Slashdot Mirror

What TFA is arguing for is a layer of verifications performed by the program's execution environment, checking its every move.

The checks aren't free — they make everything a little slower and/or consuming more resources (such as RAM). Whether that slow-down is worth the increased safety may be subject to debate...

But the parallels with human lives are inescapable. The checks argued for are no different from the much-denounced police practices, such as "stop-and-frisk", tracking citizens' identifications, and movements — and the arguments for and against them are much the same...

There is no Constitutional right to travel. If there was, we'd be seeing sex offenders leaving the country in big numbers. Our sex offender laws are some of the worst in the civilized world and we have this ludicrous paranoia about them despite extremely low percentages (6% after 10 years is typical) of repeat offenders. They tried to pass an international version of sex offender registration which died in committee but would have basically blocked sex offenders from leaving the country, even if they never wanted to come back.

Ignoring those people, ask any of the nutty people that call themselves "sovereign citizens" and think they have a "right to travel." Ask the people who have been forced to show ID even when they had committed no crime and were not even suspected of such.

There is no Constitutional right to travel...but there should be.

Why is this insightful? It's simply wrong. You are not required to show ID to fly on domestic U.S. routes period. You'll go through a more comprehensive pat down and bag search before passing through security, but that's it. Having ID is not a requirement.

https://papersplease.org/gilmo...

This ignores the unspoken policy that traffic stops are not always about enforcing traffic law and collecting small fines, but rather the police want that interaction with the driver so they can fish for bigger violations. Traffic stops are "pretext stops", a loophole to get around the 4th amendment.

Running your plate and taking your ID isn't about making sure they assign points to the right person, but also about looking for wants and warrants. Getting you to roll down the window and talk to the officer isn't really about checking whether you smell like booze or pot, or seem nervous. There is no right to remain silent when an automobile is involved., and traffic stops are one of the most productive ways to find and arrest people with outstanding warrants.

I came here to post popehat. My legal blog recommendations:
* Popehat insightful/snarky legal commentary from someone who used to be a federal prosecutor and is now in private practice.
* Lowering the Bar: hilarious legal humor. Recent topics: Hulk Hogan, Donald Trump, drone law, argle-bargle.
*Papers, Please: Lots of TSA and similar topics. Their MO is to file expansive FOIA requests to intelligence and law enforcement agencies, then write stridently about how they were rejected.
* Jetsetting Terrorist: trials and tribulations of somebody erroneously on the do not fly list. (not updated often)
* Taking Sense Away: blog written by TSA employee (no longer updated, but fun to read the archives).
* SCOTUSblog: blow-by-blow news of goings-on at the supreme court. super nerdy.
* Supreme Court Haiku: summaries of supreme court decisions, in haiku form.
* Volokh Conspiracy: insightful pieces on constitutional law and similar topics. primarily conservative, primarily written by law profs.

wow, with all these things in my feedly, it's amazing I get any work done!

Heres a better link: https://takingsenseaway.wordpr...

Now I read Papers Please . similar content, unfortunately lacks the humor/absurdity of taking sense away.

Then, the DMV. No traffic violations, car chases, or accidents. Why would anybody be required to carry a license or other ID except as a method of social control.

It sounds like you're referring to Dr. Ibrahim.

http://papersplease.org/wp/201...

Also, Alstrup did not rule that she had to be removed from the list. The ruling only meant that they had to inform her whether she was still on the list and correct the clerical error from all databases which originally put her on the list. Nothing stops the government from putting her back on the list for other reasons. It also provided her with the ability to apply for a waiver for her visa denial.

See:
http://www.wired.com/images_bl...
(page 38)

The first thing the government's lawyers would try to do is to get as much damning evidence as possible defined as state secrets. That prevents the evidence from being introduced in court or used as the basis for a decision or finding. They've done this before, see this story, for example. For a breakdown of the various types of secrets and how they are handled in a court see this piece which is part of a series on Ibrahim vs DHS, the first challenge on a "no-fly" order to make trial.

Try asking anyone under 30 if they know what the phrase "Papers Please!" denotes

It's just two words... It's a lot of things.

It's when the Military place soldiers in a natural disaster area such as New Orleans after Katrina requiring you to show military ID or proof of government authorization, to avoid arrest, or having vehicles impounded

It's an attack onAmerican birthright citizenship

It's two words that succinctly describe America's dark future.

Personal and Professional Encounters with Surveillance

anti-state.com: May I See Your Papers Please?

It's what Mr. Hiibel of Nevada went to jail for refusing to comply with

It's what police do now to ordinary people minding their own business.

It's congress work on the REAL ID act

It's a name given to a section of an Arizona law upheld by the Supreme court.

It's the name of a complaint against changes the US is making starting this Fall 2013 to further restrict the free travel of Americans and greatly increase the difficulty of US citizens getting passports

It's the name of a dystopian video game about communist immigration control.

It's the name of an anti-TSA blog

It's a request you comply with when asked by the police; otherwise, you face immediate arrest.

• Texas 77 year old Grandmother arrested after refusing to show ID
• Police arrest for refusing to show ID while on private property
• Exhibit 1
• Exhibit 2: According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify
• Arrested at Circuit City for refusing to show ID: "It all started when I refused to show my receipt to the loss prevention employee at Circuit City, and it ended when a police officer arrested me for refusing to provide my driver's license."
• I follow the blog of a guy who walked across the country (California to New York) last year. He was arrested in Greencastle, Indiana last summer, after a prison worker called the police to report him as a suspicious person after they exchanged words while he was walking past the prison complex.
• Florida Cops Tase man for refusing to show ID
• Refusal to show id in Georgia (arrest)
• Man in Arizona arrested for refusing to surrender firearm to officers who refused to show their own ID

Ah... The good old days.

Today:
At the border: Papers Please!

Walking down the road: Papers Please!
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/case.html

Of course they may not be sentenced to prison. That does not, however, preclude them from harassment, arrest and/or attempts to throw them in prison.

Phil Mocek was arrested and tried for filming a TSA checkpoint. Oh, and the video of the arrest was deleted while Phil was in custody. Here is a list of 7 incidents that occurred in 2011 alone that involved the arrest, threat of arrest, intimidation or assault of someone photographing or videotaping a public official in public.

This is not BS. It's happening with alarming regularity in the United States. This is despite multiple federal court decisions upholding the right of individuals to film.

you have no right to travel by air. even to petition your government. the federal court claimed you have available alternatives that are "just as good". apparently we're expected to get on a horse and take 3-5 months traveling from the west coast to the east coast. it was good enough in the 1800s, the last time the judges did it, dammit. and you Hawaiians and Alaskans? Better work on that side stroke. (It takes ID for Alaskans to go through Canada.)

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/

kthxbai.

you have no right to travel by air. even to petition your government. the federal court claimed you have available alternatives that are "just as good". apparently we're expected to get on a horse and take 3-5 months traveling from the west coast to the east coast. it was good enough in the 1800s, the last time the judges did it, dammit. and you Hawaiians and Alaskans? Better work on that side stroke. (It takes ID for Alaskans to go through Canada.)

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/

kthxbai.

TSA ID requirements such a big deal? You can always, you know, just quit flying.

Even 100% taxation would not be slavery unless citizens were forbidden to renounce their citizenship and emigrate.

If all other countries forbid you to immigrate, you're forbidden to emigrate. If WHTI is in force, you're forbidden to emigrate.

You're welcome to leave the country anytime you wish.

Someone disagrees with you.

Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to live here.

Other than any foreign country whose immigration department won't grant a visa.

The TSA and their guidelines are no longer private by any means. They are thoroughly up the government's ass.

The constitution says ol' Uncle Sam can't perform unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant, and that to issue a warrant they need probable cause. Probable cause must be supported by things that have happened or someone testifies has happened (see oath or affirmation) regarding the specific person. FUD about terrorism does not count, no matter how real the threat is.

You may say that, and it may even make sense (it does make sense to me) but the government has pretty clearly ruled that you are wrong, in part by relying on a secret law that cannot be quoted in court.

John Gilmore worked this one through pretty thoroughly, and has the details on his web site.

while i agree with you...

this is settled case law.

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/

yes, i know it's to do with id rather than searches, but the government is of one opinion in all of this.

"you have other choices on how to travel. we don't acknowledge any timeliness issues."

If you want to request your own records, do so ASAP: Even while stalling on responses to pending requests and appeals -- some unanswered after almost 2 years -- the DHS has recently moved to exempt more of this data from disclosure or requirements for accuracy, relevance, etc. Even more Privacy Act exemptions for PNR's and other "Automated Targeting System" data are pending, and could be finalized at any time. BTW, if you travelled to, from, or via the EU, or on an EU-based airline, or made reservations or bought tickets in the EU or through an EU-based company, or if your reservations were stored in the EU-based CRS Amadeus, you also have the right to request your travel records from these travel companies.

'In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place.

In the Hiibel case all justices agreed police can ask for a person's name, but an ID does not need to be presented. The disagreement, 5 to 4, "was whether the person could be prosecuted for failing to answer that question."

Falcon

Did you read the page you linked to? It says:

'In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada , the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop and identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.'
http://www.knowmyrights.org/faq/4th-amendment/when-do-i-have-to-show-id.html

In Texas if you are on state land ( hunting, fishing, boating, swimming )you are required to produce an ID upon request from law enforcement. Failure to maintain your ID upon your person while swimming can result in incarceration.

http://www.papersplease.org/ documents a case in Nevada of an individual who refused to show his drivers license because he was not driving. Everyone of course ended up in jail charged with several crimes.

Except that the currently accepted legal definition of affect for purposes of establishing standing to sue is very weak compared to the reality of the affect. For example, plaintiff in the gun rights case in DC was only able to establish standing to sue because he was required to have a gun at his job as a security guard in DC, but couldn't take it home because of the DC ban. That was the "damage". Several cases had been dismissed before his where the damage was the lack of freedom or personal risk of being unarmed in a dangerous city.

Another example is the case against TSA/AG brought Gilmore wherein the case was dismissed because Gilmore "had other travel options available to him" thus he could not establish "damage" and thus had no standing to sue.
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html

There was such a law in Nevada, and IIRC, it went to the SCOTUS, and it was upheld.
http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car.

It depends on your state, but at least in Nevada, you must identify yourself or you can be arrested.

In almost every jurisdiction that I've ever been in during my life, if an actual office of the law (as opposed to rentacops) demands ID, you provide it. Refusal to do so is illegal.

Not in the U.S. of A., it is not. You are within your rights to tell a cop who says "papers, please" as you're walking down the street, "I would prefer not to," and the courts have gotten it correct on recognizing that right. But it still takes people with guts to stand up for it.

(It may, of course, be to your advantage to show them ID -- if they're looking for John Smith and you can show your name is Richard Roe, you can be about your business that much sooner.)

You are also within your rights to decline to tell a cop your name, though SCOTUS did a Dred Scott on this one a few years ago in the Hiibel case. I look forward to our Fourth Amendment rights

In almost every jurisdiction that I've ever been in during my life, if an actual office of the law (as opposed to rentacops) demands ID, you provide it. Refusal to do so is illegal.

Not in the U.S. of A., it is not. You are within your rights to tell a cop who says "papers, please" as you're walking down the street, "I would prefer not to," and the courts have gotten it correct on recognizing that right. But it still takes people with guts to stand up for it.

(It may, of course, be to your advantage to show them ID -- if they're looking for John Smith and you can show your name is Richard Roe, you can be about your business that much sooner.)

You are also within your rights to decline to tell a cop your name, though SCOTUS did a Dred Scott on this one a few years ago in the Hiibel case. I look forward to our Fourth Amendment rights

The government deliberately chose a longer-range "vicinity" RFID type for passport cards and drivers licenses, rather than the ICAO standard "proximity" RFID type used in passports and specfied by ICAO for passport cards, in order to ensure that they would be readable at longer range. This is a feature, not a bug.

Also, how can this still be called a "democracy" when those people, who are supposedly holding the power, are not allowed to know what their so-called representatives are doing?

Perhaps someone could combine copyrighted laws and laws you have to comply with but will not be told about, i.e. "secret laws", and then maybe patent the whole thing and register it as an aesthetic model and its name as a trademark.

Wait....because they can add children, that makes it worse?? Geez, when did everything become 'about the children'. There is nothing special about them, and society needs to quit catering to them and their parents...

I agree with this statement -- the problem is that when you have a child, that child becomes the most important thing in your life. Of course, that child should be the most important thing in everyone else's life, too, right?

Except that that's not the case, and these parents that think this way need to get some perspective.

Whether they can add children to a No Fly list is irrelevant. That they can add anyone to a 'No Fly' list is also a violation of your Constitutional rights. That they can demand to see your ID before you get on a flight is also a violation of your Constitutional rights, no matter what courts say about it, IMHO.

Damn guy. You're wrong. Get over it.

Here's a link to John Gilmore's case. He sued the TSA over this issue and won. The 9th circuit federal court of appeals ruled that no ID needs to be shown when flying and it is in fact illegal for an airline to deny you service because you refuse to show ID.

And get over yourself. I'll bet 10% of slashdotters fly "nearly 40,000 actual miles every year".

How many links to evidence that you are wrong do you need before you stop replying without anything to backup your argument other than, "I fly a lot"?

this technology as being inherently double edged.

Of course it is, but these academics will go ahead and develope this tech and then be all suprised five to ten years down the road when Real ID cards with complete live tracking become a required "National Security" measure. I'm far less concerned with the idea of some random psycho using this to track me as I am with the government and other dataminers (marketing, transit, credit agencies, insurance) tracking me. "if you're thinking about making this mandatory under the guise of security or comfort, you're going to be tracking my RFID tag in a garbage can." Unfortunately when this tech becomes about "National Security" you won't have much choice, unless you are prepared to be denied access to most public buildings and transit for failure to carry proper ID. Or possibly you'll just get arrested. All that's really required is that a failure to produce a RealID RFID response becomes reasonable suspicion.

Gilmore lost his suit; the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to intervene; see the coverage at Papers Please!.

http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/

There's not "no right to transport." There's a dent in the constitutional protection of the right to travel predicated on the availability of alternative means of travel.

the gist of the opinion of the court is that because there are alternate means of travel, you can choose one of those rather than submit to searches and id checks.

Gilmore mentioned in his complaint having heard that similar measures were put in place for train travel, but these were rejected as hearsay. i guess he ought to have tried to travel by train and sued the TSA and both Amtrak and the airline. He didn't. Anyways, even if he had, it seems fairly clear that the court would have ignored reason yet again.

basically it's a cop-out and yet another instance of the courts turning a blind eye to the government's depredations.

feh!

When some rich kid tries to make a point and challenge a needlessly adversarial system, it's bad. But when some rich geek like John Gilmore tries to make a point and challenge a needlessly adversarial system, we all cheer him on?

What's the difference between these 2 cases? Just because Gilmore has the stones and cash to take his case to the top, whereas the kid didn't, does that invalidate the point the kid was trying to make?

Do you feel Gilmore's case was equally as frivolous as you appear to regard this kid's case? While obviously different and scope and weight, both cases address what many people feel to be a problem in the core of our day-to-day living.

Go Go Gadget editors!

Someone steals the text of the actual article (not unusual, I know), instead of providing an actual summary... but leaves out the hyperlink that's actually IN the stolen text for the Identity Project referenced in the article.

Why bother with editors?

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/

A man from AZ (I think) was having an argument with his daughter about somebody she was dating. An officer pulled up and demanded the man show him his drivers license. He refused citing his constitution rights. Yadda, yadda, yadda..the guy was roughed up, the daughter was pummeled and they all got arrested. All charges were dropped except for the ID 'thing'..and the gentleman arrested brought it to the Supreme Court..and lost. They actually cite the supreme court ruling on this website if you care to read the full text of it. Garbage if you ask me..but if a law enforcement officer demands you show positive ID and you refuse or even as "why"..it's an arrest-able offense now. Welcome to Germany circa 1932 folks. (Can't wait until I can throw my 'national ID' in the micorwave.)

I'm all for standing up for your rights, but the guy in this case was an idiot.

Most importantly, he picked two fights at once, and one was with the wrong people. If he wanted to show the store manager a lesson, he should have given the cop is drivers license. Did he have to? No, however he wanted the cop to help him. Cops spend so much time dealing every day with lying scumbags they have a very short fuse for people they feel are playing games with him. Had he just coughed up his license he probably could have got the store manager at least a ticket.

Also, the guy in this case wasn't completely right. For some interesting recent commentary there's this supreme court case http://freetotravel.org/hiibel.html, http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/, http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonli ne/commentary/hiivsix

At a minimum, if you do not provide a government issued ID they police can detain you until they are sure you are who you say you are. You don't get to just tell the cop "I'm George Bush" and expect him to take your word for it.

So in his effort to make a point about circuit city, he called the cops on the emergency line. Rather than sticking to the issue of being prevented from leaving (his entire family, no less, so multiple counts) he pissed off the one guy who could have written a ticket and arrested people to try and make a second point that he may have been technically correct about, but not in principal.

In short, this is one of the worst examples of how to "fight the system" I have ever seen.

You need to know the name Dudley Hiibel, see http://www.papersplease.org/

About 5 years ago, this man would have been in the right. Today, sadly, with the traitors running our country and the evisceration of our Constitutional right, this man will probably be in the wrong.

I have a serious person problem with the tactics to these stores - for me it is Costco and Frys. I chose not to remain a Costco member, because their "membership agreement" states I pre-authorize them and agree to be searched on exiting te premises. The member agreement says it in nice way - "cooperate with store policies", but it is there. My confrontation ended with me walking away not searched.

Frys is different - a CA electronics store (ie not a member-based club) with huge selection, dumb help, and mid- to high- prices. If you need it right now, you can usually get it at Frys. They search you on exit too. I brought this up with a lawyer friend and a law student studying transaction law. My understanding was that at the register, the transaction is over - with receipt in hand. Further requests to open your bags are unequivocally a search and directly against the 4th Amendment, to the extent we still have one.

They problem here basically is profit margins. It is really difficult (expensive) to keep people from stealing in these big mega stores. mega stores are efficient - lots of products, few employees. Camera systems, radio tags, electronic means can all be avoided - and losses are difficult to deal with. The easy solution for these stores is to induce fear in their customers that they will be searched when they exit. It is much cheaper for the store to keep two people at the door than any other method, but it is a terrible precedent for freedom, and for being treated like a criminal when you're not.

More than likely, you're thinking of Hiibel vs Nevada; Mr. Hiibel was not driving a vehicle at the time and refused to produce a driver's license. He was arrested. The supreme court essentially determined that a person can state their name to fulfill the "identification" requirement, which is still an absolute atrocity... but does NOT require showing any form of papers.

They can't make you testify to your password, if revealing your password incriminates you.

I imagine they could.* Because unless the string of your password is "On November 13th, I mollsted little Jimmy Robinson at his home in Flint." the password itself isn't incriminating. The fact that it's the only thing standing between police and incriminating information is irrelevant. The same way that unless you're a wanted fugitive, you can't plead the Fifth when police ask for your name or ID.

Hell, the Fifth Amendment, by its own terms only applies to sworn testimony of a defendant in open court. Miranda and the rest of Fifth Amendment case law are prophylactics (the Court's word, not mine) designed to keep an investigation or trial from getting to the point of people having to plead the Fifth in open court and in doing so implicitly admit guilt.

* But I won't be a lawyer until November and that's if I just passed the bar exam I took this week.

No, you do have to show ID. Based on a secret government rule, no less. http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/ John Gilmore took it all the way to the Supreme Court and they declined to hear the case.

For those people that dont care about CCTV and Orwellian ideas that they have in Britain because they dont think of themselvs as a criminal, Think Again....[list of example laws]

With verification, the Encyclopedia becomes... hey we have one of those already, it's called Brittanica, why bother.

Hot Topic: "Ver are your exit papers?"

No this is not about Air Traffic Control or about In-Flight Entertainment. It's about travel and after Jan1 2007, leaving the USA may get harder...or become impossible. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed that all airlines, cruise ships, and private vessels be required to obtain a clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the United States. In January, US citizens will need a passport to get back in from Mexico or Canada; however, permission will be pre-required from the DHS if you wish to leave regardless what passport you hold. No approval (or no answer) and you will not be permitted to leave the USA. While the DHS probably decided that the existing rule that permits manifest transmission to the DHS no later than 15 minutes after the vessel has left did not fully solve the problem. Vulnerability for mischief still existed and that a pre-approval approach solved that problem. The NPRM time period for comments has passed and DHS has yet to make a pronouncement, but travelers, airlines, civil libertarians, and those worried about stolen identity had better pay attention.

This all began in December of 2004, when the US congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, calling for the Department of Homeland Security to pen a safety procedure to prevent the possibility of individuals that they believe to have the wrong intent from flying. One problem is, it is their sole determination, done in secrecy, with no court of last resort, no review, no contest. The new policy would require airlines to submit a manifest 60 minutes before each international flight, to or from the US, to obtain the approval of the travelers onboard. No approval, no travel. While it is not our intent to subvert US security decisions, we want to advise our readers that they should be aware of the total impact of these impending regulations. Airlines will be required to collect, store and transmit passenger data beyond what is presently in a passenger's passport. Obtaining, storing, retrieving, safeguarding and IT changes are estimated to cost airlines over $1 Billion dollars over the next 10 years. I think we can safely say that this will end last minute travel changes or possibly even impact travelers who are victims of late arrivals. What about data security? What if your passport expires overseas? What if your international flight is diverted to a US airport? Hey, what if your subject to a data error? Believe IFExpress, you have not heard the end of this.

You might want to read one of the particularly interesting and well thought out responses to the proposed rulemaking here

If you can't reason why this might be bad, maybe you need to wake up and look around. Start with some wikireality on "civil libertarian"...

For starters, the Hiibel case.

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

Is not having to show ID at an airport essential to my liberty? No, not remotely, in my own view. Is the safety gained from airport and airline security changes "temporary"? Again, no.

Two points: first, the safety gained by these changes, as others have noted, may not be so much a question of "temporary" versus "permanent" as "percieved" versus "substantial". Second and far more important, however, is that the most substantive underlying objection in Gilmore's case was not merely that he was required to show ID to travel, but that he was not allowed to see the regulation to see if it actually said this . Being able to examine the applicable law is indeed an essential liberty, especially when common law has held for centuries that Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Secret law, like secret courts, is inherently poisionous to the tree of liberty.

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.