> Stand here with no shoes
They now sell you a solution to bypass that step.
Surely a little background check proves your shoes are safe.
They now sell you a solution to bypass that step.
Surely a little background check proves your shoes are safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering
> offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem, or offer a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket
Operating a racket is called racketeering.
They came up with another racket to skip further in the line lets a private company take a cut for bribing the government to let you skip to the front and buy back some of your time.
Yes and no? Yes, it creates jobs and pays people but it isn't like funds are being used to benefit society. They aren't being used to build roads or schools. There's no evidence to show that these funds are making flights safer either. We're giving up a lot of privacy for this and even giving up more, with the real ID act and pushes for facial recognition technologies. I think a lot of people, including me, would feel better about these inconveniences and the extra money we pay for them, if there was any real evidence to suggest that they actually made us safer. But since there isn't, after two decades of data, I wouldn't blame anyone for calling it a racket (as defined above).
But on top of that, there's further rackets like what you are referring to. But the government also participates in this directly (Clear is indirect) through the TSA precheck.
A racket can have multiple levels and multiple actors.
A well-run IT department will never have data that they prevent IT disasters
1) They can see people attacking the system. We can even often see what these people are attempting to do! A lot of security research is focused on this, figuring out what attackers are trying to do.
2) We have post hoc analysis. We can see lots of attacks and then provide an intervention and see if those decrease. Since terrorist attacks were black swan events you're right that we can't really measure the effect of TSA, but then again, do we need to address black swan events? At least we need to compare the costs and it is pretty clear that the yearly number of increased deaths due to driving alone is higher than the number of deaths from decades of terrorist attacks and hijackings.
I'd say we have pretty good data in both cases to make fairly reasonable conclusions about how effective these interventions are. There's a reason very few people question the need for an IT department. The ones that do don't question it for long after attempting to run without them.
The act of doing your job in IT means problems never come up and you can’t really measure what didn’t happen
[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
Furthermore, if this is a result of correctly interpreting the constitution…our lawmakers should have, and still should, immediately change the constitution.
We really need an explicit right to privacy. Third party doctrine is ridiculous as it applies to gmail, UPS, FedEx. TSA in general should be plainly unconstitutional. Americans should have reasonable rights even while crossing the border. Americans should still have the same rights vs. the US government when they’re not in America (not okay for FBI to tap my phone line while I’m in Germany, I still have the constitution protecting me as a U.S. citizen). Foreigners inside USA also should have full constitutional protections.
2nd amendment needs massive clarification, I don’t even care what just make it clear in plain language.
If we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol…Why wasn’t one needed for weed?
How the Fuck did civil asset forfeiture get ruled to be legal? That needs an amendment.
Why don’t citizens get recompense when the government fucks up and takes all their shit when they read the address on the warrant wrong?
Why is the right to a speedy trial still take over a year often? And why are “innocent until proven guilty” people held in jail that whole time?
How is imprisoning people in Guantanamo forever with no trial constitutional?
Sure, it's legal, but due to the interpretation issue you mentioned, I fully believe it's unconstitutional.
here's the link to that conversation if anyone is interested.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is written as plainly as possible though.
Do we as a society really need a constitutional amendment to define what an “infringement” is?