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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s doing that to generate a captive customer base so they can add additional tiers later on.
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.
Let’s reverse the question: how does continuing to allow it not just make the system the same but with a yearly fee attached?
Because only a small percentage of people use Clear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Yes, and when the cops investigate themselves, they find no wrongdoing.
You’ve obviously never taken a high speed train in the EU.
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.
except when they do.
Here’s an from when an antivax loonie did basically that: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/02/825897966/train-engineer-says-he-crashed-in-attempt-to-attack-navy-hospital-ship-in-l-a
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.
You obviously have not been on high speed trains in the EU
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.
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.
Yes, they are as invasive in my experience.
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.
We’re talking about the equivalent to the TSA, which is at airports. Not train stations.
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.
They literally have the same security as trains in the US.
I want Clear gone along with everything else trying to scan my face. They all need to fuck off.
Agreed. Ban all of it, including TSA.