Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
elmerfud
_DeadFred_
Reminder what they are doing to the brave Americans who refuse to let the secret police operate in secret (we have the Constitutional right to observe them, we don't do secret police in the USA):
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/30/st-peter-police-chi...
Chicago Woman Shot 5 Times By Border Agents Will Testify In Washington Next Week https://blockclubchicago.org/2026/01/29/chicago-woman-shot-5...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBd5qfRe0SY
Thanks go out to tech for enabling these guys.
JumpCrisscross
> that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real
What are you referring to?
blinded
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."
JumpCrisscross
You submit permanent biometrics as part of PreCheck and Global Entry. DHS is presumably using those data for identification.
nerdsniper
Better source? (Maybe?) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/ice-protester-sa...
datsci_est_2015
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.
loeg
[flagged]
SilverElfin
> 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.
kelnos
> 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.
runlevel1
Global Entry and PreCheck are not going to be the only consequences. The people in these databases are considered to be domestic terrorists.
Presidential Memorandum NSPM-7 includes "civil disorder" in its list of acts of "domestic terrorism." Its indicia of "terroristic activities" includes extremely vague language like "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism" and "extremism on migration, race, and gender" and "hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality".[^1]
I sincerely hope that the engineers responsible for these technologies have fully grasped where things seem headed. This country is teetering on a knife's edge. Maybe more precariously than we know. Nobody can know for sure if we've tipped too far until it's too late.
The economy cannot thrive in a vacuum of normalcy and stability. If things escalate into something akin to The Troubles... I hope that's factored into their cost-benefit analysis.
[^1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun...
deaux
Just know that if you vote for someone like Newsom, awfulness such as this memorandum isn't getting scrapped, and the one who replaces him 4 years later will be someone who's less incompetent and doesn't shit his pants on live television.
g-b-r
This is a first amendment violation, right?
JumpCrisscross
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.
bri3d
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.
ajross
Yes, but even so doing it because of protest is a restraint on speech, and that's expressly prohibited by the constitution.
The first amendment may be frustratingly silent on fruit trade regulations, but it's 100% not unclear about abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
necubi
Expressing your first amendment right to protest is not “almost anything.” Historically, courts have taken very dim view of government retaliation for first-amendment protected activities.
metadat
How is attending a protest a potential violation of customs regulations? This doesn't track.
asdfaslkj353
[dead]
tokyobreakfast
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".
overfeed
This is textbook retaliation. Your statement is akin to a manager firing their underling after their romantic advances are rejected, and quoting at-will employment laws. Sure, you can be fired for "any" reason - except retaliation - that is illegal.
amanaplanacanal
"Congress shall make no law". If there is a law, it's unconstitutional. If there is no law, then how is the executive doing it? By what constitutional authority?
datsci_est_2015
Personally, I don’t think that anyone should be speaking authoritatively on this subject because it seems to me to be untested constitutional law, unless a constitutional scholar would like to chime in.
In which case, it’s up to the Supreme Court to either explicitly (through judgment) or implicitly (through denying a hearing of the case) decide.
NotSammyHagar
It's bad for all of us if there are privilege government entitlements. I disagree with the word privilege because anyone who hasn't been arrested seems to be able to get these things. I don't have one and haven't applied either, I should be able to get it I guess, at least before the fascists came to power.
SilverElfin
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.
aqme28
Heck, you can be on a terrorism watchlist and entirely barred from flying without a conviction
treetalker
Yes. Some would also say it violates a substantive due-process right to privacy.
kelnos
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.
g-b-r
I'm not sure that they want to hide it; in any case, if it's systematic there will be thousands of these "coincidences", enough to convince a judge or jury even without investigating the revocations
SilverElfin
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.
epicwynn
Yes, but we don't have rights anymore until we go to court.
The constitution is not a living document except in a courtroom, and even then it really depends on what the supreme court thinks of you.
Whether or not that was true before this admin, it is clearly the case now.
apgwoz
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.
g-b-r
I don't think that terms of service can override the constitution, in any case
jmyeet
[flagged]
g-b-r
Well, I didn't say that if it is a violation, we're safe and there's nothing to worry; I was honestly just asking for confirmation.
I've long been skeptical of the US constitution and the supposed checks and balances, and with this wildly partisan supreme court you indeed can't hope that the law will keep the government in check.
I agree with most of what you said, except that a better constitution would be an (almost) magical defense against tyranny, in my opinion.
nerdsniper
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.
kelnos
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.
nerdsniper
To be clear, I find it horrifying.
I also find Global Entry, TSA Precheck, and especially Clear to all be problematic, along with the fact that people flying on private jets don't need to go through the same TSA checks that the rest of us do. Hell, I even think it's bad to have different lines at customs for citizens vs. non-citizens. I think the most-privileged of us should use the same public infrastructure as the least-privileged of us.
My comment was a reflection of multiple different opinions on different topics.
BloodyIron
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.
Herring
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.
zanecodes
The far right are largely the people voting against robust safety nets and low inequality...
Herring
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.
steveBK123
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.
jmye
And vehemently oppose any expansion of those things to people they want to suffer. Populist right voters hate the idea that there isn’t someone “below” them and will vigorously and violently oppose any attempts to alter the pecking order. Let’s not make excuses, here.
relaxing
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.
lII1lIlI11ll
> 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 not a reminder, that is just, like, your opinion, man. Many countries with robust safety nets in Europe have far right parties rising in popularity significantly or already in the government/ruling coalition (Italy, Sweden, Germany, etc.).
SilverElfin
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.
ChrisArchitect
[dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46823261
datsci_est_2015
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.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
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.