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. )"

8 of 670 comments (clear)

  1. It won't happen by The+FooMiester · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:It won't happen by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no "safety amendment" to the Constituton; and no exception to the 4th for it. If we want to allow congress to regulate this, FINE. Than lets pass an amendment and do it right.

      Hmm... Let's look at the 4th amendment.

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      It seems to me that searching someone before boarding an airplane is perfectly reasonable. That's where the "safety amendment" comes in. That pesky word "unreasonable".

  2. Re:I doubt he has a case. by elmegil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a ludicrous approach to the issue. You require a drivers license because you are the driver. You can ride IN a car without a drivers license. You can ride IN a bus without a drivers license. Why the hell do you need a license to ride in a plane?

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  3. Re:Bad timing by yamla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a crock of sh*t. Requiring IDs wouldn't have prevented those terrorists from boarding the plane. They all already had IDs. At best, assuming that it is impossible to fake an ID (and we all know how true that one is), mandatory ID checks at airports will only prevent currently known and watched terrorists, it will do nothing to stop the vast majority of fanatics, almost all of who have no criminal records.

    --

    Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
  4. The Analogies are wrong. by madajb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  5. Re:Nyet! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How much security does that provide, however? Photo ID checks were in place prior to 9/11. There's nothing that stops terrorists from getting issued valid ID. The ID check procedure NOW would not have stopped a one of them.

    ID checks exist -- and have existed for some time -- to prevent people from reselling plane tickets. Originally the tickets were just good for a seat, and people would sell them at will. Eventually they had markings to indicate the gender of the passenger, limiting by half the number of people one could resell them to. Now they have your name, so the resale value of tickets is zero.

    For some reason this serves the purposes of airlines. It hasn't got a scintilla of value from a security perspective.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  6. Re:Reality by Frater+219 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    An ID check at the gate does not and cannot prevent a hijacking. An ID check tells you who a person is -- his/her name, SSN, DOB, possibly criminal record, and so forth. It does not tell you what the person's intentions are.

    There are terrorists who are U.S. citizens. There are terrorists who are white Christian boys with no connection to Axis of Evil[tm] nations, much less to Al-Qaida. There are terrorists with clean criminal records, and with honorable military discharges. These folks are just as capable of hijacking a plane, should they wish to, as Osama's boys are. As it happens, the last bunch decided to blow up some Federal employees in Oklahoma City instead.

    Tools to prevent a hijacking cannot be tools that are used on the ground, because hijacking attempts do not take place on the ground; they take place in the air. You don't know if a person wants to hijack a plane until he tries, just as you don't know if a person wants to hold up a store until he tries. So when he tries, you need to be able to stop him.

    Armed persons charged with defense of the airplane seem to be a good idea in this regard. Federal air marshals are one way to accomplish this; arming and training pilots is another; hiring security guards is another. There are other methods as well. Pick a few of them.

    (Naturally, this logic only applies if the goal is to prevent hijackings. If the goal is to cast a segment of the population as "suspect" or as second-class citizens on the basis of some datum which can be divulged by an ID check, it does not. However, despite a few isolated cases of what look to me like unjust discrimination on the basis of race or political affiliation, I have not seen any evidence that it has become a policy goal.)

  7. On profiling and ID by MrIcee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Here are three stories I can relate about airline security since 9/11:

    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