Airlines Sell 5 Billion Plane Ticket Records To the Government For Warrantless Searching (404media.co) 104
404 Media: A data broker owned by the country's major airlines, including American Airlines, United and Delta, is selling access to five billion plane ticketing records to the government for warrantless searching and monitoring of peoples' movements, including by the FBI, Secret Service, ICE, and many other agencies, according to a new contract and other records reviewed by 404 Media.
The contract provides new insight into the scale of the sale of passengers' data by the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), the airlines-owned data broker. The contract shows ARC's data includes information related to more than 270 carriers and is sourced through more than 12,800 travel agencies. ARC has previously told the government to not reveal to the public where this passenger data came from, which includes peoples' names, full flight itineraries, and financial details.
"Americans' privacy rights shouldn't depend on whether they bought their tickets directly from the airline or via a travel agency. ARC's sale of data to U.S. government agencies is yet another example of why Congress needs to close the data broker loophole by passing my bipartisan bill, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act," Senator Ron Wyden told 404 Media in a statement.
The contract provides new insight into the scale of the sale of passengers' data by the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), the airlines-owned data broker. The contract shows ARC's data includes information related to more than 270 carriers and is sourced through more than 12,800 travel agencies. ARC has previously told the government to not reveal to the public where this passenger data came from, which includes peoples' names, full flight itineraries, and financial details.
"Americans' privacy rights shouldn't depend on whether they bought their tickets directly from the airline or via a travel agency. ARC's sale of data to U.S. government agencies is yet another example of why Congress needs to close the data broker loophole by passing my bipartisan bill, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act," Senator Ron Wyden told 404 Media in a statement.
And... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: And... (Score:1)
Why though?
While I also object to this as a matter of principal, I genuinely wouldn't care if my government knew I flew across the country. Assuming you aren't doing something dodgy, you're putting yourself though some major inconvenience to deny them a datapoint that is actually if no use to them anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
main problem is that "dodgy" is subject to constant and retroactive reinterpretation.
imagine in 10 years some hyper environmentalists come to power and they decide to fine or cancel people they deem responsible for global warming. So they look wherever they can. Flight records are one place.
ridiculous ?
for decades IRS records were off limits to law enforcement of any sort (afaik) and certainly for immigration enforcement.
come 2025 Now suddenly at the snap of a a finger all that is being used for ICE enf
Re: And... (Score:4, Insightful)
imagine in 10 years some hyper environmentalists come to power and they decide to fine or cancel people they deem responsible for global warming. So they look wherever they can. Flight records are one place.
ridiculous ?
Yes, ridiculous. Punishment for crimes that weren't crimes at the time (ex post facto) is prohibited in Article 1 of your constitution.
For what's still worth.
Re: And... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being explicitly against the Constitution is not really an issue anymore. :(
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get onto a commercial flight without passing a TSA checkpoint, where you are catalogued by the nice man you hand your ID to.
Re: (Score:2)
Would not make your point with that example.
"Taxpayer privacy" was always about protecting the govt's income stream, not actual taxpayer privacy. Now the govt has decided it will risk that income stream for the sake of pursuing other goals. There was never anything noble going on here.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people will cut their nose off to spite their face, to make a point, uphold a principle, or some other seemingly noble thing.
Somehow it makes them feel better, maybe like a martyr, to put themselves through such inconvenience, even though nobody else cares or even notices. It's like when an angry customer tells a clerk that they're not going to shop there anymore. Like the clerk cares. They're happy you won't come back anyway....even though the reality is that you probably will. Or small scale boyc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Events of the last few months have destroyed the myth of "I don't have to worry if I'm not doing anything wrong".
The government will use any excuse to detain you... just being in the same city where something bad happened (and then "fleeing" that city) will put you on the top of the list.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh we've all already been tracked there as well and your driving movements have even less protections. Most of our mundane driving trips are already or going to be logged in a database as well.
Breaking The Creepy AI in Police Cameras [youtube.com]
Also this video is just very interesting from an engineering perspective if you have not seen it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you always turn your phone off while you're driving so its spyware can't track you?
If you voted for Trump (Score:2, Insightful)
This kind of tough on crime bullshit would evaporate overnight if Trump voters would focus on their pocketbooks instead of whatever crazy ass moral panic they're supposed to be afraid of today.
Again the Democrats are objectively better
Re: (Score:2)
The ultimate problem is that while there are certain things the government cannot do or data it cannot collect without a warrant, there's nothing preventing private companies from collecting the same data. In many cases there a
Read my post again (Score:2)
Similarly there's some of it right after 9/11 that the democrats got on board with.
In both cases the public was in the throes of a major moral panic and demanded it.
If the Democrats have a flaw it's that when the public wants something stupid they will give it to 'em.
But when the public calms the fuck down they will gradually start undoing the stupid shit the public demanded they
Re: (Score:1)
Let us not make light of the fact that the fucking Vice President just today has said "no unity" and basically siccing people against their perceived enemies to get people fired. The VP has sanctioned cancel culture.
So if you think you're on the right side of this issue remember now your rights come down to the competence of people like Kash Patel and the 3 weeks of training the ICE guy arresting you provides or the interpretation of your social media by Laura Loomer. Good luck!
They are actively engaging in stochastic terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Economically the Republican party has nothing to offer voters and that has become exceedingly clear. The Republican party today favors high taxes on anyone who has less than 100 million cash in the bank and high prices to pay for all that using a national sales tax.
When your economic policies are that dumb and that destructive you need to keep everyone in a perpetual state of fear.
It's why Russia is doomed. Their birthright keeps going down because they treat people like shit but they can't get immigrants because they need intense xenophobia and racism in order to keep people willing to accept those terrible living conditions.
At this point I think the majority of Republican voters know all this but the closer they get to election and the more of the right wing propaganda they consume they just can't help themselves anymore. Their eyes glaze over their brains turn off and they vote Republican.
Hitler proved propaganda works.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello Pot....Kettle....Kettle....Pot.
And with this....it isn't the govt supports sing speech , it is repercussions in the private sector ....which the liberals cheered in the past recent years.
And this time around, the govt isn't forcing social media to cancel people or deplatform them either
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name a single Democratic politician who has called for a similar action of name and shame and fire? Nevermind the fucking insanity that the VP is hosting the show of a conservative activist. It's like everything conservatives accused "liberal media" of is just a instruction manual.
Once again people inability to read the Twitter files is not evidence of anything.
But I appreciate the full throated admission of once again "As Republicans we have absolutely no principles, only grievances".
Your lack of
Re: (Score:2)
Maxine Waters....a treasure trove of "fun" speeches and statements of the like...
Re: (Score:2)
So many statements that you couldn't be bothered to post one, even the most damning one? Who was almost censured for saying she didnt like curfews or commenting on Chauvin?
My deepest and most sincere condolences to the family of Charlie Kirk. The growing and horrible violence that appears to be escalating in this country must stop. No matter your position on any issue or any elected official, no one’s position must include violent solutions. Let us all work together to solve our problems without resor
Re: (Score:2)
"government is buying the data to process directly" and to feed to Peter Thiel, wannabe Nazi, and Palantir. He already has the Maggot moles inside the government with Elmo's minions crawling around your SS and other data.
Re:If you voted for Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry but that is horseshit. Over many decades Democrats have done nothing. The reality is this is a whole industry in a country which gives not one iota of a fuck about the privacy of citizens.
Other countries have been passing privacy laws for 30+ years now while both sides of US politics looked on.
I have friends and family alive today (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't know anything about America or American history. I would accuse you of being a foreigner but I know fellow Americans don't have a fucking clue so who knows...
Go look up the contract with america. That was newt gingrich's name for the systematic process of derailing anything that would help you as an American and then using their control of media to blame the Democrat party for the Republicans did to you.
Over and over and over again the Republicans have fucked Americans in the ass and we bend over and take it. The way they keep getting this through the Democrats is by threatening to destroy the entire American economy by shutting down the government during budget negotiations.
Every single American is a hostage of the Republican party. And about 47% of us have Stockholm syndrome. A little bit of voter suppression and the Republicans can consistently win elections.
I mean for fuck sakes Missouri is 40% black but a deep red state. You don't need to have a PhD in political science to figure out what the fuck is going on there. And they still gerrymandered the districts to give the Republicans one more vote in the house because everyone knows they're about to get their asses kicked if they don't do something.
Trump literally said last year was the last election you were ever going to vote in and you still voted for trump. With all due respect and I do mean all due respect what the hell is wrong with you?
Delusional partisanship (Score:2)
I have friends and family alive today Because of laws the Democrats passed that the Republicans fought tooth and nail against.
What laws would that be?
Re:Delusional partisanship (Score:5, Insightful)
They're also a ton of Labor protection laws the Democrats pushed through.
And without the free and open Internet created by section 230 of the CDA which the Democrats have consistently defended I wouldn't have the job that let me pay for my kids to go to college.
And of course there's the whole thing with the Republicans keep trying to crash the economy and would have made me and several of my friends homeless in the wake of the 2008 market crash if they could have.
And this is before we talk about all the clean Air stuff. Or the food safety stuff. Or the vaccine stuff. Or the fact that the Democrats are the ones who got money for working Americans during covid which kept our economy functional albeit barely. Or the fact that Joe Biden got us a soft landing instead of an economic depression. Or...
You really are just ignorant. I don't mean that as an insult I mean that is a statement of fact. You have been protected by people that you endlessly hate your entire life.
And threw it all despite your scorn they still work hard to protect you and your family. And no matter how much you hate them they won't stop.
Re: (Score:1)
The affordable Care act comes to mind
Please explain to me how ACA saved you relative's life as you originally claimed. Were they uninsured before ACA? If so why?
And without the free and open Internet created by section 230...
And this is before we talk about all the clean Air stuff.
Thank you clarifying that your delusional partisanship is in play. I am not even going to ask why you think Section 230 saved your family members, I simply do not care why you believe such bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Let us suppose that you're not a stupid person. As a not-stupid-person, how in the fuck could you not derive that for yourself?
The real point that you were trying to make, of course, is your not-so-subtle implication that those dirty lazy people didn't deserve health insurance.
That's a value judgement, and I didn't come
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The real point that you were trying to make, of course, is your not-so-subtle implication that those dirty lazy people didn't deserve health insurance.
The real point you failed to address, of course, is that Democratic policies are in general made life more miserable and expensive for everyone, even if it happened to save some lives somewhere, perhaps by accident. This is largely because Democrats in general and rabid leftists like you in particular are not friends with logic and reason, instead choosing to emote
Re: (Score:2)
The original claim that ACA saved rsliver's friends and family lives. If that was the actual case, there would be factual account of how and why.
Nonsense. That's personal information and frankly none of your business.
The point is, it's so fucking plausible to not be worth questioning.
The real point you failed to address, of course, is that Democratic policies are in general made life more miserable and expensive for everyone, even if it happened to save some lives somewhere, perhaps by accident. This is largely because Democrats in general and rabid leftists like you in particular are not friends with logic and reason, instead choosing to emote your way into counterproductive and often harmful action.
lol- you fucking moron.
I'm called a Trump supporter, a leftist, a communist and a fascist on this site.
What I really am, is not a partisan dumbshit like you.
The population does better under Democrats. This is a fact. It's been studies so much at this point that denying it can only be called funny. At least be clever and say something like, "Those Democratic governm
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. That's personal information and frankly none of your business.
You don't get to bring that up unprompted and then play "this is personal" to get out of justifying what was claimed. More so, the question can easily be addressed categorically, without naming people and events.
Re: (Score:2)
it is our business if he expects bring it up in a political debate use it as a motivating anecdote. If he can't say why than its not a real argument.
Almost everything else he said was total lies as well in terms of the authorization for domestic spying and military powers. Democrats had plenty of political opportunities to role back surveillance powers in the Obama era and they did the opposite.
Oh but that was just 'representing us', funny whenever lefists win elections it is always 'elections have conseq
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get to bring that up unprompted and then play "this is personal" to get out of justifying what was claimed.
Sure one does.
It holds exactly as much weight either way- an anecdote of dubious origin.
This is rsilvergun after all, someone who is fond of calling me a right-wing nutjob.
More so, the question can easily be addressed categorically, without naming people and events.
Sure it can- but frankly, that's none of your fucking business.
The claim isn't remotely controversial, so why ask for details? I think you just want to force him somewhere he won't go so that you can point and say, "ha! See? The sky isn't blue after all!"
Re: (Score:2)
If people don't have health insurance they won't go to the doctor because it's too expensive, up until the point that their body breaks down and they either die or are so far gone that treatment consists of painkillers.
If they do have health insurance, they can go to a doctor and they can have an illness diagnosed a lot earlier and have effective treatment.
ACA enabled access to medical care if you needed it. I may oversimplify a number of things but that's how I see it.
Re: (Score:2)
You know before the ACA a lot of us had really good healthcare coverage that pretty much paid for everything when we went to see a provider.
Now every provider interaction results in piles of unexpected, undisclosed bills that arrive months sometimes full years later.
I am way way more hesitant to seek any kind of medical professional post ACA as a result. This is true for a huge portion of US white collar workers btw.
Re: (Score:2)
ACA did succeed in making medical care MUCH more expensive for everyone....so, hey, success there!!
Re: (Score:2)
You're regurgitating bullshit talking points and trying to pretend that they're personal experiences.
I'm unfortunately at a stage of my life where I'm in and out of doctor's offices a lot.
That is simply not the case.
btw, you out yourself as a talking-point regurgitator when you say dumb shit like "every provider".
Re: (Score:2)
Your Fox talking points are easily disputed with raw data.
Would you like to add some nuance to your statement to rescue your image from being classified as a sack of shit that will spread misinformation to fight for his political team?
Re: (Score:2)
it is our business if he expects bring it up in a political debate use it as a motivating anecdote. If he can't say why than its not a real argument.
No, it is not.
It doesn't change its status as an anecdote one bit. It was never a real argument, because it's an anecdote.
You want the details so you can attack them. You're not acting in good faith, and so the correct decision was made not to give them to you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need. "Talking points" from anyone to know from personal experience that my health care costs skyrocketed starting from ACA times.....my bank statements show that...
All my friends I talk with...saw their costs rise too.
Re: (Score:2)
But being you've already engaged in an outright lie, the claim is dubious at best. You haven't exactly earned any trust parroting a talking point that is flatly refuted by data.
ACA did succeed in making medical care MUCH more expensive for everyone
This is a lie. Period. It can't be rescued.
All my friends I talk with...saw their costs rise too.
This is probably a lie. There's always the chance you're telling the truth, but doing so doesn't seem to be in your character. You're perfectly willing to lie in order to score political points.
Re: (Score:1)
The real point you failed to address, of course, is that Democratic policies are in general made life more miserable and expensive for everyone, even if it happened to save some lives somewhere, perhaps by accident.
A bill whose entire point was to give access to healthcare to millions you categorize with "if it happened to save some lives somewhere, perhaps by accident".
Do you read the crap you write? Do you have any clue how pants-shittingly stupid that statement is? You would either need to believe that access to healthcare has absolutely no affect on lifespan, or that the healthcare portion of the bill was slipped in by accident. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
So a lot of minor stuff that added minor restrictions to very specific and narrow privacy cases. The closest anyone has come was HIPAA, but even that is mdedical only. No laws at no point ever addressed the concept of citizen privacy holistically. The republicans are fucking terrible, but even when Democrats controlled the house and senate they didn't pass any holistic privacy laws.
Re: (Score:1)
That motherfucker directly attacked this person verbally, while advocating for the removal of their rights and other fun things. Fucking constantly.
And you blame those who called that behavior detestable, or called him a fascist, for the kid snapping. Not the dude that was attacking him and his.
Your lack of self-awareness is truly fucking incredible.
This is what protecting your rights
Re: (Score:2)
That motherfucker directly attacked this person verbally
Did he attack him directly or verbally? These are not the same thing. Words have meaning and that meaning matter when we discussing shooting someone in the neck.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he attack him directly or verbally? These are not the same thing.
Incorrect.
Attack does not confer physical or nonphysical meaning. You know the answer to your rhetorical question, even if you're ignorant of the definition of the words you're wielding.
Words have meaning and that meaning matter when we discussing shooting someone in the neck.
Indeed. Which is why I'm not going to let you whitewash dude's daily attack posture as nothing.
You bitch about people calling him a fascist, while he openly said shit like this:
The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
Nobody should get shot in the neck for talking shit. Not even for threatening to steal someones rights.
However, if someone were to shoot him in
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should get shot in the neck for talking shit. Not even for threatening to steal someones rights.
However, if someone were to shoot him in the neck for threatening his rights... well,
You are 100% certified delusional and a danger to society if you believe that spoken words of criticism in any form or shape justify shooting someone in the neck to death. You do understand that at some point people on the right will start shooting back, don't you?
More so, none of the quotes you provided raise to the level of a threat by any reasonable interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
You are 100% certified delusional and a danger to society if you believe that spoken words of criticism in any form or shape justify shooting someone in the neck to death.
Nice try, piece of shit.
I didn't say that in the slightest.
I said the fucker who got shot advocated for it.
The quote that immediately follows that is Charlie Kirk's.
You do understand that at some point people on the right will start shooting back, don't you?
This is exactly what I'd expect of someone like you. So steeped in partisanship your brain has gone to mush.
Right-wingers have been shooting for a while now- you just fucking ignored it.
This political violence isn't new. It's merely escalating. And "right-wingers" are just as eager to play.
More so, none of the quotes you provided raise to the level of a threat by any reasonable interpretation.
They sure the fuck do- a threat to take away one's
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should get shot in the neck for talking shit. Not even for threatening to steal someones rights.
However, if someone were to shoot him in the neck for threatening his rights... well,
Well what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your question belies a lack of reading, or reading comprehension of the discussion.
You ask for details about an accusation that was never levied.
Am I to treat you as if you're just a little bit dim and help you see where your reading comprehension failed you, or do I treat you as a hostile entity that did it on purpose?
Re: (Score:2)
Threads on this article have mentioned lost rights....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That right was removed, and those who wanted it called murderers and evil.
Trans people have lost the right to do things in public, at all, in some jurisdictions.
Beyond that, people like Kirk openly advocate for repeal of the Civil Rights Act, and say it was a mistake. Would you like me to enumerate the rights it protected, and why it was passed?
The thread mostly discussed the
Re: (Score:2)
The the fucker engaged in dialogue with the people he openly demonized does not mean he didn't demonize them, you stupid fuck.
Re: (Score:1)
First of all I don't agree the Kirk demonized anyone; but also that is not power any human possesses, I can't turn you into a demon, but if you shoot someone for expressing their opinion you do it to yourself.
So yes the person who did it and the people cheering are demons you stupid fuck!
Re: (Score:2)
And just to clarify, the people cheering are demonizing themselves? So wasn't Charlie demonizing himself by spreading misinformation with racist overtones?
If you're talking about Charlie Kirk (Score:1)
It's part of a cult called gryoper and for the sake of your own mental stability I recommend you don't look that up.
What we have with Charlie Kirk is something called stochastic terrorism. It's terrorism c
Re: (Score:2)
His friends and family have noted his movement to the left. Groypers are notoriously right-wing.
More so, Groypers don't represent MAGA.
If Fuentes died today, MAGA wouldn't mourn.
We're of the same mind that pinning this on "the demonization the left is doing" is ridiculously self-unaware- to the level of being comical- but desperately seeking for any other place to direct the kids beliefs isn't doing you any favors.
You can lie all you want (Score:1)
All of the memes he shared were right-wing memes and that Trump costume was a reference to Nick Fuentes' memes.
Facts don't care about your feelings. The right wing encourages violence and when you encourage violence it's random and can pop off anytime at anyone.
The left wing figured that out ages ago and figured out that violence is useless if you want to do anything wor
Re: (Score:2)
Kid wasn't a righty or a lefty- though he had very sincere left sympathies due to the fact that he was in love with a trans woman.
He literally outright says that he killed Kirk because of his hate, and that his partner was his only concern.
Violence is explicitly the domain of the right wing.
And this is a lie.
They certainly are responsible for a majority of it (at about twice the rate of left-wing violence), but in no fucking way do they have a monopoly.
You're a real piece of
I see the texts (Score:2, Troll)
But even if they're true everything I wrote is still correct.
The kid was still radicalized in right-wing spaces specifically designed to pipeline him into radical right-wing extremism.
As I have already pointed out he snapped before the pipeline was done pointing him at the right targets that's all.
That is the danger of stochastic terrorism. When you create a envi
Bots are moderating this thread aren't they? (Score:2)
It's crazy how much money is being thrown behind this. All of it in service of Christian nationalism, white supremacy and fascism.
It's also funny how many people think that they're going to get to join the in group.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was killed by maga. The kid wasn't attacked by Charlie Kirk. The kid was radicalized by right wingers in right-wing spaces
We don't know enough details to say what the alleged shooter's political beliefs were, or if they were the primary factor in their decision to shoot. We DO know the alleged shooter appears to be a video game fan, and a gun enthusiast - why are video games and guns not getting any blame here? Isn't there the same amount of evidence that video games and gun enthusiasm caused the shooting as there is evidence that political motivations drove the shooting? (Which is to say, no evidence at all?)
I don't think t
Re: (Score:2)
Because of laws the Democrats passed that the Republicans fought tooth and nail against. So you can go fuck yourself when it comes to saying the Democrats did nothing.
There have been multiple times over the past 30 years where Democrats have controlled the house and senate to the point where republicans have had little control. Miss me with your wowes me bullshit. This is a bipartisan fuckup of not giving a shit about you.
Yes the republicans are orders of magnitude worse, but reflect on the fact that your system is broken, not just one party.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie Sanders has always voted against the Patriot Act.
Edward Snowden would like a word (Score:5, Informative)
These abuses didn't start with Trump. The US Government has been mining citizen data long before Trump got his hands on the White House [wikipedia.org]. Edward Snowden taught us that much. Don't tell me you've forgotten about PRISM [wikipedia.org] already.
Yeah about that (Score:2)
He didn't tell us anything anyone didn't already know. He just found some documents that confirmed things and we all just ignored them anyway.
Meanwhile the Democrats had been slowly chipping away at the government powers seized during the wake of 9/11 when guys like you were shitting bricks demanding protection from the big bad scary terrorists.
In the wake of 9/11 the Democrats could do basically fuck and all to prevent people panicking so much they hand
The uniparty (Score:2)
You voted for this.
Please present your case that Harris administration would have been different on this issue.
Re:If you voted for Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you voted for Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats aren't curtailing any such abuse of power. Stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
You voted for this. The Democrats have long since started curtailing these abuses because they are extremely unpopular with their base of minority, specifically black and latino, voters. For obvious reasons since over policeing is basically wrecking their communities.
TSA started using naked body scanners / rape scan (e.g. Rapiscan) machines under the Obama administration. I stopped flying after that so for me the data sale thing is moot.
Again the Democrats are objectively better for the economy and for your pocketbook. That is not a point anyone can argue in good faith.
At this point anything is better than the MAGA cult lead by an incompetent treasonous insurrectionist rapist murderer but this isn't saying much. Democrats have a track record of willingly selling out on privacy and liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats have long since started curtailing these abuses
Bullshit. Every time something comes up that rapes privacy, the Democrats vote inline with the Republicans except for one or two token protests. In other words, provide proof of your assertion.
Re: If you voted for Trump (Score:1)
One more step for the Deep State (Score:2)
This is yet one more step that la Presidenta and his minders, Project 2025, are taking to promote their deep state. Mmmmmm, yummy.....more information on Americans and anyone else's records they can get their hands on.
Double Nothingburger, extra cheese. (Score:2)
Airline ticketing information got shared?
Perhaps I’d be more outraged, if not for the emails, text message receipts, digital confirmations, ticketing apps, credit card auditing, banking auditing, FAA auditing, TSA auditing, and the rest of the 100% digital reservation and traveling process being one massive unending paper trail, in a society that practically begs for every bit of that privacy-raping “convenience”. As if anyone could fly in the US today and keep it some kind of secret.
Let
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you better have a stealth airplane. And everybody on board better turn off their phones.
This news item... (Score:3)
This news item gives new meaning to: "Hi, I'm Pam, fly me."
https://rarehistoricalphotos.c... [rarehistoricalphotos.com]
JoshK.
TSA? (Score:2)
Don't they already have this data?
1. When you make a reservation, the airline sends your name to a Government server, to ask it if you are on the secret No-Fly list.
2. In order to board your flight, you present your boarding pass and ID to the federal police (TSA) who validate and record the event.
3. A hundred other related items are in fused data.
What exactly did they buy that they didn't already know?
Re: (Score:2)
TFS: "includes ... financial details".
US politics oppresses you (Score:2)
https://bsky.app/profile/jimco... [bsky.app]
Ridiculous (Score:2)
1984 (Score:2)
But apparently I'm the one who lives in 1984 because I live in the UK and people misinterpreted a CCTV survey from 15+ years ago that included private CCTV cameras only for Lonond...
Big Brother is watching you... (Score:1)
Democracy is very likely a forgotten word in USA. Perhaps it even never existed there:-(
But, never forget that the bad guys are from China and the good one are in USA.
What a shame!