3 ms·

> Stand here with no shoes They now sell you a solution to bypass that step. Surely a little background check proves your shoes are safe.

ethanbond 4y ago
Why wouldn’t it?
coin 4y ago
"Racket" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering > offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem, or offer a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket Operating a racket is called racketeering.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  At least that racket pays the government directly. They came up with another racket to skip further in the line lets a private company take a cut for bribing the government to let you skip to the front and buy back some of your time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Secure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Secure
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    I got this free via a credit card, and the looks I got from the line as I was personally ushered past all of them was enough to make it a one-off thing. Heh.
  - godelski 4y ago
    > At least that racket pays the government directly. Yes and no? Yes, it creates jobs and pays people but it isn't like funds are being used to benefit society. They aren't being used to build roads or schools. There's no evidence to show that these funds are making flights safer either. We're giving up a lot of privacy for this and even giving up more, with the real ID act and pushes for facial recognition technologies. I think a lot of people, including me, would feel better about these inconveniences and the extra money we pay for them, if there was any real evidence to suggest that they actually made us safer. But since there isn't, after two decades of data, I wouldn't blame anyone for calling it a racket (as defined above). But on top of that, there's further rackets like what you are referring to. But the government also participates in this directly (Clear is indirect) through the TSA precheck. A racket can have multiple levels and multiple actors.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Yes, I do not support either racket, but letting a private company insert themselves is an escalation
    - thrashh 4y ago
      I don’t think there can be data A well-run IT department will never have data that they prevent IT disasters
      - godelski 4y ago
        I'm not sure that this is true. There's two obvious ways that an IT department can measure this. 1) They can see people attacking the system. We can even often see what these people are attempting to do! A lot of security research is focused on this, figuring out what attackers are trying to do. 2) We have post hoc analysis. We can see lots of attacks and then provide an intervention and see if those decrease. Since terrorist attacks were black swan events you're right that we can't really measure the effect of TSA, but then again, do we need to address black swan events? At least we need to compare the costs and it is pretty clear that the yearly number of increased deaths due to driving alone is higher than the number of deaths from decades of terrorist attacks and hijackings. I'd say we have pretty good data in both cases to make fairly reasonable conclusions about how effective these interventions are. There's a reason very few people question the need for an IT department. The ones that do don't question it for long after attempting to run without them.
        thrashh 4y ago
        Well I’m more talking about preventive maintenance The act of doing your job in IT means problems never come up and you can’t really measure what didn’t happen
        godelski 4y ago
        I think you're missing part of the equation which I addressed. The whole reason IT departments implement security measures is because prior to their implementations they would have services consistently cut off. But even today you can see people attempting to access the networks. This is definitely measurable. We can see attempts to access specific ports, scanners, DDOS attempts, and a lot more. I'm not sure why you think this can't be measured. Measuring these attempted attacks is a major part of defense and even a bigger part of defense research. We don't have the same parallel in TSA but we do have some parallels in other areas of physical security. So honestly, I don't know what you're going on about because these easily demonstrable facts. Anyone who has run a home server has experienced this.
phpisthebest 4y ago
What is ironic, I was at a small airport while back and the Pre-Check line was longer than the normal security line.... people in normal security were getting through faster....
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Rumour has it they put the new staff on the Pre lines, so per-staff throughput can actually be lower.
bmelton 4y ago
I've yet to figure out how it's reasonable for the government to deny us our fourth amendment rights and then lease them back to us for $78, but I suppose I'm equally shocked at how inexpensive it is to violate those rights such that they've managed to make $78 / 5 years somehow profitable?
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Ah well technically you have no 4th amendment right within 100 miles of the border or at any so-designated international airport. Details here. [1] [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
  - bmelton 4y ago
    I believe the courts have decided in error.
    - runnerup 4y ago
      On this and many, many other things. Furthermore, if this is a result of correctly interpreting the constitution…our lawmakers should have, and still should, immediately change the constitution. We really need an explicit right to privacy. Third party doctrine is ridiculous as it applies to gmail, UPS, FedEx. TSA in general should be plainly unconstitutional. Americans should have reasonable rights even while crossing the border. Americans should still have the same rights vs. the US government when they’re not in America (not okay for FBI to tap my phone line while I’m in Germany, I still have the constitution protecting me as a U.S. citizen). Foreigners inside USA also should have full constitutional protections. 2nd amendment needs massive clarification, I don’t even care what just make it clear in plain language. If we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol…Why wasn’t one needed for weed? How the Fuck did civil asset forfeiture get ruled to be legal? That needs an amendment. Why don’t citizens get recompense when the government fucks up and takes all their shit when they read the address on the warrant wrong? Why is the right to a speedy trial still take over a year often? And why are “innocent until proven guilty” people held in jail that whole time? How is imprisoning people in Guantanamo forever with no trial constitutional?

ethanbond 4y ago

Why wouldn’t it?

coin 4y ago

"Racket" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering > offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem, or offer a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket Operating a racket is called racketeering.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
At least that racket pays the government directly. They came up with another racket to skip further in the line lets a private company take a cut for bribing the government to let you skip to the front and buy back some of your time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Secure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Secure
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  I got this free via a credit card, and the looks I got from the line as I was personally ushered past all of them was enough to make it a one-off thing. Heh.
- godelski 4y ago
  > At least that racket pays the government directly. Yes and no? Yes, it creates jobs and pays people but it isn't like funds are being used to benefit society. They aren't being used to build roads or schools. There's no evidence to show that these funds are making flights safer either. We're giving up a lot of privacy for this and even giving up more, with the real ID act and pushes for facial recognition technologies. I think a lot of people, including me, would feel better about these inconveniences and the extra money we pay for them, if there was any real evidence to suggest that they actually made us safer. But since there isn't, after two decades of data, I wouldn't blame anyone for calling it a racket (as defined above). But on top of that, there's further rackets like what you are referring to. But the government also participates in this directly (Clear is indirect) through the TSA precheck. A racket can have multiple levels and multiple actors.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Yes, I do not support either racket, but letting a private company insert themselves is an escalation
  - thrashh 4y ago
    I don’t think there can be data A well-run IT department will never have data that they prevent IT disasters
    - godelski 4y ago
      I'm not sure that this is true. There's two obvious ways that an IT department can measure this. 1) They can see people attacking the system. We can even often see what these people are attempting to do! A lot of security research is focused on this, figuring out what attackers are trying to do. 2) We have post hoc analysis. We can see lots of attacks and then provide an intervention and see if those decrease. Since terrorist attacks were black swan events you're right that we can't really measure the effect of TSA, but then again, do we need to address black swan events? At least we need to compare the costs and it is pretty clear that the yearly number of increased deaths due to driving alone is higher than the number of deaths from decades of terrorist attacks and hijackings. I'd say we have pretty good data in both cases to make fairly reasonable conclusions about how effective these interventions are. There's a reason very few people question the need for an IT department. The ones that do don't question it for long after attempting to run without them.
      - thrashh 4y ago
        Well I’m more talking about preventive maintenance The act of doing your job in IT means problems never come up and you can’t really measure what didn’t happen
        godelski 4y ago
        I think you're missing part of the equation which I addressed. The whole reason IT departments implement security measures is because prior to their implementations they would have services consistently cut off. But even today you can see people attempting to access the networks. This is definitely measurable. We can see attempts to access specific ports, scanners, DDOS attempts, and a lot more. I'm not sure why you think this can't be measured. Measuring these attempted attacks is a major part of defense and even a bigger part of defense research. We don't have the same parallel in TSA but we do have some parallels in other areas of physical security. So honestly, I don't know what you're going on about because these easily demonstrable facts. Anyone who has run a home server has experienced this.

phpisthebest 4y ago

What is ironic, I was at a small airport while back and the Pre-Check line was longer than the normal security line.... people in normal security were getting through faster....

Scoundreller 4y ago
Rumour has it they put the new staff on the Pre lines, so per-staff throughput can actually be lower.

bmelton 4y ago

I've yet to figure out how it's reasonable for the government to deny us our fourth amendment rights and then lease them back to us for $78, but I suppose I'm equally shocked at how inexpensive it is to violate those rights such that they've managed to make $78 / 5 years somehow profitable?

arcticbull 4y ago
Ah well technically you have no 4th amendment right within 100 miles of the border or at any so-designated international airport. Details here. [1] [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- bmelton 4y ago
  I believe the courts have decided in error.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    On this and many, many other things. Furthermore, if this is a result of correctly interpreting the constitution…our lawmakers should have, and still should, immediately change the constitution. We really need an explicit right to privacy. Third party doctrine is ridiculous as it applies to gmail, UPS, FedEx. TSA in general should be plainly unconstitutional. Americans should have reasonable rights even while crossing the border. Americans should still have the same rights vs. the US government when they’re not in America (not okay for FBI to tap my phone line while I’m in Germany, I still have the constitution protecting me as a U.S. citizen). Foreigners inside USA also should have full constitutional protections. 2nd amendment needs massive clarification, I don’t even care what just make it clear in plain language. If we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol…Why wasn’t one needed for weed? How the Fuck did civil asset forfeiture get ruled to be legal? That needs an amendment. Why don’t citizens get recompense when the government fucks up and takes all their shit when they read the address on the warrant wrong? Why is the right to a speedy trial still take over a year often? And why are “innocent until proven guilty” people held in jail that whole time? How is imprisoning people in Guantanamo forever with no trial constitutional?