Not the original commenter, but I was also thrown a bit by the structure of the blog post. Most items posted on HN are on a single topic, and I didn't realize going into this item that I was dropping into a multi-topic finance newsletter.
Based on the title, I was expecting a single, unitary article that was about hedge fund size and tax arbitrage. It took a while for me to realize this was not the case.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Women, 24+, interested in family, weddings, gifts, babies, family photos, etc. We kept it to Australia for now, but I'm working on going international.
Since the items integrate the buyer's photo, people also often use them as memorials of dead people, but we didn't specifically target that. Yet.
Blaming volume? How about 1) the switch from metal detectors to less numerous and slower body scanners? 2) the allocation of employee resources to the "pre check" line leaving less staff for 90% of travelers. 3) still having to take belts and shoes off even with a full body scan? This program has gotten seriously out of hand and is incredibly frustrating. I don't care if it's 3 hours or "75 minutes" anything over 15 minutes is absurd.
You don't actually have to take your belt off for the full body scan. I left it on once by accident and wasn't questioned, nor was I the next dozen or so times I've flown.
I think it's highly dependent on which airport you're at and the current mood of the people working there.
Last year I was flying home, and there was a sign in the security line saying they we don't need to remove our shoes or belt, I cannot remember which. When I got up to the front of line, I was told, yes, I need to remove both.
For CLEAR, PreCheck and airline-specific special class passengers you can skip removing shoes/belt/jacket, depending on the policy, when traveling through US airports. Non-US airports, and certain international destinations, don't require them removed. And sometimes they just don't give a shit and will let you through regardless.
This. I've been instructed to take my belt off in the dozen or so domestic flights I've taken the last ~2 years. Before that it was hit or miss.
I remember this because I'm thin and a belt keeps my pants from falling to my knees while I'm holding my boarding pass, ID and raising my arms above my head so my body can be scanned with questionable technology.
The scanner will flag it up. I left headphones in my pocket; they were flagged. I got rained on before entering the airport; my damp clothes were flagged. This will make you subject to a mandatory groping at the very least.
Yeah, the scanners are very sensitive and will highlight any abnormality. When I flew earlier this month, the TSA agents were walking up and down the line announcing "Empty your pockets completely, including all tissues, papers, and lint; they will show up on the scan". This is true and has happened to me multiple times.
I was waiting outside the bathroom while some TSA agents were chatting. They were talking about how very skinny people with protruding bones set off the body scanner.
I switched to a totally nonmetallic belt and they always have me take it off.
I also always get a patdown and hands run on the inside of my pants waistline. I think this is because I have long hair and the scanner operator punches the wrong button for sex.
You are also free to travel without body searches, just not on a subway, at least in NYC where they often setup mandatory checkpoints before you enter the platform.
Also more and more COBRA teams are swooping through Amtrack and yes they do search your property.
You are also free to travel without body searches, by a car; unless you are in a border zone of 150 miles, which currently covers the entire state of Forida, for example.
Once you get through all means of transportation, you can always walk without body searches. The problem is you won't get further than your local cigarette store, as the most highways are closed to pedestrians traffic and there is practically no other way to travel through cities/states, unless you okay with transpassing someones property along the line.
Never have I been searched on public transit in NYC, SF, LA, Seattle, or Portland.
I took Amtrak on a weekly basis for about 3 years and I was never searched nor did I ever see anyone searched.
I have driven up and down the west coast from Canada down to Mexico and have never been searched.
Yes, I know my anecdotal experience doesn't mean anything but the picture you paint makes it seem like you can't go anywhere without being searched, realistically the only form of travel where you will be searched is when you fly. Anyways, that's not my point. My point is that we as a society have agreed to give up certain liberties in exchange for safety. For example, we don't allow people to drive without a license. We don't allow you to carry invasive species from one state to another. We don't allow random people to walk through your property. These laws exist for a reason and they weren't created to solely impede on your rights. Sure, we may disagree on where we draw the line but it doesn't help the discussion if you act like we still live in the 1700s where you can hop on your horse and not worry about being searched when you cross the border.
I was once accosted by cops while trying to enter the subway in Boston. They had a checkpoint and were searching people's bags. I refused and walked away, I could use the exercise anyways. About 5 minutes later there were 4 plain clothes cops chasing me down, shoved me against a wall and started threatening me. All because I chose not to give up my personal property.
Most Mondays to Fridays between 4pm and 6pm, subway station for 7 train downtown 5th ave crossing with 42nd. Subway entrance facing Chipolte, next to Bryant Park.
Usually 4 cops and a little table setup with some device they enter tiny paper samples in. NYPD cops. They profile as some people are not stopped.
EDIT: Okay I found the picture for you although this is not station I refer to:
Pay billions in your tax dollars to create a huge interference to free movement around the country, then pay hundreds more individually to get around some facets of the interference you already paid for. Also, let's throw in submission of your fingerprints and a background check into a database secured by hugely-ineffectual government organization.
I can't imagine why everyone isn't leaping at the opportunity...
My dad grew up under the Soviets, where he learned a thing or two about waste, inefficiency, and systematic corruption. He says the following:
"If the government ever gives you the chance to bribe them, do it immediately and with a smile. Pay double if they'll let you. You'll always come out ahead in the long run."
Precheck/Global entry is clearly unrelated to actual security; instead, it's an obvious shakedown, plain and simple. The TSA has given you a chance to pay them extra to be harassed less. From this perspective the GP is correct in practice - you'd be dumb not to pay up.
It's a difficult decision, one that I've been wrestling with for a while.
Imagine if everyone (and I mean everyone) collectively said "This is bullshit." and refused to pay for PreCheck. The TSA would have no choice but to stop the program. This is probably the only way they would stop it (beyond legislation, ha.).
Unfortunately this will never happen. People don't want to stand in line. Corporations have the money to shell out to give their travelling employees special treatment. Many will refuse step back and see that the only way to stop this shit is to make some personal sacrifices for the eventual reward of getting another lane back for everyone to use.
Perhaps others and I are "dumb" to not want to pay up, but we do so in the hopes that others will follow suit. We refuse to be a single drop in the rain on the TSA's fields. Perhaps one day those fields will dry.
>Imagine if everyone (and I mean everyone) collectively said "This is bullshit." and refused to pay for PreCheck. The TSA would have no choice but to stop the program. This is probably the only way they would stop it (beyond legislation, ha.).
I personally believe that we have the TSA and the pre-check program because the majority of Americans want something like this, just like a near-majority of Americans really think that putting a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration is a good idea.[1]
Pre-check, or some way of harassing "them" without harassing "Us," I think, is rather a lot like what Americans wanted when they gave George W. Bush a second term.
I think we have the government we asked for. I mean, certainly, it's irrational, and of course, the profiling ended up being a lot less race based than expected, and, of course, it's now unionized, so some of the people who originally asked for it are now opposed to it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is what America demanded, that the man who gave us this got two terms.
While I agree that if no one paid for PreCheck they'd probably stop the program, I think you're making a follow-on assumption which is "and then the security theater would get better for everyone else."
What we're seeing with the hours-long lines right now is that this simply isn't true. The TSA has no particular incentive to reduce the number of hoops you have to jump through: if anything, a summer like this will probably increase their budget.
So, indeed: pay up for PreCheck and smile because they've given you the opportunity.
> Imagine if everyone (and I mean everyone) collectively said "This is bullshit.
You miss an important concept (that I used to see all the time from administrators in India): Divide and Conquer. They will target some groups of people individually, and dangle some carrot/stick (Free/ Extra Harassment/ you don't have to stand in line with "them"). That's how "everyone" stops calling bullshit.
> Precheck/Global entry is clearly unrelated to actual security; instead, it's an obvious shakedown, plain and simple. The TSA has given you a chance to pay them extra to be harassed less.
I'm not sure if that's true. So much of security is statistical (this is where profiling and stuff comes in, racial or otherwise). If you can spend some time doing a more thorough check beforehand[1], then you can (stochastically) assume that there's a lower chance of them being a threat and thus a lower need for screening each and every trip. The idea being that you're far less likely than average to get radicalized and hijack a plane if you're [insert features like type of job]. Frankly, I find it uncharacteristically intelligent of the TSA.
[1] My global entry interview required me to go in to the airport and show a bunch of documentation proving my place of residence, place of employment, etc.
You can drop "around the country". Your nation or any other nation's national borders do not make free and unimpeded travel any less of a basic right for all people, in all places.
> what is a "basic right" supposed to be, anyway? I missed that day in philosophy class.
Fundamental rights that are inherent to all humans by birth and cannot be justly alienated. It's a major philosophical topic you've probably seen reflected in the universal declaration of human rights, american declaration of independence, french revolutionary declaration of the rights of man etc .
It's not even due to law; it's due to the founding nature of the Republic. Arguably not even a constitutional amendment could permit restrictions on Americans' interstate travel.
The wikipedia entry is slightly misleading on one point: the ninth circuit said he could travel without ID (this case came about because I had been flying without ID and discussed it with John) -- his suit was that he had no choice due to a law he was not permitted to read (yet ignorance of that law is no defense!) and he argued that that was a violation of free speech + free assembly. Without being able to discuss the law in open court, the justification for the decision was a fig leaf.
My objection to precheck is that I question how effective it really is. Not to dive into another controversial topic, but it reminds me of proponents of gun control who think that background checks will solve mass shootings. Passing precheck doesn't stop people who appear to have a normal background and doesn't stop people from being radicalized after they get precheck. Perhaps a better solution would be somewhere in the middle? All travellers are subject to precheck type screening (shoes and belt stay on) but go through a more thorough electronic background check prior to each flight? Or our society could have an honest debate about about the risk of terrorism and the most effective ways to stop it...
You're assuming that there is any effectiveness at all in TSA's procedures. I'm highly skeptical of that myself. It seems they are always fighting the last war. Someone just tried to detonate a shoe bomb? Better make people take off their shoes.
Given that precheck basically brings us back to pre-9/11 screening procedures, I think it's fine. There isn't much about the airport security checkpoint changes since 9/11 that have actually improved security.
I've been very tempted to apply for PreCheck -- it seems like a great deal -- but I find it deeply problematic that the government would create a security screening mechanism so onerous that people gladly hand over their fingerprints to avoid it. The fact that that's even legal incentivizes them to make the normal system as onerous as possible.
A lot of travelers can barely afford to fly as it is.
I can certainly understand that the family of four who only gets to travel once per several years might find $85 per person to be a burden, but I still can't believe that for most people who travel it's that much of a problem. I mean, a US domestic transcon flight is going to run you at the cheapest $300 round trip (and that's only by shopping around like crazy, having super flexible travel dates, and taking advantage of travel deals). Do that once a year, and your $300 flight becomes $317 with precheck. I know many Americans are frankly terrible at personal finance, but... c'mon. Even something shorter like a SFO<->LAX trip is going to run you at least a hundred.
The only way this fast lane can function is if it's exclusive to a small segment of flyers.
If there's only one fast lane, sure. My hope would be that as more people enroll in precheck, they'll be able to turn more and more "regular" lanes into precheck lanes, keeping the efficiency (or lack thereof) of both lane types the same.
It's not going to crumble, pushing it just pushes us ever close to a full blown police state; a direction we're already headed. The people aren't going to get fed up and stop anything, they're going to cower to the power like sheep as we slowly become a full blown fascist state.
Not a gaurantee. Literally my first time through security after I got PreCheck, I was randomly beeped by the metal dectector and told I could either go through the scanner or opt-out and get a pat down instead. I opted out, like I've always done and got yet another pat down. Since then, I've had the metal dectector randomly beep a second time but was only asked to swab my hands to check for explosives.
TSA Pre is the equivalent of "fuck you, got mine".
It makes it personally more convenient for you, while simultaneously ignoring or condoning the waste of millions of person-hours without consent, which basically equates to mass murder if you squnt hard enough at the math.
My "favourite" part of the TSA line is how business and premier customers often have access to a shorter regular TSA line (not precheck, just a separate entrance to the normal TSA line). My understanding is that the TSA is partly funded by a FIXED fee on every ticket so I can't see any logical reason as to why they get sent to the front of the line.
This is a non-issue. First class flyers pay for a ticket that allows them shorter lines, not expedited screening. They're still subject to being randomly flagged, and they will go through the same screening process as everyone else.
That's why first/business class tickets cost so damn much - to blind the traveler into believing that they're actually paying for something worthwhile. As it turns out, for many of them, it is worthwhile just to have shorter lines.
Theme parks do the same thing: pay more for shorter lines. Many attractions, such as the Sears Tower (still can't bring myself to use its official name) Observation Deck, do the same thing.
It's a money grab for sure, just not by the TSA. and why should the TSA give a shit about it if the first class passenger gets the same screening?
My point was more that everyone pays the same fee to be screened by the TSA but by purchasing a more expensive ticket from the airlines you can avoid the long wait to be screened and therefore increase the wait time for most people. To be clear, purchasing a higher fare ticket does not mean you are paying the TSA for better service.
> you can avoid the long wait to be screened and therefore increase the wait time for most people.
Wait, what? I am always frustrated at seeing the folks in those shorter lines (though I settle down at roughly the point of view others have expressed in this thread, that paying for shorter lines is a fact of all parts of life and doesn't seem to abrogate any fundamental right of mine), but it has never occurred to me to think that someone in one of them is lengthening my wait time. If anything, then he or she is shortening it by not being in my line.
Maybe your point is that the screeners for those short lines could be re-deployed to relieve some of the pressure on the longer ones, if the shorter lines didn't exist at all; but, given that they do exist, no-one's use of them seems to me to have any effect on my wait time.
I'm not talking about precheck. At my local airport (and others I have been to) there is a regular TSA line with one screener at the end of the line. Once you clear the ID and ticket check you go into multiple lines for the scanner/bag check. Some airports have a separate line for business customers that goes straight to the ID/ticket check. We all pay the same fixed TSA fee ($2.50 I think) but they get to bypass the main line simply because they purchased a more expensive ticket from the airline (not the TSA). If I'm number 50 in line and 5 passengers get let in before me, then I'm now number 55 in line...
The airlines (for their terminal) and airport ultimately get to decide the configurations of the various security lines (that is, the line leading up to the non-cursory ID check and boarding pass scan, not the part where you get in the final line up to the xray machine and body scanner / metal detector), so they're directly in control of who gets to be in the priority line, generally by paying for a higher-class ticket, or being of a certain status in their frequent flyer program.
On a side note, I've noticed that, given the speed that the first agent checks your ID and boarding pass, it's clear to me that they're only looking for three things: 1) you physically have your ID (not that it matches), 2) you have your boarding pass looks vaguely legit, and 3) if you have a precheck or priority marking on the pass that lets you go in a different line. That's really it; they're not really doing anything security-related. #1 and #2 are really more about making sure you don't get in the security line, wait who knows how long, get to the front, and have to get kicked back out for lacking your ID and BP.
You also have to squint really hard to think that standing in the security line for half an hour or missing your flight is an effective protest against waste.
>2) the allocation of employee resources to the "pre check" line leaving less staff for 90% of travelers.
I don't think this makes sense, unless in your airport the PreCheck line is sometimes empty and the staff there are waiting around. Otherwise, they can allocate fewer staff than in every other line yet process more travelers due to the faster process. This speeds up security for everyone, not just those with PreCheck, as without PreCheck all of the travelers would have had to go through the longer process which would delay security for everyone behind them.
That's the most frustrating part for me. Sending people through pre-check looked like a nice way for the TSA to save face, and minimize the hassle for the rest of us, without having to admit that most of their scanning procedures are a farce.
Now it's gone because they miss 95% of weapons that the auditors bring through. 95 percent! That means that, in the normal line, they're usually missing stuff. So what do they gain from stopping the free pre-check? Only saving face.
As much as a think pre-check is a scam, I still can't believe more people haven't signed up for it. For anyone who flies even once a year, $85 for 5 years ends up being a pretty small part of the ticket price ($17 per round trip), and makes everything go so much smoother. At all airports I've traveled from I'm door-to-gate in under 10 minutes, even when the regular security line is swamped.
Only thing I can think of is perhaps people live far enough away from an airport to make the interview requirement a burden... though in that case you can try to schedule your appointment for a couple hours before a flight, when you're already planning to be there.
(Of course, more people joining isn't in my best interest since I doubt they'll expand pre-check staff all that much...)
