436

California could ban Clear, which lets travelers pay to skip TSA lines (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

175 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years 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.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years 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 2 years ago

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

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years 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.

[-] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years 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 2 years ago

Yes, they are as invasive in my experience.

this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024

436 points (100.0% liked)

News

36043 readers

2534 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world