I'm a big proponent of privacy and not identifying yourself to government official unless needed, but it seems like proving identify to fly is a pretty reasonable rule.
Why would that be so? People don't show ID to get on the train, the bus or a boat, and what you are called isn't the transport company's or the government's business.
Also people who couldn't make their trip would resell their tickets to someone else at a discount to recoup some of their costs. Also some people would buy cheap tickets on flights they knew would get popular and then resell them higher. They were arbitraging the airlines.
The airlines wanted to stop these practices, and had been demanding the government require ID since the 80s.
The government took advantage of the tragedy of 9/11 and pushed through an ID requirement.
There is no security benefit to ID. It turns out it's really easy for a terrorist to get a fake ID to match a fake name. The only purpose of this policy is to protect airline profits.
Showing an ID card at the airport is about verifying the person getting on the plane has the same identity as on the reservation; it's not about being able to track you -- that's already done much more efficiently.
I agree there's a difference between intending to volunteer this info, but I'm pretty sure you have to use your legal name on your flight reservation in the USA, so the tracking is done whether you show your ID card at the airport or not.
Unlike many other countries, the US and Canada don’t check your passport when you exit the country. That’s because the airlines give each government the passenger lists for each flight and it’s linked back to your entry.
Would it be okay for police to stop suspicious-looking people on the streets and ask them for ID and run background checks if it caught criminals 50% of the time?
Remember the German pilot who crashed on purpose? Good thing they had ids on everyone.
So we should just let anyone into a plane with no screening at all?
Identity is extremely easy to fake. If you are planning in such a way that you have a realistic chance of hijacking a plane, getting a fake ID good enough to fool the two-second check at the TSA checkpoint is the least of your problems.
There is some argument that a properly built luggage and human screening system could actually prevent weapons from making it on the plane. But ID doesn't really come into it.
But even if we can't develop a system that prevents weapons from getting on planes, it doesn't follow the id checks would be a suitable alternative.
I never said it was.
Everyone tells me the TSA can't even stop bombs or guns from being brought on, so let's skip that.
ID doesn't help, so let's skip that.
So my question is - do we just let people board without any checks at all?
If you disagree with the premise that ID screening is 100% useless, then dig up some evidence of its effectiveness.
Context: "a controversial level in the 2009 video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. In the level, the player can participate in a mass shooting at a Russian airport.".
I remember seeing a documentary showing how in Israeli airport one of the main goals was to always avoid long lines and big groups of people.
But Israel, who is clearly a major target for airline bombings hasn't had one in what? 50 years?
But yes, they interview heavily.
So far the TSA haven't really prevented any terrorist attacks yet. Don't fall for their security theater, they're just there to take your water and feel important.
So you’re arguing that if we did zero screening of passengers and luggage that nothing much would change with regards to terrorism targeting airlines?
So, as far as security goes, they're not that good. For this mediocre protection, travelers pay in theft[5], sexual assault[6][7] and racism[8].
I think the goal of the TSA is noble and just, but as it functions right now, the system is broken. There is the potential for the TSA to protect the US from terrorists, but the truth is that terrorism targeting the West isn't that common in airplanes anymore. If the TSA cannot or will not be fixed, I'd say yes, the world is better off without the TSA. The price to pay for protection is too steep.
[1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...
[2]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-...
[3]: https://fortune.com/2018/01/19/fake-bomb-newark-airport/
[4]: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/13/flight-security-hopele...
[5]: https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/the-tsa-stole-over-2-bill...
[6]: https://filtermag.org/tsa-sexual-assault/
[7]: https://www.denverpost.com/2020/02/24/tsa-agent-adams-county...
[8]: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/tsa-employees-vent-...
The courts have stated that reasonably limitations on freedoms are allowed.
Crowd control, occupancy laws, trespassing laws, curfews, checkpoints, etc.
The system being proposed here would be able to deny boarding to a passenger who fails an arbitrary and completely unknown set of criteria, based on no laws and (most likely) violating existing law.
Do you see the difference?
But regardless, even with clearly defined criteria, people get through that shouldn't. So going back to the original comment, if the system isn't 100% perfect, does that mean we should just not do it?
Now I'm certainly in favor of the argument that we should be honest with ourselves and repeal the Second Amendment instead of pretending that we care about it but only in useless ways. But so long as we believe that both bearing arms and traveling are human rights and not privileges, neither should be gated by IDs and background checks, and you should only lose that right in the form of a punishment under due process of law.
After you own 1, 2, 5, 12 guns, what purpose does this background check serve? How about the 10 day waiting period?
The background check could be completed in seconds - it's a API call to DOJ effectively, and you get a "Pass/Fail" indication back - based on the laws that allow you to own guns.
So... this process could effectively be immediate for anyone who already owns guns.
But! We somehow sleep better at night knowing someone with 12 guns has to wait 10 days before getting their 13th... because that prevents them from committing murder or something?
Some things are simply Security Theater. We should stop pretending.
Well the waiting period might be useful when going from zero to one right? At least it shows premeditation.
And, the federal government isn't permitted to run a gun ownership registry[1], so the DOJ api wouldn't know if you already had a gun, so everybody has to wait.
[1] As I understand it, firearms dealers have to record purchases on paper and keep the records for a significant amount of time, and respond to requests for data, which is sort of a registry, but not online and not centralized.
Absolutely. I was more getting at why wait 10 days for your second gun... or 12th...
> And, the federal government isn't permitted to run a gun ownership registry[1], so the DOJ api
The DOJ check is with your local state, and many states such as California do keep a registry. For the states that don't have a registry, bringing in paperwork from your most recently purchased firearm, showing the registration to yourself, would be sufficient.
> firearms dealers have to record purchases on paper and keep the records for a significant amount of time, and respond to requests for data
In order for the DOJ to know which dealer to ask for records, they have to know where you bought the gun.
What gets me about this is it’s well known and easy to see on the ticket, and if someone was up to something that day they would surely just see it on their ticket and walk out of the airport.
Like many policies, it’s been really poorly implemented and I don’t believe it enhances security whatsoever.
or... have two tickets prepared (shouldn't be too hard, it's not like they have security features on them), and swap them if your ticket gets marked.
That being said, most country requires you to carry your national ID at all time. So well.
(hence the alternative identification methods already employed, which were discussed in the article)