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. )"
You just need to get yourself one of these.
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
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
which most people are in favor of, he marginalizes all
Just become most people are in favor of something doesn't mean it is okay to do.
What?
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.
Are you a Fully-Informed Passenger? Did you know there is no Act of Congress or FAA regulation that requires you to display upon demand Government-Issued photo ID for domestic flights? Is this America, or is this AmeriKa? Ask any Holocaust survivor if (s)he felt safer because everybody had to show their papers upon demand. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1759) - Title 49 United States Code. Sec. 44902. - Refusal to transport passengers and property (a) Mandatory Refusal. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier to refuse to transport - (1) a passenger who does not consent to a search under section 44901(a) of this title establishing whether the passenger is carrying unlawfully a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance; or (2) property of a passenger who does not consent to a search of the property establishing whether the property unlawfully contains a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance. (b) Permissive Refusal. - Subject to regulations of the Administrator, an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety. (c) Agreeing to Consent to Search. - An agreement to carry passengers or property in air transportation or intrastate air transportation by an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier is deemed to include an agreement that the passenger or property will not be carried if consent to search the passenger or property for a purpose referred to in this section is not given. Title 49 United States Code. Sec. 44901. - Screening passengers and property (a) General Requirements. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring screening of all passengers and property that will be carried in a cabin of an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air transportation. The screening must take place before boarding and be carried out by a weapon-detecting facility or procedure used or operated by an employee or agent of an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier. (b) Amending Regulations. - Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator may amend a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) to require screening only to ensure security against criminal violence and aircraft piracy in air transportation and intrastate air transportation. (c) Exemptions and Advising Congress on Regulations. - The Administrator - (1) may exempt from this section air transportation operations, except scheduled passenger operations of an air carrier providing air transportation under a certificate issued under section 41102 of this title or a permit issued under section 41302 of this title; and (2) shall advise Congress of a regulation to be prescribed under this section at least 30 days before the effective date of the regulation, unless the Administrator decides an emergency exists requiring the regulation to become effective in fewer than 30 days and notifies Congress of that decision. 14 CFR 107.1 Applicability and definitions. (b)(6) Sterile area means an area to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property in accordance with an approved security program or a security program used in accordance with Sec. 129.25. 14 CFR 107.20 Submission to screening. No person may enter a sterile area without submitting to the screening of his or her person and property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area under Sec. 108.9 or Sec. 129.25 of this chapter. 14 CFR 108.9 Screening of passengers and property. (a) Each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall use the procedures included, and the facilities and equipment described, in its approved security program to prevent or deter the carriage aboard airplanes of any explosive, incendiary, or a deadly or dangerous weapon on or about each individual's person or accessible property, and the carriage of any explosive or incendiary in checked baggage. (b) Each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall refuse to transport-- (1) Any person who does not consent to a search of his or her person in accordance with the screening system prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section; and (2) Any property of any person who does not consent to a search or inspection of that property in accordance with the screening system prescribed by paragraph (a) of this section. (c) Except as provided by its approved security program, each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall use the procedures included, and the facilities and equipment described, in its approved security program for detecting explosives, incendiaries, and deadly or dangerous weapons to inspect each person entering a sterile area at each preboarding screening checkpoint in the United States for which it is responsible, and to inspect all accessible property under that person's control. (d) Each certificate holder shall staff its security screening checkpoints with supervisory and non-supervisory personnel in accordance with the standards specified in its security program. 14 CFR PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE [note: this regulation is not applicable to domestic flights within the United States.] Can you find a mandate from Congress or from the Administrator of the FAA that authorizes the airlines to require that the people show government-issued photo ID in order to travel within the states of the Union? The people will only retain those rights they are willing to enforce. Are you going to retain your right or lose it? What does this mean? Neither Congress nor the Administrator of the FAA require you to show a government issued photo ID to anyone. Neither Congress nor the Administrator of the FAA authorize the airlines to require you show a government issued photo ID to anyone. The Supreme Court of the United States says that law enforcement officers can require you to show identification only if they are conducting a criminal investigation. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) If you show privately issued ID, instead of government issued ID, you cannot be refused boarding simply for this reason. The statutes and regulations show that you can only be refused boarding if you refuse to consent to a search of your person or your property. If you show a private ID, then you are assured of having your person and property hand searched by security personnel prior to boarding at the gate. If enough of us show up without government issued photo ID, they will not have time to search us all, which means that their procedures will then be "arbitrary" instead of "regular" or "random". I am sorry, but my essential liberty is far more important than your temporary safety.
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
Can you, Mr. Joe citizen, be stopped while walking down the street by Mr. Man-In-Black FBI Agent and searched, without cause, without suspicion, just for walking down the street?
You sure can. Its called an "investigate person" charge. The usual comment is "you matched the description of someone wanted for a crime" and in most areas, the police can hold you for at least 24 hours on that alone. (Trust me.. its happened to me, and its legal)
Now same situation, but that person is in a car. Can you be searched, by a federal officer, without cause or suspicion? The answer is *mostly* no - if they see something in plain sight that could give them exegent circumstances and allow them to search the car and you.
Depends.. do you consider the cops to be federal officers? Probably not.. but.. I have yet to see a cop who cannot pull over a suspicious person for SOME reason (I thought you had a bad registration. I see that it is current. Mind if I search your car? No? I cant? Wait here please..) and in some cases, they can get a warrant on the spot to do it, if there is a judge handy to a phone. Its not all that hard to get nailed for doing nothing wrong.
How is it any different from walking down the street. The government owns both transportation mediums (airport, street/highways). The person checking you was is a government employee (FBI vs. Transportation Sercurity Force). How is one contrained by the 4th amendment and not another?
The government doesnt own the airport any more than it owns Conrail or your local bus company. THey are REGULATED by a government agency, but so is UPS. and FEDEX for that matter. What the person at the ticket counter asks for is no more governmental than I am. Its a policy of said airline. (If you can show me a federal regulation requiring people to show ID, I may change my tune). But to use your analogy, yes, they can. The federal government has regulations regarding the use of roads and highways by citizens. THey are fairly lax and quiet, but they exist. SO there is already a precedent.
I have never been checked in an airport by a "smith". I have always been checked by private security forces hired by the owner/manager of the airport for the purpose of maintaining security. The Guardsman with the AR-15 has never asked to see my bags.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
I am debating the meaning of that word. Unreasonable. Being searched without cause is unreasonable. Being searched for exercising a right (to travel) is unreasonable.
I disagree, and I believe that the courts will disagree as well. The meaning of "unreasonable" in my opinion takes into consideration the government interest as well as the type of search. This is why police are able to break into a house without obtaining a warrant if they have reason to believe that someone is in imminent danger.
Also note that it specifically demands specificity in searching - ie - you cant simply put out a "dragnet". You must detail the person/things to be seized and searched.
No, warrants must describe these things. If the search is reasonable, you don't have to have a warrant, and therefore you don't have to describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. That's my interpretation, anyway, the courts have been divided on that issue:
Likewise, the government can't excuse its normally illegal actions by common consent.
Utter Bullshit. You have now exposed yourself for the troll that you are. A LEO can indeed search you any time with no cause if you consent. As long as you are not in custody if you consent to a search it is legal. With very, very, very narrow exceptions (like you let them search a house that isn't yours) this does not violate the 4th ammendment. It is very clear to everybody over the age of 5 that when you go to the airport you consent to have your bags searched, you walk through a metal detector, and you have to show ID. If you don't like it you don't have to be there. The court wil see it that way.
If you don't like it you certainly have other options. Take a bus, or a train. Drive your car. Fly on a charter flight, heck learn to fly yourself.
But so then, by that rationale, it IS legal for them to search you when you travel on a government road? Or walk down a government sidewalk?
The Supreme Court says yes. Ever been through a sobriety checkpoint? Ever have a cop stop you on the street for a chat after exiting a bar late at night? All perfectly legal. All tested in court.
Why shouldn't a police officer been entitled to talk to you as you walk down the street? If you don't have anything to say to him, don't. It's your right. It's also within the law for him to pat you down if you are behaving suspiciously.
You should also reread the press release. Gilmore isn't suing because he had to show ID. He is suing because he claims "secret" laws are unconstitutional. He is also concerned that the ID checks will turn into something much worse.
Such regulations are unconstitutional because they are unpublished; require government agents to search and seize citizens who are not suspected of crimes; burden the rights to travel, associate, and petition the government; and discriminate against those who choose anonymity. The case also argues that because the regulations are secret, they violate the Freedom of Information Act.
BTW absent any regulation the airlines would still ask for ID to make sure you are the person named on the ticket. There is certainly nothing unconstitutional about that is there? Aiplanes are after all private propoerty.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
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.
People seem to forget that ALL of the terrorists on the September 11th planes had their IDs checked. They had legitimate visas. How does forcing everyone to show their ID (an act that is only good for tracking the average american citizen) in any way improve the security of the flights? If 16 year old kids can fake IDs, well financed terrorists shouldn't have much of a problem...
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
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.