Hacker News Reader

That's what has always driven me nuts. No matter what the security process is, you know exactly how many people are going to show up within a couple hour window. So you should be able to make at a fairly constant amount of time. The flights are scheduled months ahead, everyone bought their tickets weeks ahead and confirmed within 24hrs. Everyone is beholden to adding more security steps like adding a personal phone number, DOB, and showing government ID, so if needed, we could add more steps to make things faster or help with capacity--many people are glad to pay for it with Clear and PreCheck.

I bought Global Entry two years ago. $100 for 5 years. The cost compared to tickets is pretty much a rounding error, and the experience at US airports is like night and day compared to having to go through regular security.

Yes, it's a fucking protection racket, yes, it's a shakedown, but it's so worth it. If you fly more than once a year just go apply for it like yesterday.

Wait, does Global Entry give priority with domestic flights? I’ve only seen signs for global entry at immigration. Not at security.

Global Entry gives you TSA Pre for free. If you don’t fly international at all then paying $25 less just for TSA might be a good option.

Considering TSA Pre means you can keep your belt on, your shoes on, don't need to take out your laptop, you can just stuff everything in your carry-on, and don't have to go through the cancer-scanner, it's a massive win just for that alone.

> The fuck is the point. This shit depresses my partner every time we travel. It feels like we're cattle. It's dehumanizing...

It sounds like you understand the point of this program juuuust fine.

The effective rate of capture of dangerous weapons is pitiful (less than 10% according to both their own internal audits, and external tests performed by citizens).

At best, it was a jobs program for many lacking education, and was also good reason to sell those backscatter machines that someone in Congress' cousin or business associate's company was selling at the time.

What I found really interesting is all this shit treatment has not effected tourism to the United States. I would think there would be huge backlash to all of this, but nope US continues to be a popular spot for foreigners to visit. They don't care about the dehumanization. If there was a huge backlash they might stop to not hurt all the tourism dollars, but no they just keep on keeping on.

Hard to say how much tourism there would be in a more sane security and immigration environment.

Because is it really that terrible? Yeah airport security is a bit annoying and maybe you get sternly told to do something. So what?

The comments here make it sound like the TSA is committing war crimes or something.

I think it's dumb, I think it's a waste of time, I think it's ineffective.

I also think that most of the time, most people spend 5-40 minutes in line, get through it, and promptly forget about it. Expecting it to affect tourism to the US seems totally absurd to me.

Yes it is terrible. It wastes billions of dollars plus additional billions of dollars of time. It is unconstitutional. It doesnt do anything. And it purports to make us safe by making us unsafe. We have to stand in line that can easily be targeted, stands next to a barrel full of suspected explisives, walk barefoot across a dirty floor, and potentially felt up.

It certainly is on my list as a negative if the opportunity to holiday in the US comes up.

There are plenty of other places that are higher on my destination list, so it's unlikely to factor in any decision.

You can add me as a datapoint as well, it definitely factors into some of my decisions (eg. Should I layover in the US or somewhere with saner immigration + security controls?).

Because the US isn't the only country doing this.

from a 2001 low, it seems to have been on a steady upward trend to 2015, and has been flat to down since then.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/tourist-arrivals

Blame the terrorists.

The TSA exists for one reason: to take the insurance risk of another September 11th sized attack without grinding the air travel industry to a halt. No private company could possibly afford the liability insurance for "our guards allowed a few guys with box cutters to kill thousands of people" risk. Paying them well enough to actually do a good job is impracticable at the scale of the US air travel system[1]. So the TSA was created so that the Federal Government would bear the risk, but the pay was not really improved over the private contractors who did the job for as little as possible pre-September 11th.

[1]: Many people talk about the Israeli system, especially when they are trying to justify racial profiling here in the US. What they fail to grasp is that the scales are radically different. Total air passenger #'s in Israel in 2018 was roughly 20% of just Atlanta Hartfield-Jackson, and it was basically all at one airport- US carriers carry more passengers every 10 days than fly in and out of Israel in a year. That means that individual attention is possible in ways that are not in the US context.

How do you feel about the idea that the 9/11 terror attacks are virtual impossible in a post-9/11 world?

Remember that pre-9/11, plane hijackings meant you would get landed and then used as a bargaining chip for a ransom. So, now passengers know a hijacking attempt is a fight for their life (whereas before the recommended advice was to sit tight and let the hijackers do their thing).

Also, now, cockpit doors are reinforced and pilots won't open them for hijackers, no matter the cost.

I agree that a 9/11 style attack will never work again: it didn't even work for the fourth plane on the day of, leave alone in the future. But I am explaining the business case for the TSA, why it exists and is the way it is.

Meanwhile I just went through security at PDX and it was seriously the nicest thing ever. It's amazing how vastly different TSA is depending on what airport you're at.

Yea, I've seen all kinds. For a federal agency there's very little consistency.

California has been the best. Hawaii was pretty good but mostly because they were so chill and nice. Los Angeles was the most strict but most engaging in conversation. They picked apart my lockpicking set, then let me in after making sure there wasn't a knife tucked in there, talking about the hobby the whole time.

Hell even at LAX it varies based on the terminal.

Pretty sure the worst TSA award goes to MCO though. I dread flying through there, even with pre.

Is there some sort of style guide that asks not to refer to it as "PreCheck", in absence of a stupid emoji?

We had brunch at a local diner that is co-located at a small airport. A helicopter took off next to our car as we arrived, and the back door of the diner opened to the tarmac. The security amounts to not allowing small kids to be seated near the back door. It was so refreshing to see that kind of chill and pragmatic atmosphere.

Yeah small airports dgaf, mostly because you can't bring down a skyscraper with a Cessna.

They represent culture and relational attitudes of the general population in the airport areas.

It's amazing how vastly different TSA is depending on what airport you're at.

Even within the same airport it seems to differ. I flew international out of JFK for the first time in a decade a few weeks ago and had been hearing horror stories of what to expect. Yet when I got there I spent less than 15 minutes in line for security, spent less then 60 seconds going through the actual security scan (metal detector, not x ray scanner) and was treated perfectly fine.

> The fuck is the point. This shit depresses my partner every time we travel. It feels like we're cattle. It's dehumanizing...

You've succinctly described interactions with the legal system, customs, immigration, and just about every other 'security'-sensitive bureaucracy.

I've gone through security at the Atlanta airport about 20 times a year for the last 10 years. I've never had an experience like the one you're describing.

I've also had TSA Pre-check for most of that time, which may account for the difference. It's worth every penny, and many credit cards will cover the cost for you.

I'm not sure reading the phrase "genital analyzer" makes me feel like you are giving an unbiased description of the events.

In the future I would highly recommend overnight Amtrak service. At most someone may ask for an ID. And I find it to be a much more pleasant overall experience.

> I the future I would highly recommend overnight Amtrak service. At most someone may ask for an ID.

Every time I've looked at Amtrak as an option, it was more expensive, and took several days to get to my destination.

I had a similar experience recently. Looking at a family road trip from SF Bay to Eugene - for four people, it's a 6 hour drive, a $900, 14+ hour train ride (overnight without beds), or a 2 hour, $800 flight.

The trip time for airlines should include at least 2hr for transit + security line for departures and perhaps 30m-1hr for rental pickup on arrival.

> I'm not sure reading the phrase "genital analyzer" makes me feel like you are giving an unbiased description of the events.

I obviously am not a fan of TSA, but what is "unbiased" in this context? TSA tells us it's some sort of security analysis device, which is obviously biased because they've gone and bought thousands so I can't trust them to report accurately on it. It's also not as they say it is - independent security auditors have regularly defeated the device.

Hence I posit that the device is a genital analysis device, as that is another purpose it serves.

The technical term is “porno scanner”, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=TSA+porno+scanner