7 ms·

There is no legal requirement to show id or answer any questions to establish identification before flying. In other words there is no extra work required by la

by tssva 8mo ago

There is no legal requirement to show id or answer any questions to establish identification before flying. In other words there is no extra work required by law which the fee would cover.

tokyobreakfast 8mo ago
Like someone who would deliberately show up to work in a speedo because "show me where in the employee handbook it says I must wear pants"
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  A better analogy would be a legally protected right to show up to work dressed in street clothes, your boss imposes an illegal requirement to wear a specific uniform, and then attempts to charge you if you show up without one.
crazygringo 8mo ago
The TSA is literally doing all this extra work though, whether or not you think it's required by law. They're not just pocketing the $45 and then blindly waving you ahead.
- eli 8mo ago
  Flying without ID just gets you the full patdown treatment. It’s not like they’re tracking down people to vouch for you.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - crazygringo 8mo ago
    I don't know what you mean by "full patdown treatment", but they're absolutely tracking down your information in databases and interviewing you about it. See replies to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46864182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46864182 It's absolutely not just enhanced physical screening.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  - chickensong 8mo ago
    It's not just a patdown. They take you to a phone booth that has a direct line to some portion of the FBI IIRC, and they ask you a bunch of questions to confirm your identity. At least this is what happened to me about ten years ago when I lost my wallet in a different state and needed to fly home.
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      ... and the law in most states requires only that you give your name and possibly your DOB to the authorities upon detainment. So as a purely academic exercise, what can they even do if you refuse to answer beyond that? Obviously in practice they will fuck with you or just straight up violate the constitution, but theoretically I'm unsure how they can continue to seize you after that.
      - crazygringo 8mo ago
        ...they don't let you fly. They can't detain you (if you're not otherwise some kind of suspect, and you're not trying to assault them or sprint past security or anything), but they don't let you fly.
        mothballed 8mo ago
        ... if you aren't detained you are free to go. And if you are free to go, you are free to stay, unless the property owner has trespassed you. TSA doesn't own the airport, at least in my state. So how can they trespass you from the airport or otherwise continue to detain you from moving forward? I mean, I know you're right, and I know you will always lose if you try, but I don't understand the legal basis.
        crazygringo 8mo ago
        It's just federal law. Cities don't own restaurants either but can fine them and close them if health inspections fail, because there's a law for that. The legal basis is the federal laws written specifically around airport security.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- eitally 8mo ago
  Let's be more precise. The TSA has created extra work for themselves, and are charging us for it, whether it's legally required or not (because they pretend that it is).
  - crazygringo 8mo ago
    Sure. But it's not "pretend". It's genuine regulatory policy they've created because they believe it's necessary for security, and this has been a decades-long project. The article is arguing they don't ultimately have the legal authority to make that regulatory policy. Maybe that'll go to court and be tested, maybe they'll win and maybe they'll lose. If they lose, maybe Congress will pass explicit legislative authorization the next day, and maybe that'll be brought to court, and the Supreme Court will have to decide if it violates the 14th amendment or not. But it's not "fake work", it's actually doing a thing.
    - forgetfreeman 8mo ago
      I mean I could hire someone to continuously dig and refill the a hole in the ground. That would certainly be them doing a thing, but it would also definitely be fake work. There's been plenty of rhetoric thrown around but no real evidence has been produced that suggests the TSA isn't engaging in a bit of circular digging at the taxpayer's expense with this.
      - throwaway7783 8mo ago
        Ah, digging holes and refilling them - that'd be literally the NREGA program in India
    - ehasbrouck 8mo ago
      No, it's not "regulatory policy". It's been done entirely with some combination of secret "Security Directives" and "rulemaking by press release". As the article and the linked references explain, the TSA never issued any regulations, published any of the required notices, or obtained any of the approvals that would have been required even if Congress had passed an (unconstitutional) authorizing statute (which it didn't).

by tssva 8mo ago

There is no legal requirement to show id or answer any questions to establish identification before flying. In other words there is no extra work required by law which the fee would cover.

tokyobreakfast 8mo ago

Like someone who would deliberately show up to work in a speedo because "show me where in the employee handbook it says I must wear pants"

fc417fc802 8mo ago
A better analogy would be a legally protected right to show up to work dressed in street clothes, your boss imposes an illegal requirement to wear a specific uniform, and then attempts to charge you if you show up without one.

crazygringo 8mo ago

The TSA is literally doing all this extra work though, whether or not you think it's required by law. They're not just pocketing the $45 and then blindly waving you ahead.

eli 8mo ago
Flying without ID just gets you the full patdown treatment. It’s not like they’re tracking down people to vouch for you.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- crazygringo 8mo ago
  I don't know what you mean by "full patdown treatment", but they're absolutely tracking down your information in databases and interviewing you about it. See replies to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46864182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46864182 It's absolutely not just enhanced physical screening.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- chickensong 8mo ago
  It's not just a patdown. They take you to a phone booth that has a direct line to some portion of the FBI IIRC, and they ask you a bunch of questions to confirm your identity. At least this is what happened to me about ten years ago when I lost my wallet in a different state and needed to fly home.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    ... and the law in most states requires only that you give your name and possibly your DOB to the authorities upon detainment. So as a purely academic exercise, what can they even do if you refuse to answer beyond that? Obviously in practice they will fuck with you or just straight up violate the constitution, but theoretically I'm unsure how they can continue to seize you after that.
    - crazygringo 8mo ago
      ...they don't let you fly. They can't detain you (if you're not otherwise some kind of suspect, and you're not trying to assault them or sprint past security or anything), but they don't let you fly.
      - mothballed 8mo ago
        ... if you aren't detained you are free to go. And if you are free to go, you are free to stay, unless the property owner has trespassed you. TSA doesn't own the airport, at least in my state. So how can they trespass you from the airport or otherwise continue to detain you from moving forward? I mean, I know you're right, and I know you will always lose if you try, but I don't understand the legal basis.
        crazygringo 8mo ago
        It's just federal law. Cities don't own restaurants either but can fine them and close them if health inspections fail, because there's a law for that. The legal basis is the federal laws written specifically around airport security.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
eitally 8mo ago
Let's be more precise. The TSA has created extra work for themselves, and are charging us for it, whether it's legally required or not (because they pretend that it is).
- crazygringo 8mo ago
  Sure. But it's not "pretend". It's genuine regulatory policy they've created because they believe it's necessary for security, and this has been a decades-long project. The article is arguing they don't ultimately have the legal authority to make that regulatory policy. Maybe that'll go to court and be tested, maybe they'll win and maybe they'll lose. If they lose, maybe Congress will pass explicit legislative authorization the next day, and maybe that'll be brought to court, and the Supreme Court will have to decide if it violates the 14th amendment or not. But it's not "fake work", it's actually doing a thing.
  - forgetfreeman 8mo ago
    I mean I could hire someone to continuously dig and refill the a hole in the ground. That would certainly be them doing a thing, but it would also definitely be fake work. There's been plenty of rhetoric thrown around but no real evidence has been produced that suggests the TSA isn't engaging in a bit of circular digging at the taxpayer's expense with this.
    - throwaway7783 8mo ago
      Ah, digging holes and refilling them - that'd be literally the NREGA program in India
  - ehasbrouck 8mo ago
    No, it's not "regulatory policy". It's been done entirely with some combination of secret "Security Directives" and "rulemaking by press release". As the article and the linked references explain, the TSA never issued any regulations, published any of the required notices, or obtained any of the approvals that would have been required even if Congress had passed an (unconstitutional) authorizing statute (which it didn't).