The few times that
| I do fly, I opt out.
| komali2 wrote:
| They claim that requiring a REAL-ID to fly is illegal, and link
| to this PDF (https://papersplease.org/wp/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/05/IDP-f...) which appears to be a sort of
| letter from The Identity Project attempting to explain that what
| the TSA is doing is illegal. So, I don't know if I buy that it
| matters. If I show up on Oct 2, 2021, without a REAL-ID (i.e., a
| pre-realID california driver's license, which is what I have
| because DMV lines are fucked and appointments are fucked too), I
| think I won't be able to fly, no matter how much I wave a PDF in
| the face of TSA officials.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I'm in the same situation in NY. One solution is to use a
| passport or passport card if you have one.
| astura wrote:
| You can use your passport
| gnopgnip wrote:
| You will be able to fly after you undergo a "secondary
| screening"
| jbritton wrote:
| Get a passport. In CA it's the only means of getting a second
| ID, aka a backup ID. I once almost didn't get a job, because
| DMV was late sending me my driver's license renewal, and for
| one week I had no valid ID, and that was the week I needed to
| start work.
| pixelface wrote:
| CA DMV will issue you an 'identification card' in addition to
| a drivers' license which very handy to have as a backup.
| jedberg wrote:
| As a side note, not sure where in CA you live, but I had to
| renew my license last month (it expired) so I went and got a
| realID. I waited two minutes in line without an appointment and
| was completely done after 25 minutes. The whole process was
| efficient and I never came within six feet of another human.
|
| I did all my paperwork online which gave me the cut in line
| pass, and I went to a special "License only" DMV. There is one
| in San Jose, and probably others throughout the state.
| komali2 wrote:
| San Jose? I'll drive down and try this. I'm in San Francisco.
| Last time I went to the downtown one, saw a line around the
| block, went to Daly City, saw the same, and gave up. I tried
| scheduling appointment and they were booked out for something
| insane like 6 months lol.
|
| So I just renewed my Texas ID online in 5 minutes, slapped my
| California address on it, and called it a day. The other day
| I got pulled over and the cop wasn't too happy about it
| though, said I had to carry my CA id to demonstrate that I'm
| allowed to drive in California. Silly but whatever.
| jedberg wrote:
| Unless you have a reason to go, your wait at an SF DMV will
| be less than the 1.75 hour trip, unless you like driving.
| :)
|
| https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/field-office/san-jose-
| driver-l...
|
| They even have graphs with historical wait times so you can
| time it for a low point.
|
| But the big key is filling out the paperwork online. That
| is what gets you the cut in line pass. I passed a 30 minute
| line with that.
| thephyber wrote:
| > They even have graphs with historical wait times so you
| can time it for a low point.
|
| I no longer trust those measurements.
|
| Needing to visit the DMV for whatever paperwork (maybe
| in-person license renewal), I checked the DMV website.
| One of the local offices had a _very_ short wait time
| compared to all of the others (maybe 5 minutes versus
| 1hr+). I went to the office with the short wait time
| displayed on the website only to find out they had a
| ridiculously long line outside the office to get the
| ticket, which starts the timer. They were gaming the per-
| customer timer by metering the rate at which customers
| outside the building could enter the building to get the
| ticket.
|
| I thought it was both terrible and creative at the same
| time. Decent example of Goodhart's Law[1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
| Keverw wrote:
| Texas lets you put a California address on IDs? Didn't even
| know that was possible. I thought states only allowed IDs
| with addresses in the same state? Do they not validate
| their forms? I know they are suppose to match where you
| domicile, so a California address on a Texas ID does sound
| like a red flag.
| throwaway987978 wrote:
| You're now able to upload your documents online and you'll
| be able to print out an Express Entry document that lets
| you skip the line. I went to Daly City last week and I was
| in and out in about 20 minutes.
| microcolonel wrote:
| I think a good option for domestic flights is a passport card.
| Getting the card at your next renewal, or early, is not
| expensive or difficult.
| mnm1 wrote:
| This will be a disaster as is usually the case with government
| outsourcing duties to the less qualified private sector. Surely
| there must be a "law" named after this by now.
|
| Realid itself is a clusterfuck. I tried to get a driver's license
| with it. Presented all the paperwork. Was told my signed lease
| was not acceptable proof of residence and that it would be
| impossible. I'd have to get a regular driver's license or come
| back at a later time, pay again and more this time for a second
| license. Fuck that. What a clusterfuck of stupidity. I'll try
| again when it renews, assuming the pandemic in the US is
| completely done. Or not. It's just a fact of life that to fly
| from state to state, one needs to carry a passport now. In a
| "free" country. How ridiculous.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| What annoys me about realid is the time it takes to make it. It
| takes weeks ( as opposed to being able to get one the very same
| day at dmv ). So average user is told tuff noodles, while
| average person who uses fake, working id has criminals working
| 24/7 to ensure easy access (
| https://www.fox5ny.com/news/shipments-of-nearly-20000-fake-d...
| ).
|
| And when you point it out people say something along the lines
| "Well, that's why you need realid!". It gets depressing fast.
| kube-system wrote:
| Must be your state. I got my REAL ID on the spot at the DMV.
| tobylane wrote:
| Does that make it zip code lottery for your right to drive
| or fly?
| kube-system wrote:
| Not really.
|
| 1. You don't need a REAL ID to drive.
|
| 2. State IDs aren't the only way to get a REAL ID. All
| federally issued IDs are already REAL ID compliant.
| Reelin wrote:
| Which is odd to say the least, because the documentation
| for a US passport (as of a couple years ago) was less
| stringent than that required by the REAL ID act.
| lavezza wrote:
| It just means that because this is a federal requirement
| that needs to be implemented by the states, we're going
| to see 50 different implementations. Some will work
| better than others.
| riffic wrote:
| Arguably your right to drive does not exist (it's a
| privilege to operate a motor vehicle.)
|
| Your right to cross state lines and travel freely (by
| common carrier flight) is stronger than a purported right
| to drive.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| Why is it not considered a privilege to occupy space in a
| flight in state-controlled airspace? At what point does
| it become a de facto travel ban, e.g. one can _of course_
| travel, so long as they are walking, and of course not on
| private or government-owned land.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| Your right to cross state lines and travel freely does
| not include any right to a particular mode of
| transportation.
|
| You would pretty much have to argue that interstate
| travel is impracticable without airplanes and that
| trains/buses/your feet don't suffice.
| monocasa wrote:
| The fact that trains/buses/your feet doesn't suffice has
| already been covered in Gilmore v. Gonzales, among other
| similar points in the same area.
| Reelin wrote:
| From the Wikipedia entry:
|
| > there was no constitutional violation because air
| passengers could still travel without identification if
| they instead underwent the more stringent "secondary
| screening" search
|
| I wasn't aware that I could decline to show ID at an
| airport security checkpoint in favor of undergoing a
| secondary screening. Does this actually work in practice?
|
| (Also, I wonder how it squares with automated facial
| recognition and similar biometric technology?)
| monocasa wrote:
| Yeah, I've done it. You just get your bags searched a
| little harder as if you had been "randomly selected for
| additional screening".
| atonse wrote:
| God... "CBP said most of the fake IDs were for college-age
| students. Many had the same photo but different names. But
| one alarming discovery was that the barcode on the fake
| Michigan licenses actually worked, CBP said. "
|
| Yes I've been telling everyone who'll here this. The PDF417
| bar code at the back is just plain text without any kind of
| digital signature. Anyone could generate a new one. There are
| apps that do it for you. Since there's no digital signature,
| there's no way of verifying that it is authentic. There's
| nothing ALARMING about this. The bar code is an open standard
| and anyone can generate a new one. It would be alarming if
| they faked the digital signature.
| esrauch wrote:
| I think the alarming thing is that it doesn't have a
| digital signature, meaning that scanning the barcode isn't
| a useful check if an ID is fake.
| atonse wrote:
| Yup to us techies it seems obvious that you should have a
| digital signature.
|
| But for whatever reason, this wasn't done.
| ralph84 wrote:
| You can't have digital signatures without all of the
| attendant PKI baggage. And if you're going to implement
| all of the PKI baggage, might as well go all the way and
| start issuing people smart cards.
| [deleted]
| mLuby wrote:
| > The main reason for the TSA to outsource the questioning of
| travelers and scoring of answers is to evade the rules applicable
| to collection and use of personal data by Federal agencies. ...
| The nominal "fly/no-fly" decision will still be made by the TSA,
| not the contractor. But that "decision" will be a rubber-stamp
| approval or disapproval based solely on whether the app shows a
| "pass" or "fail" score, or whether the would-be traveler doesn't
| have a suitable smartphone or is otherwise unable or unwilling to
| complete the app-based process.
|
| You hear the drug trade is really lucrative but you're not
| allowed to sell drugs, so you send your money to a contractor
| that sells drugs, they give you more money back, and you
| technically haven't "sold drugs."
|
| Somehow, thinking breaks down at the boundary between systems,
| because inexplicably the constraints or guarantees of the
| consuming system do not propagate to the providing system.
|
| TSA could and should be (made) identity-agnostic, with its
| mandate to protect vehicles and occupants. Immigration is what
| should care about the individual that's being allowed into the
| country.
| shard wrote:
| You just had your servers hacked into and all your database are
| belong to them. The black hats demand X number of BitCoins as
| ransom, but you cannot pay because it violates certain laws. So
| you hire an intermediary who pays for you, thereby avoiding the
| legal problem.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/4/21353842/garmin-ransomware...
| p1necone wrote:
| This also seems like it pretty unambiguously still breaks the
| law. Has it been tested in court yet?
|
| I wonder if it's kind of a "it's small fry, and these
| businesses are getting their data back, we'll turn our backs
| to it unless it's actual violent terrorists receiving ransom
| money" sort of thing.
| dmix wrote:
| Strange, this is kinda what Huawei is being accused of in
| Iran. They used a proxy company to do business with a
| sanctioned country. Although Huawei seemed to directly
| control the company management, whereas Arete IR is
| technically an independent company hired as a contractor.
|
| Still it's a pretty weak loophole bypass.
| closeparen wrote:
| Bureaucratic policies do not specify what is ethically or
| legally permissible, they specify how an organization has
| decided to do things.
|
| Contracting with an outside organization whose policies are
| more suited to the task at hand is usually easier than
| refactoring the bureaucracy you live in.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Not always. For things that matter, government is perfectly
| capable of instituting harsh penalties for trying to game the
| system and boundaries between systems ( check sanctions and
| OFAC regulations with their strict liability; no messing
| around, the end result is what matters ). I am certainly not
| suggesting they should do it the same in TSA, but it is more of
| an indication that flying is not an issue here.
| rsync wrote:
| "You hear the drug trade is really lucrative but you're not
| allowed to sell drugs, so you send your money to a contractor
| that sells drugs, they give you more money back, and you
| technically haven't "sold drugs.""
|
| I believe you have just described "banking".
| TuringNYC wrote:
| I assumed he was describing the infamous "Iran Contra Affair"
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
|
| Also see: John Poindexter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_
| Poindexter#Iran%E2%80%93C...
| pjc50 wrote:
| Funny how these things turn out; convicted arms trafficer
| Oliver North ended up running the NRA for a while, before
| he was pushed out by the current head, Wayne LaPierre, who
| is currently under investigation by the NY AG for stealing
| organisational funds.
| anonunivgrad wrote:
| The same NY AG who ran for office on a platform of
| investigating the NRA for nakedly political reasons (ie.
| because of their political influence and stance on gun
| rights).
|
| Do you really give that investigation credence?
| mikeyouse wrote:
| And notorious ghoul Elliot Abrams, who lied to congress
| about the involvement of the US Government trafficking
| weapons in Iran and Nicaragua during the Contra affair
| was just made United States Special Representative for
| Iran by Trump.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
|
| Of course they were all pardoned by Bush right before he
| left office to complete the coverup per the advice of
| Bush's corrupt Attorney General, William Barr.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barr#Iran-Contra
|
| They're like despotic little cats with how many political
| lives they have. We really need to start prosecuting
| corruption at this level if only to keep these criminals
| out of office in the future.
| [deleted]
| bbarnett wrote:
| Olli for Prez!
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Not every bank is DB.
| Muromec wrote:
| > Immigration is what should care about the individual that's
| being allowed into the country.
|
| Isn't it about flying domestic routes? (Asking from Europe)
| gruez wrote:
| So according to the request for information[1], it looks like the
| TSA wants a system that can validate an identity exists (given
| name, date of birth, address, phone number) and that the identity
| belongs to the person using the app. The first part looks pretty
| trivial, given the enormous corpus of databases out there (credit
| reports, public records, etc.), but what about the second part?
| Presumably you'd need some sort of database linking identities to
| photos, and validate that photo against the user's selfie or
| something. The question is, where would that photo database come
| from? State DMVs? If your photo is in the DMV database, wouldn't
| that also mean you have a drivers license, and therefore could
| use that rather than the app? What's preventing someone from
| impersonating someone else by scraping the internet for "similar"
| faces to their own, finding the associated id, and claiming that
| they're that person?
|
| [1]
| https://beta.sam.gov/api/prod/opps/v3/opportunities/resource...
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Most DMVs feed photo data to law enforcement. There are also
| vendors who slurp up or facilitate the slurping of social media
| profiles.
|
| Also don't assume that this is preventative. End of the day,
| the point of this stuff is to leave breadcrumbs behind. In the
| process, they'll hassle a few former felons or brown people
| with beards.
| ehasbrouck wrote:
| I think the TSA's _theory_ is that if you can answer questions
| about the data in the Accurint record about person X correctly
| (i.e. your answers match the Accurint record, even if it is
| erroneous), you must be person X. That 's the essential
| assumption behind the current IVCC scheme, except that it is
| operated by the TSA rather than a contractor.
| nradov wrote:
| Record linkage and master data management are far from trivial.
| In any large number of people there will be enough duplicate
| values and data errors to cause a large number of false
| positive and false negative matches. We deal with this
| constantly in the healthcare industry because patient records
| arrive from a variety of different sources and there is no
| single reliable source of truth. A sophisticated matching
| algorithm can do fairly well but it's impossible to achieve
| 100% accuracy.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| > If your photo is in the DMV database, wouldn't that also mean
| you have a drivers license, and therefore could use that rather
| than the app
|
| Perhaps today, but if the REAL ID rules ever actually kick in,
| just having a driver's license won't necessarily be enough. It
| got pushed back from an Oct start date to some unspecified
| future date.
|
| There's been some press about this, but when these rules do go
| into effect, I suspect there will be stories about people that
| have trouble taking their flight.
| rolph wrote:
| the thought TSAcaptcha for air travel came to mind about halfway
| through reading.
| gruez wrote:
| [ ] I'm not a terrorist
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I think that just ensures John Connor would be safe on a
| plane.
| komali2 wrote:
| Bush era South Carolina passed a law, and thus created a
| related form, that required terrorists to register themselves
| as such at the DMV.
|
| I used to have it on file somewhere, now it's buried in an
| old hard drive. Would love to have one again. Would love even
| more to do a FOIA request to see if they ever actually got
| any filled out.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| It reminds me of the paper forms I'd have to fill out when
| entering the US on a UK passport. The forms would ask
| questions like whether or not I was a nazi that
| participated in the holocaust.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-11 23:00 UTC)