So that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real. How shocking. You wonder why the NRA has such a strong lobby against gun registration. It's for the same reasons. Political abuse of exercising of rights.
By the time this makes it through the courts people will have forgotten.
Fair. I’ve seen this site posted on HN before, mostly in the context of business travel and tech in the airline industry, so I didn’t consider it too low quality.
Almost certainly. The law should also be amended to require conviction or settlement, not merely investigation, to revoke someone’s PreCheck or Global Entry status.
Overall you can have Global Entry revoked for almost anything; one of the clauses is “The applicant has been found in violation of any customs, immigration, or agriculture regulations, procedures, or laws in any country.” which falls dramatically short of a crime or investigation. There are many reports of GE revocation for stuff like failure to declare fruits at checkpoints.
Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get your money back. What law are you talking about? Show us where in the Constitution it says you're entitled to cut in line at the airport.
We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".
There are also no consequences for the president, his agency leaders, legislators, or anyone else involved in this when they violate the constitution. At best, the victims sue and get money from taxpayers. The law must be changed to remove all types of qualified immunity from anyone in a government position.
Absolutely. The problem is proving in court that the pre check / global entry revocations are a direct result of the protesting. The government has levers they can use to muddy the issue and claim that it's a coincidence.
Yes. Except they are attempting to make the claim that protesters are interfering with federal operations, which is a crime. Therefore, they can try to make the claim that they are only investigating potential involvement in a crime, punish you, and file it under a violation of the terms of service for precheck and global entry. IANAL, etc, but this seems to be the strategy.
Yes. So are raiding a WaPo journalist’s home, arresting observers / recorders of ICE activity, threatening to arrest teachers for speech, forcing the Ten Commandments into classrooms, or shooting a civilian who is legally carrying a firearm at a protest, etc. These are all positions of Trump or key members of his administration.
It’s clear the constitution is something in their way, not something they respect. By violating it a little bit each day, it’ll lose meaning and half the country will be primed to replace it.
Oh, sweet summer child. The Constitution isn't a magical defense against tyranny. It's a piece of paper. Nine political actors are in charge of its interpretation and they're not above completely inventing new parts to it. The presidential immunity decision will go down in history up there with the Dred Scott decision and it's particularly ironic because it makes the president an unaccountable monarch in a country that revolted against monarchy.
Let me give you a good analogy for this particular issue: anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) legislation.
40+ years ago public pressure to mount against apartheid South Africa and it was incredibly successful as a global movement that culminated in toppling the regime.
You know who didn't like BDS? Israel, who interestingly was also a close of South Africa at the time. Why? Because it realized it was susceptible to the same pressure and was (and is) an apartheid state.
So a deep lobbying effort began to pass various bills to ban BDS movements. Roughly 35-38 states have so-called anti-BDS laws. In Texas, for example, you cannot be a public teacher without signing a contract agreeing to never boycott the state of Israel [1].
Is this a clear violation of free speech? Of course it is. Remember that the Fthe First Amendment is a restriction on the government restricting speech and anti-BDS legislation clearly does that.
So why is it still legal? Because courts have essentially decided that anti-BDS laws block commerce not speech and that's not a protected activity. Or rather there's (apparently) no way to determine speech from commerce.
See what I mean when I say the constitution doesn't mean as much as you think it does?
Remember too that this is the same country whose courts ruled that a Colorado law banning discrimination of same sex couples was unconstitutional because it violated the "rights" of someone for a hypothetical cake nobody asked them to make and a hypothetical website business that didn't exist making a hypothetical business nobody asked for.
So how's that relevant here? Because I can easily see the courts ruling this way: Global Entry is travel. Removing you doesn't ban your movement or restrict your speech. You can still travel to and from the country and interstate. You just have to go in the longer TSA line. Therefore it's not a restriction on speech.
I mean, yes, because it's clearly intended to have a chilling effect on speech.
But also Global Entry isn't really a thing, it's kind of just like a weird privilege some people can get ... because ... ??? It's just a fake-privilege thing. Taking it away doesn't actually prevent anyone from doing anything/going anywhere they would have anyways.
It's a privilege pretty much anyone can get if they have a clean record, pay the fee, and do the interview.
Taking it away can mean a much longer wait returning to the US. And while that certainly isn't an earth-shattering problem that is going to cost people their lives or general freedom, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the government to retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional rights.
The idea that you can be so dismissive about that concept is a bit chilling, to be honest.
The problem with biometrics, as in biologically unique biometrics (fingerprints, blood, retina, etc) is that once it's in a database, you're fucked *for life*. It's unrealistic to destroy said records with absolute certainty in the entirety of the universe. Data is pervasive, and biometric databases are likely the most lucrative data to sell and share.
Biometrics are abusable in so many different ways, I probably don't know them all. But here's some thoughts around that.
It's proven that police have for decades planted evidence to falsely incriminate individuals. Placing a gun at the scene of an occurrence is one example. The difference is if biometrics are "planted" they are biologically unique to you, and you have no reasonable way of disproving that "you did it".
And then there's silently denying you. Whether it's a nation's border entity, or perhaps an insurance provider, biometric data can be used to uniquely identify you and connect you to things that *are* legal, but the Administration de jour doesn't "like" (read: LITERALLY RIGHT NOW). Say something to upset the babbis in the white house? Did you give your blood to 23andme? Your fingerprint to a government agency? Yeah, good luck getting in/out of the USA freely.
Biometrics needs to be a *global and universal right to refuse*. In that, IMO you must be always able to say "no" and have it be legally binding to *any* entity saying "give me your XYZ biometrics", except _maybe_ if you're a *convicted* criminal.
This goes far beyond the whole "I never thought about it that way" problems, this is a you're fucked for life if you give away any of it. It's time we make the time to get ahead of this problem that already exists.
> You can lose Global Entry for complaining about a customs officer. Putting an apple from your flight in your bag, and then not declaring it can cost you your Global Entry. So can attempting a coup against the United States. So, too, now it seems just for protesting against government policy.
This is incredibly scary and violating. It’s not in line with due process and our societal values. But I also wonder if the right realizes that they’ve slowly morphed into the same social credit score authoritarianism that they have criticized for years.
Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.
That is true, but there is still the rest of the country, and Trump’s ratings are dropping as everyone finds out they don’t like fascism. I’m hoping we don’t just go back to business as usual.
That might be true, but I wonder if this advice is too late. Today, a lot of the right - not just far right but mainstream right - seems to be overtly supremacist. They don’t mind federal agencies tweeting out Nazi content. They don’t mind Trump hosting Nick Fuentes at his house. They don’t mind undoing the citizenship of lawful immigrants.
I don’t think that this is a dupe, the ramifications of citizens being removed from Global Entry and PreCheck lists wasn’t part of the NYT article AFAIU.
Curious that at its current score and comment count it’s no longer on the front page, despite being neither flagged nor marked as dupe.
Edit: guess it’s flipping in between page 1 and 2 per refresh.
So that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real. How shocking. You wonder why the NRA has such a strong lobby against gun registration. It's for the same reasons. Political abuse of exercising of rights.
By the time this makes it through the courts people will have forgotten.
> that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real
What are you referring to?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/20/tsa-fa...
"According to the TSA, your information is generally deleted shortly after you pass the screening process and is not used for surveillance purposes."
12 replies →
Better source? (Maybe?) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/ice-protester-sa...
Fair. I’ve seen this site posted on HN before, mostly in the context of business travel and tech in the airline industry, so I didn’t consider it too low quality.
In no context is Ars the better source.
This is a first amendment violation, right?
Almost certainly. The law should also be amended to require conviction or settlement, not merely investigation, to revoke someone’s PreCheck or Global Entry status.
Overall you can have Global Entry revoked for almost anything; one of the clauses is “The applicant has been found in violation of any customs, immigration, or agriculture regulations, procedures, or laws in any country.” which falls dramatically short of a crime or investigation. There are many reports of GE revocation for stuff like failure to declare fruits at checkpoints.
14 replies →
Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get your money back. What law are you talking about? Show us where in the Constitution it says you're entitled to cut in line at the airport.
We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".
4 replies →
Heck, you can be on a terrorism watchlist and entirely barred from flying without a conviction
There are also no consequences for the president, his agency leaders, legislators, or anyone else involved in this when they violate the constitution. At best, the victims sue and get money from taxpayers. The law must be changed to remove all types of qualified immunity from anyone in a government position.
Yes. Some would also say it violates a substantive due-process right to privacy.
Absolutely. The problem is proving in court that the pre check / global entry revocations are a direct result of the protesting. The government has levers they can use to muddy the issue and claim that it's a coincidence.
Yes. Except they are attempting to make the claim that protesters are interfering with federal operations, which is a crime. Therefore, they can try to make the claim that they are only investigating potential involvement in a crime, punish you, and file it under a violation of the terms of service for precheck and global entry. IANAL, etc, but this seems to be the strategy.
Yes. So are raiding a WaPo journalist’s home, arresting observers / recorders of ICE activity, threatening to arrest teachers for speech, forcing the Ten Commandments into classrooms, or shooting a civilian who is legally carrying a firearm at a protest, etc. These are all positions of Trump or key members of his administration.
It’s clear the constitution is something in their way, not something they respect. By violating it a little bit each day, it’ll lose meaning and half the country will be primed to replace it.
Oh, sweet summer child. The Constitution isn't a magical defense against tyranny. It's a piece of paper. Nine political actors are in charge of its interpretation and they're not above completely inventing new parts to it. The presidential immunity decision will go down in history up there with the Dred Scott decision and it's particularly ironic because it makes the president an unaccountable monarch in a country that revolted against monarchy.
Let me give you a good analogy for this particular issue: anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) legislation.
40+ years ago public pressure to mount against apartheid South Africa and it was incredibly successful as a global movement that culminated in toppling the regime.
You know who didn't like BDS? Israel, who interestingly was also a close of South Africa at the time. Why? Because it realized it was susceptible to the same pressure and was (and is) an apartheid state.
So a deep lobbying effort began to pass various bills to ban BDS movements. Roughly 35-38 states have so-called anti-BDS laws. In Texas, for example, you cannot be a public teacher without signing a contract agreeing to never boycott the state of Israel [1].
Is this a clear violation of free speech? Of course it is. Remember that the Fthe First Amendment is a restriction on the government restricting speech and anti-BDS legislation clearly does that.
So why is it still legal? Because courts have essentially decided that anti-BDS laws block commerce not speech and that's not a protected activity. Or rather there's (apparently) no way to determine speech from commerce.
See what I mean when I say the constitution doesn't mean as much as you think it does?
Remember too that this is the same country whose courts ruled that a Colorado law banning discrimination of same sex couples was unconstitutional because it violated the "rights" of someone for a hypothetical cake nobody asked them to make and a hypothetical website business that didn't exist making a hypothetical business nobody asked for.
So how's that relevant here? Because I can easily see the courts ruling this way: Global Entry is travel. Removing you doesn't ban your movement or restrict your speech. You can still travel to and from the country and interstate. You just have to go in the longer TSA line. Therefore it's not a restriction on speech.
[1]: https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/federal-teacher-striking/
I mean, yes, because it's clearly intended to have a chilling effect on speech.
But also Global Entry isn't really a thing, it's kind of just like a weird privilege some people can get ... because ... ??? It's just a fake-privilege thing. Taking it away doesn't actually prevent anyone from doing anything/going anywhere they would have anyways.
It's a privilege pretty much anyone can get if they have a clean record, pay the fee, and do the interview.
Taking it away can mean a much longer wait returning to the US. And while that certainly isn't an earth-shattering problem that is going to cost people their lives or general freedom, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the government to retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional rights.
The idea that you can be so dismissive about that concept is a bit chilling, to be honest.
1 reply →
The problem with biometrics, as in biologically unique biometrics (fingerprints, blood, retina, etc) is that once it's in a database, you're fucked *for life*. It's unrealistic to destroy said records with absolute certainty in the entirety of the universe. Data is pervasive, and biometric databases are likely the most lucrative data to sell and share.
Biometrics are abusable in so many different ways, I probably don't know them all. But here's some thoughts around that.
It's proven that police have for decades planted evidence to falsely incriminate individuals. Placing a gun at the scene of an occurrence is one example. The difference is if biometrics are "planted" they are biologically unique to you, and you have no reasonable way of disproving that "you did it".
And then there's silently denying you. Whether it's a nation's border entity, or perhaps an insurance provider, biometric data can be used to uniquely identify you and connect you to things that *are* legal, but the Administration de jour doesn't "like" (read: LITERALLY RIGHT NOW). Say something to upset the babbis in the white house? Did you give your blood to 23andme? Your fingerprint to a government agency? Yeah, good luck getting in/out of the USA freely.
Biometrics needs to be a *global and universal right to refuse*. In that, IMO you must be always able to say "no" and have it be legally binding to *any* entity saying "give me your XYZ biometrics", except _maybe_ if you're a *convicted* criminal.
This goes far beyond the whole "I never thought about it that way" problems, this is a you're fucked for life if you give away any of it. It's time we make the time to get ahead of this problem that already exists.
Join me.
> You can lose Global Entry for complaining about a customs officer. Putting an apple from your flight in your bag, and then not declaring it can cost you your Global Entry. So can attempting a coup against the United States. So, too, now it seems just for protesting against government policy.
This is incredibly scary and violating. It’s not in line with due process and our societal values. But I also wonder if the right realizes that they’ve slowly morphed into the same social credit score authoritarianism that they have criticized for years.
> It’s not in line with [...] our societal values.
The scary thing is that I think it is in line with the social values of a disturbingly sizeable, growing group of Americans.
Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.
The far right are largely the people voting against robust safety nets and low inequality...
The leaders of the right are against a robust safety net, yes.
Populist right voters however hate socialism but also want the government to keep their hands off their medicare and social security.
1 reply →
That is true, but there is still the rest of the country, and Trump’s ratings are dropping as everyone finds out they don’t like fascism. I’m hoping we don’t just go back to business as usual.
Reliable, now that’s a funny claim.
Reminder the rise of the far right was pushed by wealthy who wanted to get wealthier. There was no grassroots movement of status anxiety or grievance.
We had safety nets, they were no defense against the right.
That might be true, but I wonder if this advice is too late. Today, a lot of the right - not just far right but mainstream right - seems to be overtly supremacist. They don’t mind federal agencies tweeting out Nazi content. They don’t mind Trump hosting Nick Fuentes at his house. They don’t mind undoing the citizenship of lawful immigrants.
This is solid advice for 30-40 years ago but today it's a little too late..
You can also look at it as early for 2070.
[dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46823261
I don’t think that this is a dupe, the ramifications of citizens being removed from Global Entry and PreCheck lists wasn’t part of the NYT article AFAIU.
Curious that at its current score and comment count it’s no longer on the front page, despite being neither flagged nor marked as dupe.
Edit: guess it’s flipping in between page 1 and 2 per refresh.