5 ms·

Delta wants U.S. airlines to share banned passenger lists

34 points by jaredwiener 5y ago

ceilingcorner 5y ago
…and then they’ll share that list of banned passengers with credit agencies, and banks, and other orgs. Because being banned from airlines probably correlates with being less “reliable” or “trustworthy.” This is how a social credit system comes to America.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
t0mas88 5y ago
I get why they want to, but shouldn't this be a more government managed kind of thing? Preferably with a way to get a judge involved if you're put on the list unjustly.
- pstuart 5y ago
  Like you can with the existing government lists?
- bsder 5y ago
  We have that. It's called the criminal justice system. If these airlines want difficult people removed, letting the justice system park them in jail for assault for a couple months seems like it would be more than sufficient. This is just the airlines not wanting to have their names in front of the Trumpers and have to deal with the negative PR. Tough.
scohesc 5y ago
I wonder how you're able to get your name taken off the list. I imagine it would be fairly hard/impossible or involve some sort of payment.
fyzix 5y ago
They shouldn't be able to ban anyone after receiving bailouts funded by the taxpayers. This is how the social credit system starts...
syshum 5y ago
Clearly we should just cancel someone completely. Why stop at airlines. We should have a national list of undesirable people, any corporation can add any name to the list, and that instantly means you are unemployable, have all your bank accounts closed, can not obtain loans, have your home foreclosed, and your children are expelled from all schools. No Appeal, no redemption, nothing lists like this have a long history of not working out really well for people... Who ever at delta that thinks this is a good idea needs to be added to to said list first.
- bdcravens 5y ago
  A lot of cancellation happens for those with felonies on their record.
  - randyrand 5y ago
    Personally, i’d rather lose my rights to guns and voting than lose the ability to fly. I’m already self employed not by choice. Am i missing something? Due process is also nice.
  - syshum 5y ago
    This whataboutism while true is not really revelant here Further do you believe I would agree with this cancellation I do not, if a person is a danger to others they should be in prison, if they have deemed by the system to not be a danger thus are free to roam among us they should have all of their rights and privileges of a free person restored to them
    - bagacrap 5y ago
      The incidence of recidivism is extreme. The chances of a freed felon committing another felony are such that handing them a gun or a job in retail is very risky. Yet the alternative, keeping them in prison forever, is clearly not fair. So what should be done?
      - syshum 5y ago
cwwc 5y ago
I get the slippery slope argument here — but in reality, most people that end up on these lists are utterly atrocious drunks/jerks,right? Or am I missing something? I’ve witnessed LOT of bad passengers. Really bad. But I’ve never seen someone removed (from what I gather, you get removed then banned — tho I’m opened to correction on this point too)
- solveit 5y ago
  The slippery slope is the problem. What starts as a list of drunks will quickly become a list of people named Muhammed.
  - _moof 5y ago
    That ship has already sailed, unfortunately. And in any event, I have a hard time imagining the airlines doing that. Say what you want about the tenets of capitalism, but at least it's pragmatic.
    - solveit 5y ago
      I agree the airlines won't initially do that, but I worry that the government will co-opt their list. I feel this way about any blacklist not subject to transparent review by the judiciary or at least the legislature, the fact that this has to do with air travel just makes the already red flag a smidge redder.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    So, fight it when that is actually proposed. Anyone can argue against a hypothetical future abuse. I personally don't want to be in an aluminum can 40K feet in the air with someone who has already in the past assaulted someone in a different aluminum can. I would definitely favor airlines that attempts to keep these atrocious people off by sharing these lists. Bars and restaurants ban people all the time for being jerks, and I'd support sharing those lists around, too. Companies have a right to refuse service to people as long as the reason for refusal is not one of a few specifically enumerated reasons, such as race, gender, etc.
Ekaros 5y ago
If it is bad people, maybe drunk and like drug users. There could be some sort of government score, do bad things and it goes down, do good things and it goes up. Kinda like credit score but for social interaction. Maybe call it social credit system.

34 points by jaredwiener 5y ago

…and then they’ll share that list of banned passengers with credit agencies, and banks, and other orgs. Because being banned from airlines probably correlates with being less “reliable” or “trustworthy.” This is how a social credit system comes to America.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

t0mas88 5y ago

I get why they want to, but shouldn't this be a more government managed kind of thing? Preferably with a way to get a judge involved if you're put on the list unjustly.

pstuart 5y ago
Like you can with the existing government lists?
bsder 5y ago
We have that. It's called the criminal justice system. If these airlines want difficult people removed, letting the justice system park them in jail for assault for a couple months seems like it would be more than sufficient. This is just the airlines not wanting to have their names in front of the Trumpers and have to deal with the negative PR. Tough.

scohesc 5y ago

I wonder how you're able to get your name taken off the list. I imagine it would be fairly hard/impossible or involve some sort of payment.

fyzix 5y ago

They shouldn't be able to ban anyone after receiving bailouts funded by the taxpayers. This is how the social credit system starts...

syshum 5y ago

Clearly we should just cancel someone completely. Why stop at airlines. We should have a national list of undesirable people, any corporation can add any name to the list, and that instantly means you are unemployable, have all your bank accounts closed, can not obtain loans, have your home foreclosed, and your children are expelled from all schools. No Appeal, no redemption, nothing lists like this have a long history of not working out really well for people... Who ever at delta that thinks this is a good idea needs to be added to to said list first.

bdcravens 5y ago
A lot of cancellation happens for those with felonies on their record.
- randyrand 5y ago
  Personally, i’d rather lose my rights to guns and voting than lose the ability to fly. I’m already self employed not by choice. Am i missing something? Due process is also nice.
- syshum 5y ago
  This whataboutism while true is not really revelant here Further do you believe I would agree with this cancellation I do not, if a person is a danger to others they should be in prison, if they have deemed by the system to not be a danger thus are free to roam among us they should have all of their rights and privileges of a free person restored to them
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    The incidence of recidivism is extreme. The chances of a freed felon committing another felony are such that handing them a gun or a job in retail is very risky. Yet the alternative, keeping them in prison forever, is clearly not fair. So what should be done?
    - syshum 5y ago

cwwc 5y ago

I get the slippery slope argument here — but in reality, most people that end up on these lists are utterly atrocious drunks/jerks,right? Or am I missing something? I’ve witnessed LOT of bad passengers. Really bad. But I’ve never seen someone removed (from what I gather, you get removed then banned — tho I’m opened to correction on this point too)

solveit 5y ago
The slippery slope is the problem. What starts as a list of drunks will quickly become a list of people named Muhammed.
- _moof 5y ago
  That ship has already sailed, unfortunately. And in any event, I have a hard time imagining the airlines doing that. Say what you want about the tenets of capitalism, but at least it's pragmatic.
  - solveit 5y ago
    I agree the airlines won't initially do that, but I worry that the government will co-opt their list. I feel this way about any blacklist not subject to transparent review by the judiciary or at least the legislature, the fact that this has to do with air travel just makes the already red flag a smidge redder.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  So, fight it when that is actually proposed. Anyone can argue against a hypothetical future abuse. I personally don't want to be in an aluminum can 40K feet in the air with someone who has already in the past assaulted someone in a different aluminum can. I would definitely favor airlines that attempts to keep these atrocious people off by sharing these lists. Bars and restaurants ban people all the time for being jerks, and I'd support sharing those lists around, too. Companies have a right to refuse service to people as long as the reason for refusal is not one of a few specifically enumerated reasons, such as race, gender, etc.

Ekaros 5y ago

If it is bad people, maybe drunk and like drug users. There could be some sort of government score, do bad things and it goes down, do good things and it goes up. Kinda like credit score but for social interaction. Maybe call it social credit system.