5 ms·

This reads more like an annoyed rant based on hearsay than actual journalism. I am not a lawyer, so it may be that there are legal reasons why the TSA (specifi

This reads more like an annoyed rant based on hearsay than actual journalism. I am not a lawyer, so it may be that there are legal reasons why the TSA (specifically) cannot maintain a list of people, but ... The majority of large organization dealing with customers keep customer service records, including notes on negative interactions. Keeping a list of people that have assaulted your employees, if the intent is to avoid creating a similar situation in the future, is completely rational and better for all parties. If there was evidence of the TSA denying transit rights based on that list, that would be newsworthy, but it sounds like there is no evidence of that.

ballenf 8y ago
I wish this comment wasn't downvoted to collapsed oblivion just because it prompted a great discussion very pertinent to the heart of the issue. Kind of wish the quality responses could somehow be taken into account in the algorithm deciding what gets auto-collapsed and grayed-out to unreadability. It represents what I'd guess to be a pretty common sentiment among many Americans who are motivated by fears of terrorists.
mchanson 8y ago
The government compiling a unknown before now list of people (probably mostly US Citizens) they don't like is always newsworthy.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  Is it illegal? Or do we have to wait for them to act on it?
  - op00to 8y ago
    They appear to act on it every day, using it to make decisions about which citizens to harass.
roywiggins 8y ago
This is a blog post on BoingBoing, it's not meant to be journalism. Two news articles covering it are cited at the bottom.
pc86 8y ago
The government has a very long list of things they are specifically prohibited from doing, that under some circumstances a corporation might be able to do. Here's ten off the top of my head.[0] That being said, the government keeping a secret list of a certain subset of its citizens certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth even if I can't perfectly express why. I'd just as soon not have department of the federal government tracking who is good and who is bad outside of law enforcement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
- pathseeker 8y ago
  That's not a list of what the Government is prohibited from doing. It's a list of personal freedoms and rights. That's an important distinction.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    I think you need to reread the bill of rights if you think it grants anyone anything.
  - pc86 8y ago
    If you're going onto someone's personal property, they are free to check your bags without probably cause, they are free to eject you if you say something you do not like, they are free (for the most part) to deny you your right to carry a firearm, to enforce any fine or penalty not otherwise prohibited by law, etc. Government is prohibited from doing a lot of things that WalMart is free to do all day long, and not just because WalMart has good lobbyists (though that certainly helps).
  - BugsJustFindMe 8y ago
    I don't like doing this, but, you're wrong. The US "Bill of Rights" is most definitely a list of what the government is prohibited from doing. That's why every entry on it says things in the negative, like "shall make no law" and "shall not be", and why entries have specific context clarifications like "Congress" and "In all criminal prosecutions" and so on. No part of the US Constitution outlines individual rights or freedoms. It outlines powers of the states, powers of the federation, and limitations on those powers. Sometimes certain "unalienable rights" are referenced, but there is no list of rights in the Bill of Rights. It's also not an "important distinction" here.

ballenf 8y ago

I wish this comment wasn't downvoted to collapsed oblivion just because it prompted a great discussion very pertinent to the heart of the issue. Kind of wish the quality responses could somehow be taken into account in the algorithm deciding what gets auto-collapsed and grayed-out to unreadability. It represents what I'd guess to be a pretty common sentiment among many Americans who are motivated by fears of terrorists.

mchanson 8y ago

The government compiling a unknown before now list of people (probably mostly US Citizens) they don't like is always newsworthy.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Is it illegal? Or do we have to wait for them to act on it?
- op00to 8y ago
  They appear to act on it every day, using it to make decisions about which citizens to harass.

roywiggins 8y ago

This is a blog post on BoingBoing, it's not meant to be journalism. Two news articles covering it are cited at the bottom.

pc86 8y ago

The government has a very long list of things they are specifically prohibited from doing, that under some circumstances a corporation might be able to do. Here's ten off the top of my head.[0] That being said, the government keeping a secret list of a certain subset of its citizens certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth even if I can't perfectly express why. I'd just as soon not have department of the federal government tracking who is good and who is bad outside of law enforcement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

pathseeker 8y ago
That's not a list of what the Government is prohibited from doing. It's a list of personal freedoms and rights. That's an important distinction.
- tathougies 8y ago
  I think you need to reread the bill of rights if you think it grants anyone anything.
- pc86 8y ago
  If you're going onto someone's personal property, they are free to check your bags without probably cause, they are free to eject you if you say something you do not like, they are free (for the most part) to deny you your right to carry a firearm, to enforce any fine or penalty not otherwise prohibited by law, etc. Government is prohibited from doing a lot of things that WalMart is free to do all day long, and not just because WalMart has good lobbyists (though that certainly helps).
- BugsJustFindMe 8y ago
  I don't like doing this, but, you're wrong. The US "Bill of Rights" is most definitely a list of what the government is prohibited from doing. That's why every entry on it says things in the negative, like "shall make no law" and "shall not be", and why entries have specific context clarifications like "Congress" and "In all criminal prosecutions" and so on. No part of the US Constitution outlines individual rights or freedoms. It outlines powers of the states, powers of the federation, and limitations on those powers. Sometimes certain "unalienable rights" are referenced, but there is no list of rights in the Bill of Rights. It's also not an "important distinction" here.