Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

frommers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 780 posts

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#721

Post by defrost »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #538
defrost wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In proper English usage it would only be a bigoted (obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group) 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, yo…

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.

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#722

Post by [deleted] »

jjk166 wrote: post #715
kube-system wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. I was simply disputing the idea that ~600+ mile flights are cheaper than driving. They only are in very specific circumstances.

I would not describe travelling alone as "very specific circumstances." It is extremely common. 70% of all car trips are solo, and the average number of occupants for all car trips is 1.5. That you can get more bang for your buck driving if you have enough passengers and luggage doesn't change the fact plenty of people don't.

[deleted]

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#723

Post by rngfnby »

jjk166 wrote: post #712
rngfnby wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"once you get past the range of a tank of gas or two." This is like the folks who say flying is more carbon friendly than driving. It's wrong, you're comparing a vehicle running cost with one passenger vs a full vehicle normalized by its capacity. No one flies 30 mi commutes. Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone.

> Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone. Because if you are going 600+ mi alone with minimal luggage you fly, because it's cheaper.

The point is that it's nonsensical to say flying is cheaper than driving. Its oranges vs apple. Apples and oranges are fruit, flying and driving are transportation. But they're totally different.

1. You're normalizing one cost by the occupancy but assuming the other is single occupancy.

2. The assumption that folks are alone in a car is only true only for short trips, trips that are unpractical and expensive by plane. Folks don't fly 600+ mi because it's cheaper (the fuel isn't cheaper until about 1600 mi), but because it's faster.

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#724

Post by bastawhiz »

dboreham wrote: post #472
bastawhiz wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#725

Post by kube-system »

jjk166 wrote: post #712
rngfnby wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"once you get past the range of a tank of gas or two." This is like the folks who say flying is more carbon friendly than driving. It's wrong, you're comparing a vehicle running cost with one passenger vs a full vehicle normalized by its capacity. No one flies 30 mi commutes. Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone.

> Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone. Because if you are going 600+ mi alone with minimal luggage you fly, because it's cheaper.

Asking people to drive 600+ miles for business is not a good use of business time, even if it is more expensive, typically.

And when people travel 600+ miles on their own dime, the most common reason is leisure/vacation, which people typically do with friends or family.

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#726

Post by int_19h »

keeda wrote: post #358
caseysoftware wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

> 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…

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.

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#727

Post by lmm »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #609
lmm wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 unt…

> 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.

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#728

Post by int_19h »

ghaff wrote: post #619
ralferoo wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#729

Post by adastra22 »

aboardRat4 wrote: post #439
adastra22 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...how? California doesn't have an embassy in New York.

Surely New York has enough police stations to visit and declare a loss of ID.

IDs are a state-level concern in the US federal system. California IDs are issued by California. It’s like going into a Spanish government building to get your Belgian passport replaced. They will have no records of you, and nothing to do.

Re: The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

#730

Post by int_19h »

mlrtime wrote: post #530
sargun wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disa…

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.

Post reply on HN