9 ms·

> 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

by 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.
      - rtx 6y ago
        Ask the Vietnamese how guns saved them from the American imperialism . "Right to buy weapon is right to be free" A.E. van Vogt. Source - https://www.prosperosisle.org/spip.php?article880 https://www.prosperosisle.org/spip.php?article880
        jcranmer 6y ago
        > Ask the Vietnamese how guns saved them from the American imperialism . And ask the Sioux how guns didn't save them.
        diab0lic 6y ago
        You seem to be implying that owning whatever guns and ammo it is you own will enable you, or the populace to resist the modern American military? I'm not sure as your answer was vague and abstract. The weapons shop was written in 1942, that statement may have been true back then. I'm also not sure the Vietnam war was fought with civilian purchased firearms and munitions... there may have been a state actor on the other side of that one. Is this genuinely something you believe to be a benefit of owning and purchasing firearms in modern day America? I'm not trying to change your mind, I just want to know if that's really what you believe.
        throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        >You seem to be implying that owning whatever guns and ammo it is you own will enable you, or the populace to resist the modern American military? Last I checked the US military is in the process of concluding a 20yr war by negotiating a peace deal with a bunch of poor subsistence farmers who's insurrection is basically self funded and who have no ability to harm the supply lines or funding sources of the military. The fathers and grandfathers of these farmers had the same experience with the USSR. Unless you are willing to destroy everything and kill everyone (an option armies and police forces operating domestically do not have) you cannot win against an enemy who's goal is simply to not be subjugated and who has more local support than you (they don't need much, just more than you).
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Example American right to keep guns. Its the best thing about America, but bad incidents have turned the public against it. It's not a few incidents that have turned us against it, it's an unending stream of bad incidents. And I say this as someone who likes guns. (Also, correction, the best thing about America is the national parks).
- RhodesianHunter 6y ago
  Bad incidents and supporters' insistence on focusing on the "shall not be infringed part" while ignoring the "well regulated" part. Having to prove competency with a gun as you would with a car seems like a no brainer and yet...
  - Der_Einzige 6y ago
    The militia is well regulated, not the right to bear arms...
    - throwawayffffas 6y ago
      Still there aren't enough bears to guarantee everyone's right to bear arms.
- cjbenedikt 6y ago
  "...American right to keep guns. Its the best thing about America..." Seriously? That's so sad!
BoorishBears 6y ago
How is it virtue signaling lol. I'm someone who speeds. I should work on it, but I have a habit of speeding. But I'm the first person in line wishing we had extensive speed cameras and stopped letting cops pull people over. A speeding camera is impartial, it's not going to pull me over and grill me about who really owns the car as if a black guy can't own a nice car (and before you say it, standard operating procedure for cops is asking if it's your car, it's not asking if it's your car then insisting it's probably not) A speeding camera isn't going to unholster a weapon because my 2 seat car doesn't have a glovebox where they expected it to be A speeding camera doesn't care that "I'm not from around here" and isn't going to ask why I'm there and maybe give me a ticket because it was having a bad day and doesn't like the outsiders. - Whether we should ID for flights is it's own thing, but as long as we're doing it, I'm very for removing humans from the loop when it comes to unsophisticated enforcement. ie. AI shouldn't tell us who to stop, but it should be used when everyone is subject to the same stop
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >A speeding camera is impartial, it's not going to pull me over and grill me about who really owns the car as if a black guy can't own a nice car Impartial like the bureaucrats who put the speed cameras in the poor neighborhoods but not the rich ones?
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    source for this? in my area, speed cameras seem to correlate with schools more than anything else. if anything, there are more of them in wealthy areas.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      My point was that using speed cameras doesn't remove the potential for enforcement bias.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Below you say your point is "cameras don't remove enforcement bias, so your complaint is really that they don't remove racial bias at a systemic level in the legal system... Did it really need to be pointed out camera won't remove racial bias from the entire legal system? They remove bias at the "give a person who is speeding a ticket" level and more importantly they limit the damage that can be done at the moment of enforcement. Cameras don't get to go "I think I smell drugs" and have your car torn to bits. Cameras can't exploit a poor understanding of your rights and accidentally consent to a search that would have been illegal otherwise. Cameras don't "fear for their lives" and shoot someone. Bias in the places enforced needs something more than a camera, but that's common sense. By limiting the bias in who is targeted by a biased police enforcement structure and the strength of that enforcement at the moment of the infraction, you take away a lot of the power that is being given to a biased legal system. Right now they end up in those same neighborhoods, except instead of giving anyone who speeds a ticket, they pull over people who fit a profile of who they want to pull over. They turn "speed enforcement" into stop and frisk with a pretense. And to add insult to injury, their targets are usually the people who can afford this sort of attack the least. You need more than a camera to stop police from being out there, but by seriously raising the barrier for them to be able to stop people, you force them onto back footing in their harassment, which is a start.
LatteLazy 6y ago
>Yes, why? Because 1 person can kill the 100s of others on board really easily. That's not true of any other means of transportation. Edit: People keep suggesting you could achieve the same result by: * Blowing up the security queue \ lobby etc * Blowing up a train\bus etc * Blowing up a stadium But this doesn't seem to be true. It's actually a lot less true than I thought. A 747 carries 450+ people. An Airbus A380 carries over 850 people. A terrorist can kill them all with a single bomb. Plus people on the ground if they're over somewhere populated. Compare that to the 7/7 bombings: 4 bombs, all large, detonated on very crowded trains (and one on a bus). They managed to kill 56 people total. Partly this is because jets are full of jet fuel, partly it's because anyone who survives ground attacks gets medical attention. Partly it's because you don't have to free fall 30k ft as well. If the same 4 bombers took the same 4 devices onto planes, they'd might well have killed 1000s of people. It's a surprising difference in effect. I hadn't realised it was this big a difference. But it's very clear. Blowing up a crowd or a ground based transport system is much less lethal than blowing up a plane.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  If the reason for all this stuff is that a single person can kill hundreds of people, an obvious solution would be to only have the security procedures on flights of more than 100 people.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I think we already do. Small planes (2 and 4 seater) don't require any of this do they? And private plane's passengers (up to about 20) can pretty much drive onto the runway and go. It's only public, over 20 seater planes that have requirements. And that's right around the number where it becomes a tempting target...
- tpxl 6y ago
  1 person can kill 100s of others in the airport lobby really easily.
  - 6y ago
wongarsu 6y ago
I agree. Now that we have actual locks on the cockpit, I don't see why flying domestic requires ID but traveling the same route with high speed rail doesn't. The terrorism threat is comparable (trains also hold lots of people, and destroying the vehicle is the most I can realistically do), and both travel the same distance, making both of them good options to get away from local law enforcement.
- jandrese 6y ago
  It's pretty hard to crash a train into the White House or the Burj Khalifa.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  > I don't see why flying domestic requires ID but traveling the same route with high speed rail doesn't. There are folks trying to push for comparable ID and security requirements for trains.
refurb 6y ago
Do you have to identify yourself to travel on a light rail? Not light rail, but yes, you do need ID for Amtrak.[1] [1]https://www.amtrak.com/passenger-identification https://www.amtrak.com/passenger-identification
- kevinschumacher 6y ago
  AFAIK that's been the rule for a very long time, but, I've never once been asked for an ID (many Amtrak trips on NE Corridor/Acela line). However I haven't traveled on Amtrak in the past two years, so maybe it has changed.
- hinkley 6y ago
  If you look at that list there are a lot of scenarios not covered. As a traveling companion, I don’t recall being asked for ID. Might have when we had to rebook a trip.
- Loughla 6y ago
  Those are very specific cases, not just riding on the rail. I(used to) ride Amtrak monthly for work, and have never been asked for ID, just my ticket. The only thing you need ID for on the train is for alcohol purchases. Otherwise you're free to come and go.
Muromec 6y ago
>I understand the need for id on international flights So what's special about international flights?
- cooljacob204 6y ago
  The constitution gives us the right to move between states.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The destination requires ID - not letting you on is doing you a favor essentially. It brings to mind how it could be nice to try pre-WWI norms of unidentified travelers pre passports.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
masukomi 6y ago
getting frisked makes some logical sense. it's a security measure to prevent someone from carrying dangerous items onto the plane. no, metal detectors and the surface scan things are not sufficient to prevent this to anyone who actually applies thought to the problem. However, getting frisked does NOT require identification as a first step. I get frisked regularly at TSA and it's not because of identification.

by disown 6y ago

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.
    - rtx 6y ago
      Ask the Vietnamese how guns saved them from the American imperialism . "Right to buy weapon is right to be free" A.E. van Vogt. Source - https://www.prosperosisle.org/spip.php?article880 https://www.prosperosisle.org/spip.php?article880
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        > Ask the Vietnamese how guns saved them from the American imperialism . And ask the Sioux how guns didn't save them.
      - diab0lic 6y ago
        You seem to be implying that owning whatever guns and ammo it is you own will enable you, or the populace to resist the modern American military? I'm not sure as your answer was vague and abstract. The weapons shop was written in 1942, that statement may have been true back then. I'm also not sure the Vietnam war was fought with civilian purchased firearms and munitions... there may have been a state actor on the other side of that one. Is this genuinely something you believe to be a benefit of owning and purchasing firearms in modern day America? I'm not trying to change your mind, I just want to know if that's really what you believe.
        throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        >You seem to be implying that owning whatever guns and ammo it is you own will enable you, or the populace to resist the modern American military? Last I checked the US military is in the process of concluding a 20yr war by negotiating a peace deal with a bunch of poor subsistence farmers who's insurrection is basically self funded and who have no ability to harm the supply lines or funding sources of the military. The fathers and grandfathers of these farmers had the same experience with the USSR. Unless you are willing to destroy everything and kill everyone (an option armies and police forces operating domestically do not have) you cannot win against an enemy who's goal is simply to not be subjugated and who has more local support than you (they don't need much, just more than you).
mullingitover 6y ago
> Example American right to keep guns. Its the best thing about America, but bad incidents have turned the public against it. It's not a few incidents that have turned us against it, it's an unending stream of bad incidents. And I say this as someone who likes guns. (Also, correction, the best thing about America is the national parks).
RhodesianHunter 6y ago
Bad incidents and supporters' insistence on focusing on the "shall not be infringed part" while ignoring the "well regulated" part. Having to prove competency with a gun as you would with a car seems like a no brainer and yet...
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  The militia is well regulated, not the right to bear arms...
  - throwawayffffas 6y ago
    Still there aren't enough bears to guarantee everyone's right to bear arms.
cjbenedikt 6y ago
"...American right to keep guns. Its the best thing about America..." Seriously? That's so sad!

BoorishBears 6y ago

How is it virtue signaling lol. I'm someone who speeds. I should work on it, but I have a habit of speeding. But I'm the first person in line wishing we had extensive speed cameras and stopped letting cops pull people over. A speeding camera is impartial, it's not going to pull me over and grill me about who really owns the car as if a black guy can't own a nice car (and before you say it, standard operating procedure for cops is asking if it's your car, it's not asking if it's your car then insisting it's probably not) A speeding camera isn't going to unholster a weapon because my 2 seat car doesn't have a glovebox where they expected it to be A speeding camera doesn't care that "I'm not from around here" and isn't going to ask why I'm there and maybe give me a ticket because it was having a bad day and doesn't like the outsiders. - Whether we should ID for flights is it's own thing, but as long as we're doing it, I'm very for removing humans from the loop when it comes to unsophisticated enforcement. ie. AI shouldn't tell us who to stop, but it should be used when everyone is subject to the same stop

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>A speeding camera is impartial, it's not going to pull me over and grill me about who really owns the car as if a black guy can't own a nice car Impartial like the bureaucrats who put the speed cameras in the poor neighborhoods but not the rich ones?
- leetcrew 6y ago
  source for this? in my area, speed cameras seem to correlate with schools more than anything else. if anything, there are more of them in wealthy areas.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    My point was that using speed cameras doesn't remove the potential for enforcement bias.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Below you say your point is "cameras don't remove enforcement bias, so your complaint is really that they don't remove racial bias at a systemic level in the legal system... Did it really need to be pointed out camera won't remove racial bias from the entire legal system? They remove bias at the "give a person who is speeding a ticket" level and more importantly they limit the damage that can be done at the moment of enforcement. Cameras don't get to go "I think I smell drugs" and have your car torn to bits. Cameras can't exploit a poor understanding of your rights and accidentally consent to a search that would have been illegal otherwise. Cameras don't "fear for their lives" and shoot someone. Bias in the places enforced needs something more than a camera, but that's common sense. By limiting the bias in who is targeted by a biased police enforcement structure and the strength of that enforcement at the moment of the infraction, you take away a lot of the power that is being given to a biased legal system. Right now they end up in those same neighborhoods, except instead of giving anyone who speeds a ticket, they pull over people who fit a profile of who they want to pull over. They turn "speed enforcement" into stop and frisk with a pretense. And to add insult to injury, their targets are usually the people who can afford this sort of attack the least. You need more than a camera to stop police from being out there, but by seriously raising the barrier for them to be able to stop people, you force them onto back footing in their harassment, which is a start.

LatteLazy 6y ago

>Yes, why? Because 1 person can kill the 100s of others on board really easily. That's not true of any other means of transportation. Edit: People keep suggesting you could achieve the same result by: * Blowing up the security queue \ lobby etc * Blowing up a train\bus etc * Blowing up a stadium But this doesn't seem to be true. It's actually a lot less true than I thought. A 747 carries 450+ people. An Airbus A380 carries over 850 people. A terrorist can kill them all with a single bomb. Plus people on the ground if they're over somewhere populated. Compare that to the 7/7 bombings: 4 bombs, all large, detonated on very crowded trains (and one on a bus). They managed to kill 56 people total. Partly this is because jets are full of jet fuel, partly it's because anyone who survives ground attacks gets medical attention. Partly it's because you don't have to free fall 30k ft as well. If the same 4 bombers took the same 4 devices onto planes, they'd might well have killed 1000s of people. It's a surprising difference in effect. I hadn't realised it was this big a difference. But it's very clear. Blowing up a crowd or a ground based transport system is much less lethal than blowing up a plane.

alasdair_ 6y ago
If the reason for all this stuff is that a single person can kill hundreds of people, an obvious solution would be to only have the security procedures on flights of more than 100 people.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I think we already do. Small planes (2 and 4 seater) don't require any of this do they? And private plane's passengers (up to about 20) can pretty much drive onto the runway and go. It's only public, over 20 seater planes that have requirements. And that's right around the number where it becomes a tempting target...
tpxl 6y ago
1 person can kill 100s of others in the airport lobby really easily.
- 6y ago

wongarsu 6y ago

I agree. Now that we have actual locks on the cockpit, I don't see why flying domestic requires ID but traveling the same route with high speed rail doesn't. The terrorism threat is comparable (trains also hold lots of people, and destroying the vehicle is the most I can realistically do), and both travel the same distance, making both of them good options to get away from local law enforcement.

jandrese 6y ago
It's pretty hard to crash a train into the White House or the Burj Khalifa.
JoshTriplett 6y ago
> I don't see why flying domestic requires ID but traveling the same route with high speed rail doesn't. There are folks trying to push for comparable ID and security requirements for trains.

refurb 6y ago

Do you have to identify yourself to travel on a light rail? Not light rail, but yes, you do need ID for Amtrak.[1] [1]https://www.amtrak.com/passenger-identification https://www.amtrak.com/passenger-identification

kevinschumacher 6y ago
AFAIK that's been the rule for a very long time, but, I've never once been asked for an ID (many Amtrak trips on NE Corridor/Acela line). However I haven't traveled on Amtrak in the past two years, so maybe it has changed.
hinkley 6y ago
If you look at that list there are a lot of scenarios not covered. As a traveling companion, I don’t recall being asked for ID. Might have when we had to rebook a trip.
Loughla 6y ago
Those are very specific cases, not just riding on the rail. I(used to) ride Amtrak monthly for work, and have never been asked for ID, just my ticket. The only thing you need ID for on the train is for alcohol purchases. Otherwise you're free to come and go.

Muromec 6y ago

>I understand the need for id on international flights So what's special about international flights?

cooljacob204 6y ago
The constitution gives us the right to move between states.
Nasrudith 6y ago
The destination requires ID - not letting you on is doing you a favor essentially. It brings to mind how it could be nice to try pre-WWI norms of unidentified travelers pre passports.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

masukomi 6y ago

getting frisked makes some logical sense. it's a security measure to prevent someone from carrying dangerous items onto the plane. no, metal detectors and the surface scan things are not sufficient to prevent this to anyone who actually applies thought to the problem. However, getting frisked does NOT require identification as a first step. I get frisked regularly at TSA and it's not because of identification.