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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
I believe that the airlines screen out their frequent customers and "pick on" their non-frequent or one-time customers.
I love getting into completely hypothetical discussions like the one you had. Honestly, I feel they are great mind-expanders. Arguing religion with someone is an incredibly fun thing to do, because both sides have such strong cases.
As for this issue, I agree with you. People need to recognize this isn't about taking away your civil liberties, it's about making sure you don't get flown into a building. Some people take stands on every little thing(and so loud...)and they just need to choose thier battles a little more wisely. It's fairly plain to see that anyone who argues against these new laws would change their tune pretty quickly if a loved one died do to violence because the law became relaxed in the future.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
It's the same one used for years by many police departments.
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
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.
When was the last time that you drive to Hawaii?
How is he to do that if there are secret federal regulations requiring the airlines to demand your identity papers before you can fly?
I don't think John is suggesting that planes should not be secure. He's saying that one should not secure planes by taking away the right of free travel, free anonymous travel, from the people of the USA.
Some of you are willing to give up that right, does that mean all should? Or should we all be required to show our papers when we travel and have our movements tracked?
As to the option of not using the airplane, can you tell me how that works in a country the size of the USA? Should people who wish to protect their rights be relegated to forms of transport orders of magnitude slower, which effectively make it impossible to travel on short notice to many places?
Why should travel at the speed necessary to conduct business in this country be a privilege rather than a right?
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
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.
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
And how would one travel to Hawaii on business? And yes, people do travel there on business, I've done it.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Yeah, if I'd lost a "loved one" because someone crashed a plane in to a building I'd be like "Hey, didn't you guys check their driver's licenses?!". Because obviously that would have stopped the plane from being hijacked and flown in to a building.
Duh.
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
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Airlines are a private industry the same way I'm the Queen of England. Airlines rely on the public to build their airports or public land. They rely on the government to control traffic in the air. They rely on Congress to give them tens of billions of dollars when profits aren't quite what they hoped. Back in the 80s when you were still shitting your pants, the government even regulated airline routes, schedules, and prices.
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.
We don't need people to protect us in our planes. We're perfectly capable of protecting ourselves on a flight. Look at the shoebomber. He tried something funny and got the shit kicked out of him, then arrested. If you scan news reports in the months after 9/11 you'll find several instances of people causing disturbances on airplanes and in every single instance they got ganked by the passengers and were restrained until the plane could land.
Americans won't stand for it anymore. In the 1980's the stakes were lower. Americans knew that if the plane was hijacked that they could keep their cool and cooperate and be released relatively unscathed when it was all over. Now days we know that the price of complacency during a hijacking is death, and Americans like to go down swinging. The odds of anybody being able to successfully hijack an airliner are drastically lower than they were on September 10th, and the terrorists know this. That's why I think that their next target will not be airplanes. It will likely be truck bombs on bridges or in front of buildings (a la Tim McVeigh). It will probably eventually be suicide bombers in our shopping malls. It might even be biological and chemical agents being disseminated in our office buildings and schools or dropped from small private airplanes. Commercial airlines haven't got anything to be worried about now I'd imagine.
I mean honestly, what is more terrifying to the average person? The possibility that someone may crash a fully loaded commercial airliner into the Statue of Liberty or that you may get blown to shreds while standing in the checkout line at the Piggly Wiggley (or whatever grocery store you frequent)?
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.)
"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."
The reality of life in the US in the 21st century is that with ID checks and other security measures at airports, someone did fly the plane that you have a right to travel on into a building.
The ID requirement is still useless. Ample evidence is provided by the fact that some terrorists were able to board airliners, despite the fact that they were required to show ID, and fly them into buildings. Nothing has changed. All the so-called security measures being taken are just a dog and pony show created to make gullible people like you feel safe.
Did you know that it's actually legal to make fake IDs? It's only illegal to use them. I'm sure someone planning to fly a plane into a building is going to be really worried about that!
I'll agree that the California court you mentioned is "wacky" as soon as you can show me the part of the Constitution that negates seperation of church and state.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Preach on brother. I think the idea of improving security at airports is funny. Where does the airport end? Is it the curb where people unload? A carbomb will take that out. Is it the road leading to the unloading zone? If there's an overpass nearby just steal a car, fill it with bottles of gasoline, aim it right, tie down the steering wheel, and put a brick on the accelerator. That will make a good bomb any place where there's a crowd of people, and the terrorist doesn't even have to be in the car!
I think you kinda lose the credibility in your argument when your "homepage" is a page on a white supremacist site... but maybe that's just me... :)
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.
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
You're right... the funniest part is that this joker works for the same company whose CEO said that privacy is dead, get over it.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
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.
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.
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
Yea... checking driver's licenses alone wouldn't have prevented 9/11. On the other hand, Israel does background checks of anyone who buys an airline ticket. Such checks would have revealed that 15 of the 19 hijackers were here illegally (on overstayed visas) and they could have been arrested right at the airport.
This is what concerns me the most about all these new laws. I believe most aren't needed. Had the government been doing its job, these hijackers, along with other illegal aliens, would have been deported.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Uhm, I tink that airlines are public carriers. That means that they DO have to serve you, unless doing so is unsafe for others. I'm not sure and I couldn't turn up references on that point. IANAL
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Instead, they should be making intelligent choices about who they search. And, no, I'm not suggesting racial profiling. If you've ever been to Isreal or any other country with top notch security personel, you know what I'm talking about.
I saw an interesting news segment on El Al the other day, and they did highlight this part of the security screening process. It isn't just an Israeli thing, but the El Al private security force (the same guys who shot and killed the guy at LAX the other week) do this kind of a screening at every airport that El Al services. You might also like to know that El Al passengers usually have to arrive 3-4 hours before their flight to go through the screening. Not only are they interrogated and (frequently) searched before being allowed to proceed to the checkpoint, but El Al also runs a background check through NCIC, Interpol, and probably Israeli intelligence. I wouldn't be suprised to see a credit check or two thrown in for good measure.
At any rate, after all the checks have been completed and your baggage searched and all of your information verified you can still be denied access to the flight if at any point along the way the security people don't like the way you answered a question, even if you answered it truthfully. It sounds like a steaming pile of fascist shit if you ask me.
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.
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.
Also, with Biometrics becoming more of a reality maybe ID's won't gbe required in the future afterall.
Beacause we all know that biometrics can't be fooled, right?
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!
Nor does showing an ID do much to stop terrorists. It's too easy to get fake ID's.
Why was he ever even apointed to office? Every time this man ran for office he lost miserably.
Well...not *every* time. Granted, he did get beat in the last round of elections by a corpse, but he also managed to get elected for a previous term in the Senate as well as for Governor of Missouri (twice).
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.
someone did fly the plane that you have a right to travel on into a building.
And the reason for that is, we've gone from a country where people were expected to pretty much take care of themselves, to a country where everyone has been told repeatedly to let the bad guys have whatever they want, and wait for the proper authorities to do something about it.
I love getting into completely hypothetical discussions like the one you had. Honestly, I feel they are great mind-expanders. Arguing religion with someone is an incredibly fun thing to do, because both sides have such strong cases.
You'd probably like the discussions at these forums then. Particularly this one (feel free to skip the first few posts, they were transcribed from e-mails).
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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".
One thing I wouldn't worry about much - chemical or biological agents. They are just not that effective. The anthrax letters were basically a fizzle - for a truly massive amount of work, and with anthrax powder that was allegedly _better_ than US military labs ever managed to produce, they could have killed three times as many people by just swerving a car onto a sidewalk. And then there was that Japanese cult with the nerve gas in the subway - prying up a rail could have caused a real disaster, the gas sure didn't.
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
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
At no time did he say "carrying whatever they want". Airport security is still necessary - including checking all carry-on luggage.
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
(* 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.
One thing I wouldn't worry about much - chemical or biological agents. They are just not that effective. The anthrax letters were basically a fizzle - for a truly massive amount of work, and with anthrax powder that was allegedly _better_ than US military labs ever managed to produce, they could have killed three times as many people by just swerving a car onto a sidewalk. And then there was that Japanese cult with the nerve gas in the subway - prying up a rail could have caused a real disaster, the gas sure didn't.
I think that you may have forgotten that the primary goal of a terrorist is not to kill the enemy but to cause terror. Anthrax and Sarin gas work just as well as a bomb that kills 3 people in that respect. With regards to the "massive amount of work," I just don't see that much work in buying some Anthrax from someone and mailing it out to a half-dozen people. But the effect of having people afraid of getting their mail was pretty significant. The number of Anthrax "scares" that turned out to be false alarms only fed the fear and hysteria even further. Then you get to the cleanup aspect which ended up costing millions of dollars.
The thing is, Bin Laden and his cronies don't honestly think that in a war with the US that they could win, and they can't. What they think that they can do is cause us enough trouble to drive the US and our allies out of the middle east. At what point do we decide that the violations of our civil liberties and the financial costs of maintaining this war aren't justified?
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.
Don't be an ass. Of course you are not free to do such things. The quote is of George Bush talking about a web site that was commenting on the fact that his daughters were not charged with a class B felony (with mandatory jail time) in Texas for under age drinking. A law that George himself pushed for and signed into law.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
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've had silver status for 4 years on my airline. I think that has more to do with it. I've never ever seen an elite-status flier pulled over for screening.
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.
"I accept this position of Supreme Chancellor with a heavy heart.. but of course, I will step down when my work here is done.... ... So, where's the plans for that Death Star thing? You're gonna build it in Texas, right?"
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Anyway, I think its just luck more than anything.
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.
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."
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 DO know John Gilmore, and he's doing this because he a patriotic man, who cares about our liberty.
I don't understand why requireing ID to travel on an airplane is a bad thing.
How about, because it's nobody's business who you are just because you're traveling?
The ID check has NO safety value, period.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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'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
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
The reality of life in the 21st Century is that, thanks to 9/11, someone attempting to hijack an airliner will be lucky to survive the passengers' response. The last reported bomber on a commercial aircraft arrived at the destination airport trussed in the belts of, IIRC, twenty-odd passengers.
Other friends of mine have seen drunken, abusive passengers put on notice by other pasengers that they need to cool it or suffer the consequences. Outcome: suddenly quiet drunken passengers. Alert citizens have always been able to protect themselves better than the government ever could.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
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.
Actually, this IS what checking ID's is all about. While many members of terrorist groups are not known, at least some of them ARE known. They are your "suspect" segment of the population - and that suspicion is entirely appropriate.
I'm not saying that the current security process is any good (much of it truly is useless, or at least far less effective and at the same time more intrusive than it could be), just that checking peoples ID's isn't the part that is bad. Knowing who someone is seems to be a logical first step in deciding whether they are a threat or not (you do have a password on your computer don't you? If so why? Could it be to confirm you are who you say you are.) Yes, that one barrier is a relatively minor one to overcome (use unknown members of your group, use a fake ID) but all the minor barriers taken together afford that many more places for a potential attack to be foiled.
Remember the millenium plot was foiled by just this kind of asinine "useless" "easily-foiled", security check. The boder check from Canada into the US (a heck of a lot easier to foil than airline security). A border guard noticed a middle-eastern man acting very nervous and sweating profusely (In December on the Canadian border) waiting in line to cross at the check point. The politically incorrect border guard (who was certainly indulging in some racial profiling) found this suspicious (the bigot!) and searched the van. Lo and behold it was stuffed with explosives intended for an Al Queada sponsored millenium celebration fireworks show at LAX.
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.
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
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
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 may not even tell you that. All it says is that the document corresponds with the person.
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.
Quite a few such methods could also deal with so called "air rage".
This example is certainly vivid, but it has nothing to do with ID checks. I do not recall the details of the case myself, so I will work from your description of it. As you describe the incident, the customs agent's discovery of explosives in the van in no way depended upon the determination of the identity of the van's driver. Indeed, you do not mention the customs agent having used information disclosed by an ID check -- such as the driver's name being on an "enemies list" -- as reason to search. Rather, the agent used his suspicions about the driver as he appeared, possibly including his apparent ethnicity as well as his nervousness.
While racial profiling on the part of law-enforcement agents is not compatible with the maintenance of a free nation, it is precisely correct for a customs agent to search the cargo of a person who behaves suspiciously. The agent would be remiss not to do so. Searching cargo for explosives at the border is not analogous to ID checking at airports; it is analogous to X-raying and searching of bags -- a procedure that neither Gilmore in his suit nor I in my post above object to.
Legally speaking, one must note that your example differs in one more overwhelming way from Gilmore's: it involves crossing the border, whereas Gilmore's argument is specifically about travel within the United States. Entering a nation subjects one to customs and immigration process, which do not apply to a person traveling within a nation. The responsibilities and powers of customs agents are not the same as police powers, or regulatory powers of executive agencies such as FAA.
One of the establishing points of Union (the formation of the United States as a single nation rather than separate but allied nations) was the rejection of tariffs and customs at internal (state) borders. Indeed, restriction and tracking of citizens' internal travel is a hallmark of two forms of government: feudalism, in which the common man is a serf "tied to the land"; and totalitarianism of the Nazi or Soviet breed, with "internal passports" and "Do you haff your papers?"
So what do you serve? Seems to me the person served could refuse the search on the grounds there is no warrant, and it also seems that they could very well be sustained by a court.
Where is the record of the conversation? How can the person being served verify the legality of the search without a signature? Or without the "particular description" required by the 4th amendment? Is there room in the 4th amendment for a verbal contract?
Why have warrants at all? Just dial 1-900-WARRANT and take whatever they want. Can they leave the petition on the answering machine?
Sounds like a spectacularly easy way to get evidence tossed.
The anthrax was "effective" only because this country is run by nervous ninnies, who set a bad example for the rest of the country by running away at the first sign of danger. If you're under 80 and reasonably healthy, you'd be safer working in that "contaminated" congressional office building than walking six blocks from it in the wrong direction without bodyguards - but our "great" leaders _have_ bodyguards, used family influence to do their Vietnam War service in the states, and feel free to panic publicly anytime they feel like it.
And they didn't just buy the anthrax powder. You could buy anthrax samples, but in wet, not powdered form - to kill someone with that, you'd have to hold them down and spray it up their nose. It's a tricky thing to make a fine powder that spreads well without killing the spores; the Russians made a rather crude powder (and it's likely possible to bribe a lab tech to pilfer some, except that few foreigners could make contact without arousing suspicions), but the powder in the mailing was much better than that. Supposedly our own labs never made powder quite that fine - at least not that was turned in by the scientists. (There are strong suspicions that the mailer is one of our scientists - that's quite a way to get budget cuts reversed!)
Well first you have to blow a hole in the airplane and since Air Marshals carry frag rounds that can not penatrate the skin of the aircraft thats not an issue.
I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on this whole guns in the sky issue. Currently there are F-15/16's standing on alert across the country to shoot down any hijacked airliners. So its ok to send a sidewinder missle up the ass of a 767 but if Uncle Louie takes a stray round while the pilot is placing a double tap in Osama's head its somehow a bad thing? Wake up people!!!
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.
Indeed, restriction and tracking of citizens' internal travel is a hallmark of two forms of government: feudalism, in which the common man is a serf "tied to the land"; and totalitarianism of the Nazi or Soviet breed, with "internal passports" and "Do you haff your papers?"
Oh please... Sometimes the paranoia is not only self defeating but becomes self-parody. You are NOT being searched and asked for your ID because you are crossing state borders. You are being asked for your ID because you are getting on a Plane. You are not a serf being tied to the land. Despite the tendency of political debate in this country to routinely devolve to each side calling the other side Nazi's (or more rarely commies) we are not a totalitarian dictatorship, nor anything like one - to suggest otherwise is to trivialise the real horrors of such systems. John Gilmore is not an heroic dissident couragiously braving the wrath of jackbooted nazi's (though I'm sure this is exactly how he sees himself). Your fears and your percieved threats to your liberty (in this case) are entirely theoretical and unrealistic. They are based on a "slippery slope" argument so exacting that it could be (and is) used to argue against ANY change in policy, of ANY kind, EVER.
Yes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But I'm sorry I just can't find it in me to get worked up over this particular "threat". There are other more significant and more fundamental threats to our liberties for us to worry about. If the argument against ID checks in airports was merely that it was useless, a waste of time, and an unnecessary inconvenience I would be more sympathetic. When you add the argument that it is a return to land-tied feudal serfs, or equivalent to "internal passports" and totalitarian dictatorship you lose any credibility your argument may have had. Sort of a Godwins law of policy debate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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
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
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
"Federal air marshals are one way to accomplish this; arming and training pilots is another;"
Air marshalls? Yes. But giving pilots guns strikes me as a really bad idea. About the only thing I see it accomplishing is guaranteeing that there is a gun to be had on the airplane and everybody knows where to get it.
We've already figured years ago that giving guns to prison guards is a bad idea, so why is it that everybody is cheering the idea of giving guns to pilots?
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.
Very original. Let's base all policy decisions on a single simpleminded historical metaphor.
Being asked to confirm you identity before boarding a flight is not the second coming of Auswitch. Nor is it equivalent to an "internal passport." Is it "one step closer"? I suppose theoretically yes. Is it a "slippery slope"? No, I'm sorry I just don't think so. I don't see an easy way for this to metastasize beyond increased security on airplanes to tracking & restricting citizens travel without a whole lot of politically imposible interveneing steps. There are other more serious threats to our civil liberties to waste time, effort and credibility tilting at this particular windmill. As a security measure it is not unreasonable, nor is it "useless". I would be happier if the security personel were private employees of the airlines (as they used to be) which would reduce Mr. Gilmore's constitutional crisis to a private dispute.But, I would rather have fought to keep airport security out of federal hands in the first place. That fight that is already lost, Bush caved to Democrats less concerned with security than with picking up the votes of a few thousand more voters from the American Federation of Government Employees. It doesn't help now (and could hurt) to fight to make airports less secure now that they ARE in federal hands. You have to pick your battles, it's important to pick the ones that really count.
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.