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

761–770 of 780 posts

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

#761

Post by dzogchen »

lbschenkel wrote: post #747
wtcactus wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s completely false. You ALWAYS have to show your ID card to fly in the EU. Always. Seriously, just stop trying to use us to justify silly arguments about the USA. Yes, Europeans must show ID to travel, must absolutely show ID to vote (it would just be ridiculous if we didn’t) and getting the ID costs us money and must be renewed every 10 years (and paid for).

This is not true. The airline has the right to ask for it but in practice this is not really done -- or let me rephrase, not consistently done. I fly intra-Schengen flights at least twice a year. I had to show ID sometimes before COVID but I never had to show ID after that, it actually caught my attention as anybody could have travelled in my place. I do online check-in, drop the bags, go through security, and show t…

Exactly. I fly with low budget airlines (Ryan Air) that usually don’t bother.

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

#762

Post by lazide »

noduerme wrote: post #505
lazide wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#763

Post by ajam1507 »

zbentley wrote: post #648
watwut wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not understand officers having qualified immunity. They are armed for of the government and they have much lower expectations placed on them the normal citizens. The fact that cops can break laws, actually harm people and then make prosecution basically impossible is bonkers.

It’s a sticky issue. Without QI, it seems very plausible that many law enforcement departments would be seriously hamstrung by continual waves of legal action and thus cost taxpayers a lot more to operate effectively. Not only would many people use a court of law as a fallback from the court of public opinion, but the legal industry would support this given the lucrative monetary and reputational advantages of suing…

Surely other countries manage it without having a QI doctrine.

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

#764

Post by Thorrez »

arcticbull wrote: post #497
paxys wrote: post #23

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 la…

> "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 cha…

> 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.

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

#765

Post by kbelder »

shrx wrote: post #614
BowBun wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#766

Post by Vicinity9635 »

fugalfervor wrote: post #706
Vicinity9635 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an elaborate ruse to condition Americans to the 4th amendment not being a real thing. The PATRIOT ACT which created the TSA was written by Joe Biden after the Oklahoma City bombing and passed after being reintroduced following 9/11 to end-run around the 4th amendment.

> The PATRIOT ACT which created the TSA was written by Joe Biden Citation needed. I believe you are mistaken.

[dead]

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

#767

Post by beeflet »

kube-system wrote: post #758
AngryData wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#768

Post by seg_lol »

int_19h wrote: post #732
seg_lol wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#769

Post by jjk166 »

rngfnby wrote: post #723
jjk166 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No one is saying flying is cheaper than driving full stop. The claim from the beginning was flying is cheaper than driving beyond a certain distance. The point of comparison is what it costs an individual to move from point A to point B. The fact that planes have significantly more occupants is an important part of the comparison. Likewise bus travel is cheaper than either flying or driving.

> Folks don't fly 600+ mi because it's cheaper (the fuel isn't cheaper until about 1600 mi)

There are costs besides fuel. Tolls, wear and tear on the vehicle, food and lodging expenses from the longer duration trip, etc. A 1000 mile drive will cost roughly double a 1000 mile plane ticket.

> The assumption that folks are alone in a car is only true only for short trips

Citation needed

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

#770

Post by jjk166 »

kube-system wrote: post #725
jjk166 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

It isn't more expensive typically, but yes when the value of a person's time is considered it's not even close.

> And when people travel 600+ miles on their own dime, the most common reason is leisure/vacation

Perhaps it is the most common single reason, but that doesn't mean it's even a majority, nonetheless an overwhelming one for that subset.

> which people typically do with friends or family.

Which does not actually require the friends or family to drive with you if you are meeting them at a destination, such as if you live far from a person you are going to visit.

So some fraction of all trips are leisure, some fraction of leisure is with other people, some fraction of leisure with other people involves travelling. Again, no one is arguing that driving never makes sense, only that the cases where flying makes sense aren't a small niche.

Post reply on HN