5 ms·

It seems like the Intelligencia is leveraging the TSA to collect as much information as possible on all US Citizens that use an airport while the TSA pretends t

It seems like the Intelligencia is leveraging the TSA to collect as much information as possible on all US Citizens that use an airport while the TSA pretends to keep Americans safe. You have to admit it does make good "Theater for the Masses" when you see them stripping down an 80 year old in a wheelchair or dragging an 8 year old off to the side for additional screening. This is what happens when "The People" lose control of the Government.

rootusrootus 8y ago
> This is what happens when "The People" lose control of the Government. That seems doubtful. Nearly everyone agrees that TSA checkpoints are irritating and slow, how many would actually vote to abolish them? Even just returning back to pre-9/11 security? I think we have exactly the government most of us want. That's the uncomfortable truth. If the majority of voting citizens wanted the TSA gone, it would be.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  I've always said why don't we let the market decide. Offer flights with TSA screening for $10 extra or flights with no screening.
  - ralph84 8y ago
    The “let the market decide” solution is to make the airlines strictly liable for what happens with their planes and let them and their insurers figure out the best security strategy.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      El Al, anyone? https://onemileatatime.com/el-al-security/ https://onemileatatime.com/el-al-security/ https://www.chronic-wanderlust.com/how-to-survive-the-el-al-pre-check-in-security-procedure/ https://www.chronic-wanderlust.com/how-to-survive-the-el-al-...
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  We live in a representative democracy with indirect control for voting citizens, the granularity you suggest is possible when voting is only possible when there is a direct democracy. If there is serious, broad outrage about an issue that lasts through an election, then change may come for that issue under our current system. As is, stuff that most of the voting public objects to happens daily, but these actions are shielded by our current system.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I think we have exactly the government most of us want. We have a President who was the second highest vote getter, and a Senate where the majority party was elected with a minority of the votes (counting across the most recent elections for each seat.) So, no, we don't have “the government most of us want”, independent of the TSA. > If the majority of voting citizens wanted the TSA gone, it would be. Look, if the majority of the voting public wants a particular Presidential candidate elected, at the time of voting, that still relies on them not having an unfavorable geographic distribution to work out. A policy that is more distant from a single candidate election, and which must compete in any voting decision with other policy preferences for importance and which requires action by both the President and the Congress to effectuate is far from guaranteed.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    That is the exception proving the rule. Aside from the Connecticut Compromise, agreed to at a time in our history when very few citizens could even vote, the United States remains fairly responsive to popular opinion. Politicians have to get votes, and if abolishing TSA was popular enough to swing votes, we'd have politicians falling all over themselves to make sure everyone knew they were the right guy for that. But... it's not. The TSA and the rest of our various police forces stick around because while a few loud people complain about the threat to liberty, the vast majority of people quietly vote for more safety.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      > But... it's not. The TSA and the rest of our various police forces stick around because while a few loud people complain about the threat to liberty, the vast majority of people quietly vote for more safety. Or they don't want to see the impact of nearly 100,000 government mandated jobs lost. It's an assumption to think "the vast majority" are looking to the TSA for safety. It's like adultery, still a crime in many states, including a felony in a few (and in others, is a crime only a female can commit). Despite no prosecutions in decades, it's still on the books, not because it should be, but because no politician wants the backlash of "non-family-friendly" that'd come with "decriminalization".
creato 8y ago
> It seems like the Intelligencia is leveraging the TSA to collect as much information as possible on all US Citizens that use an airport while the TSA pretends to keep Americans safe. What information does the TSA collect? I can't think of anything the airlines don't already collect when you buy your ticket.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Not to say this would actually change, but absent the TSA, airlines could mostly get along fine collecting zero personal information. It's not really relevant to the service -- all they need to know is that you have a valid ticket. I suppose a name is helpful to have attached to a checked bag, in case of misrouting, but even that could just be done by your ticket/reservation number. There's no inherent reason your identity is more relevant for a plane ride than it is for taking the bus.

rootusrootus 8y ago

> This is what happens when "The People" lose control of the Government. That seems doubtful. Nearly everyone agrees that TSA checkpoints are irritating and slow, how many would actually vote to abolish them? Even just returning back to pre-9/11 security? I think we have exactly the government most of us want. That's the uncomfortable truth. If the majority of voting citizens wanted the TSA gone, it would be.

Gibbon1 8y ago
I've always said why don't we let the market decide. Offer flights with TSA screening for $10 extra or flights with no screening.
- ralph84 8y ago
  The “let the market decide” solution is to make the airlines strictly liable for what happens with their planes and let them and their insurers figure out the best security strategy.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    El Al, anyone? https://onemileatatime.com/el-al-security/ https://onemileatatime.com/el-al-security/ https://www.chronic-wanderlust.com/how-to-survive-the-el-al-pre-check-in-security-procedure/ https://www.chronic-wanderlust.com/how-to-survive-the-el-al-...
StudentStuff 8y ago
We live in a representative democracy with indirect control for voting citizens, the granularity you suggest is possible when voting is only possible when there is a direct democracy. If there is serious, broad outrage about an issue that lasts through an election, then change may come for that issue under our current system. As is, stuff that most of the voting public objects to happens daily, but these actions are shielded by our current system.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I think we have exactly the government most of us want. We have a President who was the second highest vote getter, and a Senate where the majority party was elected with a minority of the votes (counting across the most recent elections for each seat.) So, no, we don't have “the government most of us want”, independent of the TSA. > If the majority of voting citizens wanted the TSA gone, it would be. Look, if the majority of the voting public wants a particular Presidential candidate elected, at the time of voting, that still relies on them not having an unfavorable geographic distribution to work out. A policy that is more distant from a single candidate election, and which must compete in any voting decision with other policy preferences for importance and which requires action by both the President and the Congress to effectuate is far from guaranteed.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  That is the exception proving the rule. Aside from the Connecticut Compromise, agreed to at a time in our history when very few citizens could even vote, the United States remains fairly responsive to popular opinion. Politicians have to get votes, and if abolishing TSA was popular enough to swing votes, we'd have politicians falling all over themselves to make sure everyone knew they were the right guy for that. But... it's not. The TSA and the rest of our various police forces stick around because while a few loud people complain about the threat to liberty, the vast majority of people quietly vote for more safety.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    > But... it's not. The TSA and the rest of our various police forces stick around because while a few loud people complain about the threat to liberty, the vast majority of people quietly vote for more safety. Or they don't want to see the impact of nearly 100,000 government mandated jobs lost. It's an assumption to think "the vast majority" are looking to the TSA for safety. It's like adultery, still a crime in many states, including a felony in a few (and in others, is a crime only a female can commit). Despite no prosecutions in decades, it's still on the books, not because it should be, but because no politician wants the backlash of "non-family-friendly" that'd come with "decriminalization".

creato 8y ago

> It seems like the Intelligencia is leveraging the TSA to collect as much information as possible on all US Citizens that use an airport while the TSA pretends to keep Americans safe. What information does the TSA collect? I can't think of anything the airlines don't already collect when you buy your ticket.

wool_gather 8y ago
Not to say this would actually change, but absent the TSA, airlines could mostly get along fine collecting zero personal information. It's not really relevant to the service -- all they need to know is that you have a valid ticket. I suppose a name is helpful to have attached to a checked bag, in case of misrouting, but even that could just be done by your ticket/reservation number. There's no inherent reason your identity is more relevant for a plane ride than it is for taking the bus.