4 ms·

So, you get to pay to bypass the theater? Seems like extortion then, since anyone with any actually bad intentions and money will try to pay it. Why have a "se

So, you get to pay to bypass the theater? Seems like extortion then, since anyone with any actually bad intentions and money will try to pay it. Why have a "security measure" only to allow bypassing it? The answer is probably racism. Not everyone is allowed a pre-approval and the reasons for denial are of course obtuse.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
renata 2y ago
You were 100% right until the random racism thing. I'm completely aware I'm paying a bribe for favorable government treatment. Paying the bribe is better individually though. I'd even agree if you said Global Entry is only $30 more because your fingerprints are part of the payment.
- wizardforhire 2y ago
  Welcome to fascism. In Mussolini’s words “government you can do business with” great if you have money sucks for everyone else.
xp84 2y ago
> anyone with any actually bad intentions and money will try to pay it. Except it's not gated by the tiny fee, but with the background check. Only those who are statistically very low risk will be approved (which indeed is most people -- by design). > The answer is probably racism. Not everyone is allowed a pre-approval Is it racist to know the fact that say, zero schoolteachers from Iowa with no history of travel to the Middle East have ever hijacked a plane, but quite a few people from Saudi Arabia and Iran, or who have contacts there, have? And to allow the teacher to bypass the whole mess? I'd say that's efficient. The fee is quite obviously not material to anyone who can afford air travel anyway. It would be a more serious critique if the fee were say, $1,500 a year. But for a hundred bucks every few years, this is neither extortion, nor a burden. It's just paying the admin costs of the program, which means not using general fund money (everyone's taxes) to pay for background checks for rich business travelers. That's progressive. And the alternative to this type of program would be the silliness where some random grandma or child gets invasively searched because "we have to be random."
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > Is it racist to know the fact that say, zero schoolteachers from Iowa with no history of travel to the Middle East have ever hijacked a plane, but quite a few people from Saudi Arabia and Iran, or who have contacts there, have? And to allow the teacher to bypass the whole mess? I'd say that's efficient. Iowans have committed significantly more homicides per capita than people from most European countries (or Saudi Arabia, for that matter). I don't think it's problematic if European airports screen Iowans more heavily than Europeans and Saudis. Do you?
  - xp84 2y ago
    If they had a reputation for committing those homicides in Europe, that seems sensible. As stated though, it would be a big waste of their time. I mean, they are free to do their own risk assessments and run their security as they see fit either way, though. If you really believe the public is kept safe most effectively by pretending to be fully blind to nationality when choosing who to screen at an airport (since you can't intensively screen everyone) I don't know what to tell you. Although it's interesting that the same people who would take that position seem to also argue that colorblindness is actually a sin if it's done while processing a college application.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      You are aware that people from US states with no history of foreign travel have self-radicalized, right?
    - BeetleB 2y ago
      > If they had a reputation for committing those homicides in Europe, that seems sensible. Reputation? Are we deciding security policies by reputation or statistics? I think I'd win the bet of "Americans have killed more people (per capita) in other countries than Saudis have", so it does seem relevant to be more wary of them. Especially given how widespread the former has been, compared to a few incidents with the latter. > If you really believe ... I don't know what to tell you. That does seem evident, yes. > Although it's interesting that the same people who would take that position seem to also argue that colorblindness is actually a sin if it's done while processing a college application. Citation?
Spooky23 2y ago
It’s mostly a background check. I’d guess that most denials are due to drunken stupidity.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

renata 2y ago

You were 100% right until the random racism thing. I'm completely aware I'm paying a bribe for favorable government treatment. Paying the bribe is better individually though. I'd even agree if you said Global Entry is only $30 more because your fingerprints are part of the payment.

wizardforhire 2y ago
Welcome to fascism. In Mussolini’s words “government you can do business with” great if you have money sucks for everyone else.

xp84 2y ago

> anyone with any actually bad intentions and money will try to pay it. Except it's not gated by the tiny fee, but with the background check. Only those who are statistically very low risk will be approved (which indeed is most people -- by design). > The answer is probably racism. Not everyone is allowed a pre-approval Is it racist to know the fact that say, zero schoolteachers from Iowa with no history of travel to the Middle East have ever hijacked a plane, but quite a few people from Saudi Arabia and Iran, or who have contacts there, have? And to allow the teacher to bypass the whole mess? I'd say that's efficient. The fee is quite obviously not material to anyone who can afford air travel anyway. It would be a more serious critique if the fee were say, $1,500 a year. But for a hundred bucks every few years, this is neither extortion, nor a burden. It's just paying the admin costs of the program, which means not using general fund money (everyone's taxes) to pay for background checks for rich business travelers. That's progressive. And the alternative to this type of program would be the silliness where some random grandma or child gets invasively searched because "we have to be random."

BeetleB 2y ago
> Is it racist to know the fact that say, zero schoolteachers from Iowa with no history of travel to the Middle East have ever hijacked a plane, but quite a few people from Saudi Arabia and Iran, or who have contacts there, have? And to allow the teacher to bypass the whole mess? I'd say that's efficient. Iowans have committed significantly more homicides per capita than people from most European countries (or Saudi Arabia, for that matter). I don't think it's problematic if European airports screen Iowans more heavily than Europeans and Saudis. Do you?
- xp84 2y ago
  If they had a reputation for committing those homicides in Europe, that seems sensible. As stated though, it would be a big waste of their time. I mean, they are free to do their own risk assessments and run their security as they see fit either way, though. If you really believe the public is kept safe most effectively by pretending to be fully blind to nationality when choosing who to screen at an airport (since you can't intensively screen everyone) I don't know what to tell you. Although it's interesting that the same people who would take that position seem to also argue that colorblindness is actually a sin if it's done while processing a college application.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    You are aware that people from US states with no history of foreign travel have self-radicalized, right?
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    > If they had a reputation for committing those homicides in Europe, that seems sensible. Reputation? Are we deciding security policies by reputation or statistics? I think I'd win the bet of "Americans have killed more people (per capita) in other countries than Saudis have", so it does seem relevant to be more wary of them. Especially given how widespread the former has been, compared to a few incidents with the latter. > If you really believe ... I don't know what to tell you. That does seem evident, yes. > Although it's interesting that the same people who would take that position seem to also argue that colorblindness is actually a sin if it's done while processing a college application. Citation?

Spooky23 2y ago

It’s mostly a background check. I’d guess that most denials are due to drunken stupidity.