Slashdot Mirror

You can fly without ID. You could when Gilmore's case started, and you still can now. In fact, here's how. In fact, Gilmore's own site tells you how, in the form of the court decision specifically authorizing it.

The exact wording:

The identification policy requires airline passengers to present identification to airline personnel before boarding or be subjected to a search that is more exacting than the routine search that passengers who present identification encounter.

The very page describing the case says that he would have been allowed to travel at SFO without ID if he submitted to a search. That alone devastates the "secret ID law" claim, as allowing him to fly without ID, search or not, would have been in violation of that law.

First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?

The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.

Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).

Claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.

But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.

There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time: they are guidelines and directives for the handling of security issues, some routine and some special or time-specific, within airport and airline processes. That's the TSA's job. And didn't some call for the federalization of airport security?

I'm glad he's asking these questions, but I wish he'd be less sensationalistic and tinfoil-hat about it - especially since his primary claim is that he can't travel anonymously, which is not only tremendously wrong considering there are so many other public and private means to travel with no ID, but also because he would indeed have been able to fly with no ID.

Yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.

But, in any event, he already found he could travel by plane, without ID.

That depends... It seems to be sufficient reason to *arrest* someone, but not always enough reason to *prosecute*
http://www.papersplease.org/cases.html

relevant to this issue:

http://www.no2id.net/
http://www.papersplease.org/

Think hard about whether you really want to trade the last shred of privacy for a little bit of 'added security'.

The link in the Wired New story is broken -- Regulations.gov doesn't use static URL's for individual documents.

The Identity Project comments, including as an appendix the text of the relevant law, are at:

http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-ATS-comments.pdf

Those comments also expain how the "Automated Targeting System" would include information on domestic flights and travelers, in addition to international travel records.

There's more background on my blog, and the Identity Project blog:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001184.html

http://papersplease.org/wp/2006/12/05/every-travel er-is-a-target/

As was discussed in detail in the comments I wrote for the Identity Project, the summary in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) very seriously misstates what the actual proposed rule would do. I won't repeat all the details here, but the key language in the proposed rule is, "A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a 'not-cleared' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP." Further answers to your questions aboout the specific language of the proposal, and its implications, are in our formal comments filed with the DHS. The Identity Project and I have done our best to call attention to this proposal. It's not _our_ fault if more people didn't pay more attention to it sooner. We welcome everyone's help in spreading the word about this and related proposals to restrict freedom of travel. It's not too late: Contrary to some secondary and tertiary sources reporting this story, the NPRM does not state when the _proposed_ rule would be effective Keep watching the Federal Register for a notice of a final rule with an effective date. As was explained in my original blog post, the Regulations.gov Web site does not permit persistent direct links to individual documents. I explained in my blog post how to search for and retrieve the original notice of proposed rulemaking (published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048, 14 July 2006). I've also provided a local copy of the notice on my Web site, for those who are having trouble finding it on the .gov site.

These losses of privacy and requiremens to "show our papers" has been ongoing, even within the US. It immediately reminds me of John Gilmore's protest against having to show his papers in order to take a domestic US flight (or travel on Amtrack or stay in a hotel). If he didn't have anything dangerous on his person, why did he have to prove his identity? This stuff is not really making anyone more secure, but it might make the airlines more money by preventing transference of tickts.

Perhaps people just feel more secure when they believe something is being done. even if nothing is, and even if it really sucks.

The GP overstated the scope of the decision, but the documents cited on the website in question clearly show:

Court order to file under seal the relevant material pertaining to the identification requirement.

US DoJ files the relevant material under seal, reiterating that is ex parte and in camera.

Court order affirming that the material filed under seal is ex parte.

The key legal term is ex parte , which means that the opposing side is not allowed to see the filed material. So, it is effectively secret and the plaintiff was not allowed to review or formulate a challenge.

This doesn't appear to have been a factor in the subsequent decision. But, I think there's a legitimate concern here: the TSA has made policy that is effectively law, but the actual policy is not public. That means that TSA is free to interpret it and change it without any oversight.

The GP overstated the scope of the decision, but the documents cited on the website in question clearly show:

Court order to file under seal the relevant material pertaining to the identification requirement.

US DoJ files the relevant material under seal, reiterating that is ex parte and in camera.

Court order affirming that the material filed under seal is ex parte.

The key legal term is ex parte , which means that the opposing side is not allowed to see the filed material. So, it is effectively secret and the plaintiff was not allowed to review or formulate a challenge.

This doesn't appear to have been a factor in the subsequent decision. But, I think there's a legitimate concern here: the TSA has made policy that is effectively law, but the actual policy is not public. That means that TSA is free to interpret it and change it without any oversight.

The GP overstated the scope of the decision, but the documents cited on the website in question clearly show:

Court order to file under seal the relevant material pertaining to the identification requirement.

US DoJ files the relevant material under seal, reiterating that is ex parte and in camera.

Court order affirming that the material filed under seal is ex parte.

The key legal term is ex parte , which means that the opposing side is not allowed to see the filed material. So, it is effectively secret and the plaintiff was not allowed to review or formulate a challenge.

This doesn't appear to have been a factor in the subsequent decision. But, I think there's a legitimate concern here: the TSA has made policy that is effectively law, but the actual policy is not public. That means that TSA is free to interpret it and change it without any oversight.

>These are not secret laws, and to the extent that they exist, you can read them.

Judge Richard Paez speaking:
"...Gilmore was not given the text of the identification policy due to the Security Directive's classification as SSI"

From the district court judge: "Whether this is actually the government's policy is unclear, as the policy, if it exists,is unpublished". Also, "... the court, noting that the identification policy had been classified as SSI[Sensitive Security Information], did not review any official documentation of the identification policy."

From the government's motion to keep their pleadings secret, "In order to protect air travel security, a
federal statute and accompanying regulations prohibit defendants from disclosing any such directive in open court, to plaintiff, or to plaintiff's counsel."

All quotes are from PDFs of the court documents.

The reason this matters is that "due process" begins before you're arrested. Laws are supposed to be published so you or your counsel can read them and decide on conduct that follows them. Anything else is Kafka.

From the district court judge: "Whether this is actually the government's policy is unclear, as the policy, if it exists,is unpublished". Also, "... the court, noting that the identification policy had been classified as SSI[Sensitive Security Information], did not review any official documentation of the identification policy."

From the government's motion to keep their pleadings secret, "In order to protect air travel security, a
federal statute and accompanying regulations prohibit defendants from disclosing any such directive in open court, to plaintiff, or to plaintiff's counsel."

All quotes are from PDFs of the court documents.

The reason this matters is that "due process" begins before you're arrested. Laws are supposed to be published so you or your counsel can read them and decide on conduct that follows them. Anything else is Kafka.

From the district court judge: "Whether this is actually the government's policy is unclear, as the policy, if it exists,is unpublished". Also, "... the court, noting that the identification policy had been classified as SSI[Sensitive Security Information], did not review any official documentation of the identification policy."

From the government's motion to keep their pleadings secret, "In order to protect air travel security, a
federal statute and accompanying regulations prohibit defendants from disclosing any such directive in open court, to plaintiff, or to plaintiff's counsel."

All quotes are from PDFs of the court documents.

The reason this matters is that "due process" begins before you're arrested. Laws are supposed to be published so you or your counsel can read them and decide on conduct that follows them. Anything else is Kafka.

If you so desired, you could actually read the laws that you obviously have no understanding of.

Oh, if that were only true. John Gilmore's been trying for years now to do exactly that -- to read the laws/regulations under which the TSA operates and to which we're subject. Even with his millions of dollars and army of attorneys, he hasn't been able to to break the shroud of secrecy surrounding these laws, what makes you think anyone else can?

Or didn't you realize that the US now has secret laws that the public is not allowed to read? And that courts (9th circuit district and appellate) have ruled that the government doesn't have to show us the law? Hopefully the Supreme Court will correct the situation, but I'm not holding my breath.

Indeed. Some interesting articles have been written about how to fly without an ID, including the "Identity Project, asking people to try to fly with no ID and report their experiences.

While we're at it, can someone please
Repeal
all
SECRET
LAWS!?

There seems to be a few more than that:
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/facts.html

Now, they'll have no problem thanks to this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.htm l

Soon you see commercials:
Your National ID card.
Don't leave home without it, or else!

Get it right. Hiibel was not driving, his daughter was driving. Why don't you read the facts for yourself http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/index2.html Also video of incident is posted there.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, at least in Nevada.

And yes, in some european countries it is mandatory to have your ID card with you when you leave the house. I don't think you'll be arrested for not having it, at least I've never heard of that happening after WW2.

We're already at that point in the US of all places. No, you don't have to carry a physical ID card, but you do have to identify yourself to police if asked. The means of identification is irrelevant. The fact is you can be jailed for failing to identify yourself. It has happened. It got to the supreme court, and lost. We are living in that world already.

if you dont think that kind of thing goes on here in the USA, read this story about a women who was put in jail because she did not show her "papers" on a public bus while not breaking any laws... http://www.papersplease.org/davis/index1.html

most americans have never experienced fascism and oppression in their life time

Uh, yeah, right.

The problem isn't that they have never experienced fascism and opression, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that it's not happening.

There would be no monetary reason. But as an occasional singer of songs, I can tell you I get alot of joy out of entertaining. And at least for me, I get a huge rush when I here/see someone singing a song I wrote -- it could not happen enough for me! There is art in performance.

...totally abolishing it would be comparable to deciding that you don't want politicians to govern you and fighting for anarchy instead...

Ugh, I actually wept out of despair when I read this. Not wanting politicians to govern you is not the same as wanting anarchy. I'd be in favor of government in which I had a voice. but there is no such thing as a community of 280 Million people. I'm not naive enough to not understand that "evil" can organize into large enough numbers that "good" has to similarly organize -- I even support a federal government that has some power -- but when the government can take your house to put up a shopping mall and arrest you for not showing your papers to a government official on demand...things have gone too far. Resistance to that sort of government does not mean that you're seeking anarchy.

I agree. I think that the Constitution defends the de facto mode of transportation between two points. When the Constitution was written, this would be horseback or horse-drawn carriage. If a state tried to pass a law requiring you to submit to a search upon entering the state when on horseback, there would've been a riot. Just because we have advanced to the point that there are now many modes of transportation, Mr. Gillmore should not be forced to travel by horseback. 99.9% of people would travel from S.F. to D.C. by airplane, and preventing people from doing so should be unconstitutional.

That is my opinion. But I actually read the court's opinion, which I highly recommend everyone read:
http://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDecisio n.pdf

I think the biggest issue here is that any law, regulation, or order, can be enacted regardless of its purpose, as long as it not deemed unconstitutional. The court's opinion is fully correct given the laws in the US Code, and indeed, as-is (barring my argument above), none of Gilmore's constitutional rights were withheld. Similarly, it would seem, if the TSA enacted an order saying I had to touch my finger to my nose before boarding a plane, the courts couldn't touch it either - sure, it has no purpose, it is ridiculous, etc, but there's not really anything they can do. Gilmore alleges that the law is meaningless, and I would agree, but it is not the court's place to judge the effectiveness or purpose of particular regulation.

So then, how does one fix this? Well, the rules were made by the people, and the people can tear them down. (To be specific: Congress granted the authority to the Secretary of Transportation and its subsidiaries (like the TSA) to regulate various forms of transportation. See page 1146 of the opinion (page 10 of the PDF).) It seems like the only way to get rid of this is now is through Congress.

From the Gilmore website:

The right to travel involves a number of constitutional issues:

The 1st Amendment

Physical travel and the First Amendment are inextricably intertwined. If you can't travel, then how can you exercise your right to Assemble? You can't Associate either, because you won't be able to get anywhere. Your right to Free Speech is also affected. You can say what you want, just not at that conference you wanted to attend but couldn't because you weren't allowed to get on a plane.

The 4th Amendment

Refusing a government "request" for ID triggers a severe penalty, such as loss of free movement. And lest we forget, having to show your ID is a search without a warrant.

In this court case, the core issue of our right to travel has been obscured by other side issues, secret law being the most outrageous of them.

Secret Law

There is no published statute or regulation requiring traveler identification. The airlines and the federal government insist that federal law requires passengers to show identification, yet can point to no published source of that requirement.

IMHO: Judges are smart, and they can see through rhetoric. This isn't an issue of freedom to travel, it's an issue of secret regulations and star chambers. The Bush administration will be remembered for two things: the so-called 'war on terror', and the vast and secret power grabs by the executive branch in order to fight that war. Maybe if Gilmore had focused his primary attack on the secret law angle, he might have had better success. Instead, he treated it as a "side issue".

"Nevada is still the only state which requires identification, upon request, by law."

Do you have any evidence that no other states do?

Here's another case (in Colorado) from the same website http://www.papersplease.org/davis/index.html

http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/index2.html

I think this website gives plenty of info. We _are_ in such a society, and the courts have upheld it.

Actually, John Gilmore is not on the "no-fly list", but he has taken his fight against secret laws to the US Supreme Court.

More information here.

Wrong. See HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. .

Summary: Dudley Hiibel's daughter was stopped by the police while Dudley was riding passenger. Police asked Dudley for identification; Dudley refused. Police arrested Dudley. Dudley sued and lost. Dudley appealed and lost. Dudley went to the United States Supreme Court -- and lost.

This case stands as the case which now defines the "papers please" legal environment under which all Americans now live.

With regards to freedom from government in terms of identification, we are now, in legal terms, no different from the totalitarian commie pinkos of Soviet-era nations that we once fought so vehemently-against for privacy and individual freedom.

(Disclaimer: IANAL.)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not directly involved in John Gillmore's air travel case - it isn't a party and it isn't providing the lawyers or funding. He is suing as a private individual. The EFF's only role is to have filed an amicus brief, as have the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, and the Electronic Privacy Activism Center.

In any case, the suit is solely about the right to fly anonymously and for all laws to be publicly available. He is not objecting to searches of air travelers. What may have misled people who don't read very carefully is that on his second attempt to fly without identifying himself, out of San Francisco International on United, they told him that they would let him fly without identifying himself but that he would have to submit to an extra-intrusive search. He declined on the grounds that this was in effect punishing him for exercising his right not to identify himself. He does not claim that it is unconstitutional to search airline passengers, only that what sort of search is conducted should not depend on whether the passenger identifies himself. For the facts see his description of his lawsuit. The various briefs and other legal documents are available here.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not directly involved in John Gillmore's air travel case - it isn't a party and it isn't providing the lawyers or funding. He is suing as a private individual. The EFF's only role is to have filed an amicus brief, as have the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, and the Electronic Privacy Activism Center.

In any case, the suit is solely about the right to fly anonymously and for all laws to be publicly available. He is not objecting to searches of air travelers. What may have misled people who don't read very carefully is that on his second attempt to fly without identifying himself, out of San Francisco International on United, they told him that they would let him fly without identifying himself but that he would have to submit to an extra-intrusive search. He declined on the grounds that this was in effect punishing him for exercising his right not to identify himself. He does not claim that it is unconstitutional to search airline passengers, only that what sort of search is conducted should not depend on whether the passenger identifies himself. For the facts see his description of his lawsuit. The various briefs and other legal documents are available here.

People, I think most of you are on the wrong track....someone posted a link to John Gilmore's site and this telling comment was posted in the mailbag:

Airlines began requiring ID when they determined that small businesses were using previously purchased tickets for individuals to send other individuals. This is a fact that can be documented. The airlines forced this issue in 1997.

As a small business manager, there were many times when I had terminated employees and needed to send the new employee on the specific trip. This really comes into play where trade shows are concerned and you need to book several months in advance. I have communications sent to top AA management in this regard but no answer.

The airlines grabbed the ID platform in order to increase revenue margin. At the same time they increased "change" charges from $35 in 1994 to $75 in 1997 to now $100.

I think some people forget that it's not usually malice and power that really motivate these type of things....it's the $$$

Let's be clear. You are obviously misinformed, unaware of the fact that the government is requiring airlines to ask for ID, citing a secret law that does not exist on the books. How would you like to be convicted of violating a law that you aren't allowed to read, and just take the police's word it exists? How could a lawyer possibly defend a client against such a law? That sounds pretty close to a definition of "police state," or at least some nightmarish Kafka story.

Oral arguments start next Thursday. Seems like this is the first update on this case in over a year. Be interesting to see what happens, and if it gets any press coverage.

I think more people should say "no" to the government. They don't have as much power over us as they want us to believe. I wish more people knew their rights.

But my original post didn't have to do with the government. My point was that you should (opinion) take every chance you can get at educating parents (or anyone for anything within your abilty, thank you for the reference, by the way).

What if you worked for an adult video store? A mature 12 year old can come in and purchase some material? I know I had my hands on this stuff at that age and I had no problems handling it, and I wouldn't deny it to anybody. However, if I were in that situation, I would take a second to educate this person that what they are seeing is a work of fiction. People do not act like this, and this is not what females are looking for in a sexual relationship.

Accepting responsibility for yourself is a great thing. But there is so much out there for you to learn and other things to accept. I just think time would be better spent educating people and then we wouldn't have all these questions about what a child can or cannot do, should or shouldn't know.

Obiously, parents should be doing their job, but we all have things we need to take care of. Parents can't watch their child 24 hours a day and I don't think it's too much to ask for help from someone who may know more about the subject.

Say a polite, "normal" child comes in with their parent and wants to purchase a game that's been getting much negative attention in the media and the parent parrots back to the child what they heard from the "teevee." I think it's reasonable to educate the parent in this situation as well. Obviously, it may come off as biased as you're the one selling the game, but they should know that what is presented in the media about this form of entertainment is generally untrue.

I don't have a problem with this issue, but I can't imagine how scary it is to be a parent. I know I would take every opportunity for discussion about a topic that would affect my child.

(Trivia digression: when did ID for airlines start? Answer: after the 1996 TWA "non-terrorism" crash. Wow, that ID stuff was really effective, wasn't it?)

TFA/CDC may have mentioned only airlines, but of course it would be extended to all forms of travel. Pretty clever, actually -- it's easier to sell the idea of ID'ing on buses for the bird flu than it is for terrorism.

And I didn't see a link for it in any of the +5 comments, so here is Gilmore v. Gonzales, John Gilmore's attempt to challenge the practice of ID'ing at airports.

I'm not sure that chaos would happen for very long, really.

ISPs need to make sure their customers can get where they need to get. If ICANN disappeared today, not much would change as ISPs would probably band together to form a new organization, or some government body to take over again.

But I look at information connection points over the years, and I continue to see information becoming either more censored, or more underground.

Consider the phone. Almost everyone has just numbers (my 800 number is a memorable word, so I do have a monopoly on something), and we've done just fine with phone books and contact managers. There are more IP addresses than phone numbers, surely.

I remember Fidonet. It was name@numbers, and it worked very decently, considering it was not real-time at all. There were far fewer Fidonet addresses than IP addresses, of course.

I bet there are many more domain names than IP addresses (I didn't look up the ratio though). Domain names do make life easier, and I think they'll continue to do so.

My only fear is that those who control DNS will continue to build incredible power that they could use at any point in the future, and I don't want to see that happen. Hell, the Deborah Davis incident is part of the reason I've always been against IDs, and for years I was ridiculed for fearing what would never happen (but did).

I watch the FEC regulations very closely, and I see how close we are getting to having all our online speech moderated by those in power. I don't want to see this, and I see ICANN as a really big control mechanism of those in power. I'm just requesting others to contemplate how we could use our beloved Internet without government having any control on any mechanism.

Thank god I don't suffer under your "American Freedoms"

"Papers, Please. No? You're Under Arrest."

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/facts.html

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/video.html

Thank god I don't suffer under your "American Freedoms"

"Papers, Please. No? You're Under Arrest."

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/facts.html

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/video.html

• The difficulty of preregistering copyright if you use Linux
• The inability to travel by air in the US if you're not willing to obey laws you're not even allowed to see
• The trouble you can get into if you behave counterculturally in redneck America

I think the threat was that unapproved state IDs would not be accepted as valid federal ID for purposes such as entering federal buildings or being allowed to travel by air.
I don't know if this threat could actually be carried out.

By the way, here's a story about John Gilmore's experience with the secret law that requires you to show ID in order to travel by air. Another link.
After reading this, please forget everything about it. You are not allowed to know.

Probably because most other nations that have required such things in the past have been totalitarian regimes that have solidified thier power through such measures.

You seem to miss the point, without a RealID, you can't even drive a car, have a job, have a bank account or anything. The only way for the the national ID to work is to require it as the only acceptable ID. I'd say that goes beyond just a fair bit of hardship.

4: You are *already* required to identify yourself when you board a plane, when you get a passport, and when you do any of the other things that you would use RealID for. The federal government *already* can track and aggregate all of the information that it or any government in the United States collects on you. And, ALL of this information is protected by the same kind of legal protection that your yearly tax forms are protected by--and trust me, the government knows FAR more about you from your taxes than they can get from your driver's license.

Actually, I don't need a passport or identification to board a plane for interstate travel. Show me the law that says otherwise, then contact John Gilmore, because he can't even get the TSA to show him or his attorney the law. I agree that you do need an ID for a passport, but that is because it establishes citizenship. Just like my SS# is only to establish eligibility in the Social Security program and my eligibility to work. Besides, if the Gov't already has all this data, why do they need additional legislation to guarantee that they have it?

5: It's worth noting that, if there's only one place where all of your information is stored by the government, then realistically you will be able to use this to much more effectively defeat identity theft. Prove to one federal judge (or even a state judge...) that you are the real CygnusXII and that other guy in Pittsfield is a fraud, and it's a done deal.

So what's to guarantee that they guy in Pittsfield isn't going to have the same or better documentation. How about someone else steals my RealID via RFID and uses it locally for purchases or for a terrorist act (link talks about the new passports, but is just as relevent showing gov't cluelessness). How can I prove it wasn't me? Often Identity Theft occurs close to home. That's what makes it so hard to battle. The legislation does nothing to ensure that mass duplication of my ID is prevented.

Bill Scannell, the webmaster behind unrealID.com, is also the webmaster behind papersplease.org
link.
I think he was profiled in wired awhile back.
He is a publicist/lobbyist who works closely with john gilmore on privacy issues.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,57909,00. html
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,64249,00. html

You could have appealed, and reasonably chose not to. You could have filed a 42 usc 1983 action for the unwarranted search, and reasonably chose not to.
My roommate joell got the aclu to back him up when he was illegally stopped and searched, and the supreme court upheld his position in edmonds v indianapolis, and he got $10K and his lawyers got $100k. But that's the exception, not the rule.

papersplease.org link has more up-to-date info on both the hibbel case (pedestrian license upheld 5-4 by supreme court)
and gilmore v ashcroft (secret law requires plane passenger license.)

There are indeed serious state's rights issues raised by the ID bill, which will get litigated. The federal government is telling the states what to do, and not providing funds, instead of just making it a string attached to highway grants.
Sometimes the courts remember that the federal government isn't allowed to commandeer the state governments without specific constitutional authority. Other times, the feds get away with it.
EFF will likely get involved, and is a good group to support. The iclu (indiana civil liberties union, iclu) last week filed a suit about whether the state can require voting licenses. They would welcome your contributions.
I'm personally not a big fan of donating to worthy causes; I'd rather see a futures-market based approach, in which you could invest in the outcome of cases like that. Not motivated enough to try to implement it myself.

So if your papers aren't "in order", you're not a Real American (TM). Sounds like Fatherland Defense. Show us your papers, please.

Because then the government can't track the movements of its people, and big business can't track the personal histories of shoppers.

Actually, I'm not *that* much of a tin-foil hat person (usually). As another poster stated (and discribed here), the requirement to show ID to board commercial flights appears to have started in response to TWA 800 in 1996, when it was still being considered as a potential terrorist attack (the official story is now mechanical failure). President Clinton ordered this as a temporary reponse to the attack so that the families of TWA 800's victims could see the government was doing something. It was apparently intended as a temporary measure, but made permanent after that 9/11 attacks.

So, what's changed between 1996 and 2005 that showing IDs is now required to board a commercial flight? The requirement didn't prevent 9/11. And if terrorists try to hijack another plane (which I don't think they will), it won't prevent that either, because they'll have a valid-looking ID.

Here's what it will do - let the government spend big dollars on contracts to manage its "No-Fly list" and other databases, so that it can harass law-abiding systems who have the unfortunate coincidence of having a similar name to someone on the List. Or, eventually, the government might use such a list to prevent law-abiding systems with the wrong "views" to fly at all, citing you as a "possible terrorist" because you are a member of some protest organization or you attended a Greenpeace rally. It seems far-fetched now, but you don't have to slide too far down the slope until we get there.

The one you're talking about (and the only one he's apparently talking about) was Southwest Airlines out of Oakland. United at San Francisco was going to let him fly, but he chose not to. And if he was testing this system, he should have followed through. But he didn't.

Details here.

No. That was the first attempt. And since that was the time he was denied altogether (Southwest at Oakland), it's not surprising that he is using that in his court case.

But United at SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID if he, again, submitted to an intensive search. This time, he declined, and was not allowed to fly.

See http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html for details.

You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.

See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html

He obviously chose to enumerate in his court case (wisely, I might add) the instance he wasn't allowed to fly with no ID (Southwest at Oakland) and ignores the instance he WAS allowed to fly with no ID, and chose not to (United at SFO, because that time, he did NOT submit to the search).

Therefore, my original thesis stands.