450
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A new bill, the first of its kind in the U.S., would ban security screening company Clear from operating at California airports as lawmakers take aim at companies that let consumers pay to pass through security ahead of other travelers

Sen. Josh Newman, a California Democrat and the sponsor of the legislation, said Clear effectively lets wealthier people skip in front of passengers who have been waiting to be screened by Transportation Security Administration agents. 

"It's a basic equity issue when you see people subscribed to a concierge service being escorted in front of people who have waited a long time to get to the front of TSA line," Newman told CBS MoneyWatch. "Everyone is beaten down by the travel experience, and if Clear escorts a customer in front of you and tells TSA, 'Sorry, I have someone better,' it's really frustrating." 

If passed, the bill would bar Clear, a private security clearance company founded in 2010, from airports in California. Clear charges members $189 per year to verify passengers' identities at airports and escort them through security, allowing them to bypass TSA checkpoints. The service is in use at roughly 50 airports across the U.S., as well as at dozens of sports stadiums and other venues.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 54 points 8 months ago

This is on brand. Government thinks the problem is the “for pay” scheme to make the process more tolerable while forcing us into a system (TSA) that has NEVER been shown to prevent anything other than happiness. The problem isn’t with Clear, it is with TSA asshats. How about make a system that works so that no one needs Clear?

[-] ech@lemm.ee 69 points 8 months ago

You are right, but having a system like Clear also incentivizes the whole system to be worse to increase sales. While it's not a whole solution, it's a good move, imo.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

I disagree. Clear gives wealthy an “out” and incentivizes the TSA system to NOT change. Clear is increasing sales but there is no relationship between their sales and TSA. TSA is not incentivized to make Clear more money. It’s a bad move.

[-] OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

I'd day it's still a good move as it prevents inequal wealth resulting in inequality treatment. We should ALL be moved to the front of the TSA line, with no extra cost, or none of us should.

The ultimate solution is a change to TSA that makes it easier to board for everyone, but if the only option is to let people who pay a fee get a leg-up, I'm fine with just banning the whole service.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

You're forgetting the best option: disband TSA. It's never been shown to improve safety and I have always argued it's a greater security risk to congregate all the passengers (before screening) in a central location anyway.

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If Clear's entire business model is predicated on getting money from people who don't want to deal with the standard security system, then they are 100% incentivized to keep security as unpleasant as possible. Suppose that Congressman Jones introduces the Make TSA Less Horrible Bill. That bill would be an existential threat to Clear, so they would absolutely lobby against it, even though it would objectively improve the lives of everyone who travels. By that same token, if Congressman Chudknuckle wanted a campaign donation from Clear, he might just so happen to introduce the TSA Now Can Stab You in the Ear with an Unfolded Paperclip Bill, and Clear would happily oblige.

Clear may not have created the problem for which they are selling the solution, but they have every incentive in the world to keep the problem as bad as possible, and even make it worse if they can.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

Nothing you have said (which I agree with) disagrees with my comment. Clear only exists because TSA is terrible. Fix TSA and Clear goes away because no one will see value in it. In my airport, Clear is worse than preTSA and many have cancelled their Clear because a better option exists.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 8 months ago

If it gave the wealthy an out it would be $1000/yr. This is trying to onboard everyone cheap, so you either pay clear or wait 2 hours.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

It's doing that to generate a captive customer base so they can add additional tiers later on.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

Okay? It’s still a private sector solution to make a public sector shitshow tolerable. How does banning it help the shitshow that is TSA? This was my whole point - government thinks banning Clear is the solution to be “fair” when the problem is TSA. If they fix the TSA shitshow there is no need for Clear.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 8 months ago

Let’s reverse the question: how does continuing to allow it not just make the system the same but with a yearly fee attached?

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee -3 points 8 months ago

Because only a small percentage of people use Clear.

[-] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 16 points 8 months ago

Yeah, but the best way to get something like this to improve is to make rich people suffer through it too. Letting them bypass a system like this allows them, and the politicians who cater to them, to ignore the issue.

Its like when segregation ended and white kids were being sent to the black schools and tons of money poured into the schools as the white parents realized the conditions there kids would have to suffer through. Like tsa the ultra wealthy just went to private schools/jets but the broad middle to upper middle class still has a lot of sway politically and can change broken systems like this, if it effects them.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, but the best way to get something like this to improve is to make rich people suffer through it too.

Nothing like holding the lowest bar possible for TSA. Disband it. It's never been shown to make anything safer. I have always argued that making thousands of people congregate in lines is a far greater security risk (firearm/explosive device) than anywhere else in the airport. And those lines are NOT screened for weapons at the airport entrance.

[-] PumpkinEscobar@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Can I ask what the better working system would look like? I've seen plenty of the stories about TSA lapses, obviously security at the airports isn't fun, but I'm not sure what an alternative system that works would look like.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Disband TSA. It's never been shown to improve safety and I've always argued congregating all the passengers in one place before screening is the greatest security risk in the entire airport. Anybody could walk into the security lines with a gun or explosive device, causing maximal damage.

[-] PumpkinEscobar@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Just to check, is the suggestion to get rid of TSA and not replace it? i.e. no security screening at the airports?

Is there any country on the planet anymore where that's a thing? Any example of a working version of what you're proposing (if I'm reading it right)?

Also

Disband TSA. It’s never been shown to improve safety

That sounds pretty far from true. The only way this is true is if TSA procedures have never prevented a single gun, bomb, etc... past a security checkpoint.

As reported by the TSA they stopped 6737 firearms, 93% of them loaded from getting into secure areas... in 2023 alone. They also conducted a passenger survey where 93% of passengers said they were satisfied with experience, 94% confident in TSA's ability to keep air travel secure

Conducted a passenger experience survey with a sample size of 13,000 travelers at multiple airports across the nation. Survey results revealed that 93% of travelers were satisfied with the passenger experience and 94% of the respondents were confident in TSA’s ability to keep air travel secure.

I'm not sure what percentage of the 93% would feel the same way, but I will say if the TSA went away tomorrow with no replacement I'd no longer be flying on any airline that was unscreened.

[-] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yes, and when the cops investigate themselves, they find no wrongdoing.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

You’ve obviously never taken a high speed train in the EU.

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Are you trying to compare rail to air travel in terms of risk? Last time I checked into it, nobody hijacked a train and drove it into buildings.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Every country in the world has something similar to the TSA. It's an awful experience everywhere. But pay-to-win is not something I approve of in general, and certainly not in the security line.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

You obviously have not been on high speed trains in the EU

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

I certainly have. Most EU countries are part of the Schengen area, which often doesn't have security at borders. You'll encounter the Schengen "TSA" at external border. Also not a very pleasant experience.

[-] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

TSA screening is required for every flight, domestic as well as international. So no, not every country has an equivalent. Yes they all have some sort of airport security, but no they're not as invasive and ineffective as the TSA.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Yes, they are as invasive in my experience.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago

You obviously have never taken a high speed train in the EU.

There is essentially zero security at the train stations in the EU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

We're talking about the equivalent to the TSA, which is at airports. Not train stations.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago

No we're talking about risks and benefits of having or not having TSA, which was a knee jerk response to 9/11 which has become excessive. Trains have risk (Madrid 2004) yet have virtually no security. Any reasonable person would agree that the amount of security at airports is excessive and can be done in a much more efficient and safe manner.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

They literally have the same security as trains in the US.

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

I want Clear gone along with everything else trying to scan my face. They all need to fuck off.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

Agreed. Ban all of it, including TSA.

this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
450 points (98.9% liked)

News

23669 readers
3572 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS