Queue jumping

James Joyner on the new "Clear Card" program to let frequent travelers pay $128 for expedited security procedures.

The government requires that people give up their 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches in order to fly on commercial airlines on the grounds that they have no idea which of us are potentially terrorists. The government then charges a fee to allow people to prove that they’re not criminals and skip part of the line. There’s something vaguely un-American about this.

This is compounded by the fact that the government doesn’t allow people with military ID or who otherwise have actual security clearances to bypass said lines, which leads me to think that this is about collecting the $128 rather than ensuring security. That view is enhanced by the fact that no security check that could be accomplished for $128 will do anything other than demonstrate that the person in question is not a wanted felon or on a terrorist watch list. That’s a screening that all of the 9/11 hijackers would have passed.

My only disagreement is with his use of the word "vaguely".

Comments

From the blockqoute:

The government requires that people give up their 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches in order to fly on commercial airlines on the grounds that they have no idea which of us are potentially terrorists. The government then charges a fee to allow people to prove that they’re not criminals and skip part of the line. There’s something vaguely un-American about this.

I'm curious, what is the "American" option? Not that I'm out to defend the frequently inept security screening procedures, mind you, but given that airplanes have been pristine terrorist targets almost from the dawn of commercial flight, what is the alternative to putting up with this? That is, other than paying far higher prices to fly charter, or using some other (longer, and probably more carbon-intensive) method of transporatation?

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 24, 2008 2:40 PM

Once you understand that airport security has nothing to do with security, you will understand!

Posted by secret asian man | March 24, 2008 2:51 PM

Come, now, Megan. By stating the process is "vaguely un-American," Mr. Joyner is confused with civil liberties in the United States before and after the Patriot Act. Mr. Joyner is obviously biased with a pre 9/11 notion of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

In all seriousness, I'd be interested in a menu of rights and privledges that I can purchase from the state. I'd like to compare it to the indulgences of the 16th Century Roman Catholic church.

Posted by Center Cut | March 24, 2008 2:59 PM

How is this different from that horrifying affront to the Constitution, toll roads?

Posted by Rob Lyman | March 24, 2008 3:05 PM

"what is the alternative to putting up with this"

Well, I would argue that an EFFECTIVE screening program would be helpful. Many of the elements that slow lines down the most do not appear to be in direct response to a successful attack (shoes and liquids).

Now it is true that is challenging to evaluate a counter-factual (what would have happened had we not had these measures in place). Maybe many attacks have been stopped? But I wonder if the same resources invested in Air Marshals might not have had more effect on increasing public safety for far fewer person-hours lost in passive screening procedures (that can be studied and bypassed).

Posted by JD | March 24, 2008 3:09 PM

nobody wants to understand this(?):

Once you understand that airport security has nothing to do with security, you will understand!

Posted by secret asian man | March 24, 2008 2:51 PM

Posted by MEH | March 24, 2008 3:15 PM

Between air travel getting increasingly obnoxious and gas prices going through the roof, nobody is going to want to travel anywhere by the time summer gets here.

Posted by Tel | March 24, 2008 3:28 PM

As I pointed out in comments at James' site, the Clear card program is operated by a private company, so part of the $128 fee is definitely profit.

Posted by alkali | March 24, 2008 3:37 PM

Consider this: the 9/11 hijackers weren't carrying bombs or anything else that would be picked up by normal security checks.

Posted by Marcin Tustin | March 24, 2008 3:42 PM

To answer the first comment's question, once you have reinforced the cockpit doors, and put armed air marshals on random flights, there isn't much that someone on a plane can do to use the plane as a weapon.

All the so-called security checks at the airport do is let the politicians claim to have done something. Even just dropping the security screens back to what they were a decade ago (which is still more than is really needed) would make life vastly easier for passengers.

Posted by wj | March 24, 2008 3:46 PM

From the description I read, it's not clear that the security procedures are any less stringent in the new lines. The passengers still have to remove their shoes and go through x-rays. It looks like they're just faster because there are fewer people in those lines. If the extra security personnel manning the Clear Card lines are funded entirely from the $128 fees, I don't see what's so objectionable about them.

Posted by FXKLM | March 24, 2008 3:53 PM

How is this different from that horrifying affront to the Constitution, toll roads?

The point of a toll road is to collect money for use of a state-provided good, the road itself. It is essentially an alternate form of taxation.

The point of a security check in an airport is not to collect money for use of the airport - that money was taxed and collected when you bought the ticket. To the extent that the government inconveniences its citizens for security reasons, we generally expect it to do so equitably. As citizens, we don't expect that we can pay the government an extra fee for a faster than usual ambulance, court proceding, etc etc (when people do try this sort of thing, it is usually called "bribery." That's the philosophy behind the outrage.

Posted by Brad L | March 24, 2008 3:53 PM

we don't expect that we can pay the government an extra fee for a faster than usual ambulance, court proceding, etc etc (when people do try this sort of thing, it is usually called "bribery." That's the philosophy behind the outrage.

It's also the philosophy behind "congestion pricing," which is popular in some libertarian circles.

Posted by Rob Lyman | March 24, 2008 4:02 PM

As I understand it, "congestion pricing" is charged equally to everybody on the road at the time. Doesn't matter if you're driving a Lexus or a beat-up Chevy, everybody's charged equally. It's a penalty that everybody pays.

But with this ClearCard thing, if you have $128 extra lying around you can avoid a requirement that everybody else has to meet - and that everyone should meet, if anyone is required to. That's what's unfair and un-American about it: buying your way into special treatment.

Posted by Tel | March 24, 2008 4:23 PM

That's more Stuff White People Like...

#99 Paying more money to spend less time in lines!

Posted by DSG | March 24, 2008 4:28 PM

As I understand it, "congestion pricing" is charged equally to everybody on the road at the time.

Everyone on a particular road at a particular time.

There are not too many places in the US where you can't evade a toll road by taking other, less direct or lower speed routes. The toll is thus not some kind of equitable tax but rather the purchase price of convenience. With congestion pricing, it's the purchase price of convenience for not only the route, but the time of day. You can always drive to work extra early and leave extra late and avoid the high tolls, or you can simply take surface streets, pay no tolls, and tolerate the longer commute.

This proposal is similar. If you want to fly during busy periods, you can either pay for convenience or accept longer lines. If you hate lines but don't have the money, fly at off-hours, or arrive at the airport at times when big flights aren't leaving.

Posted by Rob Lyman | March 24, 2008 4:35 PM

As citizens, we don't expect that we can pay the government an extra fee for a faster than usual ambulance, court proceding, etc etc (when people do try this sort of thing, it is usually called "bribery." That's the philosophy behind the outrage.

Bogus.

Bribery is when I give money to a person as an individual (judge, cashier) and get a service from an organization that person belongs to. In bribery, the employee is stealing from the employer.

I can go to a variety of government offices, such as the post office, the State Department, and the DMV, and in return for an expedited processing fee, I get expedited processing.

Are you going to claim that Priority Mail is "bribery"?

Posted by secret asian man | March 24, 2008 4:39 PM

Are you going to claim that Priority Mail is "bribery"?

It's also unamerican. What kind of elitist thinks his mail is more important than everybody else's?

Posted by Rob Lyman | March 24, 2008 4:41 PM

Tel: Everyone in the Clear Card line is being treated the same. They're all paying the same $128. Just as everyone on a toll road is being treated the same. Everyone has the option of using a different security lane and avoiding the Clear Card surcharge just as everyone has the option of using a different road and avoiding tolls. Congestion pricing allows those with a high premium on avoiding congestion to pay for shorter lines.

If we assume that the Clear Card lines are not diverting funds away from the regular security lines (because they are fully self-funding), then the other lines should move a little faster as well since the Clear Card customers are no longer using them.

Posted by FXKLM | March 24, 2008 4:42 PM

I'm curious, what is the "American" option?

My favorite proposal for the "American" option showed up in a slashdot comment a while back:

NRA Airlines -- 10% discount for open carry.

Posted by Maniakes | March 24, 2008 4:46 PM

If we assume that the Clear Card lines are not diverting funds away from the regular security lines (because they are fully self-funding), then the other lines should move a little faster as well since the Clear Card customers are no longer using them.

Your argument would be true if space constraints weren't an issue, but if you have 6 security lanes in a space that can only hold 6 security lanes, and then you dedicate one of those lanes to the 5% of people who are willing to pay extra, you've just increased the load on all of the other lanes (100% / 6 is less than 95% /5).

Given what I've seen, lane repurposing is how this has been implemented.

Posted by MouseJunior | March 24, 2008 5:45 PM

To answer the first comment's question, once you have reinforced the cockpit doors, and put armed air marshals on random flights, there isn't much that someone on a plane can do to use the plane as a weapon.

Then why didn't El Al implement this obvious solution? The Israelis got serious about airport security a very long time ago in response to dire need, and the result was definitely NOT arm, armor, and then let the (fragmented plane) chips fall where they may. There are more uses for a plane than a weapon, including simply blowing them out of the sky for the fun of it.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 24, 2008 5:58 PM

Maniakes, indeed.

I'd pay full price (I don't own a handgun) to fly on that airline.

(Although I have to admit the idea of bullets flying in a pressurized aluminum can is not terribly comforting - how about 15% discount for open taser carry?)

Posted by mrsizer | March 24, 2008 10:10 PM

Are you going to claim that Priority Mail is "bribery"?

Of course not, but what's amusing is the priority mail is no higher than 2nd or 3rd in actual priority.

Posted by Kolohe | March 24, 2008 10:59 PM

What would have happened if the gov't hadn't excused the airlines for liability, made them purchase terrorist insurance, and forced them to work things out with the insurance agency?

Posted by Ryan W. | March 25, 2008 5:04 AM