Slashdot Mirror
John Gilmore Sues Ashcroft et al. for Freedom to Travel
ChTom writes "John Gilmore initiated a federal suit today in CA Northern District against Ashcroft, et al, challenging the air travel ID requirement:
http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm
(Mr. Gilmore is a businessman, civil libertarian, and philanthropist. He was the fifth employee of Sun Microsystems, an early author of open source software, and co-creator of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cypherpunks, the DES Cracker, and the Internet's "alt" newsgroups. He serves as a director on several for-profit and nonprofit boards. )"
It does occur to me that it wasn't so long ago we criticized the Soviet Union for their inhumane policy of questioning any traveler they felt like.
Now we not only question almost every interstate traveler, we search them and arrest them if they question the legitimacy of the search.
Assuming this case isn't dismissed, my bet is the court says you have the right to domestic travel anywhere you like - by car or on foot.
- Necron69
Best of luck to ya!
Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'!
You just need to get yourself one of these.
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
I'm probably gonna get marked troll for this, but here goes.
He's not going to win, for the same reason that you don't have a RIGHT to drive a car. Mr Gillmore is perfectly free to travel to his destination on foot or bicycle. I don't agree with that statement and think it contradicts the 10th amendment, but necessary and proper has prevailed. Air travel is interstate commerce, and thus can be regulated by the gov't.
The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.
This isn't going to advance any of Gilmore's agenda. Setting aside the fact that there's no way he is going to win this legally -- because he isn't -- this is about the best piece of propaganda you could hand the government. He's just making himself look like a crackpot. By taking challenging a requirement like this, which most people are in favor of, he marginalizes all of the other more worthwhile civil liberty issues he might be associated with. Next time someone challenges Ashcroft on regulations of this sort, he can just retort with "well next thing you know you'll want to let people fly anonymously like that John Gilmore fella", and that'll be the end of that.
There are hills worth dying on and this isn't one of them.
Jump in a car like the rest of us! Just another victim of modern American society. What a sham! This is such a gross waste of Judicial time. Doesn't this moron have anything better to do with his pre-crash millions.
He shoots! He Scores!!!!!
I'm going to start up an independent line of airports and airlines, just to show 'em. Coming soon, you just wait.
--
fight global cooling
This is the FreeS/WAN guy. I just mentioned some of the problems with getting a Linux distribution with IPsec in a thread from yesterday:
9 04 164
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=36220&cid=3
come on fhqwhgads
Good god killing the server 10 minutes after the article was posted is pathetic.
- Zav
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
If he chooses to travel via airplane, he needs to show an ID. But, he can travel by car, bus, or train and have none of these restrictions.
Michael Loves Me!
I see that all rumors of the death of Dada are premature.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
the U.S. is making its way to becoming an empire. Next thing we'll hear before the 2004 elections will be an "emergency motion" to keep the current President in office indefinitely until the "War on Terrorism" (read "Iraq") is under control, and giving the President unheard-of powers to crack-down on potential threats (read "anyone that disagrees") using any means necessary.
Well, at least the U.S. has lasted longer than most systems of government.
Or maybe I'm just feeling very pessimistic at the moment.
Fortunately, Mr. Gilmore is inadvertently doing a huge favor for the entire nation. By publicly challenging a very important airline security policy, he is allowing the courts (hopefully not the wacky "anti-God" court in California) to set a precedent allowing airlines to protect themselves from terrorists. And that will help us all be safer in our offices and in our planes.
WTC Survivor
Driving a car means you have to submit to a similar system of identification.
Perhaps travel by bicycle?
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Just as you're required to have a driver's license to drive a car, or to buckle-up to ride one, it is not far-fetched to assume that requiring identification is a reasonable requirement not only for air travel, but for any kind of travel by any common carrier by any means of travel (aircraft, airship, helicopter, balloon, boat, rowboat, steamboat, passenger train, freight train, mixed train, piggyback train, work train, runaway train, day train, night train, fairmont, section speeder, hi-railer, tamper, ballast regulator, taxi, bus, jitney, jeepney, motorcycle sidecar, rickshaw, pedicab, wheelchair, horsecart, oxcart, police cruiser, ostrich cart, dog sled, snowmobile, hovercraft or velocipede), as the transportation title (the ticket) is issued to one person and is not transferable.
The site is Slashdotted, but assuming the description is accurate, this guy needs to get a clue. He's the worst sort of Libertarian and the reason that I do NOT ascribe to their philosophy.
You have no "rights" when it comes to using a private service, namely an airline. Airplanes are fragile devices, and if it enhances safety to insist that people identify themselves, then so be it.
This reminds me of an argument I once had with a Libertarian. He insisted that it was his right to fire guns at people -- right until he hit someone. Until then, no one had the right to stop him.
I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmore also insisted it was his right to carry automatic weapons onto the plane, as long as he didn't use them.
His right to travel does NOT depend on the technology used to travel. He is welcome to get in his car, on his horse, or on his feet.
Or, dare I say it, do the Libertarian solution: start his own airline without ID checks.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
On sept 18th, I again sought to go to NYC, to finish what I intended to do on the 11th - replace a bad firewall. Went to logan in boston, without valid photo id. By showing my expired passport, and have the MA state police search my record, they let me fly without event. At logan, I had to power on my laptop, unbox the cisco pix, and was fully searched with a wand metal detector by a somewhat overzealous latina girl.
Fast forward 12 hours - trying to leave NYC at laguardia, I went to the gate, went through security, was not asked to unbox the firewall for the metal detector, was not asked to turn on the laptop, was not manually searched for metallic objects. I breezed through until I actually attempted to board the place - when I handed them my ticket and expired passport, usair flipped out. After talking to the supervisor, and quickly realizing that there was no way I was going to get on the plane, I tried to get some answers from the supervisor:
"If you require valid id from all passengers, is it US Air's corporate policy that all passengers 16 and under need a US passport (because they can't have driver's licenses) for domestic flights?"
"no no no, you are different, you have id, you didn't bring it"
"that has nothing to do with anything. I would like a answer to my question - I have two siblings (17 and 12), and I would like to know if they will be able to fly USAir, as they don't have drivers licenses"
"blah, blah, blah" - basically, his body language and stammering said: I don't know what to say, basically, that, if we think you should have id, then you should have it. we won't discuss the qualifications for our assessing whether you think we should have id.
Basically, Logan was concerned about making sure that people were checked when getting on planes. Laguardia isn't too concerned abotu what you bring on, they just want to make sure that when it blows up, they have a good idea of who was on it
ostiguy
Good. Maybe next time I travel I won't get stopped at the "random" checks three out of four times.
I really feel bad for my middle-eastern friends. They're getting four out of four, for the most part. I'm just a big unshaven white guy.
--saint
I'm not arguing against the guy I'm just trying to think this through and I'd love to hear opinions.
You can move about the country pretty easily w/out using an airliner. (Though now that I think about it you need a drivers license (i.d.) to drive).
The airlines are private businesses so why can't they require whatever they want from customers? If people don't like the policy they wont fly. Market forces will dictate the companies direction.
I personally would not fly on an airline that does not require I.D. from passengers and other safegaurds as well. If certain types of people are of the opinion that they can get away w/hijacking an aircraft they will try.
I don't see how being allowed access to vehicles that have the potential to be used as weapons is an inalienable right. Not governing such access would be foolhardy.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
That's why the airlines never fought the rules, even though they are clumsy and inconvenient for ticket agents to enforce.
> He was the fifth employee of Sun Microsystems
I would have expected him to be like the Oracle guys.
Wouldn't a national ID database need lots of expensive Sun servers running Oracle?
All your favorite sites in one place!
Another Orwellian-type (Soviet-type? Gestapo-type?) form of overmonitoring? A few things strike me from the challenge...
"United States courts have recognized for more than a century that honest citizens have the right to travel throughout America without government restrictions..." Well, we have to admit not all of those using our travel means in this country are honest citizens. The bulk probably are, but not all of them. So there has to be some form of verification/weeding out.
"This will use your ID to search in a stew of databases like credit records, previous travel history, criminal records, motor vehicle records, banks, web searches, and companies that collect personal information from consumer transactions. " Now this I have a small problem with. I can (maybe) see checking things like criminal records or travel history.. but my credit record? My bank record? Those are in no way relevant to the choice I make to fly to Phoenix for the weekend.
Once again, the government is demonstrating an obscene overreaction to terroristic threats on our soil by ignoring key portions of the Constitution in the same of 'public safety.' Well, at this stage the cable guy can't come into my house (soon, maybe: TIPS), I can't fly to Miami (this crap, maybe), and I have to sit at home (or set up a motion-based webcam, look for sneak-n-peek in Patriot Act) to see if my domocile has been searched. Hell, I can't even surf for pr0n on Google anymore without being federally monitored.
If you asked me, the terrorists have managed to pull of some significant victories. It's a damn shame.
-'fester
It seems like this guy likes his extremes. I don't know the guy and haven't heard about him until this day, but to me he seems like he is just testing a system, and really does not care about the so called "injustices" but more about the publicitiy and looking like an innocent public servant. I don't understand why requireing ID to travel on an airplane is a bad thing. That is the way I have always flown, pre or post Sept 11. I understand that having something check out your fitness to travel on an airplane might seem bad, but in a world where even American citizens are found fighting basically against America (albiet not very many) I don't have a problem. If this guy was trying to board my airplane without proper ID, I would not want him on my flight either. I just don't understand people who try to have perfectly reasonable random checks halted. Federal cops interrogate you? OK, so then when do the black helocopters come and steal your trash?
Its your right to travel, its a privalege to travel using an airplane, just like driving.
-Peapod
freedom of association would suggest that an airline can demand that you stand on your head first before boarding a plane. There are plenty of situations where you have to identify yourself before doing some type of transaction like buying alchol.
love is just extroverted narcissism
"the reality of life in the US in the 21st century is such that people need to fly frequently to practive many professions in many industries."
The reality of life in the US in the 21st century is that without ID checks and other security measures at airports, someone may fly the plane that you have a right to travel on into a building.
Play no games, say no names
It's the same one used for years by many police departments.
His problem is not with airlines requiring ID. His problem is with the federal government FORCING airlines to require ID (and not telling anyone about it).
As I read the suit, Mr. Gilmore is not objecting to being required to show ID, he is objecting to the GOVERNMENT requiring that he show ID.
Just as you should be free to walk down the street without being required BY THE GOVERNMENT to show identification, so should you be able to board a plane without being required BY THE GOVERNMENT to show identification.
If the airlines themselves want to require ID (for tickets, seating whatever) that's fine. But the government has no absolute right to require you to show identification whenever they feel like it (in the absence of a crime, probable cause, whatever).
And for those of you comparing this situation to cars and driving, remember Mr. Gilmore is not operating the vehicle, he is merely a passenger. Would you like to show ID every time you are in a car that gets pulled over for speeding? Have a background check run on you when you hit a DUI checkpoint in a car full of people?
This issue is not as black and white as it seems.
-ajb
Comment removed based on user account deletion
okay.. so I screwed the last one up.
Wiht comments like "Mr Gilmore challenges every secret regulation"... what does he EXPECT is going to happen?
Guess what.. its illegal to require you to give your social security number in most instances.. but it is NOT illegal to refuse service to someone who wont give it. Your "giving" is voluntary, not forced. Their service to you is voluntary as well.
Gilmore is looking more and more like a nutter. If (and the press release isnt real clear on this) he thinks this a government conspiracy, then suing them isnt going to help. However, it seems he has run afoul of airline policy, not governmental policy. More than half the flying I do is into and out of Canada. I am totally accustomed to whipping out drivers license AND birth certificate to get in OR out of both. (Ironically, it is easier for me to get into Canada, than it is to get back into the US most times.. and Im an american citizen, born and bred, and I live in the US).
Gilmore is just trying for publicity, as far as I can tell.. the airline is no more "required" to service him than I am if someone shows up at my front door and says "wash my car".
ON the other hand, the airlines are the ONLY industry in the world that can operate the way they do, and treat customers the way they do, and get away with it. I still wonder how they survived this long. Delays, cancelled flights, rude treatment of customers (and treatment like so many cattle) non-refund of messed up tickets.. but they are the only game in town, they know it, and there isnt much you can do about it.
(Especially if you are a senator, and can hop military or private transport anywhere you want, and avoid commercial airlines totally, while still "overseeing" them).
This suit will fail. He will be laughed at. Lots.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/13/pilot.detained/
The pilot was going through the screening process around 7 a.m. EST when he "made an inappropriate comment relative to security," said US Airways spokesman David Castelveter, who said the airlines was "cooperating fully" with the investigation. "We find this type of behavior intolerable," he said.
He was the fifth employee of Sun Microsystems, an early author of open source software, and co-creator of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cypherpunks, the DES Cracker, and the Internet's "alt" newsgroups.
Wow - this guy is probably going to become the Patron Saint of Internet pr0n.
Logan on 9/18.
Hmmmm.... I bet that on 9/18 security at Logan would be tighter than ANYWHERE else in the world. Remember, two of the planes took off from Logan. I'm sure that the Logan's security chief had a new one ripped for him...
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I think that requiring airline passengers to identify themselves is a good thing, and I'd think that airlines have the right to refuse to serve customers who won't supply identification.
Is there anything wrong with the government suggesting that airlines require identification, and then the airlines incorporating that suggestion into their policy?
The bottom line, I think, is that if it's an unwritten regulation, it's not really a regulation. Word-of-mouth policy doesn't hold up in the courts.
Furthermore, the airlines are not really preventing you from travelling without identification; they're preventing you from using their vehicles without identification. I've flown with a dangerous weapon (a 4-inch knife) before, but I flew in a private aircraft. It was cheper and faster than going through a public airline. Didn't even have to go through a metal detector.
There's a fine distinction between not letting you fly with a major airline and not letting you travel cross-country. Comparing the airlines' policies regarding their own vehicles to the nazi-style "papers please!" checkpoints is really not fair.
While I think Mr. Gillmore has a good point, I don't think he's going to win this one. As long as the government has no official written policy on the matter (which apparently it doesn't), it's really a fight between the passenger and the airline, rather than the passenger and the government. And the airline's probably going to win.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
We slashdotters should know that private interests run the gov't, so we should also realize that even if private corps have the right to force this shit on you, they shouldn't, since the private sector influences the public. Also note that this is about the gov't forcing private industry to enforce a 'directive' that isn't even open to the public.
This, i repeat this is NOT a joke. I am gonna murder the most wanted International Terrorist, Who makes that Operating System For terrorists, L*nux. Linus Torvolds.
This is not a Joke, DO NOT MODERATE THIS POST!
Forcing everyone to show identification certainly will cut down on air piracy? How? I can get an ID easily that shows I am somebody else. So can you.
Don't you think the terrorists had ID?
Did that stop them?
Is a known terrorist going to travel using ID that shows the known name?
Before people were prohibited from carrying their private handguns onto aircraft, there were NO hijackings. Ponder that.
Taking over an airliner for the purpose of using it as a missile will never happen again. Even unarmed passengers will stop it.
I would, however, prefer to take a head shot from 25 feet away. I won't miss.
http://www.projectsafeskies.org
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
In several places along the western half of Interstate 10 (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas), all cars must exit and submit to random searches. They're mostly looking for smuggling of drugs and illegal immigrants.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This, i repeat is NOT a JOKE! Im gonna murder that Antelope humping, Complaining Wanker who makes us pay for FREE software, Richard Trollman.
This is NOT A JOKE! Moderate at your Peril!
Woo hoo! Go John! There's now some hope that maybe someday I'll actually fly again. Until then, I'm spending my money elsewhere.
You rock, dude!
With modern database technologies is it just a matter of time before every single public interaction results in a warrant check via national crime computers? Also, with Biometrics becoming more of a reality maybe ID's won't gbe required in the future afterall.
He shoots! He Scores!!!!!
Yes, im gonna murder him too, Thats 5 people im gonna murder. I might as well murder you too!
"If you asked me, the terrorists have managed to pull of some significant victories. It's a damn shame."
:)
Yep, interesting isn't it? The enemies of the United States have already won. Our freedoms erode in the name of protecting those very freedoms. I don't quite get the logic. If I was a conspiracy nutcase I would be saying that someone (group not individual) has really jumped on this opportunity to remove a few freedoms and get a stranglehold on the populace of this Once Great Country.
I always thought that the biggest F.U. to terrorists would be to live with the same freedoms we've always had. Guess that's not really the case. Damn idealogies.
You don't need a State issued ID to be a passenger in a car, on a bus, a boat, or any other form of transportation. The thing here is that there are federal regulations (written or not) that require you to prove who you are in order to be a passenger on a scheduled commercial airliner.
Note I specifically stated "scheduled commercial airliner". All of this airline security is just a smokescreen. Did you know that chartered flights don't have any of these security restrictions?
On a chartered flight you can drive your car up to the plane and board without ever passing through any security checkpoint. The size of the plane doesn't matter, nor do the number of passengers (to the best of my knowledge).
If the terrorists are going to do this large-plane-into-larger-building thing again, they'll be smarter to get on a large corporate jet, like a chartered 737 or something. They wouldn't even need to sneak anything on board, just act like really rich people. They could load their luggage with C4. They could board with guns conceled in their coats, take over the plane and fly into anything. No plane full of pesky passengers to thwart any hijaking attempts.
As for the air-force shooting them down when they left the flight path? Well, imagine the hijackers treating the plane like a German V2... keep the normal flight path until they get near/over a major city, they just point the nose at the ground. Aim for something large downtown. 35,000ft to impact in under 7 minutes. Even if the plane was hit by a missile from a figher jet, it'd still fall in a flaming wrek over the city.
Or perhaps this... You can learn to fly a small plane like a Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, etc in a matter of days. At least well enough for a suicide run. These planes have a usable cargo load of above 1500lbs in most cases (that's a LOT of bomb). Imagine a fleet of 19 of these things loaded with high explosives making a systematic hit on a downtown area. Again.. no metal detctors, no bomb-sniffing machines, no passengers to deal with. Just the attackers and their ordinance.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
... we get to see an american who sees through all the propagandistic bullshit that the government has been shooting at the civilians of their country...
now we just neet to get rid of dubya's 'tips' plan...
-- h357
(yep, i'm from europe, and i ain't going to the us nog more until dubya's out of office and in jail for everything he's done! -- same for ashcroft, et al..)
Well, we have to admit not all of those using our travel means in this country are honest citizens. The bulk probably are, but not all of them. So there has to be some form of verification/weeding out.
So, what? They look at your ID, see the "honest" box has a check mark in it, and let you on the plane?
I'm glad to see someone taking this extremist idiot to court. Why was he ever even apointed to office? Every time this man ran for office he lost miserably.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
define "inapropriate comment"... sounds to me like he was stupid enough to a joke about terrorists in an airport. airport security people DO NOT have ANY sense of humour, and there are signs up to that effect.
The airlines themselves have been requiring photo ID for several years. The ID requirement is stated when you buy your tickets. They are allowed to do so if they want to.
At this point the only evidence we have that there is a "secret directive" from the government requiring them to do so is Gilmore's assertion. The experience he decribes on his web page as the basis for his assertion is from the perspective of someone in front of the ticket counter trying to get ticketdroids to violate airline policy. It would be far more convincing if he had spoken with someone at the airline who had authority to make policy decisions, who had said "I'm sorry Mr. Gilmore, I would really like to let you fly without checking your ID, but *URK*!" and fallen dead on the spot, victim of a disintegrating dart coated in undetectable poison.
Okay, so I got a little silly there, but that seems to be the terrirory we're operating in here.
It's really a shame, too, since I agree or at least sympathize with nearly everything else he says. It's just this "secret directive" talk that's going to lose him the case, and in such a way that no one will take anything he says seriously.
For the right of users to install patches without having to accept EULAs that don't apply to the OS whatsoever.
the permit doesn't give the government a right to know where you are going at all times and such a permit isn't required for passengers
After this is sorted out, he can try to travel to Cuba. The long-time
ban by the US Government not allowing US citizens to visit Cuba is still
in place. I thought that restricting travel to other countries would
have gone away with the Soviet Union, but apparently not.
There was once a time when people died for their freedoms. Now the claim is that in order to have security, we have to give up freedom. How secure is it to defy your parent country's sovereignty and start your own union? Thats what the United states did. Many had to sacrifice freedom for those rights. Now, the same issue arises, and many turn to an aristocracy to tell them what to do in the name of 'security.' I don't know what the best trade off is, but I certainly feel wrong about sacrificing civil liberties in the name of one politician's so-called "security" ...whether that man be a king or a president or an entire congress. What's wrong is wrong, and what's right is worth fighting for.
And no, I'm not afraid to give my life so that others can understand true freedom of choice. I believe the United States needs to turn back to some of its roots.
Up until 9/11, at least, it was ILLEGAL to refuse to allow someone passage because they did not have or wish to show ID. You were NOT required to show identification to fly, though airline policy is to ASK.
There are specific FAA regulations instructing the airline as to what action they should take if someone does not have ID. It only relates to how their baggage is handled, and nothing else.
Someone modded the parent post up as 'Interesting'? It should have been modded down as 'Flamebait'!
Here you have a poster who starts out by admitting he didn't read the article or knows anything about the Mr. Gilmore, and then goes on to rant about Libertarians -- using *one* self-identified Libertarian (but clearly a nutcase) he knows as a case in point. In fact Reality Master 101 (anyone else find this handle irritatingly snobby?) implies through his argument that all Libertarians are equally nutcases.
Yeesh. This post has it all: Strawman arguments. No reference to sources (in fact admitting *no* sources). A faint pinchnose attitude (much like that you often find among the kind of 'Liberal Progressives' that would never have actually have dinner with a black man). Even the post subject is objectionable.
Mr (Un)Reality, you sir (and I say this with all the respect due you) are off base and clearly in dire need of a strong whack from the cluestick.
Jack William Bell
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
As I read the suit, Mr. Gilmore is not objecting to being required to show ID, he is objecting to the GOVERNMENT requiring that he show ID. ...
If the airlines themselves want to require ID (for tickets, seating whatever) that's fine.
I'd pick a nit and say: If the airlines want to require ID that's a separate issue. And I suspect John would object to that as well.
But it would be an issue that can be handled by chosing a different airline. You can't chose a different federal government.
(Well, actually, you can. But if you do the old government will probably call you a terrorist and arrest you. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hear hear.
Why all this obsession with identification? A National ID card, showing ID, blah blah blah. I'd like to figure out a way of preventing hijacking no matter who's on the flight. Our focus has been on this pusillanimous identity B.S., and it should be on real security measures like remote seatbelt locking, armed sky marshals, reinforced doors and the like.
demi
CNN is reporting that John W. Magaw, the chief of the Transportation Security Administration is resigning. It's notable that Magaw resisted arming pilots (something which the house voted to allow last week) no reason has been given for his resignation. It would be intresting to hear/see what Magaw's opinions were/are concerning the 9/11 fallout.
Ok. So, the pilot, who is responsible for the lives of 200 or so people, is supposed to worry about upsetting the $7-per-hour clerk seizing grandma's crochet hook?
Personally, if I'm getting on a plane, I want the pilot to be relaxed and thinking about his flight plan - not about the creepy guard who confiscated the binder clip from his approach charts.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I just love people like you. That whole "who cares if System X has been fucked up beyond reason by stupid laws? Use System Y!" What happens when they move in on System Y? Do we move to System Z?
Damn, do people ever fucking THINK anymore?
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
, as the transportation title (the ticket) is issued to one person and is not transferable.
And why shouldn't it be transferable? I see no reason why slots in a airplane can't be transferable. This is just dumb.
Pilots should be undergoing more security now, not less. A pilot's uniform and identification of good enough quality to fool an airline security screener should not be a "get through security free" card. Airline employee status is very likely to be exploited in future security mishaps, so airline employees are a wholly appropriate target of profiling and increased scrutiny.
If a business requests your SSN and then refuses to do business with you if you won't give it, you can SUE THEM LIKE MAD. Becuase it's ILLEGAL for htem to require it.
What do you think the definition of 'require' is?
Business is voluntary, yes....
Gilmore has a VERY good point, one that I'd think you americans would be happy someone was enforcing.
But hey, if you like presenting papers for every mode of travel, that's cool.
You should inspect papers at state and municipal borders as well, in order to prevent terrorism.
I can (maybe) see checking things like criminal records or travel history.. but my credit record? My bank record? Those are in no way relevant to the choice I make to fly to Phoenix for the weekend.
Of course how much money you have matters. If you don't have alot of money you don't have much to loose and thus may become a terrorist. Only people which vast sums of money can be trusted. Certianly you know that! Gheeze!
Because the petitioner has ID, he is not sufficiently affected by the rule, and therefore doesn't have standing to sue.
Or perhaps this... You can learn to fly a small plane like a Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, etc in a matter of days. At least well enough for a suicide run. These planes have a usable cargo load of above 1500lbs in most cases (that's a LOT of bomb)
... most of the energy would go away from the building, harmlessly out into the air. Unlike on the ground, where the energy would eminate outward in a hemisphere (instead of a sphere), most of it doing damage to the target area.
... he could have done more damange with an armload of bricks and lived to brag about it.
... which frankly makes me more than a little nervious as I work across the street from one of the primary 'targets' the pundits always like to talk about when exploring such scenerios.
First, most GA Cessna's, Pipers, and Beechcraft (I own one of the latter) have a usable load of only between 800 - 1100 lbs. By the time you have a 200 lb adult male, that amount is reduced to 600 lbs. The number you cited includes fuel, which weighs a significant amount.
Even if you loaded up with 600 lbs of c4 in an aircraft, especially a light aircraft with neither the speed, fuel capacity, or mass needed to do anything remotely like 9/11, you would pretty ineffective. Indeed, from the terrorist's point of view it would be a collasal waste
As has been demonstrated in Florida and Italy, there isn't a whole lot of damage you can do with a light aircraft, even one full of fuel. The things are flimsly and light, don't carry all much fuel to begin with (my Beechcraft carries 60 gallons), and don't have much usable cargo weight. The kid in Florida managed to break a window in his suicide run
Your scenerio with the charter of a large aircraft is more realistic, but light aircraft on the other hand are about the least effective delivery method you can use, unless of course you have a dirty, or atomic, bomb and just need altitude for maximum dispersal...maybe you'll irradiate an extra mile or so, but of course, there again, concentration will be reduced, making the overall toxicity of the event signficantly lower than a ground attack.
Ditto for biological or chemical agents.
Frankly, terrorists chances of success are a lot higher if they just rent a large truck and drive it up next to the target
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Personally, if I'm getting on a plane, I want the pilot to be relaxed and thinking about his flight plan - not about the creepy guard who confiscated the binder clip from his approach charts.
But who is the pilot going to be holding hostage? Unless he is insane and plans to hold himself hostage, and then orders himself to fly to destination unknown?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
They have been asking for it for years, but not requiring it. FAA regulations PROHIBITED them from requiring it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wish I could take guns on a plane. Federal regulations are what helped create 9/11, not bad security.
The libertarian solutions to the airlines, security, etc:
GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT, ENTIRELY. Regulate nothing. Let the AIRLINES decide how much security to take. Let the AIRLINES decide if guns are kosher or not on a plane. Let the AIRLINES be responsible if an airplane crashing into a building, terrorism or accident. (
What if an airplane crashed into a building on accident? Who would pay for that? Airline's insurance)
Each airline would have their own security team -- one not burdened by government regulations, or by lazy federal employees. They knew it was in their best interest to get the planes safely to the destination. Security WOULD BE BETTER.
Some airlines would let guns on the plane, some would prevent knives or scissors. Which plane do you think a terrorist would go on? One where he knews armed and responsible adults were on, or one where he knew there was no way to stop him? Think about that.
The libertarian side of things SOUNDS scary, but only because most of you geeks have been overwhelming taken over by all the socialist/green/enviro conspiracies, many of which don't exist, or only exist because of excessive government regulation and redtape.
Don't deny a freedom-lover's opinion, because its the free markets that will save us. Any of you who think America is capitalist is FATALLY wrong. We haven't been a capitalist nation since the Federal Reserve made the dollar government owned, and we added billions of regulations, subsidies, and corporate welfare.
Perhaps you have forgooten, but in late september some little idiot in florida signed up for a flight lesson and as the instructor went to file a flight plan the kid taxied the aircraft to the runway took off and flew straight into the side of the nearest skyscraper. The effect was less than spectacular and much less than the the drunk driver who crahsed into a mexican resteraunt yesterday. (just think a small truck could carry real tonnage of explosive as opposed to just 1500 lbs).
My point is is that the method of the terrorist attack is impossible to predict and to a lesser degree prevent so even if you stop all aircraft from crashing into buildings and all trucks from blowing themselves to dust you still need to deal with the lone fuckhead starpped to the bomb who steps into a crowded resterarant.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
I'm letting you know (cuzz the government wont tell you) but you have been reported via TIPS because you seem to have put a little thought into an apperent terrorist plan.
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
Which plane do you think a terrorist would go on?
This is why Libertarians should be kept as far away from policy as possible.
Dude, HE WOULD GO ON THE FREAKING ONE THAT ALLOWED GUNS. How long do you think it takes to blow a hole in the airplane with a big gun, particularly one with exploding bullets? Do you think he cares if the other passengers blow him away in the meantime? THE DUDE IS TRYING TO CRASH THE AIRPLANE.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Hmm... Maybe the aforementioned 200 passengers?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Passanger ID is used for more than just preventing ticket exchanges:
Accurate passanger manifests are important in identifing the dead after a crash - and for security. Not necessarily before the flight, but after as well.
Passanger manifests can be used to track people on the run (via their real names or known alias's - alias's which have corresponding ID, making it harder to change randomly) and to identify person(s) after a flight ("I was in seat 34c and the passanger who was two seats ahead of me was the person who..."). And if a known person is being sought out for whatever reason, the chances of them getting busted at an airport are much higher than, say, a bus terminal. Which could be good, it's hard to get too far by bus.
Event reconstruction is another important aspect. Say someone murders their wife and flees with the kid, having a record of flights they may have taken could help track them down.
I do want to point out, however, I do NOT support what the US Gov't is up to under the guise of "security" - including this airport nonsense. I just wanted to point out that basic ID is important for more than just preflight security.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
in any crime, the first thing a cop does is to establish motive and profit, who had the opportunity, and what did the crime get them?
Now think, exactly what benefit did the goatherders in ashcanistan get for this "crime"? Having their country bombed to snot? That's no benefit.
Now WHO HAS BENFITED from the 9-11 attacks?
Start with that question and it leads to a few rather politically embarassing conclusions. Embarrasing in that no one wants to say it out loud, certainly not the controlled mass media. A few brave politicans and some braver fbi agents and a single military officer have stated it out loud, they are all being persecuted now.
Jumping on the "Moral Majority's" bandwagon and calling this guy a crackpot is truely the most counterproductive thing that I can think of. The more people that roll over on freedom issues like this, the more likely we are to see more laws abridging our rights. Don't act like a part of the mob.
Perhaps the reason the Towers were taken out
has something to do with the obsession America has these days with sticking its nose into EVERY issue/government/resource in the world with little thought or care given to how the indigenous people feel about it........
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
All that and still no life.
In the past when there was a well-publicized hijacking, the airlines added restrictions or took other actions to maximize their profits, using the incident as an excuse. The restriction on non-transferable tickets is a case in point: theoretically, it shouldn't matter who sits in the seat and who pays for the seat. Except to the airlines, which can increase profits by eliminating the public market in air tickets which had evolved in response to their labyrinth of pricing levels. Can you imagine what eBay would look like today if they hadn't done this?
Likewise, the huge numbers of layoffs after 9/11 were far out of proportion to the real need of the airlines (and associated air industry companies) to shed people. But they had wanted to do that anyway, to improve profits, and this provided a cover story.
In each case, they have rather shamelessly used terrorism in a opportunistic way to increase their bottom line.
I agree 100% that identification should not be required by the gov't for travel. I was annoyed by the airlines requiring ID since the Gulf War, long before the 9/11 crackdowns. I've always thought the extra requirement was welcomed by the airlines since it allowed them to keep people from reselling FF tickets or reselling non-refundable tickets and the like.
*IF* there is no way to get past security without ID, then I propose this change: You show ID and subject yourself to search to enter the secured area, but that's it. You don't show ID again once you've been "cleared". You then could have plane tickets in the name of John Doe if you wanted since the simple possession of the ticket entitled you to board the plane.
I still don't like the idea of showing ID to enable me to fly. I'm unconvinced this does anything to deter any "evildoer" from flying. But if I can't get around that, I'd at least be happier if where I traveled was private.
Yes, you can be IN a car without a license, but I don't think you can take an interstate bus without ID, and I am sure that Amtrak does not let you board a train without ID. Hmmmmm, how many trains have been hijacked in this century? Not very many. So, let's see, planes are out, trains are out, cars are sort of possible if you're a passenger only, and buses may sort of work still. This suit is very important.
..in which case the gun that he's going to be allowed to have is going to be far more usefus than some binder clip.
No, the dude was trying to accomplish a subtle and difficult maneuvar: to take over the airplane and then crash it into a target. He did so because no one could fend off a knife.
Guns were allowed on airplanes for a long time, and we didn't have crazy people taking them over. Airlines that allowed guns probably wouldn't allow guns with exploding bullets on board. The FAA and many other organizations have tested the idea that a gun could take an airplane down, and that is UNTRUE. Airplanes are designed to fly with partial cabin pressure loss, and a gun would do less damage to a plane than a door falling off -- which the airplanes are designed to overcome and allow safe landing.
Keep the socialist-free responses coming.
"I would, however, prefer to take a head shot from 25 feet away. I won't miss."
Whether you miss or not, you will probably go through the hijacker, and through the fuselage. The de-pressurisation would possibly kill everyone anyway
However an individual intent on flying his plane into a building should be considered even more suspicious if he says nothing in an attempt to keep his intentions secret.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Sure it won't stop those who already have IDs, but it may catch the next wave of attackers. Congress is also trying to pass a uniform standard for driver's licenses. Probably along the same line as the new passports (embedded computer chip, digital watermarks ,etc). We've been caught with our pants down but you have to pick some point to attempt to stop the next attack.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I applaud the spirit of this lawsuit, especially in light of such bright government ideas as this that are coming our way, but it misses one crucial point: the ID requirement is not attached to allowing people to travel, it's attached to allowing them into a position to get control of a powerful guided missile. From a security standpoint, the fact that the plane is actually going anywhere is incidental. The writers of the Constitution were opposed to people's movements being restricted, which to them pretty much meant stopping people on the road. I don't think they would have seen an airplane ride in exactly the same way, but we'll never know.
Planes are also are private property, and although the government appears in this case to be the prime mover, it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the airlines themselves, or say, a movie theater, to require photo ID for admission. It is an uncomfortable thought, but we live in the world we live in. I know, people who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither, but how often do you run red lights or drive in the wrong lane to feel like you are more free?
If you want to protect your freedom, fight things like corporate lobbyism, which has turned democracy into government-by-bribery. And have a safe trip!
The "Airline travel is commercial business not a public right" argument is a strawman. The issue is not about travelling by air, it is about your 4th amendment right to freedom from unreasonably burdensome searches by the government.
If all the airlines decide to change their policies to require ID's, well fine. But given the likely consumer backlash, I bet some would switch back.
If the government tries to pass a law requiring searches of airline passengers, that is a violation of 4th amendment rights, it doesn't matter where you are when they search you.
to take over the airplane and then crash it into a target. He did so because no one could fend off a knife.
In this case, yes. But the longer history is that most lunatics try and blow up airplanes, not take them over. Keep in mind that the knife trick can only work once, because everyone expected a simple hijacking.
Remember that Mr. Shoebomber was only barely thwarted.
Airlines that allowed guns probably wouldn't allow guns with exploding bullets on board.
So the airline is supposed to allow guns, but then thoroughly search the passenger and his carry-ons for any sort of "illegal" ammunition? And the airlines are supposed to hire munition experts for this?
The FAA and many other organizations have tested the idea that a gun could take an airplane down, and that is UNTRUE.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the point is that if you starting drawing weapon lines (these weapons are OK, these ones aren't), you make it that much easier to sneak large weapons onboard. Besides, if anyone could carry weapons onboard, I'm sure people can find a way to cripple the plan with relatively light weapons.
If you want weapons on board and want to advocate sky marshals, then I'm with you. But this idea is just insane.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Um, no I do NOT hate my country.
I do however take issue with the policies
put in place by the LEADERS of the country.
Am I justifying an action if I try to understand
the reasons behind it? NO. However if you wish to prevent a repeat of said action you have two choices: 1. change the reason it was perpetrated 2. attempt to stop future occurences.
#1 works much better than #2 ever will......
As for your "Shame on you" comment
I have a DUTY as a citizen to criticize my government when it oversteps the checks and balances put in place against it!
I don't want america to play global cop, nor do I want it to send aid PERIOD. If I feel like sending aid I will do so ON MY OWN!!!!!
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
No one died of depressurization on this flight despite being at 24,000 feet.
http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/
One unlucky attendant was blown out. All the others lived.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
t ml ?tid=9
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/07/17/1837211.sh
"I can't drive 55. It only goes 38."
They wouldn't even need to sneak anything on board, just act like really rich people.
And for some of those Saudi terrorists, that doesn't require any "acting".
Let's just make something clear folks. This "unwritten law" he is talking about has been around for quite some time. He's suing the United States government here.. not Ashcroft. Ashcroft has had little to do with this particular piece of "unwritten law" other than he currently represents the justice department at this current time. This could easily have been a Bush Sr., Clinton, or other nomineee.
You libs who love to hate Ashrcroft because he's a Christian... keep that in mind before you start knee jerking and complaining about how Ashcroft is the next anti-christ.
er.. scratch that... you believe we came from monkeys... not a higher power.
Once again the amazingly naive speak. There's more than just the threat of blowing up an airplane to concider with regards to ID's. It's also a way of being able to tell who is going where.
For a bunch of people who mock Windows for not having much security, those people scream bloody murder when that same paradigm is applied to the real world. Would you let an unidentified packet travel on your network? No! If software did and caused havoc you would also say that the victim deserved it because they were too stupid to secure themselves. And now when the U.S. Government is trying to secure the transportation network of the U.S. in the same manner it's wrong?
I see nothing here but contradictions and inconsistent babbling. Why don't you all grow up and stop acting like spoiled little children who cry every time they don't get their way. This is a serious matter and if all the 'great thinkers' of the Linux community can do is wet their pants and cry because they have to follow some security precautions then I guess you aren't all as bright as you think you are.
Look at the other side of the coin also. How many lawsuits would there be if the airlines let someone on without an ID and they either destoryed an airplane or caused some other kind of damage? One for every person involved probably. And that's the way it goes. Everyone wants freedom without responsability. Too bad it's not going to happen.
It's always easy to critisize. Let's hear some suggestions from the oh-so-brillian 31337 about how we should secure airlines in the future. I know! Maybe you can all design an 'open source' system of security that can tell the who is to no good and who isn't. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Right now I'm not hearing any solutions.
If we loose it's because we defeated ourselves.
-Reality
Reality@TheRealWorld.org
While this suit is good for the fight of
liberties in general. I can't help but feel this
is pointless when there are more serious problems
than this concerning Aschroft his cronies and the US govt in general. What about the thousands of americans being detained illegally in jails. Secretly rounded up and not charged
with anything. Are we going to have concentration
camps soon too ? Supposedly a legal assault is brewing but who knows when it will happen.
In short yeah I shouldn't have to give my ID but who gives a fuck when people are imprisoned for the same "reasons" ( ie terrorism )
http://newjersey.indymedia.org/
Story 1:
I am an arab american, palestinian to be exact (born in palestine but adopted as a baby by american missionaries).
A few weeks after 9/11 I had to fly from my home in Hawaii to Witchita Kansas (the home of modern aviation I might add, this is where all the big planes are made). I expected the worst.
Throughout the entire trip, I was never once searched nor questioned. I waltzed right through with minimal checks (e.g., normal xray, that's all). Everyone was asked to compare their ID with their ticket, by a guard at the gates EXCEPT on the way out of Witchita... there, I showed my ID and a very irate guard told me she didn't need to see it and to please move on (nobody else was in line with me either).
Now... I certainly look arab. I AM arab... I would expect to be profiled. However, being adopted I do not have an arab name, and being adopted as a baby, I do not have an accent. Add a Hawaiian Aloha shirt and viola... an arab waltzes right through security.
Story 2:
In december I took a vacation back to the mainland with a male friend of mine. Again, no checks, no stops, no Scarlet Pumpernickle (the *S* search S they scrawl on your ticket). On the way over there was a HUGE search line. I saw a number of pakastani women (in full garb) in one line and IMMEDIATLY got in that line. The pakastani women were made to stand over rubber mats and they were very well checked. I was brisked on through, no check. Hrmmmmmmm. Profileing? Lousy job.
Interestingly enough, on the way back my friend made an expensive impulse buy of a Parrot. At the gate, this time, we both received the Scarlet Pumpernickel... were very simply patted (the guy in front had to remove his shoes, but we were wearing rubba slipahs and they didn't make us remove them). However, they insisted that the parrot had to be removed from the cage and searched. My friend refused and said the parrot would simply fly away. Eventually the captulated and allowed us to board the plane without checking the parrot.
Story 3:
Friend of mine owns a hotel here. About a year before 9/11 a 80ish year old couple came to the island and, on one of their hikes, found a huge bowie knife (7 inch blade, huge thing). THey put it in their luggage and returned to the mainland.
AFTER 9/11 (this January for that matter) they returned to Hawaii. Upon flying from the East Coast, making transfers, and then flying to several islands over several days (therefore, lots of security checks), lo and behold they found in their suitcase, the forgotten bowie knife. HOW did this make it through that many security checks?
Bottom line? Profileing? Yes, it happens (witness the Pakastani women) - but they're doing a lousy job. As I heard the head of Israel security say the other day on TV... "yes we profile, but we only profile those we need to... there is no need to profile an 80 year old couple". With this type of thinking - it's obvious to me that even if you ARE arab... having no accent, an enlish name, and an aloha shirt, or being 80 years old, gets you out of the profile list. If it's that easy for me to figure out, won't others figure it out too?
Security is only good if it WORKS. Security for security sake does nothing. Losing your rights over security that does not work is a travesty.
Aloha
Try telling the cop that pulls you over for a random drunk driver stop that you don't have to have a driver's license.
And the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate interstate commerce.
If the interstate commerce clause can be used for something as tenuously connected to "interstate commerce" as pollution control, it sure as hell can be used to regulate something like - get this - interstate travel.
The thing I never understood is why these sorts of things were not done on Sept. 11. They would certainly have been easier. Possibly cheaper.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
We have given Isreal enormous support over the years. Aid, military aid, diplomatic etc.
I have a real problem with the fact that they classify Arafat as a terrorist (for fighting against occupation) while at the same time they ignore that their founding fathers were classified as terrorists by the British (who ruled the country at the time) Either they are both terrorists or neither is....
Our support for ANY country should be based upon the democratic ideals and institutions which that country is based upon, NOT upon their natural resources (Ala Saudia Arabia).
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Actually, we believe we are descended from the apes.
We do, however, suspect that some of *you* are descended from the monkeys.
That's a hell of a lot more clearly stated in the Constitution than "the right to board a plane even when I forgot my driver's license" or even "the right to have an abortion"....
If you had not made this posting, I would have had to have made it.
They also don't want you using only the second half of a round trip ticket, or splitting a round trip ticket in order to get two one-way tickets for different riders out of it.
It's simple economics.
Now I *do* object to anyone having access to the records after the tickets have expired, if the plane didn't end up going down, since I don't like having my movements tracked by people who have no positive reason to track my movements (them making money because they can market to me might be positive for them -- I mean positive for *me*).
To turn this around... suppose it was a telemarketing company that wanted this information, rather than the government, so that they could be sure to call you when you at a specific time to sell you, say, travellers insurance or air-sickness or jet lag products... would you want them to have it?
-- Terry
Why stop your reasoning there? Since it has already happened and is likely to recur again in the future(it's very likely because I said it is and it seems reasonable, you know, the same reason you said it was very likely that airline employee status would be exploited), we should therefore require ID's and background checks for all those purchasing fertilizers, matches, pipes, box cutters, and duct tape. Complaints or non-compliance will result in you being made to wait for the authorities at Home Depot.
Since these things have been exploited in the past and are very likely to be exploited again, these things are wholly appropriate targets of increased scrutiny.
Yes, he will be interviewed tonite in the David Lorentz program in CNET Radio in the San Francisco Bay Area (AM 910) and Boston. http://www.cnetradio.com
(* define "inapropriate comment"... sounds to me like he was stupid enough to a joke about terrorists in an airport. *)
In one of those Airplane movies some guy yells to his buddy:
"Hi Jack!"
And security then jumps on him.
Table-ized A.I.
'The sun of liberty is setting fast, if not
already down in the american country..
The states expect, and with reason expect that
some liberties shall be had to their liberties
and privileges as well as trade..
They cannot expect, or see how the govt could expect that their govt would expect their citizens to face the unending miasma of
televison, radio, censorship, and patent claims
outright at the expense of their blood and treasure...After all this , and to the great
emolument of monumental bloodsuckers like
"Worldcom and ENRON", the citizens are suggested to quietly subsidize the incompetency
of a government headed by 0wnED individuals and moviestars.
It is not property only we, the citizens, contend for, our liberties and most essential
privileges are struck at...
Arbitrary courts and and trials by jury are taken away, the press is so selected that it knows not to complain,an army of brainless brown shirts is ordered eventually upon us...
The sources of our trade stopped,and to complete our ruin, the little things we had loved, are taken from us and deemed unacceptable.
The govt insist on a power over all the liberties and privileges claimed by the states and their citizens and hence require a blind obedience and aquiescence in all they do...
If the behavior of the states and their citizens happen not to square with these sovereign notions then what is left but to compel them to obedience but force..violence begets violence and resentment and provoke to acts never dreamed of..'
Excerpted and emended from John Adams 1765
speech in Philadelphia....
1) Force all passengers to fly naked. Your clothes will be returned to you when you disembark. (Or, conversely, I could see hospital garb being issued).
2) Force a 5 drink minimum before takeoff. You must be breathalized to prove you are legally drunk before you can board.
Actually, we should do both and the huge orgy would be better than a promise of 13 virgins.
And rightly so. Life in a civilized society involves a social compact, wherein you agree to (reasonable) limits on your rights and I do the same, so that we can live harmoniously.
Or, as was once said, "Your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of someone else's nose."
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I don't understand why Mr. Gilmore thinks the ID rule is secret. All he knows is that an airline official told him the rules were communicated verbally to the airline staff. Even if he was right, that doesn't mean the rules aren't also available publically in other ways. If you're pulled over for speeding, and ask the officer to show you the law against speeding, they won't be able to do it (in fact, they may never have read the law themselves), but that doesn't mean the law is secret.
I strongly suspect that if Mr. Gilmore had contacted the FAA, they would have directed him to the appropriate issue and page of the Federal Register with all the details.
So what! Shit happens and people die because someone else doesn't like them. I feel bad for the families of the victims, but I'm not going to give up my right to not be deemed a criminal until proven otherwise. The government can't protect all of the citizens all of the time, nor should it. Just by living, we take a risk.
This case is critical in determining how much of our rights we give up for crappy policies that won't save us in the future. The real problem isn't checking every person on the flight. The real issue is the FBI and CIA sat on their ass while field agents reported behavior by individuals that would indicate their intent to attack us. So what's George W.'s big plan? Lets assume everyone is a criminal. Treat them like one and make them carry our brand of IDs. Then in 20 years some field agent can make another report about some terrorists and we can look the other way until they attack....but we'll be safe with our IDs right?
Right On! I'm not getting on another damn plane until they take away the rights for the pilots to carry firearms. Nothing like giving a nervous, stresses, and under trained individual a gun and tell them to protect freedom.
If you listen to what the wise & unbiased people like Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT say "U.S. is a leading state terrorist". See the interview here.
Because despite the Gov's and Media's spin on things, the attacks on 9/11 did not require a lot of skill, planning or tactics. It does not take a genius to hijack a plane and fly it in to something as large as the WTC towers or The Pentagon.
Learning to fly a jumbo jet (after it's already in the air): rather simple.
Buying plane tickets for four flights that take off around the same time: one visit to travelocity or expedia or any other ticketing web site.
Hickjacking a plane: please, any moron with anything resembing a weapon could do that.
Because the goal of the people who planed, and the people purpetrated the attack wasn't the most effective way to kill people. They merely figured out the best way to stike the most fear/terror in to the people of the U.S. They succeded. They've caused the US Gov to start stripping away fundamental rights. They caused people to fear travel, and large buildings.
On top of the initial attack, they've inderctly caused hundreds if not thousands of deaths in Afganastan, which was not in any way responsible for the attacks. The planners/operators of 9/11 were mostly Saudi Arabian and they used Saudi money. So are we attacking Saudi Arabia? Nope, we're attacking the people of Afganastan.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
It's a major issue: does the Government have the right to track your travel? Historically, the answer for U.S. citizens within the US has been "no".
U.S. Transportation Security Agency regulations 1544.201 do not call for an ID check, just searches of passengers. Airport employees are subject to stringent ID checks, but passengers don't seem to be. And those regs are dated February 22, 2002; they're definitely post-9/11.
Gilmore's lawyers have probably read that material. The ID requirement doesn't seem to rest on law or regulation. Airlines may wish to impose such a requirement, but the Government doesn't seem to.
How does it violate the constitution for a private company (airline) to verify an identity of a customer? If I open a restaurant on my land, I can legally and constitutionally check Ids of whomever I want before I let them in.
While I realize that the line here is blurred since airports are mostly taxpayer funded and not private, it is still true that ultimately the travel takes place on private airlines owned by private companies who can ask IDs of whomever they please for letting people on their planes.
Gilmore waxes in generalities about "travel in America" but this instance at airports is not the same as if the government stopped you in your car at every town and made you identify yourself. In that case, the car is owned by you, and so is the road, since you're a taxpayer. Therefore hands off, and rightfully so. But airplanes are expensive devices owned by private companies. They have a right to allow whoever they want in their expensive devices.
Why can't the privately owned airlines check ID to protect their expensive vehicles? Yes, the government is helping the process, but ultimately no American is being force to identify themselves if they choose to travel using their own means of transportation.
Union of American Soviet States.
I think I'll go around the world the other way next time I travel.
Come on. He is complaining about being ID'ed? I have been flying fairly regularly and as far as I can remember the airlines have been ID'ed people. Heck, I remember my younger brothers who were in Jr. High needing to get Photo IDs to go from Pittsburgh to LA and back to visit me in college back in '96.
So what is the problem, other than an excuse to pull out some lame "Bush and Ashcroft are Nazis" routine.
Brian Ellenberger
Instead of frisking every passenger, and removing such lethal items like tweezers, just lock the cockpit. Have it only openable from the inside, and make it out of bulletproof material. And never allow opening the door during flight.
The only problem i see with this is that the cockpit would now have to accomodate a bathroom, sleeping quarters and food storage for the cockpit crew.
"You don't need a State issued ID to be a passenger in a car, on a bus, a boat, or any other form of transportation. The thing here is that there are federal regulations (written or not) that require you to prove who you are in order to be a passenger on a scheduled commercial airliner."
http://www.amtrak.com/idrequire.html
Effective immediately, Amtrak is implementing several new security measures for the benefit of our guests. Consequently, guests will be required to produce valid photo identification when purchasing tickets or checking baggage.
And yes, they do check the ID when you're on the train as well.
Hear, hear!
If the perps need to use operatives with squeaky-clean records to do the dirty work, then they'll assign the ones with the squeaky-clean records to do the job.
Personally, I think that it's all moot anyway. There will never be another successful hijacking, because people now know that the plane going down and killing everyone aboard is no longer the worst-case scenario.
If the perps want to continue attacking aircraft, they're going to switch to shooting them down with stinger missiles. (What's that, Mr. Bush? You did keep a careful inventory of the hardware, didn't you?)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...if I don't have a driver's license, I'm not allowed to board an airplane? Aren't there a lot of U.S. Citizens (most of them under the age of 16) that simply do not have a picture ID??? Isn't this an unconstitutional restriction on their right to travel?
If they're black, punch them in the face.
That apparently is okay. The guy gets suspended WITH pay Must be nice.
A lot of the folks here need to read more then the headlines and a few posts before putting in their two cents. Gilmore is opposed to secret rules and regulations for the airlines to enforce via Homeland Security. There are LOTS of reasons one may wish to buy an anonymous ticket and none of them have to do with terrorism OR hurting people. Some folks want to leave town unmolested by ex lovers, spouses, etc. I knew a musican who's bandmate started dating a fairly high profile actress. She went through great pains to go un noticed at an airport. It's her right not to be hounded by fans when she is going to visit some relative by plane.
Gilmore is wealthy and probobly loves anonymity himself. It's his right to maintain that. If he wants to fly somewhere and not disclose who he is then certain restrictions should apply. He doesn't mind that. He submitted to the "more aggresive inspection" of himself and his properties. I'm still not sure why he denied the search of his bag but I would assume he is a stubborn guy when it comes to hand searching bags. The last time I was at an airport I wanted to spit on the girl who was tossing my electronics around while she looked for contraband.
I don't think he has a great chance at winning this either but my support goes out to him for this battle. He is at least using his money to better our world. Not to bilk the rest of us (eg oracle) or just trying to corn hole random women (eg the oracle playboy).
Maybe if more of us were willing to ask the questions that he did things would improve. Instead we have morons (some posted earlier) that don't get the big picture and gripe about it. Next time they ask you for ID question them about it. Politely ask what regulation forces them to check ID's. Politely ask why some over zealous guy is feeling me up in front of a large crowd of people (some armed with machine guns). Ask why.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What can we do to support this?
I can think of:
Send him money... but where?
Offer to testify... (he might get flooded with offers)
Picket, ralley, boycott...
Revolt... (protect and honor our contract with other americans...the constitution)
Write legislature...
Write media...
Any ideas how to do these things?
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
Comment removed based on user account deletion
its things like this that make me want to overthrow the government
You don't need a State issued ID to be a passenger in a car, on a bus, a boat, or any other form of transportation.
That's because hijacking a car, bus, boat, or other transport vehicle likely can't take down a huge building. If it was just the other passengers on the plane we were talking about, I'd agree that it should be up to the airlines to make the rules. But this is about the danger to innocent victims in different states. Therefore I think the federal government is justified in setting reasonable regulations.
I can only imagine the kind of searches and obstacles I will incur, showing up with a NEW photo ID, and one that is not a driver's license! Perhaps they'll just drag me off and shoot me for being too weird. How much more suspicious could you get?
Furthermore I'll be travelling with plastic tubs and a carry-on. I intend to have the tubs containing no metallic items at all, and where that's not possible, a manifest of exactly what is supposed to be in them. In addition, they'll be sealed with cable-ties and I will be travelling without any means of cutting the cable ties when I get to my destination- not even nail clippers.
I am sure this too is so suspicious they'll shoot me twice O_O
Have at 'em, John. Unfortunately, next month when I fly, I won't really have an option to stand on principle. Gotta get to my con, and so I will be compelled to get the photo ID and present it regardless of how reasonable that is, and I shall comply with any searches or interrogations they feel like hitting me with, to any extent.
It's nice that SOME people have the freedom to protest this sort of crap. I won't. I won't have the flexibility to have my travel totally disrupted for a matter of principle. So, I will depend on people like John who do have that flexibility.
I've read through almost 500 comments here, and I still don't understand how showing ID at the airport is supposed to help improve security.
All that the ID would do is make the airlines able to say "We know who all of our passengers are" but that has nothing to do with security! Every single one of the hijackers on Sept 11th passed this sort of ID check. In fact the ID check is so useless that a couple of the hijackers had their visas renewed, six months AFTER they were dead. That shows you just how efficient the government is in even checking the lists it already has.
The real question that the government should be investigating is "Is this person a threat to the safety of the aircraft and the other passengers?" Knowing names isn't much help for that. Checking for any possible weapons is. To do that, the following steps need to be done:
- ALL baggage needs to be checked for the presence of any explosives or other devices that could be a threat to the aircraft itself.
- ALL passengers and carry on luggage must be checked for the presence of weapons or anything that could harm the aircraft or other passengers.
- All aircraft need to be searched before each flight for pre-placed weapons or explosives, or else sealed so that no unauthorized people would have access to the aircraft. aircraft sealed like that would still need to be searched on a regular basis, possibly as part of the routine daily maintenance.
- All airport personnel, both government and civilian need to have regular security checks. I would suggest a background check by the police before they could be hired, and then a physical search before being allowed into the secure area of the airport.
Anyone else see anything I've missed?
You don't need a driver's license; just some form of accepted photo identification. I've never shown my driver's license since 11 September when at an airport; I prefer to show my military ID.
Incidentally, the whole point of checking identification is to make sure that the person holding the ticket is the person whose name is on the ticket. I'm used to showing ID to go to work, cash a check, etc., that I guess I don't see this as a big deal.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
These people that keep complaining that our freedoms are being taken away by people collecting data about us are the same ass-clowns that fill out every single Slashdot survey on the homepage... Cowboy Neal isn't an acceptable answer at a flight desk, but then again, they don't ask me what temperature my air-conditioner is set to either.
Killing hundreds or thousands of people at once with an airliner - government protection required
Killing dozens to hundreds of people at once with a bus, car bomb or on a subway- no government protection required
Where exactly do you draw the line in potential death toll where the government can tell us who can access a method of transportation?
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
One unlucky attendant was blown out. All the others lived.
Well then somebody died, didn't they.
They might have added more, but I've had to stop even a few years ago. I know the westbound checkpoint on I-10 right as you're entering California from Arizona has been there for decades, primarily to stop the movement of agricultural pests like fruit flies across the desert and into the central California farming regions (they make you throw out any fresh fruit or vegetables you have with you basically). Eastbound through Texas there's also been a checkpoint about 75-100 miles east of El Paso (just a bit after I-10 stops following the Mexican border and turns northwards), primarily to check for smuggling (of immigrants and drugs) from Mexico, and that one's been there for at least 3-4 years, if not more.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm just saying.
The real story, as a pilot told it to me, was that after going through several dumb and humiliating security rituals, he pointed out that it was all completely meaningless since, being in actual control of the plane, if he wanted to crash it he could just run it into the ground whenever he wanted, without any weeapons.
That got him arrested and fired, though he has since got the job back after pressure from the union.
The story may or may not be true. And it may refer to a different case. What is certain is that pilots are required to go through the same inane checks as everyone else. Which in itself is mindbogglingly stupid...
I moderated this topic, so I have to post as AC
unless the airport was in the habit of turning away properly documented passengers purchasing tickets under their own names, with valid drivers licenses and carrying nothing illegal or particularly dangerous
The general consensus around here is that the government is overreacting to 9/11 and engaging in behavior reminescent of '1984', all in the name of protecting America.
Could it also be the case that we as a community are overreacting to every move the government makes?
I will conclude this very broad assertion by saying that I fall into the 'flying is not a right' camp, and providing identification is as much a part of flying as having to pay for the ticket.
Armed Pilots or armed Federal Agents will be allowed on planes only until the first time a weapon is discharged at 36,000 feet. When the bullet punctures the cabin and everything gets sucked out of the little hole that results the issue will be revisited.
You could give all of the passengers tazers though.
If you go to a club and they won't let you in without showing ID do you sue the club? No, it is a policy. In the case of the airlines it was a policy before Sept. 11th and will continue to be a policy. I for one would rather show my ID and have everyone else do so and feel somewhat safer on a plane. I would rather have my bag searched too. This is by far better than the alternative, dying in a plane crashing into a building.
My theory that the reason many Europeans hate Americans is because we care so little that they hate us
Are you serious, are you trying to be funny, or both? You are funny, in a sad sort of way. You are also correct, this also in a rather depressing way. The reason many Europeans hate Americans is because of their extreme arrogance with regard to many issues (which includes, but is not limited to, what you are really, probably unintentionally, saying anyway).
Actually, an expired passport is a totally VALID government ID. Those security people were morons. It actually says this inside the passport, or on the passport renewal form. That's why when you send your old passport in to get a new renewal, they mail you back the old passport as well.
Unless the train grows wings and flies, it ain't gettin' off the tracks.
Nice try brainiac, but try again.
"LEO"
OOOH, that makes its seem all proper and special.
But cops are the guys who got bullied in school, and now they're getting back at us.
But they're not so tough without that gun and a hundred other cops waiting to beat up a 15 year old if he says stuff they don't like.
Coward coward, pussy, coward with a badge and a gun.
Why don't you go beat up an old lady and a kid.
That'll help.
Pussy coward.
The reality is that 9/11 can not be repeated for quite some time. The 9/11 terrorists have ruined hijacking for all the honest hijackers out there who simply wanted to free some jailed buddies.
no shirt, no shoes, no ID, no service
So if ya piss off the Speaker for the Fed you get put on Double Secret Probation?
"Once upon a time, the Constitution was worth a whole lot more than just 6000 lives."
Erasmus Darwin
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
can do plenty of damage to some of the more political operations. The white house and Congress both would be easy targets without the no fly zone. While you probably can't get them to collapse under their own weight, with a bit of investigation it wouldn't be too hard to pin down a point in time where you expect dignataries like the President, meeting of the Senate, etc. Fortunately things like the Federal Reserve and the Pentagon are a little more modern about these things, and could probably handle something that light.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
That IS the problem, Brian.
You should have explained to him that a US Passport, even expired or cancelled, is valid identification for everything else in the US, including employment. Hell, I have three expired / cancelled / something else passports in addition to my valid one right now, as I am abroad and paranoid as hell about having it stolen or lost
Put identity in the browser.
ill-informed opinion on basic rights shown by the vocal majority of this blog! It is truly scary. Everyone here needs to go to the ACLU web site now to download, read, and remember your basic rights here in the U.S.A. Start with the Know Your Rights phamphlet.
Most, almost all 'airline jobs'(mine, plus everyone I work with) come with a 10 year background check. All FAA licensed pilots are vetted by the FBI.
To get my drivers license I just had to show up with a birth certificate with some feet prints on it. In fact, in Texas, you are now required to produce a valid Social Security card at least once when renewing a driver's license due to the fact that so many non-citizens have obtained driver's licenses.
We must get out of the concept of 'keep the weapons off of the planes' and instead replace it with the concept of 'keep the hijackers off of the airplane'. I mean, come on, how many times does Al Gore need to be frisked before we figure out that he isn't a threat??
Face it, profiling of passengers based on race, national origin, religion, demenor, etc. has worked very well for El Al. They have not had a hijacking in almost 30 years. Currently, they are the only airline flying to the US that still includes metal knives with their meals. They are that sure.
This all avoids the real problem. The real problem is the United States undying support of an economically and socially unimportant nation. We have nop business sponsering the Israeli killing of Palestinain children.
Congress gives Israel %5 BILLION a year in FREE aid. The majority of that money goes toward the Israeli war machine.
Basically when we decided to spnser Israel, we took a side in a very long war and took on all of Israel's enemies.
Sponsering a RELIGIOUS state is completely contrary to the principles of the US and the separation of church and state.
Obviously our lawmakers are not very bright, there are what 10 million Jews and 1 billion muslims. Economically 1 billion muslims provide a huge consumer market with infinate buying power. Economically we picked the wrong friends, strategically Israel is insignificant.
furthermore, the United States is primarily a Christian nation and as such, our support forb Israel is totally contrary to the general religious behavior of our country.
All in all, if we want to stop terrorists, we shoudl stop sponsering Israeli terrorism and their war machine.
Any foriegn aid we give to any nation should have requirements attatched. The primary one is NO HOSTILITIES toward any other nation. Secondly, it must be to a democratic (not religious) state or to assist the state in implementing a democratic society.
If you wish to give up your freedoms so rich men in Washington can play, then you are an idiot. We need a change in leadership and leadership principles int his country and I hope everyone exercises their right to vote and votes to clean out our government and elect new leaders with interests in the American people and not in their own agendas.
The de-pressurisation would possibly kill everyone anyway
That is pure and total FUD. The air-marshalls are being armed with rounds which may well be capable of piercing the fuselage. The primary criterion for round selection was high probability of stopping the perpetrator (you can take that to mean lead with a partial metal jacket and a hollow- or soft-point). A plane is not going to de-pressurize rapidly from a -.38 or 0.44" diameter hole. Once the action starts, the pilot can descend to a safe altitude (~3,000 M, say) Furthermore, such a round will not exit from a human body with enough energy left to do a whole lot of damage.
I would feel more safe on an airplane where many people were KNOWN to be armed than on one where everyone is KNOWN to be un-armed. The problem isn't guns, it's bad guys with guns. It's OK for the good guys to have guns. Sheesh.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
DADA: The FAA and many other organizations have tested the idea that a gun could take an airplane down, and that is UNTRUE.
Reality Master 101:Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
ME: No, really, it's total BS. The air-marshalls will be armed with ammo that probably will pierce the fuselage. They are not worried about it.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Where exactly do you draw the line in potential death toll where the government can tell us who can access a method of transportation?
I don't think the government can ever tell us who can access a method of transportation. However, when thousands of lives are at risk and those people are not voluntarily taking on that risk I think it is reasonable for the government to require a minimum of cooperation by citizens. Asking passengers on an interstate flight to present identification before boarding is one example of something which I consider reasonable. I don't know exactly where the line is, but I can tell you that this is something I consider on the reasonable side of the line.
Where do you draw the line? Can someone drive drunk as long as they don't hit anyone? How about fly a plane drunk? Is it within the government's power to require pilots to pass certifications? How about background checks? Could we give random breathalyzer tests to pilots? Is it OK to have metal detectors at federal courtrooms? Should we require background checks to drive vehicles containing hazardous materials?
Meanwhile, airlines are pushing to give easy wave-throughs to business-class travellers, while harassing economy-class more. Of course, the 9-11 terrorists WERE travelling in business class exactly to be closer to the cabin.
All window-dressing.
An ID makes absolutely no difference to the security . The perps of 9/11 all had valid IDs. Some posters say that they had "deportation orders" against some of them; even so, it wouldn't have made a difference because airlines don't check against any 'deportation lists'. Even if they did, I can get a passable fake Drivers License for a couple of 100 bucks. And what does the gate attendant in, say, Boston know about an (say) Alaskan DL? They all look different! The airline attendants don't specialise in ID verification; they are ticket agents, for crying out loud!
>Face it, profiling of passengers based on race, national origin, religion, demenor, etc. has worked very well for El Al.
Well, gee, here's a better way to be extra sure that hijackers don't squeeze through: just don't let anyone on planes at all.
To put it another way, I don't think many of those who are against racial and religious profiling care if it's effective or not.
But, just for the sake of argument, I also think that the US has too great a variety of enemies (and too great a variety of friends, for that matter) for racial and religious profiling to be particularly effective or economical.
Profiling may work well for El Al. But, Quantas doesn't fly to Los Angeles out of Cincinnatti, Raymond. Think about it... Hijackings in Israel are fairly polarized along racial and religious lines; but there's a laundry list of groups and causes behind US hijackings.
Civil Liberty is predicated on civility. Civil liberty can't exist without civility. The word "civil' implies a certain level of regard towards others that simply isn't in a terrorist's view of others. "Civil" and "civility" aren't in terrorists' vocabulary nor any part of their thinking. Civility and civil liberty haven't much meaning in the face of a determined effort to commit mass murder, even on the relatively small scale of one planeful of passengers.
what sort of identification do you need to present to fly your own plane from point a to point b in the usa?
i know you have to file some plans and what not with the airports and agencies involved. But do you need to inform them of the identities of the passengers and such?
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
Uh, yeah. But not from decompression, not to mention that the hole there was somewhat larger than a bullet hole.
It's pretty clear that the claim that a bullet piercing the fuselage is a huge risk to passesngers is FUD.
Hmm.. this is gonna be long:
Driving drunk: There is nothing wrong with that. If you choose to disobey a law (most everyone does it every day of their life) and no-one else is hamed during or as a result of that act... you should not be punished. If you are driving beyond the inflexible maximum alcohol intoxication, but are still in control of your vehicle then you are fine. There are also those who can drive well under the 'legal limit' and be a hazard on the road.
Fly drunk: same as above. Frankly I'd feel safer with an intoxicated pilot than with an intoxicated driver. The pilot has training well beyond the feeble excuse of 'driving lessons' that most Americans get. The pilot's actions (at least on commercial flights) will be monitored by no fewer than 5 contollers during the trip (departing ground, departing local, en-route, arrival local, arrival ground). If none of them have any reason to doubt the pilot's sobriety or ability to fly, why should I?
Require certs to fly: Yes it is within their power, at least arguably according to the Constitution (art 4 sec 3 cl 2). Do I think it's right to require such a certification? No. I think certs should be voluntary. I also think driver's licenses should be voluntary. BUT if you do something wrong or are involved in a collision or other incident without a cert, you could be sentenced more harshly if you where convicted of neglegence or wrongdoing as a cause of the incident. Let the free market work, all the airlines that pay to have cert holding pilots would be able to charge a premium. Those willing to risk a seasoned by non-cert pilot would pay a lesser fare. This would also open up GA to be much more approachable to the public.
Breathalizer to pilots: required by the Gov? no. Required by the employer? sure. Again with the free market system. You'd probably pay more to fly on an airline you know breathalizes their pilots before each flight. It still won't stop them from downing a few swigs from a pocket bottle during the flight. It would be just another illusion of security.
Metal detectors: Nope. That is presumption of guilt, and undo search in my book. It also doesn't stop a determined person from getting a weapon in the building. It's another illusion of security.
Background checks: again no. for both the pilot and hazmat driver. There are a few simple premises in the US that many have forgotten: You are innocent until proven guilty. You have the right to not provide testimony against yourself. If you are convicted of a crime and complete your sentence, you have paid your debt to society and (in most all cases) regain all of your rights. Your past convictions should not thwart your attempts to make a better life for yourself. Background checks may lead to discrimination for what people believe in or think. You might be denied a job because you wrote a paper that supported reinstatement of slavery and involuntary servitude several years ago. You don't own any slaves and you don't in any way practice your belief, but you would be denied access because of it.
And yes, I know there are negatives to all of my opinions. But there is one big positive: freedom. And as I recall, Freedom was the core principle the United States was founded on.
Freedom of choice. Freedom of action. Freedom of markets. Freedom from govermnent intrusion.
It was the intention of the founders that the government be used to protect our freedoms, not to slowly erode them in the name of fighting terrorism, or any other purpose.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
The question every American should have been asking in the case you used as an example, is what the fuck is the federal congress doing holding the purse-strings of your local school in the first place. This problem never would have come up if all federal funding of local education facilities was abolished in favor of state & local funding. I mean, if your state is denied that federal funding for some reason, you still must pay the same federal taxes as the states who get it, so your local ability to generate education revenue is then hindered by your requirement to subsidize the other 50 states. Sorry for getting off-topic, but that sort of thing chaps my libertarian ass.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
They're called "hollowpoint bullets", and they do a very good job of stopping inside your intended target. And turning said target into a very very unhappy (and dead) individual. Hydrostatic shock bad.
And I don't want to fly on an airplane that could be depressurized by a 9mm hole. I mean, if it took out a window, MAYBE, but a tango standing in the aisle's head is going to be far from any window.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
That's pretty funny.
My read on the reaction wasn't that they thought the pilot was seriously threatening to crash the plane (who would?!?), but the mere presentation of indubitable logic demonstrated how knee-jerk airport security has become.
My $.02
At various a/p now, there are self checkin terminals usually close to the normal check in counters and also close to the gate counters. These self checkin terminals are only used for passengers with pre-purchased tickets and even with checked-in bags. The only identification those self checkin terminals use are a major credit card. I have used them frequently and works quite well.
No, it's not an official state id. but I think it still accomplishes both the financial requirements and the inidividual government tracking wishes quite fine should anyone with those simple and dark enough objectives in mind.
As a non-American I don't understand what the fuss is about. The question should be asked, which is most important, whether you sit down in your seat 10 minutes after you would have done, or whether you want to be reassured that there are no terrorists/criminals sitting on you plane with you.
And why is it an infringement on your civil liberties to be scanned/searched before you get on a plane? Surely it would be an infringement on the civil liberties of the other passengers if you weren't?
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
What's being challenged here are regulations NOT laws. Its a legal distinction. A regulation is effectively a law that is decreed by a federal agency FAA, EPA, FDA, etc. Laws have the majority consent of Congress and aren't vetoed.
I've often wondered about the Constitionality of Federal regulations since they are de facto legislation and Article 1 Section 1 of the US constition states:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
And I've no knowledge of a clause that allows Congress to delegate these powers to the Exectutive Branch. Perhaps this is what the suit should be about.
In fact air travel without a gun should be illegal.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
I'm not sure where you're getting your legal information, but you can get a warrant over the phone.
I've *done it* on several occasions.
The Judge/Magistrate swears you to an oath over the phone, takes deposition of your request over the phone and gives you the explicit conditions of the warrant over the phone.
You must meet with the magistrate as soon as possible after the execution of the warrant, to complete the written form of the depostion and the warrant.
If that's not done in a *timely* manner, then the evidence gained under the terms of the warrant becomes quite suspect and likely to be disallowed.
Sure, if that is in fact, what he said. From the CNN article linked to from the one you linked: Still sure that's what he actually said?
Ed Chauvin IV
... take a bus!
Best idea yet,
Simple, yet effective!
Sean D.
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
looks like when the Berlin wall came down it let democracy in and the Secret Police out...
The USA will become just like East Germany was...
We know who you are and we know where you've been...
It seems a reasonable assumption that if they're "not going to get into exactly what he said" that what he "exactly said" was either so innoucuous as to be embarrassing to admit or else that they really honestly don't care what he said... which would be bizarre as well as frightening.
The only allegation is that he said something, and they're not going to "get into" what it was?
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
"Nothing says you have to get Social Security. OR go to the Post Office, or a Courtroom, etc etc. " Ever heard of a subpoena? How about a jury summons? A lot of people are arrested and ordered to show up in court.
The train in the US is also a resonable alternative. If we didn't have such a great Airline and Automotive lobby we might actually realise that one day.
What does the air marshal program have to do with ticket resale?
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has, in all its glorious wisdom, deemed that the "usual and customary" mode of travel within the United States is ... (wait for it) ... "horse-drawn carriage". Yep. That's right. Seen alot of them on the highway lately? Ever even ridden in one, fer chissake?
It was only by this bizarre bit of juris-imprudence that they managed to convince themselves that driver's licenses were not infringements on the constitutional right to freedom of movement. Yet another demonstration, if any of us still needed another one, that the courts in this country are merely tools of the police state and have no interest in either rationality or justice, much less the preservation of rights.
Agreed. The people on those airplanes and in the World Trade Towers died because we live in a society where we are taught to let the government take care of our security. People were calling for help on their cell phones. They didn't consider the fact, that -- unlike in the movies -- the cavalry can't help you at 10,000 feet. For the 4'th plane, the cavalry did arrive -- in the form of an F-16. They did the only thing that they could do, and shot the airliner down (apparently after the passengers had retaken control of the plane, but nobody knew that at the time).
I do believe the first news reports that indicated that the 4th plane was shot down (along with the fact that one engine was found miles away from the impact site). Not that I blame them. If I was an air commander under similar circumstances, I would have probably ordered the same thing. At best, I might have waited a bit longer, but we're talking a matter of minutes here.
My point is that if the passengers of the first 3 airliners had also taken responsibility for their own safety and security, 9/11 would have never occurred, and the 4'th airliner would never have been shot down. It's now the case for airline passengers, but still not the case for the rest of the country. -- and we're still not being responsible for the fact that our freedoms are more likely to be supressed by our own lawmakers than some suicidal yahoos from outside the country.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
And neither can hijacking an airliner. It could, but cannot now, and that is with the security settings that were in place on 9/11, as the events on the 4th airliner showed.
I'm sorry, but if you do not have a gov't issues photo ID, you are either an idiot or an extremist, and most of us don't want either on sitting on a commercial airplane.
Just a point to quibble here. While I agree with the poster on most points (such as that you don't know a hijacker until he or she tries to take over a plane), let's get one thing perfectly clear:
Arming people on planes is a bad, bad idea.
Hint: We don't let passengers carry guns, why should pilots be any different?
First of all, guns are more or less inherently dangerous. Some risk (of accidental or mis-targeted discharge) always exists in a situation with firearms. (That's why gun safety courses tell you to handle guns as if they were always loaded, even when they're not.) Add that to a pressurized environment (such as the cabin of a commercial airliner), and you're probably looking at such a policy creating at least one catastrophic explosive decompression incident. (See Charles Perrow on "Normal Accident Theory.")
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, arming pilots (or Air Marshalls) simply means that those guys who want to hijack the plane (remember, you don't know who they are), using the element of surprise can simply overpower the guy with the guns, and hey, voila, they don't need to use boxcutters anymore.
My credentials? My father's a veteran commercial pilot (who once told me he'd jump a potential hijacker and die for it if he thought he could save the plane and everyone on it) and aviation safety officer, so I've been around air travel all my life. I also work in the safety field, and I can assure you, the risk analysis numbers of the "arm the pilots" plan are way, way off, and not in our favour, either. Believe me, there are better ways.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
Show me a binding federal document which says so.
You have the right to not provide testimony against yourself.
"in any criminal case"
If you are convicted of a crime and complete your sentence, you have paid your debt to society and (in most all cases) regain all of your rights.
"in most all cases"
Your past convictions should not thwart your attempts to make a better life for yourself.
That's your opinion, which I do not share.
BUT if you do something wrong or are involved in a collision or other incident without a cert, you could be sentenced more harshly if you where convicted of neglegence or wrongdoing as a cause of the incident.
The problem with that is that corporations have perpetual lives, and can be started at will. If a corporate plane crashes into a large building you can't put anyone (but the dead pilot) in jail. I don't think the threat of civil lawsuits against the corporation is enough to discourage the practice.
Those willing to risk a seasoned by non-cert pilot would pay a lesser fare.
And I would be willing to accept this if the only people taking the risk were the pilot and the passengers. But as we've seen over and over again, the pilot and the passengers are not the only ones at risk. From a pure property standpoint, the air above my house is either owned by me, my state, or the federal government. So either the airline has to get my permission, the permission of the state, or the permission of the federal government to use that airspace. I think the federal government would be the most efficient entity to take control of that, at least for an interstate flight.
So I agree with you with regard to automobile drivers, and I agree with you with regard to pilots who aren't making money for corporatations, but unless you want to make the CEO personally responsible for negligently allowing his/her airplane to be crashed into a building and put him/her in jail, then I don't buy that argument for corporate aviation.
Background checks may lead to discrimination for what people believe in or think.
Guns may lead to people killing each other, what's your point?
You might be denied a job because you wrote a paper that supported reinstatement of slavery and involuntary servitude several years ago.
What's wrong with that? Don't you believe in a free market?
You don't own any slaves and you don't in any way practice your belief, but you would be denied access because of it.
So? What does this have to do with government background checks for pilots?
And yes, I know there are negatives to all of my opinions.
Yeah, I was surprised, I should have been even more ridiculous. We need some kind of political indicator next to people's names so we can adjust our arguments accordingly.
In any case, I agree with you on the drunk driving one, and I think the hazmat one is generally up to the states unless it poses a major threat to the entire nation (transferring nuclear materials or something). As for the airline ones, if it's within the government's power to require certification, then it's within the government's power to require rules to be followed in order to keep that certification. And as for the court room one, that is allowed under the same clause as the airlines.
But there is one big positive: freedom. And as I recall, Freedom was the core principle the United States was founded on. Freedom of choice. Freedom of action. Freedom of markets. Freedom from govermnent intrusion.
Freedom to print my own money? Freedom to make copies of copyrighted works without permission? Freedom to start a bank? Freedom to swim in other people's pools? I don't have a problem with freedom of markets, but that means I'm free to create my own currency and ignore the one created by the federal government. Eliminate corporations, eliminate federal money, and divide up the land and natural resources of this country equally and I'm fine with leaving the rest to the markets.
It was the intention of the founders that the government be used to protect our freedoms, not to slowly erode them in the name of fighting terrorism, or any other purpose.
It was certainly not the intention of the founders to protect freedom at all costs.
I am a FAA licensed pilot and I have never been "vetted" by the FBI.
It could, but cannot now, and that is with the security settings that were in place on 9/11, as the events on the 4th airliner showed.
Which included checking the IDs of the passengers.
Perhaps. I think you're exaggerating the case in several ways, most specifically the chance of explosive decompression. (In fact, there are rounds manufactured today specifically not to penetrate airplane skins.) Your "element of surprise" bit is precisely the sort of thing that air marshals are trained to look for and handle, which kind of takes the element of surprise away.
However, "How do you prevent a hijacking attempt from succeeding?" is a tactical question; whatever the answers are, they will be located aboard the plane where the attempt is taking place -- armored cockpits, air marshals, electric stun seatbelts, kung-fu flight attendants, or what-have-you. ID checks don't fit the bill -- knowing a guy's name, SSN, and favorite color does not make it easier to shoot him, beat him up, lock him out of the cockpit, zap him with phaser beams, or otherwise stop him from hijacking the plane he's on.
He has committed terrorist acts long before his "assention" to the "leader" of the palestineans.
I'm no isreali apologist, but compared to Arafat, Sharon really *is* a man of peace.
The issue right now is anonymity. You can consent to a search and retain anonymity. Sobriety checkpoints have some very specific limitations to them. The cops cannot run the license plate of every car going through them. They also cannot demand your license as you drive up. They need to find some evidence of a violation before taking these steps. This means that your anonymity is being protected during the process.
If someone were to walk into an airport, allow all of their effects to be searched, and submit to a full body search (complete with the ol' cavity checks) then what extra bit of security do you gain by having seen their ID?
So, we can certainly argue until the cows come home about "unreasonable searches", but that's not the point of the current protest. (Also, based on the latest Supreme Court ruling about drug testing in schools the bar for "unreasonable" is quite high these days.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
do some reading about british palestine.
:
... Thus it is quite possible, if an independent state is ever established, that statues of Arafat will some day be erected in the plazas of Nabulus like the plaques and statues of Eamon de Valera in Ireland and Emiliano Zapata in Mexico ... A leader of the Mau Mau terrorist campaign against the British in Kenya now sits in the Cabinet of President Jorno Kenyatta, and the Mau Mau is officially regarded as a heroic freedom movement".
Here is some interesting material
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans38.html
one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's terrorist.....
This is also fairly interesting:
When Arafat addressed the UN General Assembly in November 1974, he said very accurately: "Most of you who are here in this Assembly hall were once considered terrorists". Gerald Clarke then observed in 'TIME' (Nov 25, 1974): "What makes terrorism respectable? The main criterion is success. Algeria's Foreign Minister Abdelaziz Bouteflika is currently president of the UN General Assembly because terrorism got its way in Algeria."
Clarke's 1974 article continued: "Oppressed peoples have often turned to violence as the first step in their fight for nationhood
Oxford historian Alastair Buchan observed wryly: " Respectability depends on whose side you're on. To the Turks, Lawrence of Arabia was a terrorist".
Gerald Clarke further noted: "Ironically, Israel itself might not exist today had it not been for terrorists. The Irgun Zvai Leumui and the Stern Gang, two militant Jewish groups of the '30s and '40s, pressured the British to give up their mandate over Palestine through bombs and assassinations and tried to force the Arabs out through simple murder. Lord Moyne, British administrator for the Middle East, was killed in 1944 in Cairo by the Stern Gang which also assassinated Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, UN mediator in Palestine, in 1948".
The London "ECONOMIST" (Jan 21, 1989) stated: "...Israel's current Prime Minister, Mr. Yitzhak, Shamir, was a senior member of the Stern Gang," and in 1998 the UK " TELEGRAPH ", in an article "The Violent Birth of a Jewish State", featured a British poster of the WANTED TERRORIST Shamir. Moreover, the 1992 Associated Press obituary of Israel's former Prime Minister Menachem Begin reported that he was the head of Irgun and was " hunted by the British in Palestine as a terrorist", and "TIME" (March 23, 1992) in its obituary reported that Begin in 1943 " took command of the Jewish underground terrorist organisation Irgun" and "The British put a $30,000 price tag on his head but never captured him."
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Actually, successfully hitting one particular building at 500+ MPH is quite difficult. One pilot was even more skilled to bank the plane and hit multiple floors on impact.
It is actually quite difficult to do what the hijackers did and that's why it was discounted as a possible scenario in hijacking situations. The issue is the intelligence needed to perform the act would hopefully preclude a suicidal disposition.
Unforutnately, we were wrong. Fortunately, the chance of a similar attack ever succeeding (heck they didn't even succeed with all the attacks on that day) are almost none. The big concern right now is some poor confused passenger getting the stuffing beaten out of them because they mistake the cockpit door for a toilet.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If what you want is to look more and more like Vietnam, China, or Cuba, where you have to report every single movement you do to a goverment agency, then yes, you are right.
Otherwise a private service can't abrogate peoples rights. They have to search you to make sure you don;t have a weapon. I don't care if you are tyhe Dalai Lama or Osama bin Laden, a proper security policy should make the plane safe irrespective of who you are, reason for which they don't need to know who you are.
Now, if you feel comfortable submitting yourself to rules you can't contest (how is that different to the security guys making the rules on the spot) then move to Cuba, you will feel happy there.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If the security people consider his comments to be a threat he could be classified as an enemy combatant and detained indefinately.
Does this mean that YOU could be considered an enemy combatant if you talked about security holes in government computer systems???
Earth calling!!!
About Chomsky: If the US is so damn bad, why does he still live here?
Too damn bad the ACLU can't read the Second and Tenth Amendments.
Elwood Maneer, 46, was charged with making terrorist threats and disorderly conduct, said Philadelphia police spokesman Cpl. Jim Pauley, who would not disclose what was said. "I don't have the exact words," Pauley said. "We're just saying he made an inappropriate comment. We're not going to get into exactly what he said."
In fact, the policeman's words are obviously untrue. He says "We're just saying he made an inappropriate comment" when they are actually charging him with "making terrorist threats and disorderly conduct".
Are we seriously expected to believe that they can't tell the difference between those two things?
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
As long as all parties involved agree on the value and you never attempt to pass your money off as Federal legal tender, you're okay.
I meant printing counterfeit money, and selling it to others (and telling the people I sell it to that it is counterfeit).
Anyway, I have no idea what you're talking about any more. "You have the right to do absolutely anything you want to, as long as you are willing to accept the concequences." Are you advocating anarchy?
Here's how to hit any target with any airplane at any speed:
Use a marker to put a small circle on the windshield.
Steer your target into the circle.
Keep the target in the circle until the plane goes boom!
This is specifically how pilots are trained to do basic collision avoidance. If the other plane is staying stationary relative to some mark/corner/scratch on your windscreen, you are likely headed for a collision and you should take evasive maneuvers and/or contact ATC for instructions. This is taught in ground school, even before you start flying in many cases.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
I'd considered the V1 for analogy. While the V1 would be closer in flight mechanism (long cruise under power), the V2 is closer to the attack mechanism (drop from high altitude at super-sonic speed).
The plane attack I described would certainly provide no warning, much like the V2. The V1 on the other hand made a very distinctive noise, hence the nickname "buzz-bomb", and people knew it was coming, just not where it would hit.
It's a tossup really. Either analogy works on some level.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Beyond that you can retain all your rights. Everything else comes down to a court battle over who's rights take precidence.
To quote the 10th ammendment (emphasis added): In the case of murder:
You have the right to kill people.
You exercise your right and kill someone.
Your victim's have the right to not be killed.
As such you violated someone else's rights, against their will.
The public, via the government, excercise their right to limit your behavior and put you on trial for your act.
Your right to freedom and/or life then may be permanently or temporarily revoked/suspended by the court/jury.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Certainly sounds simple.
Use a marker to put a small circle on the windshield.
Steer your target into the circle.
Keep the target in the circle until the plane goes boom!
Execution is a completely different thing. Plus, these steps:
Disengage autopilot.
Locate current position of plane.
Plot course to general vicinity of target building.
Figure proper incoming vector to avoid other potential buildings (not so much a problem with the ol' WTC's).
Now, draw circle on windshield... which side, how big?
Steer your target into the circle. (Boy, this plane sure turns slow, what about those silly pedals on the floor?)
Keep the target in the circle (Note - target looks like small sliver from a few miles out and you get a great "ground rush" kind of effect as you get close.)
I should note that your example assumes that you're already flying straight and level. Also, it's only for avoiding where you want to make a violent maneuver, not for steering where you need to be controlled.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
OK then... What about my right to print counterfeit money? What right does that conflict with?
Get a car. Hm, need a license. That takes away your privacy. Govt knows you're bound to drive somewhere.
Having a license does not allow the government, and various private institutions, to track your travels.
Got 2 legs?
That's a really intelligent remark. I'll just tell my clients that I'll be out to meet them in a six months when I finish walking coast-to-coast.
I will leave you with the words of brave, wise, and intelligent men in the hopes that the contrast between their words and your own will be enlightening.
Others have mentioned this, but a U.S. passport is a very unique document. For starters, it is one of the few (maybe the only) document that is both 1) proof of citizenship and 2) proof of identity. There are many situations (such as starting a new job, I think; been awhile since I started mine) when you need to provide proof of citizenship and proof of identity; you usually need two documents for this, but a passport can stand in for both of them. Second, even an expired passport is still considered proof of citizenship and identity (since, obviously, even though the document is expired, you are still a U.S. citizen and still the person you were when the passport was granted).
I can't believe there's anyone in the airline industry who doesn't know this. They must work only domestic flights, but even then I still don't see how they could not know this.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
There are other ways to check your credit.
They could decline you a cellphone without proof of good credit, or more likely, they'll just ask for a deposit.
It conflicts with the right reserved for the Federal government to print the official currency of the Union.
Us Constitution: Art 1, sec 8, cla 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
And the necessary and proper laws that Congress has passed to fulfill that duty and right. Specifically counterfieting of Federal money has an impact on the value of the rest of the Federal money, and as such Congress can limit other's production of that money.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
What kind fo crap is this? (No, not the crap in my Subject line--that's German), rather this "There's a rule, see, but nobody can point it out to you as it's never been written down, and we're not sure who told us to do it, but you broke that rule so you're in trouble." Gilmore needs to get all his legal funds behind this one and push it to the wall. Advertise in papers, make a stink in the national news. Force the feds to either stop use of this "law" or make them point out the actual code to the world. If it doesn't exist, it is a violation of the unreasonable search and seizure requirements.
"1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."
Likewise the government has the right "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," which they can exercise by forcing airlines engaging in interstate commerce to check ID.
Why? What has he ever done to you?
Why? What has he ever done to you? Whose James Macarthy anyways?
The mechanics of flying the plane are also pretty simple. As I stated in the root post, almost anyone can learn to fly any plane in about 3 days training. At least well enough to take command while already in the air, and to complete a suicide mission like this. Navigation is minimally important. Takeoff and landing are not needed. Proper proceedures for traffic space traversal, weather evaluation, flight planning, fuel management, collision avoidance, weight and balance, cockpit resource management and all that other pilot training stuff are unneccesary.
Most everything you need to know, the plane already knows if it has current instrumentation. All you need is someone to have given you notes on what buttons to press, and when. That information is simply gleaned from the plane's flight operation manual which is freely available, or from the flight data system's manual.
Once the auto-pilot is disengaged, you don't need to necessarily mess with the hardware on the plane. You can simply usea a handheld GPS reciever and a laptop with a moving map. You can get such a setup from many electronics retailers.
Tell ya what: Try this very thing onX-Plane. I only suggest X-PLane because it's on Mac and PC, and is very realistic. Have it start you off in a random spot around New York City and try flying in to any particular building. Use a dry erase marker to make the circle on your windscreen.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Are we seriously expected to believe that they can't tell the difference between those two things?
Of course not. But, there's a pretty major difference between filing charges and making statements to the press. The spokesman who made the above statement was obviously not at the scene, and the investigation was likely still open when he made that statement. Saying what he "said" would be irresposnible and open him and the department up to potential lawsuit, not to mention possibly tainting the potential jury pool.
All I'm saying is, there's a reference out there on the net to "some media outlets" reporting him as making that statement and it's not uncommon for something like that to get out and into the popular conciousness without it having any basis in fact. It seems pretty likely that he said something similar to what was reported, but are we sure the "tweezers" wasn't a "knife"?
Judging the reactions of the airport security based on a printed report of a small portion of what he might have said without the full context is just plain irresponsible. How certain are you he wasn't brandishing the "tweezers" and flailing his arms about while ranting on about the ridiculously tight level of uptight security schlubs? Or was the statement, as it seems just a casual offhand remark?
Now, it just so happens that I've been in a similar situation to the one the pilot was in, albeit pre-9/11. I was helping my mother-in-law get checked in and she asked why the guy at the ticket counter wanted to know if anyone else had handled her bag since she packed it, and I said something to the effect of "It's to make sure I didn't slip you a bomb." The guy took the statement fairly seriously and told me I shouldn't even be joking about such things, I acknowledged this and apologized and we continued on like civilized adults. I certainly didn't get arrested, and nothing more was made of the remark.
Somehow I think this pilot did a bit more than just toss an offhand glib remark at a security agent.
Ed Chauvin IV
I already stated they had that right under another section.
I just said I didn't think they should.
And supposedly they really don't because as I also said, they don't require such checks for chartered flights which are also interstate commerce.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Check the flight paths that the particular planes took. You would have to start with a random place in upper New York state and get to that building in New York city. All this with a minimum of "noodling around" as time is of the essence.
The error factor in a handheld GPS would make it a poor tool for this particular exercise. Additionally, I'd be surprised how well it handled a travel rate of 500+ MPH (the scale on those screens would be quite amusing).
I don't doubt that people could learn how to do all of this in a week of intense training, but it still takes that time and a relatively technically savvy guy.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
It only takes one tech-savvy guy to do the planning. The rest just need to know what to push/turn, and when.
The accuracy of the GPS is good enough. Let's say at 0mph it's accurate to 100ft. If at 500mph it's only 1/100th as accurate, that's still less than two miles of error. But, modern GPS devices also can access WAAS data, providing accuracy in the 6-9ft range depending on signals. They also use continuous vector updating. Meaning it interpolates between samples to develop a more accurate location.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
The freedom to travel is not absolute. You cannot travel to a theater on fire. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to tell the government who you are and where you're going, and to have a damn good reason why you need to go there.
The article title makes no sense to me.
Who the fuck is John Gilmore?
And how the fuck can this article have over 900 comments in it already?
Usually articles with dumb titles dont collect over 300 comments.
There is another way: You all know about GPS'es, and it is possible that you know that large ships (tankers etc) can be controlled from land (with help from gps-systems), the fact is that the same man who invented these two also invented an apparatus which works in airplanes (if the pilot isn't recognized by system every so many minutes a distress signal is sent and an controller on land takes over).
/Anonymous Coward
This was invented in 1998,
guess who got upset, guess which government is alarmed, guess which invention we won't hear from until 2008!
I don't think that El Al uses flawed predictive profiles. They use a simpler, more effective, and unfortunately more costly system. They treat EVERYONE as a terrorist.
They intrusively search you, perhaps multiple times, subject you to varying levels of psychological testing (NOT gee, he bought a one way ticket, wears a turban, and has a relative in the Middle East). If you are found lacking, THEN you are entered into their database as someone who failed, (barely passed?) their "screening". Then if you try to board a flight again, you can be summarily arrested, denied passage, or required to undergo an even more invasive evaluation, if that's possible.
There is a BIG difference between entering people who you KNOW are trouble, and compiling a list of people who MIGHT be trouble. Like the difference between law enforcement keeping a "rap sheet" (list of convicted crimes and arrests) and a list of everyone who bought fertilizer and a copy of the Q'ran, just in case....
(not having flown El Al personally, I can only comment on what I have read)
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
Seriously, if just a handful of the passengers had had guns, I think the terrorists would have had a hard time taking over those 'planes.