12 ms·

I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes? Being "illegal" because you have to remove your facemask is stupid as well. I'd rat

I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes? Being "illegal" because you have to remove your facemask is stupid as well. I'd rather have this than some underpaid, high school graduate who'd rather frisk all the pretty ladies that come by or racially profile others.

sneak 6y ago
Showing/checking ID to travel doesn’t make anyone safer, and it makes a lot of people less safe.
- apearson 6y ago
  How does it make a lot of people less safe?
  - thinkmassive 6y ago
    From the article: "each traveler has to touch the same ID card or passport scanner. Then, immediately after touching the scanner, they have to touch their face again to put their mask back on."
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      It's a mag stripe reader isn't it, why do they have to touch it? Presumably you can use hand gel, and take the actions serially. And the whole thing is optional.
      - techsupporter 6y ago
        > And the whole thing is optional. For now. Just like how going through the original "nude-o-scopes" was technically "optional" but TSA employees (I refuse to call them "officers") would give you no end of shit and pointlessly delay anyone who requested an opt-out.
  - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
    I struggle to think of an answer here. Says they're not even saving the camera pictures.
  - icedchai 6y ago
    It is explained in the article. People have to take off their mask, touch the kiosk / card reader, then put their mask on, likely touching their face in the process. This will spread many things, not just covid.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    Trusting your home address and personal info to not only random poorly trained TSA agents but also now storing that info in yet another 3rd party database that will probably be hacked. It increases the likelihood of your info getting leaked.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Ok and does that measurably reduce safety? You can get practically everyone's details from marketing companies - the direct increased risk from this seems like it's zero to negligible. The overall risk seems like it's probably falling on the beneficial side as discouraging people with bad intentions from flying likely has a negligibly positive effect on risk.
      - sneak 6y ago
        > Ok and does that measurably reduce safety? You can get practically everyone's details from marketing companies - the direct increased risk from this seems like it's zero to negligible. Not everybody. Lots of us go to great lengths to preserve our privacy when engaging in commercial transactions. You can pay cash, use a cover name, only have things shipped to your postbox/office, or only engage with vendors who have adequate security and privacy practices. You can't fly without engaging with the TSA. They're the only game in town. Additionally, many people in society are especially vulnerable, such as labor or political organizers, investigative journalists, and public officials. Having their home addresses leaked, or their family members' home addresses leaked, poses a direct threat to life and safety. You can opt out of data brokers, or spyware smartphone apps, or use a cover name when you order a delivery sandwich or pizza to the building you sleep in. You can't use a cover name or opt out of the TSA.
        redler 6y ago
        Likewise, consider that these data will be at the complete and unsupervised disposal of any future politically vindictive "acting" (as has become the fashion) director of homeland security.
        6y ago
  - sneak 6y ago
    The government having a database of who has traveled to where, and when, and with whom, is something that can be easily leveraged to oppress or discourage the free exercise of a whole bunch of basic rights, like labor or political organizing, or investigative journalism, or whistleblowing. Additionally, demanding ID to board a flight allows them to check against a "no fly list", an arbitrary designation they've created with no presumption of innocence and no burden of proof to be added, resulting in your effective inability to efficiently travel, with no legal recourse to regain this ability if you are placed on this list. Note that being added to the no fly list does not require a criminal conviction or even a basic legal standard like probable cause. Imagine if you could be added to a "no drive list" without ever being accused of a crime or violation, and no way to ever get off.
StavrosK 6y ago
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy, it's a false dichotomy.
- KingFelix 6y ago
  I had to read this a few times
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    My phone autocorrected "I'd" to "if", that's why :(
disown 6y ago
> I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes? Yes, why? Why do you have to identify yourself to fly on a plane? Do you have to identify yourself to travel on a light rail? Take a taxi? Cross the street? As long as you pay for the ticket, that should be enough. Don't you think? > I'd rather have this than some underpaid, high school graduate who'd rather frisk all the pretty ladies that come by or racially profile others. Ah the noble virtue signal. Another epidemic running rampant throughout the country. If people didn't have to identify themselves in the first place, they wouldn't have to be frisked at all. Don't you see that giving in on the id part was just the first step towards getting frisked? How about no id and no frisking? I understand the need for id on international flights, but not domestic flights.
- rtx 6y ago
  Bad actors man, they spoil it for everyone. We can push through but ultimately bad stories will pile up. Example American right to keep guns. Its the best thing about America, but bad incidents have turned the public against it.
  - diab0lic 6y ago
    The right to keep guns is the best thing about America? You and I live in very different Americas, there are a lot of great things about this country and I'm not sure I agree that gun ownership ranks towards the top. Edit: Removing the politically charged statement, though I do think it makes this a less substantial comment.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Difference of opinions I guess. I think the 2nd amendment is a great thing about America.
      - diab0lic 6y ago
        The greatest thing though? I'm curious what benefit it confers to you? I am legitimately curious to understand your perspective on why this is so important, not trolling.
R0b0t1 6y ago
In the US ID spot checks for pedestrians are unconstitutional. It should be obvious this should extend to nonpedestrian travel, otherwise the protections on travel are basically meaningless.
- Loughla 6y ago
  Protections on travel do extend to non-pedestrian travel which can be accomplished via non-spot-checked formats. You just have to drive instead of fly. I'm not trying to be hateful, but your argument just smacks of an 'I want what I want when I want how I want and will not take anything less than all of it' kind of argument. If you don't want your ID scanned, just drive, or take a train, or a bus. Just don't fly, right?
  - occamrazor 6y ago
    > You just have to drive instead of fly. What about Hawaii? Is there any reasonable alternative to flying?
    - Loughla 6y ago
      A boat? That's not meant to be flippant - that would be an alternative, I'm just not sure about the very subjective definition of 'reasonable'.
      - occamrazor 6y ago
        A boat would be reasonable, maybe, but are there regular ferry services to Hawaii?
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    And don't get pulled over for any reason, since they'll probably ask for your ID and your passengers. It doesn't matter if it is illegal: If they can't do it, you are in for a bad day, even if they let you go at the end.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
driverdan 6y ago
This isn't about identifying yourself. It's about the TSA not following legally mandated procedures and storing biometric data with no recourse.
- jedimastert 6y ago
  The website itself (papersplease.org) is dedicated to ending identification at airports
monadic2 6y ago
Is it actually effective at stopping any kind of problem? Otherwise it's equivalent to burning cash in a barrel—the essence of Big Government. I can't think a single moment of when I've been grateful for the existence of the TSA. It's a giant jobs program. I'd rather pay them to do something for society rather than be a drain on it.
neltnerb 6y ago
Honestly the only reason I would consider this a big deal is the warrantless addition of my biometric data to a federal database in order to exercise freedom of movement. I don't care if they want to compare my passport photo with my face, it doesn't offend my privacy sensors to verify that someone coming into the country at least looks like the photo on their passport. Making a database of everyone's face, fingerprints, DNA, that kind of thing is the "big deal" part to me. Especially consider that now they think they can just make an image of your phone every time you cross the border and store it for... what was it, 70 years or some similarly absurd timeframe? Or "only" 20 years if you are NOT suspected of any crime. Yeah, 20 years if they can't make up a reason to keep it longer. Minimum. 20 years. You know, way more time than it would take for any current disk encryption to be broken and way more time than it would take for anyone to reasonably expect the database to remain unhacked? In 20 years quantum computers will be readily available. But my objections are to the invasion of privacy and collection of personal data that they don't have a right to. This particular argument against is just yet another reason.
eesmith 6y ago
Yes, why does the government think that identifying all domestic air passengers is a big enough deal that they require it from nearly every adult? What does the required id system gain over screening everyone, securing the cockpit door, and stopping the older policy of letting hijackers take over? While, what does it cost? Cost in terms of stress (I've forgotten my id at one airport), in terms of extra staffing, and in terms of personal privacy? And why isn't that cost/benefit document public?
IncRnd 6y ago
> I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes? Being "illegal" because you have to remove your facemask is stupid as well. I'd rather have this than some underpaid, high school graduate who'd rather frisk all the pretty ladies that come by or racially profile others. No, that is not at all what is said in the article. But, even so, it is a big deal that the government wants to track people simply for wishing to travel! People already identify themselves, when they fly on planes. The article doesn't say that identification is illegal but that requiring automated tracking, based upon identification, is illegal. "The TSA signs (visible in full on this TSA video released in conjunction with today’s press release) include — typically for the TSA and DHS — no OMB Control Number or Paperwork Reduction Act notice, both of which are required for any collection of information by a Federal agency, regardless of whether the collection of information is optional or mandatory, and regardless of whether the information collected is retained." When people capitulate to demands that have no legal basis, because they don't understand their rights or care to protect them, soon they won't have any rights.

sneak 6y ago

Showing/checking ID to travel doesn’t make anyone safer, and it makes a lot of people less safe.

apearson 6y ago
How does it make a lot of people less safe?
- thinkmassive 6y ago
  From the article: "each traveler has to touch the same ID card or passport scanner. Then, immediately after touching the scanner, they have to touch their face again to put their mask back on."
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    It's a mag stripe reader isn't it, why do they have to touch it? Presumably you can use hand gel, and take the actions serially. And the whole thing is optional.
    - techsupporter 6y ago
      > And the whole thing is optional. For now. Just like how going through the original "nude-o-scopes" was technically "optional" but TSA employees (I refuse to call them "officers") would give you no end of shit and pointlessly delay anyone who requested an opt-out.
- jkinudsjknds 6y ago
  I struggle to think of an answer here. Says they're not even saving the camera pictures.
- icedchai 6y ago
  It is explained in the article. People have to take off their mask, touch the kiosk / card reader, then put their mask on, likely touching their face in the process. This will spread many things, not just covid.
- xeromal 6y ago
  Trusting your home address and personal info to not only random poorly trained TSA agents but also now storing that info in yet another 3rd party database that will probably be hacked. It increases the likelihood of your info getting leaked.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Ok and does that measurably reduce safety? You can get practically everyone's details from marketing companies - the direct increased risk from this seems like it's zero to negligible. The overall risk seems like it's probably falling on the beneficial side as discouraging people with bad intentions from flying likely has a negligibly positive effect on risk.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > Ok and does that measurably reduce safety? You can get practically everyone's details from marketing companies - the direct increased risk from this seems like it's zero to negligible. Not everybody. Lots of us go to great lengths to preserve our privacy when engaging in commercial transactions. You can pay cash, use a cover name, only have things shipped to your postbox/office, or only engage with vendors who have adequate security and privacy practices. You can't fly without engaging with the TSA. They're the only game in town. Additionally, many people in society are especially vulnerable, such as labor or political organizers, investigative journalists, and public officials. Having their home addresses leaked, or their family members' home addresses leaked, poses a direct threat to life and safety. You can opt out of data brokers, or spyware smartphone apps, or use a cover name when you order a delivery sandwich or pizza to the building you sleep in. You can't use a cover name or opt out of the TSA.
      - redler 6y ago
        Likewise, consider that these data will be at the complete and unsupervised disposal of any future politically vindictive "acting" (as has become the fashion) director of homeland security.
      - 6y ago
- sneak 6y ago
  The government having a database of who has traveled to where, and when, and with whom, is something that can be easily leveraged to oppress or discourage the free exercise of a whole bunch of basic rights, like labor or political organizing, or investigative journalism, or whistleblowing. Additionally, demanding ID to board a flight allows them to check against a "no fly list", an arbitrary designation they've created with no presumption of innocence and no burden of proof to be added, resulting in your effective inability to efficiently travel, with no legal recourse to regain this ability if you are placed on this list. Note that being added to the no fly list does not require a criminal conviction or even a basic legal standard like probable cause. Imagine if you could be added to a "no drive list" without ever being accused of a crime or violation, and no way to ever get off.

StavrosK 6y ago

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy, it's a false dichotomy.

KingFelix 6y ago
I had to read this a few times
- StavrosK 6y ago
  My phone autocorrected "I'd" to "if", that's why :(

disown 6y ago

> I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes? Yes, why? Why do you have to identify yourself to fly on a plane? Do you have to identify yourself to travel on a light rail? Take a taxi? Cross the street? As long as you pay for the ticket, that should be enough. Don't you think? > I'd rather have this than some underpaid, high school graduate who'd rather frisk all the pretty ladies that come by or racially profile others. Ah the noble virtue signal. Another epidemic running rampant throughout the country. If people didn't have to identify themselves in the first place, they wouldn't have to be frisked at all. Don't you see that giving in on the id part was just the first step towards getting frisked? How about no id and no frisking? I understand the need for id on international flights, but not domestic flights.

rtx 6y ago
Bad actors man, they spoil it for everyone. We can push through but ultimately bad stories will pile up. Example American right to keep guns. Its the best thing about America, but bad incidents have turned the public against it.
- diab0lic 6y ago
  The right to keep guns is the best thing about America? You and I live in very different Americas, there are a lot of great things about this country and I'm not sure I agree that gun ownership ranks towards the top. Edit: Removing the politically charged statement, though I do think it makes this a less substantial comment.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Difference of opinions I guess. I think the 2nd amendment is a great thing about America.
    - diab0lic 6y ago
      The greatest thing though? I'm curious what benefit it confers to you? I am legitimately curious to understand your perspective on why this is so important, not trolling.

R0b0t1 6y ago

In the US ID spot checks for pedestrians are unconstitutional. It should be obvious this should extend to nonpedestrian travel, otherwise the protections on travel are basically meaningless.

Loughla 6y ago
Protections on travel do extend to non-pedestrian travel which can be accomplished via non-spot-checked formats. You just have to drive instead of fly. I'm not trying to be hateful, but your argument just smacks of an 'I want what I want when I want how I want and will not take anything less than all of it' kind of argument. If you don't want your ID scanned, just drive, or take a train, or a bus. Just don't fly, right?
- occamrazor 6y ago
  > You just have to drive instead of fly. What about Hawaii? Is there any reasonable alternative to flying?
  - Loughla 6y ago
    A boat? That's not meant to be flippant - that would be an alternative, I'm just not sure about the very subjective definition of 'reasonable'.
    - occamrazor 6y ago
      A boat would be reasonable, maybe, but are there regular ferry services to Hawaii?
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  And don't get pulled over for any reason, since they'll probably ask for your ID and your passengers. It doesn't matter if it is illegal: If they can't do it, you are in for a bad day, even if they let you go at the end.
- R0b0t1 6y ago

driverdan 6y ago

This isn't about identifying yourself. It's about the TSA not following legally mandated procedures and storing biometric data with no recourse.

jedimastert 6y ago
The website itself (papersplease.org) is dedicated to ending identification at airports

monadic2 6y ago

Is it actually effective at stopping any kind of problem? Otherwise it's equivalent to burning cash in a barrel—the essence of Big Government. I can't think a single moment of when I've been grateful for the existence of the TSA. It's a giant jobs program. I'd rather pay them to do something for society rather than be a drain on it.

neltnerb 6y ago

Honestly the only reason I would consider this a big deal is the warrantless addition of my biometric data to a federal database in order to exercise freedom of movement. I don't care if they want to compare my passport photo with my face, it doesn't offend my privacy sensors to verify that someone coming into the country at least looks like the photo on their passport. Making a database of everyone's face, fingerprints, DNA, that kind of thing is the "big deal" part to me. Especially consider that now they think they can just make an image of your phone every time you cross the border and store it for... what was it, 70 years or some similarly absurd timeframe? Or "only" 20 years if you are NOT suspected of any crime. Yeah, 20 years if they can't make up a reason to keep it longer. Minimum. 20 years. You know, way more time than it would take for any current disk encryption to be broken and way more time than it would take for anyone to reasonably expect the database to remain unhacked? In 20 years quantum computers will be readily available. But my objections are to the invasion of privacy and collection of personal data that they don't have a right to. This particular argument against is just yet another reason.

eesmith 6y ago

Yes, why does the government think that identifying all domestic air passengers is a big enough deal that they require it from nearly every adult? What does the required id system gain over screening everyone, securing the cockpit door, and stopping the older policy of letting hijackers take over? While, what does it cost? Cost in terms of stress (I've forgotten my id at one airport), in terms of extra staffing, and in terms of personal privacy? And why isn't that cost/benefit document public?

IncRnd 6y ago

> I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes? Being "illegal" because you have to remove your facemask is stupid as well. I'd rather have this than some underpaid, high school graduate who'd rather frisk all the pretty ladies that come by or racially profile others. No, that is not at all what is said in the article. But, even so, it is a big deal that the government wants to track people simply for wishing to travel! People already identify themselves, when they fly on planes. The article doesn't say that identification is illegal but that requiring automated tracking, based upon identification, is illegal. "The TSA signs (visible in full on this TSA video released in conjunction with today’s press release) include — typically for the TSA and DHS — no OMB Control Number or Paperwork Reduction Act notice, both of which are required for any collection of information by a Federal agency, regardless of whether the collection of information is optional or mandatory, and regardless of whether the information collected is retained." When people capitulate to demands that have no legal basis, because they don't understand their rights or care to protect them, soon they won't have any rights.