27 ms·
The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal
- ggm 8mo agoIf true, unlikely to help the working poor flying (or attempting to fly) because recourse to courts here is in the realms of the rich or benificent. So, Frommers should fund a test case.
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoIt’s annoying we don’t offer passport cards for free to people as a national government credential. The cost is similar to this fee, and your app and photo could be taken by TSA right at the checkpoint. You head to your flight after identity proofed, and your passport card could then be mailed to you. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-passport/card.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa...
- ggm 8mo agoYou could even double them up as government issued voter-ID and save all that hassle every 4 years. Or the current round of random stop-and-search going on...
- lotsofpulp 8mo agoAnd also provide an API for online services to use so we are not beholden to Alphabet and Apple. And while they’re at it, provide an electronic money account that allows for free and instant transfers. But then how would we waste so many societal resources letting investors profit from basic infrastructure?
- ggm 8mo agoI'm sure some young guns from a techbro company would love to dive into the data lake and make a proposal. They might need to take a few reels of tape away for offsite analysis, but don't worry..
- lotsofpulp 8mo agoThe reels of tape already exist at Apple/Alphabet/Tmobile/ATT/Verizon/Meta/Microsoft/Chase/BoA/etc, subject to secret FISA warrants. What difference does it make?
- secabeen 8mo ago> But then how would we waste so many societal resources letting investors profit from basic infrastructure? That, and Millenarian Christians would object to its being a required "mark of the beast." That bit from Revelations has held us back for quite a while.
- dghlsakjg 8mo agoThe people eligible for passports are not the same group of people eligible for voter id since there are a few jurisdictions where non-citizens can vote in certain elections. Voting is also a responsibility of the states (even at the federal level), so there isn't really such thing as a federal voter id since each state has different eligibility requirements for voters that don't necessarily align with passport eligibility. Additionally, passport cards aren't interchangeable with passports in most countries. Also, every four years? Elections happen more or less constantly in this country at some level or another. Federal elections are every two years, BTW, and that's if we ignore special elections for federal candidates. You should learn more about the system you live in. The current round of stop-and-search would be enabled by making passport cards or some form of universal id. The current legal reality is that you do not need to prove your citizenship on demand if you are already in the US as a citizen. The burden of proof - rightly in my opinion - lies with the government to prove that you are not a citizen. Frankly, I'm quite uncomfortable with "paper's please" entering the US law enforcement repertoire. The fourth amendment was pretty clear about this. With the CBP using mere presence validated by facial id only at legally protected protests as reason to withdraw Global Entry enrollment, it seems more and more clear that we do not need to be giving more power to the people who do not understand the 4th and first amendments. Removing people from Global Entry for protected first speech is, afaict, directly in violation of the first amendment even if Global Entry is a "privilege"
- ehasbrouck 8mo agoFWIW, REAL-ID is not about U.S. citizenship: A passport issued by any country is considered "compliant" with the REAL-ID Act for air travel or any other purpose, regardless of the person's U.S. immigration status. Some politicians seem to have deluded themselves to think that requiring REAL-ID will stop "illegal aliens" from flying. But it won't. Many foreigners in the U.S. (regardless of U.S. immigration status) have an easier time getting REAL-ID (a passport from their country of citizenship) than some U.S. citizens.
- dghlsakjg 8mo agoMy comment was addressing passport cards as a national ID and voter ID.
- umeshunni 8mo ago"government issued voter-ID" Gasp! Checking for IDs while voting is fascist! It's like Germany 1937.
- jimktrains2 8mo ago~~~While it's not a passport, I believe most states have free id cards that are "realid" compliant.~~~ Edit: I'm wrong.
- astura 8mo agoExactly zero states give you real IDs for free.
- WarOnPrivacy 8mo ago> I believe most states have free id cards that are "realid" compliant. None in the mid-Atlantic or SE that I've seen. Some states offer free gov docs under limited programs, eg:unaccompanied homeless youth.
- jimktrains2 8mo agoI stand corrected, at least in Pennsylvania (1). I misremembering the issues surrounding requiring Id to vote. The law that was struck down did provide a free id that would have been suitable for voting; however, that isn't required and no longer exists, and there was no mention I could find of if it would have been realid compliant.(2) (1) https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dmv/resources/payments-and-fees https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dmv/resources/payments-and-fees (2) Applewhite v. Commonwealth https://pubintlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Voter-ID-Final-Order.pdf https://pubintlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Voter-ID-Fi...
- strbean 8mo agoScanning https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/real-id/ https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/real-id/ I'm not sure there is a single state that provides ID without a fee of some sort, across the board.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- ibejoeb 8mo agoIt is, but I think that's a separate issue. There's no authorization, let alone a mandate, to prove identity to move about. The mission, ostensibly, is to make air travel safe by ensuring that passengers don't bring dangerous items onto the plane. It's not to track who is going where.
- 0xCMP 8mo agoI didn't personally experience it (I was too young), but I think that was part of "the mission" since pre-9/11. The point of the ID check is to make sure the boarding ticket and ID match. In effect that tracks who is going where.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- kube-system 8mo ago> The mission, ostensibly, is to make air travel safe by ensuring that passengers don't bring dangerous items onto the plane. No, it is to make it safe for any reason, which goes beyond whether or not they brought box cutters.
- ibejoeb 8mo agoOk, I'll concede that. That boils down to someone bringing something on the plane that can be used to cause trouble.
- kube-system 8mo agoThat could be... themselves.
- ibejoeb 8mo agoYou're right. I vaguely remember a faux hijacking (or a real hijacking but not with the intent to do harm) wherein an unarmed man caused a flight diversion to seek asylum in Italy. He entered the cockpit while the door was open for service. I don't remember the details, but now I'm very curious if identification would have resulted in successful interdiction. It certainly would not have prevented 9/11 since those perps were known to both domestic and foreign intelligence. So what do we do? To bring it back to the root question: how does REAL ID mitigate these threats?
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoHow many of the “working poor” can afford to fly and don’t have a drivers license? All 50 states and 5 US territories issue RealID compliant drivers license/ID
- stonogo 8mo agoRealID licenses cost extra where I live. Your job can buy you a plane ticket but they can't get you through TSA.
- umeshunni 8mo agoIf your job wants you to fly, it should buy you an id that lets you fly. Have you never applied for a visa to travel on a business trip?
- stonogo 8mo agoyes, if there's one thing the working poor are known for, it's successfully extracting money from their employers. if uber wants you to rideshare, they should buy you a car, right?
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoHow many “working poor” have jobs that require business travel?
- stonogo 8mo agoIf the answer is more than "zero" then the fee is harmful. Since I've been in similar positions (specifically as a contractor, where I had to front-load expenses and submit for reimbursement), it seems pretty likely to me.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoYes so we are going to optimize an entire system for this mythical “working poor” business traveler? Every contractor has to do that. That’s the price you pay for going into that business (reason #999 thet while I work in cloud consulting I work full time for consulting companies). Even as a business traveler, I have to pay my own expenses and wait for reimbursement.
- Der_Einzige 8mo agoThe poor trying to fly is exactly why economy and even "premium economy" seating sucks and is getting worse for everyone else not is business class.
- saagarjha 8mo agoWould be nice if we could get rid of them, eh?
- Der_Einzige 8mo agoI sure do want to get rid of the entire concept of "economy" class. If all seats were business class, than economics of scale would kick in and average ticket prices would be more like 2X per seat rather than the 5-10X that you pay for business class vs economy. Flying is a war-crime in the sky for anyone not in business class.
- saagarjha 8mo agoYou must have a very different idea than I do of “economics of scale” if your idea is to make every ticket cost more so fewer people can afford it.
- rbbydotdev 8mo ago> Requiring ID won’t make us safer, but it enables surveillance and potential control of our movements.
- anonymars 8mo agoRemember that you can opt out of TSA's facial recognition https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoAnd exactly what good does that do? The government already has your face tied to your ID and knows you’re flying
- rngfnby 8mo agoAnd my fingerprints too, but I don't have to be a willing participant.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoSo it’s meaningless…
- anonymars 8mo agoDoes facial recognition work better with one photo or many?
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoDoes it matter? If you carry your phone with you they can already track you as well as tag readers when you are driving.
- anonymars 8mo agoWhy should the default be "more tracking" and not "as little as justifiably necessary"? It doesn't even save time, in fact it takes more time screwing around with the camera What problem is any of this solving?
- ChrisArchitect 8mo agoPreviously: US air travelers without REAL IDs will be charged a $45 fee https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46115731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46115731 TSA's New $45 Fee at U.S. Airports Unfairly Punishes Families in the Fine Print https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46138101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46138101
- superkuh 8mo agoYep. It's important to highlight this is not about flying without ID. It's flying without the new federal ID and their attempt to coerce people into getting the federal ID.
- Helithumper 8mo ago“New” Real ID is 21yrs old at this point.
- tdeck 8mo agoThey've been pushing it back every year because states haven't implemented it uniformly. Washington gave me a non real-ID card in 2022. IIRC the only real-ID option at the time was an Enhanced ID which can be used to cross the border from Canada and costs $100.
- philipkglass 8mo agoWashington gave me a non real-ID driver's license in November 2025. I don't plan on upgrading it unless forced to since I also have a passport.
- monksy 8mo agoGet a passport card or a Global entry card .. easier to carry on you for domestic travel.
- 8mo ago
- cmiles8 8mo agoYou have the right to try and fly without an ID. The airlines also have the right to tell you to buzz off and get lost and the airport operator has the right to decide they don’t want you in the building and trespass you if you don’t scram.
- m-s-y 8mo agoThis isn’t like the 1st amendment. Public carriers like airlines are not allowed to refuse service for the reason of refusing to show ID. They can refuse for other reasons, but the are not “in the loop” when passengers currently get screened by the TSA, which is where RealID is “required”.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoThey very much are in the loop if you get on a plane to fly internationally
- stonogo 8mo agoThe airlines are not in charge of airport security. TSA, a government agency, handles that.
- dawnerd 8mo agoKinda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_Partnership_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_Partnership_Program
- calmbonsai 8mo agoYou have an absolute "right to travel" (see the 14th amendment and other cases as recently as 1999), but you're also absolutely correct that "common carriers" can can refuse commercial service and you can be criminally trespassed from an airport, BUT TSA can not charge you a fee to attempt to fly.
- ehasbrouck 8mo ago
- dmitrygr 8mo agoI've flown without ID twice. Once because I lost my ID, once to prove to a friend that it could be done. This fee will fail for the same reason that flying without ID works at all - the law is quite clear on it.
- m-s-y 8mo agoDid you have to show the airline your ID when checking in? As far as I can tell, the TSA is one thing, while airline policy is another. The law says it’s not required for security, but airlines might be justified in carrying out their own policies? Honestly curious.
- tdeck 8mo agoMy brother did this once and if you print your boarding pass before arriving you don't have to check in (obviously this is for a domestic flight with no checked bags). The TSA will question you and swab everything in your suitcase though.
- dmitrygr 8mo agoAirlines do not care. American was once, United another time. I had a boarding pass and they were happy with that
- deathanatos 8mo ago> Did you have to show the airline your ID when checking in? No. Most airlines only start asking for ID if you want to check a bag. But not for check-in.
- khazhoux 8mo agoSo when TSA asked for your ID, what did you do and what did they then do?
- OkayPhysicist 8mo agoYou just tell them "Don't have one". Then they (most likely a second TSA agent so you don't hold up the line) run a quick interview to try and establish who the heck you are, and if you can be trusted to be let onto a plane.
- mmooss 8mo agoIt's an interesting argument. Is there a highly-credible, authoritative source? Maybe someone like the EFF or ACLU? There are lots of ideas online about the law, of varying credibility, and I'd hesitate to risk a lawsuit over Internet advice.
- ibejoeb 8mo agoThe author has been qualified as an expert witness in several venues.
- mmooss 8mo agoExpert witnesses are not reliably credible authorities. They are people with credentials hired to help win lawsuits. I'm sure the author knows more than I do, but that doesn't say much.
- ibejoeb 8mo agoIt's not about his testimony on this particular issue. In fact, it does not appear that he has given any. It's about his qualifications to potentially testify. Even so, in American courts (in which he has previously qualified,) the qualification process is adversarial and involves both direct and cross-examination, so if he wasn't actually qualified, the opposing party would certainly argue as much.
- mmooss 8mo agoThe reality of expert witnesses is not that they are authoritative sources outside the courtroom, but witnesses for one party. It's a job - sometimes for people who didn't find much success in their field - and they are paid by the party that calls them to testify. Everything in a US courtroom is adversarial; every witness is cross-examined and their credibility can be questioned.
- ibejoeb 8mo ago>witnesses for one party >every witness is cross-examined and their credibility can be questioned I think we're talking about different stages. The determination of his qualifications happens before he can be a witness for one party. I'm talking about voir dire. Before we even get him on the stand, there's a separate hearing to determine if he can even be an expert witness, and the opposing party can challenge. Anyway, there is no ongoing action that I can find. It's only just come into effect, so that's to be expected. As far as an authoritative source for the argument: the person we're discussing is actually the author.
- paxys 8mo agoIt's hilarious how transparent a money grab this entire thing is. "You need to show a Real ID for security, otherwise how do we know you won't hijack the plane?" "Well I don't have a Real ID." "Ok then, give us $45 and you can go through." So it was never about security at all then, was it? And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.
- MattDamonSpace 8mo agoterrorists don’t have $45 each
- Supermancho 8mo agoIt's meant to deter poor people, but it sounds better the way you said it.
- lateforwork 8mo agoThe $45 pays for extra checks and scrutiny.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- dheera 8mo agoI'm almost positive they get paid the same at the end of the day either way and the $45 just lines the pockets of someone on the top.
- iknowstuff 8mo agoDo you not see how an organization discouraging the use of something inefficient benefits as a whole? Thats why cashless businesses exist, why you pay more for things that involve human attention instead of automated online solutions etc.
- 46493168 8mo agoWhere does the fee money go then? Into 45’s pocket?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- userbinator 8mo agoThe government, of course.
- ibejoeb 8mo agoIt's a real head-scratcher that the cohort that claims government ID is unattainable for some people hasn't taken up this issue. "Real ID" isn't something that is just delivered to you. Now we're going to charge money not to have it?
- antonymoose 8mo agoIn my state Real ID is just delivered to you. It used to cost $10 for a replacement ID printed in the DMV. Now I pay $25 for a third-party vendor to line their pockets and mail me a new ID weeks later!
- ibejoeb 8mo agoWhat REAL ID-compliant document doesn't require an office visit? Also, if you're paying for it, it isn't accessible.
- wiml 8mo agoWhich cohort is that? In my experience, the left has been against requiring internal passports since day one.
- zzrrt 8mo agoDemocrats usually complain that ID requirements suppress voters’ rights. Your right to travel isn’t as thoroughly suppressed by this as the right to vote is. It’s not a strong excuse, but it’s not totally inconsistent either. And, at least before this change, there were still ways to go through security screening without ID. If those are not allowed any more, maybe Dems will take up the issue.
- thyrsus 8mo agoExplain to me how qualified immunity is better than any ill it is supposed to address? And how is it that if you sue the government and win, then the judgement doesn't automatically award reasonable legal fees?
- schmookeeg 8mo agoEspecially when the implication in the article is the police tried to delete a video from evidence -- and still ended up getting to hide behind qualified immunity. Ugh.
- ibejoeb 8mo agoTwo separate things. Qualified immunity is just immunity from individual liability afforded to government agents when conducting government business, as long as they are conducting it properly.
- Refreeze5224 8mo agoExcept the whole "as long as they are conducting it properly" part isn't actually true.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoIt might be true, it might not. Probably more useful to say "as long as they are conducting it properly" seems to have little impact on any of cases in which such immunity has been an issue.
- insane_dreamer 8mo ago> as long as they are conducting it properly. I think ICE has clearly demonstrated that this is not true
- jfengel 8mo agoThe ill that it's supposed to address is people hassling government officials who are just doing their jobs. Their jobs require them to do things that people don't want them to do, like making you pay taxes or go to jail for committing crimes. They are prominent targets and can easily spend their entire career fighting off complaints. Of course that promptly shifts the potential for abuse in the other direction. Supposedly, democracy is the control over that. If they are abusing their office, you vote them out. (Or you vote out the elected official supervising them, such as a mayor or sheriff.) It actually does work out most of the time. The cases of abuse are really few and far between. But in a country of 300 million, "few and far between" is somebody every single day, and a decent chance that it's you at some point. That said, it should be zero, and there's good reason to think that for every offender you see there are dozens or hundreds of people complicit in allowing it. The theory I outlined above can only handle so many decades of concerted abuses before they become entrenched as part of the system. At which point it may be impossible to restore it without resetting everything to zero and starting over.
- TacticalCoder 8mo ago> As described by Clinton’s counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, this idea was conceived overnight as a way to show that the government was “doing something” in response to a plane crash that turned out to have been caused by a faulty fuel tank, not terrorism. To be honest the worry about terrorists hijacking planes under Clinton proved to be quite prescient only a few years later.
- adastra22 8mo agoAnd they had their IDs checked at the airport when they boarded the planes they hijacked. The security theatre here had no benefit.
- aboardRat4 8mo agoIn the USA it is possible to fly without an ID?
- causalmodels 8mo agoI had a friend who flew out of SFO without an ID for many years without much issue. It was much more difficult for them to get back.
- hackingonempty 8mo agoSFO is one of the few international airports with private security instead of TSA.
- wmf 8mo agoYes.
- arealaccount 8mo agoIf you lost your ID while traveling, what would another option be?
- aboardRat4 8mo agoUsually you go to either a police station or an embassy and receive a temporary permit that has a validity of one week, just enough to get to the place of registration and re-issue your ID.
- adastra22 8mo ago...how? California doesn't have an embassy in New York.
- aboardRat4 8mo agoSurely New York has enough police stations to visit and declare a loss of ID.
- calmbonsai 8mo agoI hadn't heard about this, but this is blatantly against the explicit and implied "right to travel" that's baked into the 14th amendment and had over a 156 years of precedence since Paul vs. Virginia.
- dTal 8mo ago45 dollars? Form 415? Maybe I'm jumping at shadows but this smells like a Trump dogwhistle.
- StillBored 8mo agoFrankly, the entire agency is unconstitutional. From the fact that they basically exist under a general warrant issued by the supreme court (although they invented a new catagory, "administrative search", which doesn't fundamentally change what it is) to the restrictions on the right to assembly requires free travel as well, although the current legal underpinnings are "creative", the 10th admendment which grants all non enumerated powers to the states, to the restrictions on bearing arms on the plane and a half dozen other parts. About the only part they might be able to stand on is commerce again, but then so much travel in the larger states remains in the state (ex dallas/houston, san fran/LA) requiring seperate security zones. Bush should have _NEVER_ nationalized them, at least as a private entity they existed in a sorta gray area. Now they are clearly violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments. And the solution isn't another bullshit supreme court amendment of the absolutist language in the bill of rights/etc but to actually have a national discussion about how much safety the are providing vs their cost, intrusiveness, etc and actually find enough common ground to amend the constitution. Until then they are unconstitutional and the court makes a mockery of itself and delgitimizes then entire apparatus in any ruling that doesn't tear it down as such. And before anyone says "oh thats hard", i'm going to argue no its not, pretty much 100% of the country could agree to amend the 2nd to ban the private ownership of nuclear weapons, there isn't any reason that it shouldn't be possible to get 70% support behind some simple restrictions "aka no guns, detected via a metal detector on public airplanes" passed. But then the agency wouldn't be given free run to do whatever the political appointee of the week feels like. But there are "powers" that are more interested in tracking you, selling worthless scanners, and creating jobs programs for people who enjoy feeling people up and picking through their dirty underwear.
- jfengel 8mo agoInventing categories is what the court does. The Constitution is incredibly brief, and gives zero guidance on how to clarify conflicts. It has always been full of "common sense" exceptions, like criminalizing threats (despite the unqualified "freedom of speech" language) or probable cause (police can invade your house if they know you are committing a crime right now). The sum total of these "common sense" exceptions, and the "legal reasoning" that extends them to the modern world, means that the document itself doesn't actually mean anything. Your rights, such as they are, consist of literally millions of pages of decisions, plus the oral tradition passed down in law schools.
- tedggh 8mo agoIt seems to me it is more of a penalty to encourage people to get Real ID while still allowing them to fly. I would imagine most air travelers have some kind of real id, passport, actual real id DL or global entry card. Very few people cannot get real id due to name inconsistency issues, but most are just lazy. Allowing them to fly for $45 seems reasonable to me, particularly if they cause delays at security.
- rngfnby 8mo agoLazy or worried about an encroaching government?
- samename 8mo agoThere are 15 other forms of ID that TSA accepts, so Real ID isn’t necessary: https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/ https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/
- zootboy 8mo agoHere's the actual TSA list: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification But fun fact: even if an ID is on that list, if it's not one that their little scanner machines know how to read, then it's effectively not on that list. I've been hassled every single time I try to use my TWIC card at TSA, and they invariably demand to use my (non-REAL) driver's license, since their dumb scanners can manage to read that one. They often then have the gall to give me one of their "You need to have a REAL ID" pamphlets. I can't wait to see what happens next time I travel with this new fee in effect.
- bb88 8mo agoI once told TSA this: "I lost my Driver's License, and the state won't issue another for a month maybe. I understand there's an extra screening pat-down." Before entering the porno scanners I put everything in my pockets on the scanner belt, and they didn't bother to pat me down. YMMV.
- micromacrofoot 8mo agoMy procrastination is starting to turn into a political stance. This isn't the first time it's happened.
- AbrahamParangi 8mo agoIt's definitely just to get people to fly with a valid ID without ambushing the enormous number of people who have been living under a rock and don't realize they need a real ID. Otherwise they'll have a dozen or so people freaking out at the airport every single day for years.
- rayiner 8mo agoSaying that there is “no legal requirement to show an ID” is truthy but misleading. Federal law gives the TSA authority over “screening” passengers: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901 (“The Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation.”). That means the TSA can do whatever it can get away with labeling “screening.” It doesn’t matter that Congress didn’t specifically require showing IDs. That’s just one possible way of doing “screening.” Under the statute, the TSA is not required to do screening any particular way.
- free_bip 8mo agoHow can it be legally considered screening if you can pay $45 to bypass it entirely?
- rayiner 8mo agoIt doesn’t bypass the screening. It’s one screening method that’s cheaper to implement because the work is done by the Real ID verification, and another screening method that costs money to do different checks.
- tantalor 8mo ago> doesn't matter that Congress didn't specifically require... Actually it does matter. Chevron deference is gone. If Congress didn't specifically approve this method, it's not legal
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoThat's not what the end of Chevron deference means. It means that if Congress didn't specifically approve this method, a court may find it illegal much more easily than was previously the case. The deference in "Chevron deference" was from the courts towards administrative agencies.
- timnetworks 8mo agoof course none of this nonsense applies to those than can afford private travel
- yalogin 8mo agoTSA has been an elaborate ruse to create a recurring revenue service program called “clear” and tsa-pre. Of course they are also able to monetize the ruse itself.
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoIt's an elaborate ruse to condition Americans to the 4th amendment not being a real thing. The PATRIOT ACT which created the TSA was written by Joe Biden after the Oklahoma City bombing and passed after being reintroduced following 9/11 to end-run around the 4th amendment.
- yalogin 8mo agoNot quite. The bush administration exploited the 9/11 situation and did it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act
- duskdozer 8mo agoAnd conveniently, international airports "count" as "border zones" for the supposed "100-mile border zone" exception
- fugalfervor 8mo ago> The PATRIOT ACT which created the TSA was written by Joe Biden Citation needed. I believe you are mistaken.
- Vicinity9635 8mo ago[dead]
- verdverm 8mo ago> Biden has repeatedly claimed that a bill he wrote in 1994 was essentially the same as the 2001 Patriot Act.
- samename 8mo agoCitizens Council for Health Freedom has a whole page about Real ID. [0] Senator Rand Paul has a bill to repeal it. Crucially, you can still fly without a Real ID - there are 15 other forms of acceptable ID. [0]: https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/ https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/
- lingrush4 8mo agoNot sure why the title was editorialized, but this is literally just one person's opinion. The title makes it sound like the legal community universally agrees, which is not true.
- tonymet 8mo agoIt’s also bad legal commentary . The TSA seems to have broad legal authority. The more vague a law is, the more authority the executive branch has , not less (assuming it’s constitutional, and our constitution is also deliberately limited) There are two avenues for recourse: lobbying your congressman or suing the TSA . I’m guessing the ACLU / EFF and other groups haven’t yet sued because the TSA’s legal authority is broad.
- ehasbrouck 8mo agoAs discussed in the original article, John Gilmore (co-founder of EFF) did sue. "His complaint was dismissed on the basis of TSA policies that said travelers were still allowed to fly without ID as long as they submitted to a more intrusive 'pat-down' and search. The court didn’t rule on the question of whether a law or policy requiring ID at airports would be legal, since the TSA conceded there was no such law."
- tonymet 8mo agoSounds about right
- asdf_snar 8mo agoI think I must be confused, but after reading many of the replies, I can't figure this out. Is the standard American perspective that one shouldn't have to show any form of identification to go through security, get on a plane, and travel anywhere within the United States? How does anyone associate your ticket to your identity?
- bastawhiz 8mo agoWe do have to show ID. But the federal government said it's not enough to use a normal state driver's license or passport. You need a special "Real ID" that's somehow allegedly better. Your old driver's license that you can pay for booze with, open a bank account with, and you know, drive with, isn't proof enough of who you are to ride on a plane. Edit: I should note that I have one. But lots of people don't, because most people never replace their driver's license card.
- dboreham 8mo agoPassport works. You don't need real ID. Its only purpose is to deal with states where the normal driver license issuing process isn't up to whatever standards the feds dictate.
- bastawhiz 8mo agoA passport is just as tedious to get as a real id. As far as I'm aware, there's no compelling security benefit that the government has articulated about how standardizing licenses improves security.
- asdf_snar 8mo agoI think this is where my confusion lies. It seems like many people are saying no ID of any kind -- passport, "real ID", driver's license, ... -- should be provided, period. So ostensibly a 10 year-old could show up at the airport and decide to travel on their own (and if we only ID "young-looking people" then we get into a similar discussion as to why one should always ask for proof of age when buying alcohol). To be clear, I'm refraining from judgment on this (despite what the downvotes seem to suggest), I just want to make sure I'm understanding the distinction is not plain driver's license vs. Real ID. I don't like it very much that I have to show my ID (such as passport or European ID card) when I'm on a train in Switzerland. It seems like the majority perspective is that we shouldn't _at all_ be controlling the ID of people who get on a plane, and that's just interesting to me (it would force me to articulate what the difference is between a plane and a train ride).
- chirau 8mo ago$45 for KBA is crazy. They call somewhere and ask you what addresses you recognize, companies you may have loans with etc. The old stuff.
- jmyeet 8mo agoI want to talk about Chevron deference. Trust me, I'm going somewhere with this. For those that don't know, Chevron deference was a legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court in the US in the 1980s that basically said that there is ambiguity in law, the courts need to defer to the agencies responsible for enforcing that law. Different agencies handled this differently. In some cases, they established their own courts. These aren't ARticle 3 courts in the Constitutional sense like Federal courts are but because of Chevron deference they had a lot of power. There was a lot of good reason for this. Government is complex and Congress simply does not have the bandwidth to pass a law every time the EPA wants to, say, change the levels of allowed toxins in drinking water. Multiple that by the thousands of functions done by all these agencies. It simply doesn't work. So for 40 years Congress under administrations of both parties continued to write law with Chevron deference in mind. Laws were passed where the EPA, for example, would be given a mandate to make the air or water "clean" or "safe" and that agency would then come up with standards for what that meant and enforce it. Politically however, overturning Chevron has been a goal of the conservative movement for decades because, basically, it reduces profits. Companies want to be able to pollute into the rivers and the air without consequence. They don't like that some agency has the power to enforce things like this. The thinking went that if they overturned Chevron deference then it would give the power to any Federal court to issue a nationwide injunction against whatever agency action or rule they don't like. They standard for being to do that under Chevron was extremely high. Defenders will argue that agencies are overstepping constitutional bounds and that vague statues aren't the answer. Congress must be clear. But they know that can't happen because of the complexity and that's the point. They don't want complexity. All those "legal" reasons are an excuse. Proftis are the reason. Anyway, they succeeded and now agencies are governemend by what's called the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. Companies and the wealthy people who owned them celebrated this as a win but I don't think they understand what they've done. You see, there are complex rules under the APA about the process by which an agency has to go through to make a rule or policy change and, from waht I can tell and what I've read online, most of them aren't doing it correctly or at all. They seem to operate under the belief that overturning Chevron means they can do whatever they want. So the TSA is a government agency. If they want to add a fee like this well, you need to ask if that's a major rule change. If so, there are procedures for comment periods, review, etc. If these aren't strictly followed, you can simply go into court and say "the TSA didn't follwo procedure" and the courts can issue a nationwide injunction until the matter is resolved and if there was any technical violation of the APA policy change procedure, the entire thing can get thrown out. So if anyone doesn't like what this administration is doing and wants to take legal action to block it, they should probably look to the APA and see if they can block it on technical grounds. I suspect this applies way more than people think and APA-based injunctions will only increase.
- WaitWaitWha 8mo agoIf Real ID is so good, why do we have CLEAR? Why can I not skip the line with RealID? If we are forced RealID, why not just make all the TSA checkpoints like Global Entry (or in several countries with IDs), fully automate them, using Real ID. That would get rid of CLEAR, and a lot of TSA agents.
- _bohm 8mo agoClear has nothing to do with security. You’re just paying to cut the security line.
- WaitWaitWha 8mo agoDisagree. CLEAR is basically (mostly) self-service pre-verification by a commercial entity, achieves near the same exact thing as it is done at the TSA agent with RealID now. The CLEAR system uses CAT or CAT-2 to send info to TSA to validate. Same, exact protocol and information as it is with the TSA Agent. The only meaningful difference is that the biometrics is pre-stored with CLEAR, while the other travelers are collected at the TSA agent stands and compared to RealID. There are multiple countries where all of this is done with dark technomagic. You can see this witchcraft working with Global Entry (CBP, not TSA). What is interesting about this is that CLEAR has a relationship with the airports (mostly), not TSA. Airports are the ones pushing CLEAR so they do not have insane queues, not TSA. Wait till you see PreCheck Touchless ID.
- Pxtl 8mo ago"illegal" At what point has that stopped literally anything this government has done?
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoTSA's searches without a warrant are illegal. The fourth amendment: >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. And no, you cannot convince me that searching families flying to see grandma for Christmas is a "reasonable search".
- zeroonetwothree 8mo agoYou are entering government property so they have a right to search you. Just like if you enter a sporting event they have a right to search you. You are free to not use either service. Now we could argue that this isn’t a desirable way to do things but I don’t how it would violate the fourth amendment.
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoRead the fourth amendment since you clearly didn't the first time.
- otterley 8mo agoAs an attorney, I can tell you that a naive reading of words in the Constitution is not how law is decided.
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoBelieve it or not, I don't care what authoritarians feel about the 4th amendment that was designed to be read and interpreted free of the courts.
- otterley 8mo agoAnd how, exactly, are you certain of this intended design?
- NoImmatureAdHom 8mo agoThis is a really stupid situation. We shouldn't be obstructed from flying without ID as long as we pass the regular security checks, and those security checks shouldn't be unreasonable. What can we do to get there? Is anybody organizing? I want to open my wallet. Where can I donate?
- jamboca 8mo agobankroll for president's private militia aka ice
- burnt-resistor 8mo agoDon't forget federal sales taxes in the form of tariffs. And also the $8 trillion he added to the national debt push interest payments to be more than the previous defense budget or Medicare.
- refurb 8mo agoThis article seems oddly hung up on the legality of providing ID. That’s all well and fine, but airlines have the discretion to refuse to board passengers, including for potential security risks. So yeah, there are no laws saying you have to provide ID, but that doesn’t mean you’ll get to board the plane.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoCommon carriers can refuse to board you for legitimate reasons. Not having ID is not one of those as far as I know. (Obviously international travel is an entirely different beast. That's neither here nor there.)
- Ms-J 8mo agoNo one should be forced to give an ID for a domestic flight. It always used to be that way. Every day there is huge amount of chipping away at our freedoms. Someone pointed out amazing advice on how to skip certain checks in this thread, well done. Any chance you get to regain freedom, by any means, take it.
- urbandw311er 8mo agoDoes a small part of you not feel the urge, however, to check who people are before letting them on your plane. By which I mean, after 9/11 and all that happened there.
- Ms-J 8mo agoNot at all. I wouldn't allow an event such as that in history to remove everyone's freedom, including mine. There are many other ways a person can inflict damage much larger than that without a plane and easier.
- Der_Einzige 8mo agoTHANK YOU! We need far more of a culture of "sometimes you gotta take one for the team". This is literally what Charlie Kirk was saying at the exact moment he "took one for the team". Bad things can happen and you don't have to change stuff just because it happened. Accept negative externalities and don't collectively punish your people for the bad actions of a few.
- donatj 8mo agoLet's say in theory the TSA is doing their job and verifying there is nothing dangerous on the plane, it would seem to me then anyone should be allowed to fly. I don't see what we're supposed to even be achieving beyond a warrantless harassment campaign against people the government decides it doesn't like?
- tallanvor 8mo agoNo, why would it? When I take the bus, subway, or train, nobody is checking IDs - at most they check if I have a valid ticket, which can be bought with cash. I've flown many times within the EU/EEA without showing an ID, so I fail to see why traveling within the US should be any different. I've spent most of my life in the US, but the only times I've been in close proximity of terrorist events have been in Norway (Breivik's bomb went off two blocks away from where I worked at the time, and more recently the shooting outside London Pub that killed two and injured multiple others). I wish I understood why the US feels the need to overreact to everything.
- dzogchen 8mo agoFun fact, I rarely have to show my ID when flying in the EU. But what I don’t understand is why so many people don’t have an ID in the US. Seems like one of the very basic service governments should provide.
- fyrn_ 8mo agoIt's a product of the lingering sentiment of a country founded on not wanting to pay taxes, mixed with (often warrented) mistrust of the government and truely insane immigration laws all jumbled togeather. Yeah, we would be better of with something universal and more robust then the toilet paper they print social security numbers on, but we got the system it was possible to pass through congress.
- tallanvor 8mo agoPlenty of people have an ID in the US, the issue is whether or not those IDs are considered valid to get past security in the airport. Did you know that Norway only introduced a national ID card in 2020? Until then if you didn't have a driver's license the only other state-issued ID option was a passport, and 10% of Norwegians don't have one. Until around 2015 or so banks would issue your bank card with a photo and your birthdate on it, and that was used as a de facto ID. I've flown between plenty of EEA countries without ever having to show an ID. The requirement to have one in the US is incredibly stupid and only serves to make it harder for decent people to travel. It provides no actual value to safety.
- mk_stjames 8mo agoI fly between various countries in western Europe a dozen times a year and have done so for a decade and every single time I've boarded a plane I have had to shown a photo ID with my name on it that matches my name on the plane ticket. Most of the time the gate agent barely looks at the ID/name, but it is required to hand it to them. I have never once just walked on a plane without showing ID with my name on it, and I have never seen anyone in line in front of me do so, ever, and I'm talking hundreds of flights at this point. It doesn't have to be a passport, I see older Spanish people showing their driver's license only all the time, but it has to have a photo and a name (to match the name on the ticket in some way) and be a state issued ID. Again, they seem very lenient with that whole name matching thing and checking the authenticity of the ID (it isn't scanned, just visually inspected), but I've never seen anyone just say 'no' and get on a plane. So what the hell part of the EU are you talking about where they don't ask for any ID at the point where you are boarding, whatsoever? For reference, here is Iberia's page for required ID when flying, and I've seen that this is absolutely enforced every time when checking in and boarding. https://www.iberia.com/es/fly-with-iberia/documents/spain/ https://www.iberia.com/es/fly-with-iberia/documents/spain/
- dboreham 8mo agoFun fact: for internal flights in New Zealand you don't need (and aren't asked for) ID. There is security but pretty lightweight. No shoes, laptops, belts, liquids, scanner crap.
- Havoc 8mo agoDon’t think legality matter anymore
- freetanga 8mo agoSeems quite dangerous. In my country, this was the norm for local flights - usually smaller planes, 1-2hr flights. It was common that if you could not attend a meeting, a colleague would go with your ticket. Nobody cared. Then one plane crashed. And some passengers weren't insured, as they were not officially on the plane. Those families could not get a body back, nor any compensation, as the company said that they could not prove they were on the plane. I don't read the small print of IATA when getting a ticket, maybe I should someday.
- xeornet 8mo agoAbout 75% of the time I don't get asked for ID at all when flying within Schengen Europe. I understand technically there isn't any border crossing, but they have absolutely no idea who is actually on the plane. Wild.
- fransje26 8mo agoThat's because you have the right to travel freely between Schengen countries. Asking for an ID or passport when embarking/disembarking would be similar to having an ID check at a border, and would therefore be a border control, i.e. no longer free travel. Of course Schengen countries have the right to temporarily re-enable border checks.
- bloomark 8mo agoYou also have the right to travel freely within the domestic US.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- xeornet 8mo agoI imagine it's the same as a police officer asking for your name on the street. They are allowed to ask, and you are required to provide it. There's no restriction of freedom happening. I think it's logically prudent to know who is on a flight.
- t1234s 8mo agoThere was no TSA in 1996 just private security screeners.
- baggachipz 8mo agoOh good another poor tax, there hasn't been one for a hot minute.
- tiffanyh 8mo agoI understand peoples argument ... but isn’t this like a restaurant sign saying “no shoes, no shirt, no service”. Yes, the law doesn’t require people to wear shirts. But the law also doesn’t require you to be serviced.
- hk1337 8mo agoInteresting, the main and probably only reason I know this is a legitimate site and not some random person's blog post is because I heard about Frommers from the movie Eurotrip.
- mghackerlady 8mo agoI don't care, sure it's a clear money grab but it's a small price to pay for the (admittedly little) privacy
- AdmiralAsshat 8mo agoI recently started going through The Mary Tyler Moore show and was struck by the timeliness of this quote from the very first episode: Lou Grant: What religion are you? Mary: Uh, Mr. Grant, I don't quite know how to say this, but you're not allowed to ask that when someone's applying for a job. It's against the law. Grant: Wanna call a cop?
- pinkmuffinere 8mo agoPractically speaking, could I fly inside the U.S. without an ID? Just ask for the manual pat down? I assume I’ll need to show up like an extra hour early to give them time to harass me about it, but what are the chances that this works at all, vs just being turned away regardless of what’s legal?
- awakeasleep 8mo agoI was pickpocketed a few years ago and was able to fly domestically without ID. They had some service that gave them a bunch of identity verification questions about my past and I had to go through a little rigamaroll answering them.
- pinkmuffinere 8mo agoHuh, interesting. This is fascinating, would love to see an edutainment YouTube video on this, I’ll have to see if there is something
- trashface 8mo agoI don't have a real ID and don't plan to get one, but I also basically never fly anymore (been over 5 years). However this is certainly further incentive for me not to fly - wonder if airlines will see a slight decline in travelers over next few years due to this.
- alkonaut 8mo agoWhat if an airline requires ID, is that legal? (Say to e.g. sell discounted tickets to 65+ people, or to avoid people selling tickets on)?
- zbentley 8mo agoYes, because private companies aren’t subject to the PRA like federal agencies are. FWIW, I’m not sure that TSA ID verification does indeed have a PRA claim in the way the article asserts, and I am very sure that the PRA is a dumb law that needs to be removed: https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/why-the-paperwork-reduction-act-needs https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/why-the-paperwork-reduction-a...
- NoSalt 8mo agoThis has to make you wonder if the entire Security Theater is for security or money. I mean, if the RealID is supposed to increase security, then how does plopping $45.00 down help security? I'm pretty sure most terrorists can afford that. There is also the possibility that the RealID is simply another way the government is using to keep tabs on us 24/7/365.
- gaoshan 8mo agoSince this is proof that the original and stated point of supplying ID is not valid can we just dispense with the whole charade? It clearly isn't about security if a measly $45 is all it takes to circumvent it so let's just get rid of it entirely. The emperor not only has no clothes, he's shouting that fact at us.
- tristor 8mo agoI remember flying before the TSA, it was pretty great in part because you could do things like go to the gate to meet arriving family, or walk your child to the gate before they departed as an unaccompanied minor, with the expectation someone was meeting them at the gate on the other side. There has never been a single observation or piece of information that has indicated anything other than the TSA is an unconstitutional waste of money doing security theatre to support a jobs program for societal rejects. All that said, I've been enrolled in Global Entry since it started, CLEAR since it started, and Pre-Check since it started (which later was included w/ Global Entry) because I have places to be and people to see, and I need to just get on with my life. I really hate everything about the TSA, it fundamentally should not even exist as a national entity, and most of their processes and policies are not only illegal but also stupid. But, if you need to travel often there's not a lot you can do about it, you just have to deal with it or not travel. I'm a multiple million miler, been to over 75 different countries and nearly every US state, I travel at least 10 times per year and usually more, what else is there to do about it?
- ghaff 8mo agoA number of years back I somehow managed to lose my driver's license between the car and the airport door. Even called the limo company to have the driver look. But <poof> apparently. Normally I have a backup ID but this was a very last minute and short trip. Amazingly (to me) the TSA process was easy. What wasn't easy was checking into a crappy Travelodge near the airport. I imagine if I were staying at one of my usual chains where I have a loyalty card, a manager would have waved away any problems. (I did have photo ID and I was plastered all over the Web; I just didn't have backup government issued photo ID which I now make a particular point of carrying.)
- silexia 8mo agoLet's get rid of the TSA!
- PHMF 8mo agoPretty clear it's illegal. Thanks to Frommers.com for running this piece. They've actually been out front on a lot of the bad changes this administration is making in the travel sphere.