7 ms·

Just go get pre check?

by hashkb 11y ago

vincefutr23 11y ago
Why should we all pay more for a side line? Shouldn't the government make the main one effective ?
- warfangle 11y ago
  But then we wouldn't be applying the invisible hand of the market to fix things!
raldi 11y ago
A lot of travelers can barely afford to fly as it is. The only way this fast lane can function is if it's exclusive to a small segment of flyers. Do we really need to keep widening the gap between the haves and have-nots?
- malka 11y ago
  > Do we really need to keep widening the gap between the haves and have-nots? The cynical and nihilistic me says 'yes'. Let's push it to see at what point it crumbles.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    It's not going to crumble, pushing it just pushes us ever close to a full blown police state; a direction we're already headed. The people aren't going to get fed up and stop anything, they're going to cower to the power like sheep as we slowly become a full blown fascist state.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > Do we really need to keep widening the gap between the haves and have-nots? That is what the U.S. is all about.
  - raldi 11y ago
    As opposed to what other country?
- kelnos 11y ago
  A lot of travelers can barely afford to fly as it is. I can certainly understand that the family of four who only gets to travel once per several years might find $85 per person to be a burden, but I still can't believe that for most people who travel it's that much of a problem. I mean, a US domestic transcon flight is going to run you at the cheapest $300 round trip (and that's only by shopping around like crazy, having super flexible travel dates, and taking advantage of travel deals). Do that once a year, and your $300 flight becomes $317 with precheck. I know many Americans are frankly terrible at personal finance, but... c'mon. Even something shorter like a SFO<->LAX trip is going to run you at least a hundred. The only way this fast lane can function is if it's exclusive to a small segment of flyers. If there's only one fast lane, sure. My hope would be that as more people enroll in precheck, they'll be able to turn more and more "regular" lanes into precheck lanes, keeping the efficiency (or lack thereof) of both lane types the same.
sneak 11y ago
TSA Pre is the equivalent of "fuck you, got mine". It makes it personally more convenient for you, while simultaneously ignoring or condoning the waste of millions of person-hours without consent, which basically equates to mass murder if you squnt hard enough at the math.
- buzzdenver 11y ago
  You also have to squint really hard to think that standing in the security line for half an hour or missing your flight is an effective protest against waste.
- knz 11y ago
  My "favourite" part of the TSA line is how business and premier customers often have access to a shorter regular TSA line (not precheck, just a separate entrance to the normal TSA line). My understanding is that the TSA is partly funded by a FIXED fee on every ticket so I can't see any logical reason as to why they get sent to the front of the line.
  - spdustin 11y ago
    This is a non-issue. First class flyers pay for a ticket that allows them shorter lines, not expedited screening. They're still subject to being randomly flagged, and they will go through the same screening process as everyone else. That's why first/business class tickets cost so damn much - to blind the traveler into believing that they're actually paying for something worthwhile. As it turns out, for many of them, it is worthwhile just to have shorter lines. Theme parks do the same thing: pay more for shorter lines. Many attractions, such as the Sears Tower (still can't bring myself to use its official name) Observation Deck, do the same thing. It's a money grab for sure, just not by the TSA. and why should the TSA give a shit about it if the first class passenger gets the same screening?
    - knz 11y ago
      My point was more that everyone pays the same fee to be screened by the TSA but by purchasing a more expensive ticket from the airlines you can avoid the long wait to be screened and therefore increase the wait time for most people. To be clear, purchasing a higher fare ticket does not mean you are paying the TSA for better service.
luma 11y ago
Pay billions in your tax dollars to create a huge interference to free movement around the country, then pay hundreds more individually to get around some facets of the interference you already paid for. Also, let's throw in submission of your fingerprints and a background check into a database secured by hugely-ineffectual government organization. I can't imagine why everyone isn't leaping at the opportunity...
- sneak 11y ago
  You can drop "around the country". Your nation or any other nation's national borders do not make free and unimpeded travel any less of a basic right for all people, in all places.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    Free and unimpeded travel is not a basic right for any people, in any place. It's supposed to be within the US, though, just like in Schengen. That's due to law, not some magical "right", though. edit: what is a "basic right" supposed to be, anyway? I missed that day in philosophy class.
    - malchow 11y ago
      It's not even due to law; it's due to the founding nature of the Republic. Arguably not even a constitutional amendment could permit restrictions on Americans' interstate travel.
      - gumby 11y ago
        > Arguably not even a constitutional amendment could permit restrictions on Americans' interstate travel. You might think it would be arguable but John Gilmore discovered you can't even argue it -- the law is secret and cannot be discussed in open court, thus he had no standing to sue over it: https://papersplease.org/gilmore/ https://papersplease.org/gilmore/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales The wikipedia entry is slightly misleading on one point: the ninth circuit said he could travel without ID (this case came about because I had been flying without ID and discussed it with John) -- his suit was that he had no choice due to a law he was not permitted to read (yet ignorance of that law is no defense!) and he argued that that was a violation of free speech + free assembly. Without being able to discuss the law in open court, the justification for the decision was a fig leaf.
js2 11y ago
Not a gaurantee. Literally my first time through security after I got PreCheck, I was randomly beeped by the metal dectector and told I could either go through the scanner or opt-out and get a pat down instead. I opted out, like I've always done and got yet another pat down. Since then, I've had the metal dectector randomly beep a second time but was only asked to swab my hands to check for explosives.
knz 11y ago
My objection to precheck is that I question how effective it really is. Not to dive into another controversial topic, but it reminds me of proponents of gun control who think that background checks will solve mass shootings. Passing precheck doesn't stop people who appear to have a normal background and doesn't stop people from being radicalized after they get precheck. Perhaps a better solution would be somewhere in the middle? All travellers are subject to precheck type screening (shoes and belt stay on) but go through a more thorough electronic background check prior to each flight? Or our society could have an honest debate about about the risk of terrorism and the most effective ways to stop it...
- harmegido 11y ago
  You're assuming that there is any effectiveness at all in TSA's procedures. I'm highly skeptical of that myself. It seems they are always fighting the last war. Someone just tried to detonate a shoe bomb? Better make people take off their shoes.
- kelnos 11y ago
  Given that precheck basically brings us back to pre-9/11 screening procedures, I think it's fine. There isn't much about the airport security checkpoint changes since 9/11 that have actually improved security.
dap 11y ago
I've been very tempted to apply for PreCheck -- it seems like a great deal -- but I find it deeply problematic that the government would create a security screening mechanism so onerous that people gladly hand over their fingerprints to avoid it. The fact that that's even legal incentivizes them to make the normal system as onerous as possible.

Just go get pre check?

by hashkb 11y ago

Just go get pre check?

vincefutr23 11y ago

Why should we all pay more for a side line? Shouldn't the government make the main one effective ?

warfangle 11y ago
But then we wouldn't be applying the invisible hand of the market to fix things!

raldi 11y ago

A lot of travelers can barely afford to fly as it is. The only way this fast lane can function is if it's exclusive to a small segment of flyers. Do we really need to keep widening the gap between the haves and have-nots?

malka 11y ago
> Do we really need to keep widening the gap between the haves and have-nots? The cynical and nihilistic me says 'yes'. Let's push it to see at what point it crumbles.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  It's not going to crumble, pushing it just pushes us ever close to a full blown police state; a direction we're already headed. The people aren't going to get fed up and stop anything, they're going to cower to the power like sheep as we slowly become a full blown fascist state.
gnaritas 11y ago
> Do we really need to keep widening the gap between the haves and have-nots? That is what the U.S. is all about.
- raldi 11y ago
  As opposed to what other country?
kelnos 11y ago
A lot of travelers can barely afford to fly as it is. I can certainly understand that the family of four who only gets to travel once per several years might find $85 per person to be a burden, but I still can't believe that for most people who travel it's that much of a problem. I mean, a US domestic transcon flight is going to run you at the cheapest $300 round trip (and that's only by shopping around like crazy, having super flexible travel dates, and taking advantage of travel deals). Do that once a year, and your $300 flight becomes $317 with precheck. I know many Americans are frankly terrible at personal finance, but... c'mon. Even something shorter like a SFO<->LAX trip is going to run you at least a hundred. The only way this fast lane can function is if it's exclusive to a small segment of flyers. If there's only one fast lane, sure. My hope would be that as more people enroll in precheck, they'll be able to turn more and more "regular" lanes into precheck lanes, keeping the efficiency (or lack thereof) of both lane types the same.

sneak 11y ago

TSA Pre is the equivalent of "fuck you, got mine". It makes it personally more convenient for you, while simultaneously ignoring or condoning the waste of millions of person-hours without consent, which basically equates to mass murder if you squnt hard enough at the math.

buzzdenver 11y ago
You also have to squint really hard to think that standing in the security line for half an hour or missing your flight is an effective protest against waste.
knz 11y ago
My "favourite" part of the TSA line is how business and premier customers often have access to a shorter regular TSA line (not precheck, just a separate entrance to the normal TSA line). My understanding is that the TSA is partly funded by a FIXED fee on every ticket so I can't see any logical reason as to why they get sent to the front of the line.
- spdustin 11y ago
  This is a non-issue. First class flyers pay for a ticket that allows them shorter lines, not expedited screening. They're still subject to being randomly flagged, and they will go through the same screening process as everyone else. That's why first/business class tickets cost so damn much - to blind the traveler into believing that they're actually paying for something worthwhile. As it turns out, for many of them, it is worthwhile just to have shorter lines. Theme parks do the same thing: pay more for shorter lines. Many attractions, such as the Sears Tower (still can't bring myself to use its official name) Observation Deck, do the same thing. It's a money grab for sure, just not by the TSA. and why should the TSA give a shit about it if the first class passenger gets the same screening?
  - knz 11y ago
    My point was more that everyone pays the same fee to be screened by the TSA but by purchasing a more expensive ticket from the airlines you can avoid the long wait to be screened and therefore increase the wait time for most people. To be clear, purchasing a higher fare ticket does not mean you are paying the TSA for better service.

luma 11y ago

Pay billions in your tax dollars to create a huge interference to free movement around the country, then pay hundreds more individually to get around some facets of the interference you already paid for. Also, let's throw in submission of your fingerprints and a background check into a database secured by hugely-ineffectual government organization. I can't imagine why everyone isn't leaping at the opportunity...

sneak 11y ago
You can drop "around the country". Your nation or any other nation's national borders do not make free and unimpeded travel any less of a basic right for all people, in all places.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  Free and unimpeded travel is not a basic right for any people, in any place. It's supposed to be within the US, though, just like in Schengen. That's due to law, not some magical "right", though. edit: what is a "basic right" supposed to be, anyway? I missed that day in philosophy class.
  - malchow 11y ago
    It's not even due to law; it's due to the founding nature of the Republic. Arguably not even a constitutional amendment could permit restrictions on Americans' interstate travel.
    - gumby 11y ago
      > Arguably not even a constitutional amendment could permit restrictions on Americans' interstate travel. You might think it would be arguable but John Gilmore discovered you can't even argue it -- the law is secret and cannot be discussed in open court, thus he had no standing to sue over it: https://papersplease.org/gilmore/ https://papersplease.org/gilmore/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales The wikipedia entry is slightly misleading on one point: the ninth circuit said he could travel without ID (this case came about because I had been flying without ID and discussed it with John) -- his suit was that he had no choice due to a law he was not permitted to read (yet ignorance of that law is no defense!) and he argued that that was a violation of free speech + free assembly. Without being able to discuss the law in open court, the justification for the decision was a fig leaf.

js2 11y ago

Not a gaurantee. Literally my first time through security after I got PreCheck, I was randomly beeped by the metal dectector and told I could either go through the scanner or opt-out and get a pat down instead. I opted out, like I've always done and got yet another pat down. Since then, I've had the metal dectector randomly beep a second time but was only asked to swab my hands to check for explosives.

knz 11y ago

My objection to precheck is that I question how effective it really is. Not to dive into another controversial topic, but it reminds me of proponents of gun control who think that background checks will solve mass shootings. Passing precheck doesn't stop people who appear to have a normal background and doesn't stop people from being radicalized after they get precheck. Perhaps a better solution would be somewhere in the middle? All travellers are subject to precheck type screening (shoes and belt stay on) but go through a more thorough electronic background check prior to each flight? Or our society could have an honest debate about about the risk of terrorism and the most effective ways to stop it...

harmegido 11y ago
You're assuming that there is any effectiveness at all in TSA's procedures. I'm highly skeptical of that myself. It seems they are always fighting the last war. Someone just tried to detonate a shoe bomb? Better make people take off their shoes.
kelnos 11y ago
Given that precheck basically brings us back to pre-9/11 screening procedures, I think it's fine. There isn't much about the airport security checkpoint changes since 9/11 that have actually improved security.

dap 11y ago

I've been very tempted to apply for PreCheck -- it seems like a great deal -- but I find it deeply problematic that the government would create a security screening mechanism so onerous that people gladly hand over their fingerprints to avoid it. The fact that that's even legal incentivizes them to make the normal system as onerous as possible.