Delta wants U.S. airlines to share banned passenger lists | Hacker News Reader

Delta wants U.S. airlines to share banned passenger lists

finance.yahoo.com

34 pointsjaredwiener19 comments

I get why they want to, but shouldn't this be a more government managed kind of thing? Preferably with a way to get a judge involved if you're put on the list unjustly.

Like you can with the existing government lists?

We have that. It's called the criminal justice system. If these airlines want difficult people removed, letting the justice system park them in jail for assault for a couple months seems like it would be more than sufficient.

This is just the airlines not wanting to have their names in front of the Trumpers and have to deal with the negative PR. Tough.

I get the slippery slope argument here — but in reality, most people that end up on these lists are utterly atrocious drunks/jerks,right? Or am I missing something?

I’ve witnessed LOT of bad passengers. Really bad. But I’ve never seen someone removed (from what I gather, you get removed then banned — tho I’m opened to correction on this point too)

The slippery slope is the problem. What starts as a list of drunks will quickly become a list of people named Muhammed.

That ship has already sailed, unfortunately. And in any event, I have a hard time imagining the airlines doing that. Say what you want about the tenets of capitalism, but at least it's pragmatic.

I agree the airlines won't initially do that, but I worry that the government will co-opt their list. I feel this way about any blacklist not subject to transparent review by the judiciary or at least the legislature, the fact that this has to do with air travel just makes the already red flag a smidge redder.

So, fight it when that is actually proposed. Anyone can argue against a hypothetical future abuse.

I personally don't want to be in an aluminum can 40K feet in the air with someone who has already in the past assaulted someone in a different aluminum can. I would definitely favor airlines that attempts to keep these atrocious people off by sharing these lists. Bars and restaurants ban people all the time for being jerks, and I'd support sharing those lists around, too. Companies have a right to refuse service to people as long as the reason for refusal is not one of a few specifically enumerated reasons, such as race, gender, etc.

The do not fly list already targets people named Mohammed.

…and then they’ll share that list of banned passengers with credit agencies, and banks, and other orgs. Because being banned from airlines probably correlates with being less “reliable” or “trustworthy.”

This is how a social credit system comes to America.

I wonder how you're able to get your name taken off the list.

I imagine it would be fairly hard/impossible or involve some sort of payment.

If it is bad people, maybe drunk and like drug users. There could be some sort of government score, do bad things and it goes down, do good things and it goes up. Kinda like credit score but for social interaction. Maybe call it social credit system.

They shouldn't be able to ban anyone after receiving bailouts funded by the taxpayers. This is how the social credit system starts...

Clearly we should just cancel someone completely. Why stop at airlines. We should have a national list of undesirable people, any corporation can add any name to the list, and that instantly means you are unemployable, have all your bank accounts closed, can not obtain loans, have your home foreclosed, and your children are expelled from all schools.

No Appeal, no redemption, nothing

lists like this have a long history of not working out really well for people...

Who ever at delta that thinks this is a good idea needs to be added to to said list first.

A lot of cancellation happens for those with felonies on their record.

Personally, i’d rather lose my rights to guns and voting than lose the ability to fly. I’m already self employed not by choice. Am i missing something?

Due process is also nice.

This whataboutism while true is not really revelant here

Further do you believe I would agree with this cancellation

I do not, if a person is a danger to others they should be in prison, if they have deemed by the system to not be a danger thus are free to roam among us they should have all of their rights and privileges of a free person restored to them

The incidence of recidivism is extreme. The chances of a freed felon committing another felony are such that handing them a gun or a job in retail is very risky. Yet the alternative, keeping them in prison forever, is clearly not fair. So what should be done?

>>The incidence of recidivism is extreme

hmmm

>>The chances of a freed felon committing another felony are such that handing them .. a job in retail is very risky.

I wonder what could be a cause of recidivism, could it be we strip people convicted of crimes of any meaningful legal ways to provide for themselves there by ensuring the self filling prophecy they they will commit more crimes in our overly criminalized society...

It would amusing if it was not so sad and infuriating that people like you fail to see the plain logic trap you set....

>>>So what should be done?

That is both easy and hard

1. Decrminalization of society. Victimless "crimes" should not be a crime at all, if the State can not point to a human that stands up and says "This person did X to me" then there is no crime.

2. Actual rehabilitation including Job training. Less focus on punishment

3. Restructure Welfare programs to encourage family units, today welfare programs encourage single parent homes which leads to higher crimes.

4. END THE WAR ON DRUGS, which is really part of number 1 but I feel it needs to be restated.

5. Allow for a path to expungement, most states do not or it take 20 years, should be much shorter. With non-felony crimes being sealed instantly on release. With maybe a 3 strike policy for repeat offenders where after 3 non-felony convictions their record is public.

6. Re-Categorize felony class crimes back to what they were intended, VIOLENCE, legally any crime with more than a 1 year sentence is a felony, but decades of "tough on crime" laws has pushed all manner of non-violent offenses into felony levels of punishment.

That is a start... any 1 of the above would have a huge impact, sadly none of them will ever happen

Reply on news.ycombinator.com