Fire Sale: TSA Now Offering You Your Civil Liberties For A Fee!
from the freedom-isn't-free dept
You've likely heard the phrase "freedom isn't free" before, probably in the context of honoring our service men and women, paying taxes, voting, or paying for audio clips of the movie Braveheart. It's one of those phrases that's been used so often that it's probably no longer worthwhile. My main complaint about the phrase, other than the generally mouth-breathing blowhards who use it, is it leaves the obvious follow up question unanswered: fine, then how much will freedom cost me? It's an important question we've never really had an answer to...until now.
And that answer is? 85 whole American dollars. No, I didn't get that out of some Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy fan-fiction. I got it from the TSA, who announced an expanded program to touch your ugly bits less if you pay up.
TSA Precheck allows passengers who have been pre-approved to keep on their shoes and belt, not remove their jackets, keep their laptops inside their cases, and not have to remove select liquids and gels from their bags. In other words, besides the line, they can avoid most of the hassles of going through an airport security checkpoint.Now, to be clear, the TSA's Precheck program has been around for some time, but this is a fairly significant expansion of that program, not to mention a sweet price drop. So all of the scare-mongering we previously heard as justification for searching through our things and our pants could have been swept away with a background check and $85? That almost sounds like a good deal, except then you remember that most airport security is futility as performance art to begin with and paying for civil liberties is the kind of thing that would have made Thomas Jefferson grab a musket and his pantaloons.
And here's another consideration: why am I to believe these background checks and $85 make a person safe to pass through large swaths of the airport security that any normal citizen must endure? A fingerprint and $85 doesn't keep someone from being radicalized at a later date. It doesn't mean all the scary terrorist groups out there can't plant someone on a long-term mission specifically to get approved for this list. There's every bit as much danger in these people as in the rest of us. Which is to say, very little, actually.
All this tells me is that if TSA security is either so poor or so unnecessary that millions of people qualify to bypass most of it, and they're expanding that bypass, maybe the answer is to scale the security theater back instead of handing everyone an $85 bill.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, pre-check, safety, security theater, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Final Offer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$1.05
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
You don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
Oo, buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $1.05
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: $1.05
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $1.05
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real tragedy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not like them,
TSA
I do not like
Your offers
Would you like them
Here or there?
I would not like them
here or there.
I would not like them
anywhere.
I do not like
giving up my liberty
I do not like them,
TSA
Would you like them
in a house?
Would you like them
with a mouse?
I do not like them
in a house.
I do not like them
with a mouse.
I do not like them
here or there.
I do not like them
anywhere.
I do not like your fake terrorist plots
I do not like them, TSA
Would you eat them
in a box?
Would you eat them
with a fox?
Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
I would not eat them here or there.
I would not eat them anywhere.
I would not eat your bitter pills
I do not like them, TSA
Would you? Could you?
in a car?
Eat them! Eat them!
Here they are.
I would not ,
could not,
in a car
You may like them.
You will see.
You may like them
in a tree?
d not in a tree.
I would not, could not in a tree.
Not in a car! You let me be.
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox
I do not like them in a house
I do mot like them with a mouse
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like your constant bullshit
I do not like them, TSA
A train! A train!
A train! A train!
Could you, would you
on a train?
Not on a train! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! TSA! Let me be!
I would not, could not, in a box.
I could not, would not, with a fox.
I will not eat them with a mouse
I will not eat them in a house.
I will not eat them here or there.
I will not eat them anywhere.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Say!
In the dark?
Here in the dark!
Would you, could you, in the dark?
I would not, could not,
in the dark.
Would you, could you,
in the rain?
I would not, could not, in the rain.
Not in the dark. Not on a train,
Not in a car, Not in a tree.
I do not like them, TSA, you see.
Not in a house. Not in a box.
Not with a mouse. Not with a fox.
I will not eat them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere!
You do not like
the security theater?
I do not
like them,
TSA
Could you, would you,
with a goat?
I would not,
could not.
with a goat!
Would you, could you,
on a boat?
I could not, would not, on a boat.
I will not, will not, with a goat.
I will not eat them in the rain.
I will not eat them on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let me be!
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I will not eat them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them ANYWHERE!
I do not like
anything to do with you
I do not like them,
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
basic economics, again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure under one condition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA, MMO style
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA, MMO style
So TSA agents are griefers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From someone who works at a travel agency and has a global entry card...
tell you this, but the joke here is that the several dozen airports who are already running PreCheck programs don't even let you use the "perks" the vast majority of the time. Oh sure, they'll let you walk up the shory line at security - but good luck with your chances that the TSA staff on duty are actually operating the expedited screening lane. Most of the time they can't be bothered, and you're thrown back into the regular line. They certainly don't let you keep your shoes on. I wish I were kidding, but this has been my consistent experience traveling the last couple of years. JFK and Boston Logan are the only airports I've actually been able to consistently use my GE status on a semi-regular basis,
I didn't have to pay for my own screening and whatnot to get global entry, but it hasn't stopped me from standing there, plastic bin in hand, wondering what's the fucking point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From someone who works at a travel agency and has a global entry card...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From someone who works at a travel agency and has a global entry card...
You and me and millions of air travelers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From someone who works at a travel agency and has a global entry card...
You and me and millions of air travelers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA and fees for a "pass".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyranny is upon us right now.
Who's willing to fight?
I know I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why is it that the only people who are willing to get their balls to the wall to effect a solution think that violence is the only one? Sheesh! /End rant.
For the record, public pressure of the kind that took SOPA down will get the job done if we're willing to sustain it. No government can operate without the consent of the people. That's why they distract us by pretending there's a difference between one party and another. The truth is, it's a choice between "bad" and "worse."
All violence can achieve in that situation is to create a bloodbath that will lead to either the full revolution desired by certain extremists (good luck with that) or (what is much more likely) a failed revolution that sends us into lockdown and a full on overt police state with checkpoints on every street corner. And kiss the Second Amendment goodbye. In fact, the whole Bill of Rights would go in either scenario to either prevent another attempted revolution or to prevent counter-revolutionary activities.
Use the tried and tested civil process of voting for the right people, legislation, and lawsuits. That stuff worked for civil rights in the Sixties, didn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(Anymore I'm beginning to wonder.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Later date? Not even that!
The event in question works closely with the UK police and security services and checks out all of the 5,000+ staff that work the event. I will wager that these checks are at least as extensive as those given "pre-cleared" passengers and I know of several incidents where things have slipped through - e.g. a reporter managing to work at the event "undercover" by falsifying their background.
The point is, even for only a few thousand people, it's simply impossible to do a thorough-enough background check to be sure someone is who they claim to be - one replies on spotting "something not right" in a cursory check to dig deeper. Multiply that by the number of people that travel and it is impossible that pre-clearing can be much more than another piece of money-making security theatre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protection racket
From this report:
http://blackburn.house.gov/uploadedfiles/blackburn_tso_report.pdf
it sounds like the frequent traveler needs protection from TSA "officers" (who are really sworn LE officers, but play them to packed audiences at the TSA security theater in an airport near you.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Protection racket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is the different from any other tax?
What is everyone complaining about? How is this any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, they kind of should, after all I've proven I'm not a risk by frequently flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay to Lose Your Rights
Complete surrender of your First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights. For which you may get nothing, since if they refuse your application you have no recourse; not even to get an explanation.
Even if you are accepted, that's not the end of it: You signed away your Rights permanently. Because if you don't renew your membership, or if you try to withdraw from the program, well, that's suspicious, right? Probable cause for a warrant to conduct a review, just to see what you're up to.
And the best part is, you applied to give up your Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Con game, the punishment for flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open your own airport, reject the TSA
Make it a capital offense for any member of congress, the TSA or any alphabet government organization to enter the premises with shoot to kill orders for same.
Watch your security increase a thousand fold and your flying experience be pleasant and sunny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open your own airport, reject the TSA
That raises a good question. Why does TSA have the authority it has? Congress has passed no law mandating the TSA conduct airport security as far as I know. Did they just march in and start doing all this, or did the airlines consent to it, or the airports, or what? What would it take to get rid of them?
Make it a capital offense for any member of congress, the TSA or any alphabet government organization to enter the premises with shoot to kill orders for same.
That would take an act of Congress, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open your own airport, reject the TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tsa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tsa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get everyone's fingerprints
Maybe the whole point is not security, but a grab at getting everyone's fingerprints on file.
This way we'll seem grateful to give our fingerprints over to the government to avoid the TSA hassle, and we'll even pay them for the scoop-up of them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what is this really?
The $85 is compensation for NOT getting to grope someone they wanted to grope?
$85 is too much for terrorists to pay.
Maybe this is designed so that the rich and connected get a special perk that the lowly commoners don't get. Some powerful people felt that it was beneath them to have to be screened or inconvenienced.
TSA needs the $85 to offset losses due to greater scrutiny of TSA's secret 'confiscating' of iPads and other valuables that go missing from passenger luggage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
airport
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: airport
They're pretending that the pre-screening can figure out who is a threat and who is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]