5 ms·

Part of me (a small part) wants to be OK with this. Because, a person/business/organization should be able to maintain information on interactions with people w

Part of me (a small part) wants to be OK with this. Because, a person/business/organization should be able to maintain information on interactions with people where "issues" have occurred. Example: "Hey, if this guy comes into the restaurant, he tends to drink too much and cause trouble." Unfortunately, the TSA's track-record with pretty much everything is terrible. So, I don't see anything good coming from it. *edit: example in the first paragraph

whoopdedo 8y ago
TSA is not a business, it's a government agency. There are things businesses can do that the government is prohibited from because there's one very big thing the government can do that a private business cannot: deprive you of your freedom.
- edwhitesell 8y ago
  Exactly. That's why, among many other things, transparency is important. I'd have no issue being on a list if I knew I was on it and had a process to get a fair decision to be removed. However, that doesn't happen. So, we're stuck with an ineffective bureaucracy that is a waste of time, money and resources that labels itself "security".
  - insulanus 8y ago
    I agree that transparency is important. But also, don't forget the force multiplier that being an organization has against an individual, even if they (ostensibly) have to play by the same rules. I'm saying that you keeping a notebook with information on people who have offended you is much different than Amazon or the government keeping a list of people who have offended them.
- sndean 8y ago
  Possibly a counter example: Public schools can expel students. But, I’m not sure: can other schools (other school districts?) generally find out whether you’ve been previously expelled?
  - freeone3000 8y ago
    Yes. Moreover, if you get expelled from school in a district, you don't actually stop going to school, you go to a different school with other expelled students.
greggarious 8y ago
I opt out of the body scanner, and often experience extreme levels of hostility due to this. (Or related issues, such as keeping my items in my view during the screening process.) I have never sworn, threatened, etc a TSO, but I still fear I could be put on such a list one day for my "difficult" behavior. Personally, I think if they think behavior is egregious enough to need to be documented they should have the airport police cite the person for disorderly conduct. Police officers have a fairly wide latitude for issuing this charge, and we have an established court system to deal with appealing the matter. Much more democratic than a secret list.
- BugsJustFindMe 8y ago
  > I opt out of the body scanner, and often experience extreme levels of hostility due to this. (Or related issues, such as keeping my items in my view during the screening process.) How strange that I have the opposite experience. I do this too, dozens of flights per year in some years, opting for a pat-down and holding my items with me until they have someone ready, every time, and I've never once experienced rudeness or hostility from a TSA employee.
  - rabidrat 8y ago
    Agreed, I've also opted for the pat-down every time, and have had only neutral-to-positive interactions and never hostility. Maybe it's worse in other cities?
    - leesalminen 8y ago
      Having your genitals rubbed with the back of a stranger’s hand is neutral-to-positive for you? That ranks negative-to-fuck-you on my scale.
    - greggarious 8y ago
      >Agreed, I've also opted for the pat-down every time, and have had only neutral-to-positive interactions and never hostility. Maybe it's worse in other cities? To be fair, I had good experiences flying out of IAD and DCA. I think they're either better trained, mindful that the person they're abusing may have some power, or a combination of the two. Other airports though, the TSOs seem to take it personally if you opt out, and then everything else (asking not to re-use gloves, insisting on keeping baggage in your sightline etc)is you being "difficult". No choice of words / tone can overcome the fact that these people find someone "challenging" them in any way shape or form as an affront. (I don't come at it like some sort of sovereign citizen and try to smile/be polite. This works ~60% of the time)
forapurpose 8y ago
> Part of me (a small part) wants to be OK with this. Because, a person/business/organization should be able to maintain information on interactions with people where "issues" have occurred. It's different when it's a government. If they are going to sanction you and deny you rights and impose other costs, they must do it after public due process.
fcbrooklyn 8y ago
Other commenters have noted that businesses don't have the governments monopoly on the use of force, but also worth noting is that if a business chooses to treat you poorly, you can (usually) select a competing business. Not so with the TSA. They have a monopoly on security at all US airports (I think. Perhaps smaller airports are different?)
wallace_f 8y ago
>maintain information on interactions with people where "issues" have occurred The original title & article of this submission (while probably not as informative as currently) made it more clear that the TSA is being accused here of targeting people who have made complaints against the TSA.

whoopdedo 8y ago

TSA is not a business, it's a government agency. There are things businesses can do that the government is prohibited from because there's one very big thing the government can do that a private business cannot: deprive you of your freedom.

edwhitesell 8y ago
Exactly. That's why, among many other things, transparency is important. I'd have no issue being on a list if I knew I was on it and had a process to get a fair decision to be removed. However, that doesn't happen. So, we're stuck with an ineffective bureaucracy that is a waste of time, money and resources that labels itself "security".
- insulanus 8y ago
  I agree that transparency is important. But also, don't forget the force multiplier that being an organization has against an individual, even if they (ostensibly) have to play by the same rules. I'm saying that you keeping a notebook with information on people who have offended you is much different than Amazon or the government keeping a list of people who have offended them.
sndean 8y ago
Possibly a counter example: Public schools can expel students. But, I’m not sure: can other schools (other school districts?) generally find out whether you’ve been previously expelled?
- freeone3000 8y ago
  Yes. Moreover, if you get expelled from school in a district, you don't actually stop going to school, you go to a different school with other expelled students.

greggarious 8y ago

I opt out of the body scanner, and often experience extreme levels of hostility due to this. (Or related issues, such as keeping my items in my view during the screening process.) I have never sworn, threatened, etc a TSO, but I still fear I could be put on such a list one day for my "difficult" behavior. Personally, I think if they think behavior is egregious enough to need to be documented they should have the airport police cite the person for disorderly conduct. Police officers have a fairly wide latitude for issuing this charge, and we have an established court system to deal with appealing the matter. Much more democratic than a secret list.

BugsJustFindMe 8y ago
> I opt out of the body scanner, and often experience extreme levels of hostility due to this. (Or related issues, such as keeping my items in my view during the screening process.) How strange that I have the opposite experience. I do this too, dozens of flights per year in some years, opting for a pat-down and holding my items with me until they have someone ready, every time, and I've never once experienced rudeness or hostility from a TSA employee.
- rabidrat 8y ago
  Agreed, I've also opted for the pat-down every time, and have had only neutral-to-positive interactions and never hostility. Maybe it's worse in other cities?
  - leesalminen 8y ago
    Having your genitals rubbed with the back of a stranger’s hand is neutral-to-positive for you? That ranks negative-to-fuck-you on my scale.
  - greggarious 8y ago
    >Agreed, I've also opted for the pat-down every time, and have had only neutral-to-positive interactions and never hostility. Maybe it's worse in other cities? To be fair, I had good experiences flying out of IAD and DCA. I think they're either better trained, mindful that the person they're abusing may have some power, or a combination of the two. Other airports though, the TSOs seem to take it personally if you opt out, and then everything else (asking not to re-use gloves, insisting on keeping baggage in your sightline etc)is you being "difficult". No choice of words / tone can overcome the fact that these people find someone "challenging" them in any way shape or form as an affront. (I don't come at it like some sort of sovereign citizen and try to smile/be polite. This works ~60% of the time)

forapurpose 8y ago

> Part of me (a small part) wants to be OK with this. Because, a person/business/organization should be able to maintain information on interactions with people where "issues" have occurred. It's different when it's a government. If they are going to sanction you and deny you rights and impose other costs, they must do it after public due process.

fcbrooklyn 8y ago

Other commenters have noted that businesses don't have the governments monopoly on the use of force, but also worth noting is that if a business chooses to treat you poorly, you can (usually) select a competing business. Not so with the TSA. They have a monopoly on security at all US airports (I think. Perhaps smaller airports are different?)

wallace_f 8y ago

>maintain information on interactions with people where "issues" have occurred The original title & article of this submission (while probably not as informative as currently) made it more clear that the TSA is being accused here of targeting people who have made complaints against the TSA.