It's hilarious how transparent a money grab this entire thing is.<p>"You need to show a Real ID for security, otherwise how do we know you won't hijack the plane?"<p>"Well I don't have a Real ID."<p>"Ok then, give us $45 and you can go through."<p>So it was never about security at all then, was it?<p>And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.

Saying that there is “no legal requirement to show an ID” is truthy but misleading. Federal law gives the TSA authority over “screening” passengers: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901</a> (“The Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation.”).<p>That means the TSA can do whatever it can get away with labeling “screening.” It doesn’t matter that Congress didn’t specifically require showing IDs. That’s just one possible way of doing “screening.” Under the statute, the TSA is not required to do screening any particular way.

Explain to me how qualified immunity is better than any ill it is supposed to address? And how is it that if you sue the government and win, then the judgement doesn't automatically award reasonable legal fees?

Seems quite dangerous. In my country, this was the norm for local flights - usually smaller planes, 1-2hr flights. It was common that if you could not attend a meeting, a colleague would go with your ticket. Nobody cared.<p>Then one plane crashed. And some passengers weren't insured, as they were not officially on the plane. Those families could not get a body back, nor any compensation, as the company said that they could not prove they were on the plane.<p>I don't read the small print of IATA when getting a ticket, maybe I should someday.

If true, unlikely to help the working poor flying (or attempting to fly) because recourse to courts here is in the realms of the rich or benificent.<p>So, Frommers should fund a test case.

> Requiring ID won’t make us safer, but it enables surveillance and potential control of our movements.

TSA's searches without a warrant are illegal.<p>The fourth amendment:<p>>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<p>And no, you cannot convince me that searching families flying to see grandma for Christmas is a "reasonable search".

A number of years back I <i>somehow</i> managed to lose my driver's license between the car and the airport door. Even called the limo company to have the driver look. But <poof> apparently. Normally I have a backup ID but this was a very last minute and short trip.<p>Amazingly (to me) the TSA process was easy. What wasn't easy was checking into a crappy Travelodge near the airport. I imagine if I were staying at one of my usual chains where I have a loyalty card, a manager would have waved away any problems. (I did have photo ID and I was plastered all over the Web; I just didn't have backup government issued photo ID which I now make a particular point of carrying.)

Fun fact, I rarely have to show my ID when flying in the EU. But what I don’t understand is why so many people don’t have an ID in the US. Seems like one of the very basic service governments should provide.

If Real ID is so good, why do we have CLEAR? Why can I not skip the line with RealID?<p>If we are forced RealID, why not just make all the TSA checkpoints like Global Entry (or in several countries with IDs), fully automate them, using Real ID. That would get rid of CLEAR, and a lot of TSA agents.

I once told TSA this: "I lost my Driver's License, and the state won't issue another for a month maybe. I understand there's an extra screening pat-down."<p>Before entering the porno scanners I put everything in my pockets on the scanner belt, and they didn't bother to pat me down. YMMV.

What if an airline requires ID, is that legal? (Say to e.g. sell discounted tickets to 65+ people, or to avoid people selling tickets on)?

TSA has been an elaborate ruse to create a recurring revenue service program called “clear” and tsa-pre. Of course they are also able to monetize the ruse itself.

It's a real head-scratcher that the cohort that claims government ID is unattainable for some people hasn't taken up this issue. "Real ID" isn't something that is just delivered to you. Now we're going to charge money <i>not</i> to have it?

Frankly, the entire agency is unconstitutional. From the fact that they basically exist under a general warrant issued by the supreme court (although they invented a new catagory, "administrative search", which doesn't fundamentally change what it is) to the restrictions on the right to assembly requires free travel as well, although the current legal underpinnings are "creative", the 10th admendment which grants all non enumerated powers to the states, to the restrictions on bearing arms on the plane and a half dozen other parts. About the only part they might be able to stand on is commerce again, but then so much travel in the larger states remains in the state (ex dallas/houston, san fran/LA) requiring seperate security zones.<p>Bush should have _NEVER_ nationalized them, at least as a private entity they existed in a sorta gray area. Now they are clearly violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments.<p>And the solution isn't another bullshit supreme court amendment of the absolutist language in the bill of rights/etc but to actually have a national discussion about how much safety the are providing vs their cost, intrusiveness, etc and actually find enough common ground to amend the constitution. Until then they are unconstitutional and the court makes a mockery of itself and delgitimizes then entire apparatus in any ruling that doesn't tear it down as such.<p>And before anyone says "oh thats hard", i'm going to argue no its not, pretty much 100% of the country could agree to amend the 2nd to ban the private ownership of nuclear weapons, there isn't any reason that it shouldn't be possible to get 70% support behind some simple restrictions "aka no guns, detected via a metal detector on public airplanes" passed. But then the agency wouldn't be given free run to do whatever the political appointee of the week feels like. But there are "powers" that are more interested in tracking you, selling worthless scanners, and creating jobs programs for people who enjoy feeling people up and picking through their dirty underwear.

This has to make you wonder if the entire Security Theater is for security or money. I mean, if the RealID is supposed to increase security, then how does plopping $45.00 down help security? I'm pretty sure most terrorists can afford that. There is also the possibility that the RealID is simply another way the government is using to keep tabs on us 24/7/365.

It seems to me it is more of a penalty to encourage people to get Real ID while still allowing them to fly. I would imagine most air travelers have some kind of real id, passport, actual real id DL or global entry card. Very few people cannot get real id due to name inconsistency issues, but most are just lazy. Allowing them to fly for $45 seems reasonable to me, particularly if they cause delays at security.

Practically speaking, could I fly inside the U.S. without an ID? Just ask for the manual pat down? I assume I’ll need to show up like an extra hour early to give them time to harass me about it, but what are the chances that this works at all, vs just being turned away regardless of what’s legal?

In the USA it is possible to fly without an ID?

It's definitely just to get people to fly with a valid ID without ambushing the enormous number of people who have been living under a rock and don't realize they need a real ID. Otherwise they'll have a dozen or so people freaking out at the airport every single day for years.

You have the right to try and fly without an ID. The airlines also have the right to tell you to buzz off and get lost and the airport operator has the right to decide they don’t want you in the building and trespass you if you don’t scram.

I understand peoples argument ... but isn’t this like a restaurant sign saying <i>“no shoes, no shirt, no service”</i>.<p>Yes, the law doesn’t require people to wear shirts. But the law also doesn’t require you to be serviced.

About 75% of the time I don't get asked for ID at all when flying within Schengen Europe. I understand technically there isn't any border crossing, but they have absolutely no idea who is actually on the plane. Wild.

Interesting, the main and probably only reason I know this is a legitimate site and not some random person's blog post is because I heard about Frommers from the movie Eurotrip.

No one should be forced to give an ID for a domestic flight. It always used to be that way. Every day there is huge amount of chipping away at our freedoms.<p>Someone pointed out amazing advice on how to skip certain checks in this thread, well done.<p>Any chance you get to regain freedom, by any means, take it.

There was no TSA in 1996 just private security screeners.

I don't care, sure it's a clear money grab but it's a small price to pay for the (admittedly little) privacy

Citizens Council for Health Freedom has a whole page about Real ID. [0] Senator Rand Paul has a bill to repeal it. Crucially, you can still fly without a Real ID - there are 15 other forms of acceptable ID.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/</a>

My procrastination is starting to turn into a political stance. This isn't the first time it's happened.

I don't have a real ID and don't plan to get one, but I also basically never fly anymore (been over 5 years). However this is certainly further incentive for me not to fly - wonder if airlines will see a slight decline in travelers over next few years due to this.

Don’t think legality matter anymore

> As described by Clinton’s counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, this idea was conceived overnight as a way to show that the government was “doing something” in response to a plane crash that turned out to have been caused by a faulty fuel tank, not terrorism.<p>To be honest the worry about terrorists hijacking planes under Clinton proved to be quite prescient only a few years later.

$45 for KBA is crazy. They call somewhere and ask you what addresses you recognize, companies you may have loans with etc. The old stuff.

I want to talk about Chevron deference. Trust me, I'm going somewhere with this.<p>For those that don't know, Chevron deference was a legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court in the US in the 1980s that basically said that there is ambiguity in law, the courts need to defer to the agencies responsible for enforcing that law. Different agencies handled this differently. In some cases, they established their own courts. These aren't ARticle 3 courts in the Constitutional sense like Federal courts are but because of Chevron deference they had a lot of power.<p>There was a lot of good reason for this. Government is complex and Congress simply does not have the bandwidth to pass a law every time the EPA wants to, say, change the levels of allowed toxins in drinking water. Multiple that by the thousands of functions done by all these agencies. It simply doesn't work.<p>So for 40 years Congress under administrations of both parties continued to write law with Chevron deference in mind. Laws were passed where the EPA, for example, would be given a mandate to make the air or water "clean" or "safe" and that agency would then come up with standards for what that meant and enforce it.<p>Politically however, overturning Chevron has been a goal of the conservative movement for decades because, basically, it reduces profits. Companies want to be able to pollute into the rivers and the air without consequence. They don't like that some agency has the power to enforce things like this. The thinking went that if they overturned Chevron deference then it would give the power to any Federal court to issue a nationwide injunction against whatever agency action or rule they don't like. They standard for being to do that under Chevron was extremely high.<p>Defenders will argue that agencies are overstepping constitutional bounds and that vague statues aren't the answer. Congress must be clear. But they know that can't happen because of the complexity and that's the point. They don't want complexity. All those "legal" reasons are an excuse. Proftis are the reason.<p>Anyway, they succeeded and now agencies are governemend by what's called the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. Companies and the wealthy people who owned them celebrated this as a win but I don't think they understand what they've done.<p>You see, there are complex rules under the APA about the process by which an agency has to go through to make a rule or policy change and, from waht I can tell and what I've read online, most of them aren't doing it correctly or at all. They seem to operate under the belief that overturning Chevron means they can do whatever they want.<p>So the TSA is a government agency. If they want to add a fee like this well, you need to ask if that's a major rule change. If so, there are procedures for comment periods, review, etc. If these aren't strictly followed, you can simply go into court and say "the TSA didn't follwo procedure" and the courts can issue a nationwide injunction until the matter is resolved and if there was any technical violation of the APA policy change procedure, the entire thing can get thrown out.<p>So if anyone doesn't like what this administration is doing and wants to take legal action to block it, they should probably look to the APA and see if they can block it on technical grounds. I suspect this applies way more than people think and APA-based injunctions will only increase.

Since this is proof that the original and stated point of supplying ID is not valid can we just dispense with the whole charade? It clearly isn't about security if a measly $45 is all it takes to circumvent it so let's just get rid of it entirely.<p>The emperor not only has no clothes, he's shouting that fact at us.

I recently started going through The Mary Tyler Moore show and was struck by the timeliness of this quote from the very first episode:<p>Lou Grant: What religion are you?<p>Mary: Uh, Mr. Grant, I don't quite know how to say this, but you're not allowed to ask that when someone's applying for a job. It's against the law.<p>Grant: Wanna call a cop?

Fun fact: for internal flights in New Zealand you don't need (and aren't asked for) ID. There is security but pretty lightweight. No shoes, laptops, belts, liquids, scanner crap.

This is a really stupid situation. We shouldn't be obstructed from flying without ID as long as we pass the regular security checks, and those security checks shouldn't be unreasonable.<p>What can we do to get there? Is anybody organizing?<p>I want to open my wallet. Where can I donate?

Oh good another poor tax, there hasn't been one for a hot minute.

bankroll for president's private militia aka ice

I've flown without ID twice. Once because I lost my ID, once to prove to a friend that it could be done. This fee will fail for the same reason that flying without ID works at all - the law is quite clear on it.

This article seems oddly hung up on the legality of providing ID.<p>That’s all well and fine, but airlines have the discretion to refuse to board passengers, including for potential security risks.<p>So yeah, there are no laws saying you <i>have to provide ID</i>, but that doesn’t mean you’ll get to board the plane.

I hadn't heard about this, but this is blatantly against the explicit and implied "right to travel" that's baked into the 14th amendment and had over a 156 years of precedence since Paul vs. Virginia.

"illegal"<p>At what point has that stopped literally anything this government has done?

Not sure why the title was editorialized, but this is literally just one person's opinion. The title makes it sound like the legal community universally agrees, which is not true.

It's an interesting argument. Is there a highly-credible, authoritative source? Maybe someone like the EFF or ACLU? There are lots of ideas online about the law, of varying credibility, and I'd hesitate to risk a lawsuit over Internet advice.

of course none of this nonsense applies to those than can afford private travel

I remember flying before the TSA, it was pretty great in part because you could do things like go to the gate to meet arriving family, or walk your child to the gate before they departed as an unaccompanied minor, with the expectation someone was meeting them at the gate on the other side. There has never been a single observation or piece of information that has indicated anything other than the TSA is an unconstitutional waste of money doing security theatre to support a jobs program for societal rejects. All that said, I've been enrolled in Global Entry since it started, CLEAR since it started, and Pre-Check since it started (which later was included w/ Global Entry) because I have places to be and people to see, and I need to just get on with my life.<p>I really hate everything about the TSA, it fundamentally should not even exist as a national entity, and most of their processes and policies are not only illegal but also stupid. But, if you need to travel often there's not a lot you can do about it, you just have to deal with it or not travel. I'm a multiple million miler, been to over 75 different countries and nearly every US state, I travel at least 10 times per year and usually more, what else is there to do about it?

Previously:<p><i>US air travelers without REAL IDs will be charged a $45 fee</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46115731">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46115731</a><p><i>TSA's New $45 Fee at U.S. Airports Unfairly Punishes Families in the Fine Print</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46138101">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46138101</a>

45 dollars? Form 415? Maybe I'm jumping at shadows but this smells like a Trump dogwhistle.

Where does the fee money go then? Into 45’s pocket?

I think I must be confused, but after reading many of the replies, I can't figure this out. Is the standard American perspective that one shouldn't have to show any form of identification to go through security, get on a plane, and travel anywhere within the United States? How does anyone associate your ticket to your identity?