What is the practical* justification / value of knowing the name of every air traveler? Literally how is safety in any way increased (or any other benefit obtained for that matter) for anyone, either traveler or non-traveler.
I can’t even reason about cost or burden to benefit trade offs without knowing a benefit, and I have never seen any clearly stated. Just vague handwaves (“obviously this makes us safer” or circular justification.
* I am not asking for legal justification, which is itself unclear as explained elsewhere on John’s site.
Well, if they removed checking identities as it doesn’t relate to “transportation safety” they’d likely just replace it by a check from one of those other agencies.
It's not. One of my friends has a name somewhat similar to a person formerly suspected of terrorist activities. His first and last name are both different from the actual suspect, but his email is kinda sorta close. He gets detained and questioned for hours every time he flys.
Well, the liquid ban was added because some terrorists were caught trying to smuggle liquid binary explosives onto airplanes (with the plan to mix them in-air, then detonate them). Some airports are repealing the liquid ban now that they've developed screening machines that can accurately identify the contents of water bottles etc.
> accurately identify the contents of water bottles
"accurately" -- rolls eyes.
Put a small bottle of silicone lube in your carry-on and watch the slapstick.
Apparently silicone lube comes up as a totally unusual color on TSA carry on screens. At least in Austin, TX--nobody recognizes it (I bet SFO wouldn't have this problem).
I had 4 fairly small, young ladies mulling over a bottle that I had forgotten about (normally my luggage is totally air travel optimized but I had been doing a lot of driving travel with my wife and didn't do a good enough purge). I was like, look, it's under the limits, but just throw it out. I'm not in a hurry but I also don't want to be held up forever and miss my plane over an $8 dollar bottle of liquid.
In spite of the quite obvious labeling, one of the young ladies decided to get a bit snippy and demand what it was. Erm. Okay. It's written on the side of the bottle, but you asked for it.
So, I got to explain in excruciating and visceral detail in my rather stentorian voice that small women like her and her cohorts often need a bit of help when they attempt to have sex with someone who has an enormous dong like mine. THAT was the purpose of the bottle that has the words "sexual lubricant" emblazoned on the side.
All four of the women blushed to the top of their ears. Quite a few people in line chuckled. My wife rolled her eyes with her "I'm so put upon" expression. They finally threw the bottle out and waved me through.
At the gate board, a Good Ole Boy Texan--hat, boots, and belt buckle-stopped us with a full drawl "That was great and they so deserved that. How bout I buy y'all a beer?"
That is a really stupid reason, because it doesn't make any sense. Why would the security agencies care how many concessions are sold? Why would airports provide free drinking fountains with bottle-filling attachments if there was some governmental conspiracy to sell more water?
The much more likely explanation is that there is some threat where the neer-do-wells would use X oz of something bad to mess up a plane or the passengers. Maybe X=5 and it is to prevent lone wolf attacks. Maybe X=21 and the argument is they would need to get 7 bad guys onto the plane to do it, which decreases the odds significantly that it could be pulled off without security agencies figuring out the plan.
I don't think they're convincing us but the employees. We think of security theater as theater because we're sitting in the audience.
But you need the actors on board too. The name list, which naturally gives lots of false positives because it's just a list of names, gives agents something to do. It fills their day and makes them feel the persistent threat.
Instead of "nothing happened last month, hmm, or the month before that" they actually get a calendar full of things. It's a really terrible setup if you have the same name as a terrorist, but without it they literally are just Thousands Standing Around.
I figured the idea was to join the list of travelers with the list of people who have somehow been red-flagged as a terrorism risk. Your physical scanning will fail some fraction of the time, your electronic system will fail some of the time, but it’s less likely that they will both fail. I’m not saying I agree with this idea - perhaps a dedicated attacker could get around both systems. And I haven’t put much thought into the downsides of this system, so I don’t have an opinion of whether the tradeoffs are worth it.
The premise is somebody might be so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly, but simultaneously so innocent there is nothing the government could arrest and convict them for.
It's total bullshit. The politicians who created this system should be prosecuted for subverting the constitution, but there is no conceivable way for that to happen.
I'll play devil's advocate for the theory behind the no-fly list. (Though certainly not for the government's sloppy implementation.)
I think your argument is that the government simply cannot be justified in restricting someone who hasn't been convicted of any crime.
Wouldn't that reasoning also apply to restraining orders and personal protective orders? They do not require a trial, and the burden of proof is pretty low.
You could make a distinction based on how broad or narrow the restrictions are. Not being able to fly anywhere is more restrictive than staying 100 yards away from one particular person. But that's a different argument than there being something fundamentally wrong with the concept.
Someone can’t just show up and get a restraining order (would be quite handy if so, for prank value if nothing else).
You have to present evidence before a judge, evidence that could be admissible in court. Yes, the bar for most restraining orders is low (often simply the sworn word of the requestor plus some other evidence like police reports or testimony of others), but so is the level of restraint. The key fact is the subject of said order can fight it in open court and the claims or evidence raised by the requestor can be challenged.
One can reasonably argue as to the merits and drawback of such a system but at least they interlock with due process.
But a secret no fly list based on classified or otherwise inadmissible evidence is a completely unrelated and immoral thing.
Thanks for the point about judicial review. That's obviously very important. (And, if judicial review were added to the no-fly list, the list would probably get orders of magnitude smaller.)
But it would still be possible (with judicial review) to put people on a no-fly list who the government nevertheless has no grounds to arrest for anything, just as it is possible today to issue restraining orders for people who the government has no grounds to arrest.
That specific argument against the no-fly list is really the only thing I was trying to take issue with.
> Wouldn't that reasoning also apply to restraining orders and personal protective orders? They do not require a trial, and the burden of proof is pretty low.
Restraining orders and personal protective orders are court ordered according to the constitutional framework. They aren't things that are randomly assigned by airport employees.
To be fair, the issue is there's no judicial review at all to be put on the no-fly list. That's really the difference between it and a restraining order.
I’ve read articles about how the government will engage in elaborate sting operations to entrap people with some level of extremist sympathies into participation in terrorist plots [1]. From that perspective, it isn’t the case that the government will instantly throw someone in jail if they suspect them of being a potential terrorist. It wouldn’t be a good look if one of these people went and actually did some terrorism while the government was busy constructing the fake terrorism to convict them.
An intelligence agency can probably figure out that someone is associated with terrorists before evidence is available to convict them beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe it’s even appropriate that the legal standard to get secondary physical screening during air travel is lower than the legal standard to get thrown in jail? I welcome any opinions on that question - I feel it’s in the background of the original post and this discussion.
> Maybe it’s even appropriate that the legal standard to get secondary physical screening during air travel is lower than the legal standard to get thrown in jail?
No. That's a subversion of due process and politicians who support such systems are enemies of the American people.
It does seem a little odd, to me. If somebody tries to bomb a place, and the government screwed up the chain of custody on the evidence, of course they shouldn’t be imprisoned (see cases like Mapp V. Ohio). In addition, they have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Throwing someone in jail for years is the most severe of civil rights violations if unwarranted, justifying a very high standard of evidence.
Perhaps the evidence our suspect bombed a plane wasn’t quite strong enough for “beyond reasonable doubt”, but they did lose a civil case from the victim’s families under “preponderance of evidence”. Whence cometh the opinion that “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be the standard of evidence before someone is searched before boarding a plane?
When attempting to board an airplane, where different levels of physical screening take different amounts of time and resources to perform, and it’s not practical to fully screen everyone, we ought to apply the same legal standards of a criminal conviction to differentiate different levels of screening? Even if there’s “clear and convincing” evidence the person bombed a plane before, we ought to let them through anyway without even patting them down? Do we need a jury of peers at the ready at every checkpoint to make this determination? Would you also apply this same standard before someone could be restricted from admittance to the halls of congress, to Fort Knox, or to a warehouse in a major city storing many tons of seized fertilizer?
For reference, here’s a full list of the standards of evidence in the US, ordered from weakest to strongest:
How about just seeing if they are carrying a bomb? The additional scope creep reduces the chance of a bomb being detected.
Sure, a trained person can probably kill with dental floss, but nowadays between the armored cockpits and the willingness of passengers to swarm a bad guy the risks of anything but a bomb are pretty low.
Yeah, it could well be the case that our scanning technology has improved to the point that we can efficiently screen everyone without any need to single out people that get flagged. Then again, there was also lots of resistance to the introduction of this improved scanning tech too (people seeing blurry monochrome outline of human genitalia is apparently a major civil rights violation). It seems like people are in opposition even to improvements in the screening process that make it more effective, and therefore fairer (less need to single flagged people out for a pat down).
> The premise is somebody might be so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly, but simultaneously so innocent there is nothing the government could arrest and convict them for.
What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? What if they’re not ready to arrest because they think you might lead them to people higher up in your organization?
Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss.
Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what?
edit: for the record I don’t think any of this is a good idea, I’m exploring what the reasoning might be
> What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up?
Then that is a civil rights violation right there. Police shouldn't have illegally gathered evidence. Police should not be making decisions based on illegally gathered evidence. Police should not be making an endrun around the courts to apply punishments (such as forbidding travel) based on illegally gathered evidence.
>What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up?
I think the point of disallowing evidence found those ways is to discourage investigators from using those ways. If they can use it, they will seek it.
>Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what?
Totally off topic, but my proposal: a social worker should reach out to you and help with whatever problems you have. Very few people harm others just for the thrill of harming others. There's usually some other cause (revenge, poverty, desire to be heard).
So basically you watched Minority Report and thought it was a great idea? I think you missed the point.
> Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting
If there is evidence somebody might blow up or hijack a plane and they must therefore be kept off that plane, then that person should be arrested. Do you think forbidding them from boarding the plane but letting them walk free without being arrested won't tip off the rest of their organization? Give me a break.
> can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet.
If “might do” means actually planning to commit a crime and then taking some material action to further that plan, then they can be charged with attempt.
> Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss.
I can't imagine a scenario where blowing up an airplane full of civilians would fall into the category of "not worth arresting".
> Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane.
That's fiction for a reason--there's no possible way to know that from "data science". In the real world, you can know that from things like direct evidence that this person is involved in a plot to blow up an airplane, which is something they can be arrested for.
> I can't imagine a scenario where blowing up an airplane full of civilians would fall into the category of "not worth arresting".
If you are confident in your ability to stop them at the checkpoint if they actually try to board a plane, why arrest immediately when you can try to obtain more leads?
> What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up?
Then they shouldn't have resorted to illegal means to gain that evidence. Using it to prevent someone from flying or to subject them to "advanced screening" is no more justifiable than using it in court.
> What if they’re not ready to arrest because they think you might lead them to people higher up in your organization?
They would share responsibility for whatever additional crimes you end up committing in the meantime because they failed to act on the evidence which they had. Until they actually bring the matter up in court, however, you remain a free citizen and ought not be subjected to special restrictions or mistreatment without a trial on the basis of secret evidence.
> Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what?
People don't blow up planes by accident. You're either planning to blow up a plane, in which case you have already done a number of illegal things, or you're not, in which case you're 0% likely to blow up a plane.
> you have already done a number of illegal things
Fun thing I learned recently in a Netflix documentary: It used to be legal to be a mafia boss because you weren’t the one doing illegal things. Someone had to fight real hard in the 70’s to create a new law that made it illegal to tell others to commit crimes.
It was legal to own C4 that doesn’t smell until 1996. A new law after a series of bombings made it illegal.
Sure, but are those illegal things provable? Maybe someone is flagged based on suspicious searches about explosives and planes. That’s clearly not enough to arrest someone, however might be enough of a concern to stop them for a deeper search when boarding a plane.
The theater of everything right now is absurd, but there are reasons for using identity to narrow more narrowly search people who may have some probable cause. My concern with the TSA is that we search everyone, regardless of probable cause.
If you don't have enough to charge them or ask for a warrant, you don't have enough to restrict their civil liberties. That process exists for a reason.
> Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss.
It's interesting that you bring up mafia in a conversation about the federal government. The federal government collaborated with the mafia dueing WWII and afterwards. So, no, that is not the government that should have power to manufacture evidence and pretend it was legally obtained.
I'll state that I think the cons currently outweigh the benefits with most TSA practices, but the justification is verifying that you are who you say you are. AFAIK this is the only area we do this sort of strict verification in addition to numerous baggage and personal item checks. Well I guess we also do this if you're going to see an important government official or visit the NSA headquarters or something.
Where it gets hazy to me is why this is a security add anymore. There was an initial scare of vetting that all travelers weren't secretly terrorists waiting to pounce on the cockpit. So you secure the cockpit (good, simple add-on there) and you add in metal detectors and X-rays for weapons and contraband (literally what we were doing pre-9/11). You need a passport to get into the country, so it's not like they don't have a record or a means to monitor suspected people coming into the country. Just seems asinine that they continue to do the ID checks and x-ray your entire body at this point.
Airport security is one of the vestigial organs of the military industrial complex. The purpose of these ID checks and X-rays are to drive funding to the companies that make these machines.
Now that these companies are sucking on the teet of Uncle Sam, there will be incredible amounts of whining at any attempt to remove them.
It's law enforcement over-reach, by requiring identification on all flights they make air travel an unappealing option for wanted people at the expense of everyone else. It does not make anyone safer, just their job easier.
If I recall, the requirement was put in place after TWA Flight 800 crashed into the Atlantic. Although the plane likely crashed due to wiring problems resulting in a fuel tank explosion, a variety of institutions blamed terrorism and Clinton wanted to be seen as doing something to prevent another disaster. Richard Clarke writes about this in his book, "Against All Enemies":
> What is the practical* justification / value of knowing the name of every air traveler? Literally how is safety in any way increased (or any other benefit obtained for that matter) for anyone, either traveler or non-traveler.
Having a giant government database that documents precisely the travels of all citizens.
This can be cross referenced to put names to de-anonymize cellphones and SIMs that have been bought in cash.
Flying used to be a great way to escape a crime that was just committed. By knowing the name and id of every traveler, we can stop criminals from fleeing their crime scenes.
But if they have just committed a crime the system wouldn’t know to look for them, would it?
However assuming that it takes a while for the suspect to decide to skip town, it’s perhaps useful. The next question is whether it’s worth spending the money on these machines, hiring people to run them, and inconveniencing the innocent travelers (presumably 10^9 X the number of perps collared) is worth the occasional arrest. Ignoring false positives of course. And especially when there are plenty of other ways to skip town.
I have a separate problem with scope creep.
But thanks for suggestions use case that can actually be considered. Is this reason ever used as a justification for the TSA?
Isn't this just an actual use of the RealID for its (purported) intended purpose?
Don't get me wrong: I don't like this at all, and I think the TSA is at best worthless, but this seems like a complaint that the inevitable happened. And resting a legality accusation on a form not having a paperwork reduction act notice is kind of :eyeroll: even if it's true.
You don't have to show ID to get past security at the airport. Lose your wallet on vacation and you can still fly home. Tell them you don't have ID and you'll get a special security check. How that will work in practice at different airports and for different people with different TSA agents is hard to say. Could be a answering a few questions, a pat down, and a quick chemical test or something else much more involved.
Not completely true. You do have to confirm your identify to the satisfaction of the security officer. So while you technically can fly without an ID, you still have to prove your identity. The ID card is just an expedited way to do that.
“ In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name, current address, and other personal information to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You will be subject to additional screening, to include a patdown and screening of carry-on property.
You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if your identity cannot be confirmed, you choose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process.”
This has not been my experience, at least not flying domestically in the US. In order to get to the gate, I have to get past TSA and the security checkpoint, which involves presenting my boarding pass and ID to an agent.
If I've not checked-in electronically and have to get a printed boarding pass, I've had to present ID and credit card at a kiosk or ticket desk as well.
They ask for it but you don't HAVE to present it. If you don't most airlines will ask you identity verification questions, similar to those you're asked when retrieving your credit report. If everything matches up your ticket will get marked with SSSS[1] and you'll be sent through that additional security.
That’s a totally different scenario - international travel requires a valid travel document.
For domestic flights you don’t technically need an id but be prepared to wait a long time and/or be subjected to a invasive questioning/security search.
Pro tip: make photocopies of your documents and stuff them in your luggage in case your wallet gets pinched. Happened to my dad and it solved that issue quickly.
Unpopular opinion: The TSA shouldn't exist, at all. Three thousand deaths doesn't justify curtailing the liberties of three hundred million. 9/11 was used to scare Americans into accepting massive violations of our liberties. As Rahm Immanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Except on Google for Android I only randomly see the reader or simple option. For this site, it's not there. This is a stupid "feature" of Chrome's.
Edit: Got it. If I enable simple view in accessibility features, the option shows up for this site. The way it's implemented by Google is still dumb. This should be in the menu.
TSA was intentionally designed from day #1 to cause so much of a burden that people would willingly give up absolutely everything with regards to personal privacy in exchange for saving time.
Removing a face mask for a few seconds so that a person or algorithm can compare the person's visage to that of their ID is "giving up absolutely everything with regards to personal privacy"?
I'm not sure anyone will see this because this post is over a day old, but what can someone traveling really do about it? If you refuse they'll just refuse to let you board your plane. I usually (especially now during a pandemic) don't fly when there's no reason for me to, so refusing me access to my flight is a pretty good way to make me comply, illegal or not.
About a month ago I had to be in court at a certain time and from past experience (filing and getting paperwork to the court) I knew they'd make you take off your belt if it had metal on it. That day I specifically wore a belt with no metal on it so I wouldn't have to take it off, but it didn't make any difference. The sign at security said "no metal objects" and then gave a list of example items with metal on them, belt included, and that was what the security agent pointed to when telling me I still needed to take my belt off. I objected, telling her my pants would fall down if I did and that the list was an EXAMPLE of metal objects, but the only response I got was that if I wanted to I could complain to someone at some other time. Another agent chimed in that they require you to take your belt off because "people could be hiding a knife in their belt", as if that made any sense at all. Isn't that what a metal detector is for in the first place? Anyway, I had no option but to take off my belt or I just wouldn't get to court on time. I let my pants fall down (I decided to do this earlier because I knew it was a possibility) and waddled through security with my pants around my ankles.
So yeah, what could I have done in that case? Just miss my court date?
I detest the TSA, and government overreach, but I'm failing to see the issue here. Even before the optional photo system was introduced, they would stick my ID in a scanner, this seems like the same thing but the work is outsourced to me. Admittedly, I place less value on my privacy than the average HN commenter, given I opted in to Clear which lets me bypass lines using biometrics, a trade-off I was glad to make.
Then, people have raised the unrelated issue of why ID checks are needed at all, and I can think of a couple, not sure of the actual reason:
1) Checking that you're not on the no-fly list.
2) Checking that there isn't a BOLO out on you, so that people with warrants, parole etc can't skip town easily.
The argument that it is to prevent secondary markets for tickets sounds hollow - airlines do their own ID checks when printing the boarding pass and at the gate.
Having thousands of travellers unmask themselves at exactly the same physical spot within seconds of each other [and inevitably breathe in and out a couple times] sounds like a MASSIVE risk to me during COVID-19.
Not illegal (even though it should be) unless they prevent you from flying without it. Currently you can go through security with no identification at all as long as you answer their questions and they can verify your citizenship some way (which can add a few hours to your tenure at the airport).
Is there a term for something illegal recognized by the courts as legal? TSA searches fail to catch 95% of illicit objects (including bombs) according to their own tests and require detaining hundreds of millions of people per year who have not given any indication that they've done something wrong. If those searches aren't the "unreasonable searches" mentioned in the 4th amendment I don't know what is.
They've tried to make that as hard as possible, and in particular, they'll deny it if they think you're refusing to provide ID rather than just "forgot it" or some other reason they deem "legitimate".
There's a number of companies that do this type of KYC for various online transactions. AU10TIX is one such, that apparently does identity verification for many airports in Europe.
Press release: "A sophisticated cyberattack has breached our system. Although we assure you that no public data was accessed, we are advising those who have traveled within the last 10 years to assume a new identity."
> ... in many jurisdictions, orders issued by state or local health authorities currently require all people in public places such as airports to wear masks.
This premise is ridiculous. The Raleigh airport specifically addressed this:
“ Am I required to keep my face covering on while processing through security?
Travelers should wear a face covering while processing through security. TSA officers may ask an individual to adjust their face covering during the screening process for identification purposes, which is permitted under the executive order.”
And from the actual North Carolina Executive Order:
“C. Exceptions. This Executive Order does not require Face Coverings for-and a Face Covering does not need to be worn by a worker, customer, or patron who:
...
8. Is temporarily removing his or her Face Covering to secure government or
medical services or for identification purposes.”
While the article says “many jurisdictions,” and I cited only one specific jurisdiction, the onus is on the claimant to prove that there are, in fact jurisdictions that prohibit security exceptions. It’s unlikely that security exemptions don’t exist in every relevant executive order, yet the article requires accepting that premise in order to make the claim that this is “illegal.”
As far as the conspiracy theory that collecting names and positive ID by TSA is somehow nefarious — this information is already available through passenger manifests from the airlines — airlines that themselves establish a positive ID for every passenger, requiring ID to board a flight.
I am not sure what the controversy is. Every country in which I have ever boarded an airliner does an ID check and shares manifest data with authorities.
If we are going to claim this is illegal, then a reasonable person would expect some proof of that, such as citing the actual statute relevant to the jurisdiction that is being violated.
Is is interesting that many people opposed to this are supportive of government run health care — a situation that doesn’t only give government your name, but also access to your entire medical history. HIPAA (in the US,) has numerous government exceptions, including the nebulous “public health interest.” If we are worried about TSA positively identifying travelers, then certainly we should all be fearful of positively identifying people under the auspices of health care.
> While the article says “many jurisdictions,” and I cited only one specific jurisdiction, the onus is on the claimant to prove that there are, in fact jurisdictions that prohibit security exceptions. It’s unlikely that security exemptions don’t exist in every relevant executive order, yet the article requires accepting that premise in order to make the claim that this is “illegal.”
The beginning of the sentence you quoted has a link to the information you're looking for but it seems the quote you've pulled has cut that off. The word "noted" in "As we’ve noted previously" is a hyperlink pointing here[1] which itself links to an example order[2] that doesn't contain any such exception.
Covid is the new form of this security theater. Just saw local school announced that parents should buy special mask with holes cut in mouth piece so kids can play instruments in band.
The province of New Brunswick announced their plans for choir after "some of the hardest planning and preparation of my career" (from the Minister of Education). The master plan: "sing quietly"
In fact there was a paper in just the last few days showing that voice volume correlated strongly with aerosol particles emitted. That sounds like good advice to me, likewise singing inside a mask. Obviously not singing at all is safer still, but this still seems like it would be effective mitigation.
Even worse than "security theater" precautions are misunderstandings of the threat model. Pandemic mitigation is not a boolean function. Do what you can and choose strategies to sustain suppression, then stop. Find efficiencies where they lie.
In a low-infection-count region, I don't see why you can't sing quietly in a chorus with masks. It's surely safer than eating in a restaurant.
> "It's surely safer than eating in a restaurant."
by saying "safer", without any qualifiers on magnitude, that's making the same mistake. most things we do on a daily basis are safe. being 0.001% less likely to get infected is technically safer, but not practically so.
what's not relatively safe? gathering with random people breathing each other's direct exhaust for long periods.
now, you might think a restaurant is an example of that, but it's not. yes, you'll be sharing exhaust with your tablemates, but you shouldn't be eating with people you don't know/trust in any indoor setting, not just in restaurants. and with just a little precaution (i.e., distance), tables are relatively isolated transmission-wise, despite the general misperception of the risks of aerosol transmission (most people aren't infected, but when they are, virus particles land nearby and fall apart relatively quickly). restaurants aren't particularly unsafe. the same can't be said for bars and clubs, which resist such safety mitigations by their very nature.
also, if singing softer is the only mitigation, rather than distancing with an awareness of vocal exhaust flow, then it isn't really much safer. avoiding extended exposure to natural exhaust is the key, proper distancing being the easiest (and often least inconvenient) and therefore most effective measure.
> by saying "safer", without any qualifiers on magnitude, that's making the same mistake.
Uh.. no it's not. SafER is a comparison, you can compare two quantities without specifying their values.
As far as restaurants: indoor dining is the SINGLE largest transmission vector right now. It's a known risk, there are case studies after case study showing single infections propagating across a whole restaurant. Stay OUT of indoor restaurants anywhere that isn't at a stable and low infection rate. Seriously.
Singing? My guess is that quiet singing with masks is safer than restaurants, yeah. I might be wrong, but it's not because of a logic error.
>I don't see why you can't sing quietly in a chorus with masks
Its possible but it sucks. Sure it risky, anything has risk. I accept that I can be infected or infecting other people. I never stop eat in a restaurant all these time, fortunately some still open.
"It appears that these videos were truly taken in January 2020 in various locations around China. According to social media reports, these videos first started circulating on apps such as TikTok and were originally posted by random citizens who had witnessed these events. However, that does not mean that the people featured in this video were infected with this virus."
Those things are basically standard in other (developed ;) ) parts of the world. Like in Singapore you just skim through immigration in 30sc by flashing your passport and fingerprint/face. Never get any queue... quite enjoyable.
While I agree that entrusting this data to a third party provider is not ideal... I also don’t think that hiring people to look at your passport, and then your face before letting you in the country is the future... seems a bit archaic no?
The point the site is making is that this is primarily for DOMESTIC travel within the United States. I'm not a strong proponent of this point of view, but many people are highly opposed to any kind of ID check for travel within the borders of the US.
"Illegal" seems like a huge overstatement, especially since the COVID crisis isn't going to last forever (do I have to say 'fingers crossed'?)
If they're stressing the illegality by saying the TSA doesn't have proper authority to do this, well, I'm no expert on US politics but I'm pretty sure they'd get that authority sooner than anyone would even think of changing this system.
They stress that the TSA doesn't have the authority, not simply because of COVID. Eg, "we believe that in the absence of OMB arrproval [sic], assignment of an OMB Control Number, and a valid PRA notice including that OMB Control Number, the pRA provides an absolute defense against any sanctions for declining to have data from an ID card or passport collected by the TSA."
The site links to an article of Form 415, which points out that the TSA has not had OMB approval for that form for 12 years, so "sooner" and "changing this system" are both long time scales.
Too bad the TSA now acts as a gatekeeper for this website. Each time, before you post, you will need to scan your id and have your picture taken.
Illegal is not an overstatement. The reasoning was given in the article - there are federal requirements on the TSA to have specific authorization.
They can't just start to demand people's papers in order to travel! Police demanding to see people's papers has happened elsewhere, and the whole world knows why that was done and how it turned out.
I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes? Being "illegal" because you have to remove your facemask is stupid as well. 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
This reasoning is a classic example of "we must do something; this is something; therefor, we must do it."
You identify a danger, but do not tie the 'solution' of ID to how it mitigates the danger, what the tradeoffs are, and why it is a superior solution to other options.
I think we disagree on whether a solution is needed, though. No one's going to be able to use an airplane as a missile again, since cockpits are locked. No passengers will sit idly by while someone with a knife tries to do something, and any benefit of securing planes is completely dwarfed by the giant crowd of vulnerable people in the not-yet-screened lines.
Not only does this solution not solve the problem (unless you consider the problem to be "get re-elected" or "make my election contributors money"), but it centralizes vulnerabilities and makes any destructive event both more dangerous and easier to carry out.
But it is true of other means of transportation! Blow up a movie theater on friday (without pandemic), poison the air in a cruise ship, blow up a subway, and so on. Heck, do enough damage to the right section of highway during a busy time and I'm guessing you can do a number. Pretty much anywhere that can hold a large group of people is a place you can kill hundreds.
Possibly, but that isn't impossible. The Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, after all. If I can come up with a bunch of situations that seem likely, I'm sure other folks can too. Folks that actually know how to do stuff and are motivated to do so.
Not so easily. E.g. after the Brussels airport attack the Zurich airport has increased the number of security gates open at any time and reduced the density of people queuing. I don’t think I have ever seen in the lat couple of years more than 100 people packed together. (Other airports are much worse and have lots of people in packed queues, but Zurich shows that it’s a problem that can be solved)
I agree, if you notice this problem and decide to solve it. I have seen queues in London theaters that had higher density in front of the theater than inside it, which kind of doesn't make sense if you want to discourage people form bombing large amounts of people.
> I don’t think I have ever seen in the lat couple of years more than 100 people packed together.
Let me introduce you to the (pre-pandemic) joys of London Transport. Any of Bank, Euston, Kings Cross, London Bridge at rush hour could have a couple of hundred packed together. Even more if you can cause a disruption in the train schedules by pulling a few alarms or chucking bricks on the line, etc.
1 person might injure 100s with a bomb (in an airport lobby or a stadium or a train station etc), but most will survive because they will get medical attention rapidly and won't fall 30,000 without a parachute.
The 7/7 bombings in London killed just 56 people (including 4 bombers) with 3 bombs in packed tube trains underground (plus a bus). Compare that to a half full 747 where you would get 100% casualties.
And that's without crashing the plane into something...
If a terrorist were actually strategic about maximizing damage they would always inflict far greater harm and never be stopped. You can fit probably 50lbs of tannerite (ammonium nitrate and some aluminum) and ball bearings into a large suitcase and walk into any airport lobby in the world.
They would never need to make it past a single layer of security to reach a line with hundreds of people in close proximity. But then you could also do this with trains, large hotels during business conferences, etc.
Any security expert will tell you that real evil isn't something you can protect people from. Fortunately, 99.9% of people aren't genuinely evil.
Although, it does make it clear that these security measures aren't about us, they're about protecting expensive property and reducing their liability once we get into that property.
Do you have an example of a motivated terrorist killing (say) 300 people with a single bomb in a well chosen crowd? I can't find one. The example I quote about is around 14 people per bomb for a very well chosen target for quite large devices.
For comparison, a small bomb on a near full 747 would kill 450 (plus people on the ground).
I think blowing up planes is just a really really efficient way to kill people compared to blowing up almost any other grouping of people...
>Fortunately, 99.9% of people aren't genuinely evil.
Very true. And those that are are generally more interested in making headlines than setting records for casualty numbers luckily...
[0] Not that long ago someone put a bomb in a truck and killed 300+ in Mogadishu. The article is horrific, however. They completely discount the possibility for planning, and they use terms like 'military grade' to make the explosive seem more technologically advanced than it would ever need to be. This was far from the Guardian's best work.
EDIT - [1] Added another article (about another attack) just to show that this is a recurring event, and because the first article was of poor quality.
> I think blowing up planes is just a really really efficient way to kill people compared to blowing up almost any other grouping of people...
It would be if you could get onto the plane every time, and if you were willing to die. Once the terrorist surrenders their bags to be scanned the attack is no longer under their control.
And then there's the suicide aspect. If it's as easy as walking in, a single terrorist can repeat their attack many times over. If they have to get on the plane, it's almost certainly going to be with small device that they take with them directly rather than a bag under the plane.
Getting a large bomb into the pre-security line at the airport is much easier then getting a small bomb onto a plane. Literally any asshole wearing a backpack can trivially do it. They don't even have to be smart, or lucky.
And nobody's going to hijack another airplane to crash into something, because since 9/11, cockpit doors have been reinforced.
Per my link above, 4 well placed, large bombs used in london killed 56 people. That's the same as a 737 at less than a third full.
Also, you should consider the lockerbie bombing: 11 ground casualties from an airliner that was blown up 31,000 feet above their small, spread out village. Now imagine the same thing, only over a packed park of London\NYC\Tokyo and from 5000 feet instead of 30,000...
100 tends to be the worse case scenario for derailments, usually on trains carrying 1000s, but I take your point. However, most derailments are not caused from onboard the train, they're caused from interference on track (usually negligence rarely intentional), so there would be little point checking passengers.
That makes no sense and is similar to saying, "more people can fit into a truck compared to how many can sit on a motorcycle, therefore show your ID to get into a truck."
A person can kill hundreds or thousands of others, regardless of there being any transportation - thats MORE people than can be killed on a plane.
You could go through security without providing id. If I recall correctly that's the case in most EU airports I have been to. I have been asked for id only by the airline at the gate after security or by border control on international flights.
> People keep suggesting you could achieve the same result by:
A single well placed and timed explosion on London Underground could easily take out 100s. Hell, Euston or Kings Cross on a Friday is the same. With multiple bombers, you get easily get into the 1000s.
Plus if you pick your Underground target(s) sensibly, you could cripple a large portion of London's public transport for months.
With 4 bombers in a football stadium, you could probably get 1000s without even thinking about it.
a bomb in a major train or bus terminal would be similarly devastating. a regional jet does not itself carry many more passengers than a train or double-deck bus. the thing that makes planes special is that, if hijacked, they can be flown into a large building to cause many more fatalities. even if someone is able to smuggle a weapon onboard, this is considered to be much more difficult than it was in 2001.
Interestingly bombs in major stations are much much less effective. The 7/7 attack in London killed "just" 56 people with 4 devices used on packed transport systems. A single device on a 737 could reliably kill 150 people in one go. Bombs in crowded locations seem to be quite ineffective compared to bombs at 30k feet...
I saw your other comment after posting this. I checked against a wikipedia list of recent terror attacks and I am mostly convinced. the only attacks with comparable death counts from a single bomb seem to be car bombs, which I gather are considerably more difficult to source material for and deliver in a developed country.
Yeah, I always thought this too. Like, maybe planes are more "glamours" target that's slightly better in numbers terms? Then I commented here and had to back it up and the numbers are crazy. I'm a bit surprised governments have signed off on the increase in size from 747s (450ish) to A380s (850ish).
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.
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...
That's not so easy anymore, now that the cockpit doors are secure, and passengers know better than to cooperate. There have been several cases where passengers disabled real or apparent terrorists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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).
> poor subsistence farmers who's insurrection is basically self funded
This is some wild revisionism. There have been all kinds of state actors backing the Afghan insurgencies, in the US occupation as well as the Soviet occupation.
I guess it was an exaggeration but compared to what even a low level proxy war looks like they are practically self funded. Nobody is rushing to give them AGTMs like is the case in Sryia. Yes they have gotten a fair share of hardware from places like Iran but they haven't gotten anything "good" in any quantity sufficient to matter. The Taliban are really hardware poor compared to damn near every other group in the region in the last 20yr. They basically just fight with rifles, mortars, IED supplies and the occasional RPG. The time they fought the Russians they had plenty of state backing though.
> I guess it was an exaggeration but compared to what even a low level proxy war looks like they are practically self funded
A low level proxy war is exactly what it is, though. The Taliban are funded by Pakistan, who doesn't want an assertive, nationalist neighbor, Saudi Arabia[1], who wants to enflame sunni/shia strife to harass Iran, and Russia, who wants to poke a finger in the eye of the US. They can't give more than light arms to the insurgents without it being a naked attack on the US, so rifles, mortars, IED supplies and the occasional RPG are what they get.
To get back to the overarching point though, armed revolt driven by light arms in the US would not be some glorious revolution that would result in more freedom for everyone. It'd likely be a lot of proxy warfare and nonstop terrorism on our soil.
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
No, speeding cameras don't have the same problems as US police folk. That could be improved by having less shitty police. But that's not to say cameras don't have problems.
Often they take grainy photos, and only a photo. Still images aren't proof that you were speeding, just proof that something triggered the camera. Plenty of things can trigger it, including software faults.
Additionally it creates a horrible incentive for local government as a revenue stream with little to no incentive to fix something. Speeding cameras are unmanned, cheap, and just make money. And contesting a speeding camera ticket is so much more difficult than issuing it. All of this makes it easy to undermine due process.
Leave it to HN to miss the forest for the trees in such spectacular fashion.
I'm not saying speeding camera are perfect, I'm saying if police weren't allowed to pull people over I would face less discrimination and avoid situations where armed people approach me prepared to shoot me for moving
Compared to that grainy pictures is a joke.
You're talking about false positives, do police not have false positives, and more importantly, hundreds of false negatives?
The false negatives are what allow them to discriminate so readily, when most traffic is breaking a law it's easy to pick who you want.
-
And perverse incentive for speeding is only a problem with cameras? Is that also a joke?
You think police departments don't have even worse incentives to stop people and seize their goods with little recourse? That's in addition to getting to write tickets?
When 20% of a cities prosecution budget comes from forfeiture like Philadelphia's did in 2018 it should be no surprise cops are extremely happy to pull people over for reasons other than public safety...
And contesting a speeding camera ticket is so much more difficult than issuing it? What does that even mean, is spending a day to multiple days contesting a speeding ticket not harder than it is for an officer to write a ticket?
Even when the officer doesn't show up to court you've spent at least a day, if not more fighting it.
-
Of course, speeding tickets regardless of source show the true reality of our culture, that money changes the rules. So you can just pay an attorney who knows the judge personally and somehow your infraction is less serious...
> I'm saying if police weren't allowed to pull people over
I honestly don't see how installing speeding cameras prevents this. Could you elaborate for me what you mean here?
> And perverse incentive for speeding is only a problem with cameras? Is that also a joke?
No? But speeding cameras can issue a lot more tickets per day without needing to sleep, draw benefits, pension, etc. This particular incentive scales much more quickly for cameras.
> You think police departments don't have even worse incentives to stop people and seize their goods with little recourse? That's in addition to getting to write tickets?
Also no? I don't think I implied that. If anything, speeding cameras can free up officer's time to do worse things, e.g. asset forfeiture as you mentioned.
> And contesting a speeding camera ticket is so much more difficult than issuing it? What does that even mean, is spending a day to multiple days contesting a speeding ticket not harder than it is for an officer to write a ticket?
Time for officer to write a ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest
Vs.
Time for camera to write ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest.
It takes a lot longer for an officer to write a ticket. As a result, the asymmetrical effort of ticketing vs. contesting or otherwise dealing with tickets is significantly worse at scale.
> Time for officer to write a ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest
> vs
> Time for camera to write ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest.
Think about this for a second.
The numbers are not very different because the denominator is so much larger than the numerator
The camera and officer are vastly different but they both pale in comparison to the time in court.
And the time in court is what ruins the most vulnerable people!
Average traffic stop is 20 minutes from stop to citation say
5 minutes for the camera. (Most times manual verification is required by law)
If you compare 20 minutes to 5 minutes, it sounds like a mountain for time...
Last time I fought a ticket (before I wised up to the fact paying the judge's friend who is a lawyer reverses time in such a way you never sped?) it took 2 full days off work. 1 day to wait in line so I plead not guilty, 1 to actually contest, and officer was a no-show.
So compared to 16 hours, the difference between 1 second and 20 minutes is meaningful only for a moment.
Especially when you consider, not everyone has a job where they can just take 2 days off.
The police target people who cannot afford the ticket, and cannot afford the two days off. They are literally stuck between a rock and a hard place
-
This all buries the real issue I mention in another comment.
You're comparing ticket to ticket, but they're not the same.
If an officer stops you they can give you a warning because they like your tone (you speak like them, or you're kind of pretty, or you don't look the type who'll do this again). Or they can give you a reduced speed.
Or they can give you an additional ticket because you they don't like your tone, or rather... you didn't full stop at that stop sign. The other cars going through it didn't either, but they weren't the marks.
Or they can say they smell weed and start pushing the boundaries of your rights and take advantage of the fact they target the populations with the least experience with their legal rights due to systemic failings in education
You compared time for the camera to time for the officer.
How many innocent people do you think took plea deals sending them to jail for what started as a traffic stop? That would still be free today if a camera had sent a ticket by mail?
-
Your other comments also imply a lack of understanding in the role traffic stops play in modern policing. Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation)
In part because traffic stops combined with extremely dense traffic laws have essentially turned driving into an invitation for stop and frisk.
Cops do not hide the fact they tail people to create invitations to stop them. It is all to easy to find even the most law abiding citizen break a law.
And additionally in part because the leeway cops have during a traffic stop is immense, and they're extremely well versed in taking advantage of ambiguity in people's rights and even basic psychology such as fearing police, into getting into people's lives well past a ticket.
Compared to all this, cameras end up having shortcomings that police have, but with a fraction of the terrible abuse that can come from it.
-
Also, this isn't the point of the comment, but cameras don't sleep, but they can be turned off. Here in New York City speed cameras are not on 24/7. They only operate during school opening and closing hours when kids are likely to be coming and going
And not every state allows them everywhere (in fact I don't know of any that do, but some might).
Legislation that would attempt to limit where police go would be almost untenable, but legislation limiting speed cameras is popular with motorists and much easier to pass (it's sad but true, it's easier to convince motorists to be anti speed enforcement than anti overpolicing)
> The numbers are not very different because the denominator is so much larger than the numerator
True for an individual case. However, my argument was that, at scale, the difference is massive, and adding speeding cameras doesn't stop cops from pulling people over. You just have police AND speeding cameras, both of which have problems, and the problems of neither are mitigated by the presence of the other.
> And the time in court is what ruins the most vulnerable people!
> Last time I fought a ticket (before I wised up to the fact paying the judge's friend who is a lawyer reverses time in such a way you never sped?) it took 2 full days off work. 1 day to wait in line so I plead not guilty, 1 to actually contest, and officer was a no-show
And when this is much easier at scale, municipalities can create more of these headaches with less work on their part.
> Your other comments also imply a lack of understanding in the role traffic stops play in modern policing. Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions...
How do speeding cameras prevent this?! I ask a second time.
> Traffic stops are the leading springboard for all of these ills
How do speeding cameras prevent this?
> Compared to all this, cameras end up having shortcomings that police have, but with a fraction of the terrible abuse that can come from it.
I again don't understand how having speeding cameras prevents police from pulling people over.
> Also, this isn't the point of the comment, but cameras don't sleep, but they can be turned off. Here in New York City speed cameras are not on 24/7. They only operate during school opening and closing hours when kids are likely to be coming and going
And are pull-overs allowed outside of those times?
> And not every state allows them everywhere (in fact I don't know of any that do, but some might).
And are pull-overs allowed outside of those zones?
> However, my argument was that, at scale, the difference is massive, and adding speeding cameras doesn't stop cops from pulling people over.
So somewhere along the line you came up with your own point that wasn't mine and argued against it?
Because literally in the comment you replied to:
> Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation)
The entire comment chain is about something that has never been done before, using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops.
You literally managed to miss the entire point of the conversation yet replied so confidently?
Half the contextomies you're bringing up make 0 sense if you understood that.
Yes they're allowed to pull people over outside those times and inside them, that's the whole damn problem.
You literally don't understand the most basic issue here and you keep replying by quoting tiny parts of a comment and ignoring their context and going "gotcha!"
I'm glad I replied for the benefit of others who might read these comments because it's stuff more people need to hear, but I'm done wasting my time with this.
> > Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation)
> The entire comment chain is about something that has never been done before, using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops.
I keep asking how you that happens, and you keep not answering. How does camera based enforcement stop bullshit pullovers? It doesn't, it just changes the bullshit "reason" people get pulled over. And the examples you present - by your own admission - don't address the actual problems, and where the cameras are limited in scope (time and zone), the original problem remains.
> You literally don't understand the most basic issue here and you keep replying by quoting tiny parts of a comment and ignoring their context and going "gotcha!"
I'm continually asking questions about the core premise that 'using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops' prevents abuse by authorities. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. You've just provided some ad hominem and say I don't understand.
> having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation
So when they're barred from pulling people over for "speeding", then... this prevents them from pulling over people for other bullshit reasons?
I just don't see how having shitty police and cameras are going to prevent these abuses of power.
Going forward I'll mostly reply with excerpts from comments I already wrote, because, like I said, enough time's been wasted on your replies:
> I keep asking how you that happens, and you keep not answering. How does camera based enforcement stop bullshit pullovers? It doesn't, it just changes the bullshit "reason" people get pulled over. And the examples you present - by your own admission - don't address the actual problems, and where the cameras are limited in scope (time and zone), the original problem remains.
>So when they're barred from pulling people over for "speeding", then... this prevents them from pulling over people for other bullshit reasons?
>> Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions* (man you couldn't even read the fucking quote in the comment you replied to) would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation)
>> If an officer stops you they can give you a warning because they like your tone (you speak like them, or you're kind of pretty, or you don't look the type who'll do this again). Or they can give you a reduced speed.
>> Or they can give you an additional ticket because you they don't like your tone, or rather... you didn't full stop at that stop sign. The other cars going through it didn't either, but they weren't the marks.
>> Or they can say they smell weed and start pushing the boundaries of your rights and take advantage of the fact they target the populations with the least experience with their legal rights due to systemic failings in education
>> How many innocent people do you think took plea deals sending them to jail for what started as a traffic stop? That would still be free today if a camera had sent a ticket by mail?
-
> I'm continually asking questions about the core premise that 'using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops' prevents abuse by authorities. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. You've just provided some ad hominem and say I don't understand.
Ah, so you understood it referred to large classes of traffic stops when you reached this part of your comment, so you read the reply? But yeah:
>> Cameras are not able to kill people in self-defense.
>> Cameras are not able to trump up or discard charges and offenses based on mood or inclination, or prejudice.
>> (And before you miss the point and retort, but they can do that in court!!! Yeah... just like they can with the police officer's ticket. The point isn't "cameras fix the biased legal system!" it's cameras ferret out one facet of the legal systems biases)
>> Cameras are not able to try and push an illegal search or exploit ignorance to convince someone to give up their rights
>> Cameras are not able to seize assets on suspicion someone has too much cash on them.
>> Cameras can't falsely detain people.
>> Seriously, again, there are real people in jail, rotting, for everything from having a ounce or two of weed on them, to literally nothing at all (see: plea deals) off what started as a routine traffic stop. How would a ticket in the mail do these things?
Let me know if I can repeat any of this for you any slower...
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.
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.
I am not eager to submit to a robot. What you are saying here is that it is more important to you to punish other people for breaking a rule than it is for you to take responsibility for your own behavior. You are seeking an outcome that is worse for everyone.
Speed cameras perpetuate bias in painfully obvious ways.
1) Where do we put the cameras? This is susceptible to the same bias as individual police.
2) How do we apply the fines? Can some people get them reduced/waived? The legal system is the same and still biased.
How are so many people missing the forest for the trees this badly?
Speeding cameras are mot perfect but literally every complaint you have applies to police, except police amplify them, while reducing the damage done by bias
Police over-police neighborhoods just like cameras could oversaturate them.
But police stops for a speeding ticket can spiral into life destroying incidents in an instant, and not just in overt ways like police shootings.
Even something as simple as claiming they smelt a drug can result in property being seized, destroyed, people being detained.
How many innocent people do you think there are out there who took a plea deal to go to prison over what started as a routine traffic stop?!
And you want to talk about fines? How do the fines differ from police tickets? Except the officer being able to heap on as much damage as they feel like doing at that moment.
For every time a cop "does someone a favor" by only giving them a 5 over to prevent a higher fine and more points, how many times were they able to instead put the full number, and a ticket because you didn't fully stop according to me, and I'll tack on a charge for that taillight, and improper merge because you changed lanes at that turn back there, and also do I smell weed?
Cops say this all the time, they do not attempt to hide it, it is literally their MO: "If I follow someone long enough, they will mess up".
There are too many traffic laws that essentially have turned driving into an invitation for stop and frisk.
Why do we understand stop and frisk is bad when you're walking down the street, but not bad when you're in one of your most valuable possessions (which can be seized on extremely dubious grounds)
I know it's popular on HN to ignore common sense to make a contrarian point, but come on...
> What you are saying here is that it is more important to you to punish other people for breaking a rule than it is for you to take responsibility for your own behavior. You are seeking an outcome that is worse for everyone.
I don't get this from GP at all. seems to me they are open to being held responsible for their behavior, but currently are not.
I'm no fan of speed cameras, but would consider them an improvement over traffic stops for minor infractions. it has always struck me that speed limits are unreasonably low on US highways/arterials (but unreasonably high on surface streets). I suspect most people just don't care because enforcement is so inconsistent that they mostly just get away with whatever speed they choose. perhaps if the rules were more consistently enforced, there would be more interest in reforming them.
I don't see how speed cameras can be considered an improvement. It seems the same to me with the added problem of being more scalable. Yes, cops are biased, but so are cameras.
Did you read my reply and seriously not understand how cameras are better than police?
How even if cameras were subject to all the biases police are (they're not, they're subject to a subset of those biases, and are subject in a much more quantifiable and combat-able way)
Cameras are not able to kill people in self-defense.
Cameras are not able to trump up or discard charges and offenses based on mood or inclination, or prejudice.
(And before you miss the point and retort, but they can do that in court!!! Yeah... just like they can with the police officer's ticket. The point isn't "cameras fix the biased legal system!" it's cameras ferret out one facet of the legal systems biases)
Cameras are not able to try and push an illegal search or exploit ignorance to convince someone to give up their rights
Cameras are not able to seize assets on suspicion someone has too much cash on them.
Cameras can't falsely detain people.
-
Seriously, again, there are real people in jail, rotting, for everything from having a ounce or two of weed on them, to literally nothing at all (see: plea deals) off what started as a routine traffic stop.
Cops want people to think we need traffic stops because it's what allows them to stop murderers and rapists, for every murderer caught in a traffic stop 10 more people are inserted into the legal system on much lesser charges, who will be chewed up and spit out and experience an exponential chance of becoming a much more violent criminal
It's blowimg my mind, do you really not see how cameras are less biased than humans in a meaningful way or are you being a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian?
> Surely officers are still able to perform traffic stops
Literally the whole point of what I proposed, is they wouldn't be able to stop for anything less than a major moving traffic violation. Which has a legal definition. They include things like hit and runs and vehicular manslaughter. It's not like a crooked cop can't make up a major traffic violation (DUI could be "made up" by claiming "they were swerving") but the burden of proof is higher, and more importantly the average driver does not commit them in the process of driving.
An incredibly large part of the problem is cops don't have to lie about minor traffic violations, people commit them constantly in the process. Changing lanes during turns, coming to a 1 mph stop at a stop sign, speeding (even well below reckless driving speeds), even touching the tip of the dividing line during a wide turn can be grounds to be pulled over
The kneejerk is to "victim blame" but it's reached the point that if you don't violate them in some cases you can cause accidents. That's exactly what happened with the first SDCs in the wild, humans are so hard wired to do some of these things, when someone follows the rules perfectly people crash into them...
Like I said, it literally turns traffic laws into effective enablement of stop and frisk any time you're in a vehicle. Cops have said it before on record, they know if they follow someone long enough they will commit a traffic violation of some sort, driving laws have all sorts of dense corner cases that a determined cop can use to pull you over.
And they can stretch the definition since the barrier to breaking them is so minor that fighting them is almost impossible. If you say you came to complete stop and the cop says you were rolling, it doesn't mean you were speeding through a stop sign, they can claim you were going at near dead still and are mistaken. That's it. Even if they're wrong, you're already stopped, you're free to try and get recourse from the courts, but the stop has already happened.
> I’d rather solve the actual problems than automate authoritarianism.
I'd rather solve actual problems rather than act like the complete removal of racial bias is going to come about from going rawr rawr about authoritarianism. Pulling people over for speeding isn't authoritarianism, but pulling people over so you can try and impinge upon their rights based on their socioeconomic status or race under the guise of speeding is.
> Cameras are biased. It doesn’t matter to me if they are less biased.
Well that's the core of why we won't agree.
Those weren't hypotheticals, I'm black, I've had a gun unholstered on me because my glovebox wasn't where a cop thought it'd be, I know a speed camera wouldn't do that.
Removing traffic stops for minor traffic violations would leave many fewer people ending up in the legal system over stupid reasons, take cops out of situations where they apparently fear for their lives, take away a powerful tool for biased police forces. That's why they're mortified by the idea besides constantly making noise about how dangerous it is for them and how it justifies their behavior, like what I went through.
You're the kind of person who's trying to virtue signal, it's too much to read a comment if it's kinda long...
or imagine gasp legislation limiting the discretion of police?!?!?!
But you want to wax poetic about "really" solving problems and "fighting authoritarianism" (like limiting the scope of police initiated interactions doesn't go to the core of that lol)
I guess it's different when you actually have skin in the game, no pun intended.
Honestly the only reason I would consider this a big deal is the warrantless addition of my biometric data to a federal database in order to exercise freedom of movement.
I don't care if they want to compare my passport photo with my face, it doesn't offend my privacy sensors to verify that someone coming into the country at least looks like the photo on their passport.
Making a database of everyone's face, fingerprints, DNA, that kind of thing is the "big deal" part to me. Especially consider that now they think they can just make an image of your phone every time you cross the border and store it for... what was it, 70 years or some similarly absurd timeframe? Or "only" 20 years if you are NOT suspected of any crime. Yeah, 20 years if they can't make up a reason to keep it longer. Minimum. 20 years.
You know, way more time than it would take for any current disk encryption to be broken and way more time than it would take for anyone to reasonably expect the database to remain unhacked? In 20 years quantum computers will be readily available.
But my objections are to the invasion of privacy and collection of personal data that they don't have a right to. This particular argument against is just yet another reason.
In the US ID spot checks for pedestrians are unconstitutional. It should be obvious this should extend to nonpedestrian travel, otherwise the protections on travel are basically meaningless.
Doesn't stop states from implementing Stop and Frisk policies. Technically they can't arrest you, but you also can't leave until the cops are satisfied.
They have to arrest you within a definite time window otherwise you can leave. If you ask the question "Am I under arrest or am I free to go?" and you are not told you are under arrest, you may leave.
Granted this may get you shot, but the hope is the court is on your side.
In my locale in the US the only question you need to answer is what your name is and I'm not even sure of that. Afterwards you may leave and they can not hold you.
The drug dogs are to my knowledge only if you're in a vehicle, and recently that has received challenges.
Protections on travel do extend to non-pedestrian travel which can be accomplished via non-spot-checked formats.
You just have to drive instead of fly.
I'm not trying to be hateful, but your argument just smacks of an 'I want what I want when I want how I want and will not take anything less than all of it' kind of argument.
If you don't want your ID scanned, just drive, or take a train, or a bus. Just don't fly, right?
And don't get pulled over for any reason, since they'll probably ask for your ID and your passengers. It doesn't matter if it is illegal: If they can't do it, you are in for a bad day, even if they let you go at the end.
> I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes? Being "illegal" because you have to remove your facemask is stupid as well. 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.
No, that is not at all what is said in the article. But, even so, it is a big deal that the government wants to track people simply for wishing to travel!
People already identify themselves, when they fly on planes. The article doesn't say that identification is illegal but that requiring automated tracking, based upon identification, is illegal. "The TSA signs (visible in full on this TSA video released in conjunction with today’s press release) include — typically for the TSA and DHS — no OMB Control Number or Paperwork Reduction Act notice, both of which are required for any collection of information by a Federal agency, regardless of whether the collection of information is optional or mandatory, and regardless of whether the information collected is retained."
When people capitulate to demands that have no legal basis, because they don't understand their rights or care to protect them, soon they won't have any rights.
Yes, why does the government think that identifying all domestic air passengers is a big enough deal that they require it from nearly every adult?
What does the required id system gain over screening everyone, securing the cockpit door, and stopping the older policy of letting hijackers take over?
While, what does it cost? Cost in terms of stress (I've forgotten my id at one airport), in terms of extra staffing, and in terms of personal privacy?
Is it actually effective at stopping any kind of problem? Otherwise it's equivalent to burning cash in a barrel—the essence of Big Government.
I can't think a single moment of when I've been grateful for the existence of the TSA. It's a giant jobs program. I'd rather pay them to do something for society rather than be a drain on it.
Trusting your home address and personal info to not only random poorly trained TSA agents but also now storing that info in yet another 3rd party database that will probably be hacked.
It increases the likelihood of your info getting leaked.
Ok and does that measurably reduce safety? You can get practically everyone's details from marketing companies - the direct increased risk from this seems like it's zero to negligible.
The overall risk seems like it's probably falling on the beneficial side as discouraging people with bad intentions from flying likely has a negligibly positive effect on risk.
There's good evidence that more people choose to drive rather than deal with TSA and the rising costs (due to 'security') and as a result cause more deaths (because driving is less safe than flying). So yes
That blog post is from 2013 and cites a study from about 10 years earlier. Pre-COVID-19, flying was booming. So, no, there isn't good evidence. (Of course, people are driving at the moment.)
The topic is more generalized to TSA as a whole and not exclusive to covid TSA. The argument in the article I linked is about how growing security measures is pushing people away from air travel by both privacy and cost to support the new security theater. A continuation of such growth does not dismiss the claims, in fact it reinforces them.
> Ok and does that measurably reduce safety? You can get practically everyone's details from marketing companies - the direct increased risk from this seems like it's zero to negligible.
Not everybody. Lots of us go to great lengths to preserve our privacy when engaging in commercial transactions. You can pay cash, use a cover name, only have things shipped to your postbox/office, or only engage with vendors who have adequate security and privacy practices.
You can't fly without engaging with the TSA. They're the only game in town.
Additionally, many people in society are especially vulnerable, such as labor or political organizers, investigative journalists, and public officials. Having their home addresses leaked, or their family members' home addresses leaked, poses a direct threat to life and safety.
You can opt out of data brokers, or spyware smartphone apps, or use a cover name when you order a delivery sandwich or pizza to the building you sleep in. You can't use a cover name or opt out of the TSA.
> You can't fly without engaging with the TSA. They're the only game in town.
If you have enough money you simply fly private. His is one of many reasons why the TSA continues to have problems - senior politicians and wealthy people barely need to deal with them.
In some ways it’s like HOV lanes in DC that have rates up to $80 for a single ride. The people most likely to be angered by traffic and to actually have the power to force changes to be made get to skip the traffic.
See also any legal issue that can be solved by paying for a good lawyer and a high extra price for “expedited” government service (anything from immigration to getting a passport).
Likewise, consider that these data will be at the complete and unsupervised disposal of any future politically vindictive "acting" (as has become the fashion) director of homeland security.
I think you put yourself in more danger when you hand over your ID at every bar, liquor store, hotel [...] you go to. These people are local, build a relationship with you, aren't accountable like a government worker/contractor, and can easily get to your home.
I hate the TSA as much as the next person, but I have to point this out:
If you live in America, the likelyhood of your personal info getting leaked in the past 5 years has reached 100%.
Adding it to yet another dataset does not meaningfully move the needle anymore. Assume your personal information has already been pwned, and carry on with your life.
If you honestly believe that, why not post your information? The reason is that you probably don't want to do that, and you shouldn't be required to do it.
Your private life is nobody's business but your own.
From the article: "each traveler has to touch the same ID card or passport scanner. Then, immediately after touching the scanner, they have to touch their face again to put their mask back on."
For now. Just like how going through the original "nude-o-scopes" was technically "optional" but TSA employees (I refuse to call them "officers") would give you no end of shit and pointlessly delay anyone who requested an opt-out.
It is explained in the article. People have to take off their mask, touch the kiosk / card reader, then put their mask on, likely touching their face in the process. This will spread many things, not just covid.
The government having a database of who has traveled to where, and when, and with whom, is something that can be easily leveraged to oppress or discourage the free exercise of a whole bunch of basic rights, like labor or political organizing, or investigative journalism, or whistleblowing.
Additionally, demanding ID to board a flight allows them to check against a "no fly list", an arbitrary designation they've created with no presumption of innocence and no burden of proof to be added, resulting in your effective inability to efficiently travel, with no legal recourse to regain this ability if you are placed on this list. Note that being added to the no fly list does not require a criminal conviction or even a basic legal standard like probable cause.
Imagine if you could be added to a "no drive list" without ever being accused of a crime or violation, and no way to ever get off.
I can’t even reason about cost or burden to benefit trade offs without knowing a benefit, and I have never seen any clearly stated. Just vague handwaves (“obviously this makes us safer” or circular justification.
* I am not asking for legal justification, which is itself unclear as explained elsewhere on John’s site.