Slashdot Mirror
Your Right to Travel Anonymously: Not Dead Yet
ChiralSoftware writes "Remember John Gilmore's fight to be able to travel on commercial airlines without having to show ID? It has dropped out of the news for a while, but now it appears that the fight is continuing. I remember in the 80s we used to make jokes about Soviet citizens being asked "show me your papers" and needing internal passports to travel in their own country. Now we need internal passports to travel in our country. How did this happen? The requirement to show ID for flying on commercial passenger flights started in 1996, in response to the crash of TWA Flight 800. This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader. How mandatory ID even prevents terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID. I hope the courts don't wimp out on this fight."
You wonder why?
;-)
Two words: PatrIDiot Act
Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people.
What's best for the people is only important in the last few months before an election - and only then if the issue is a truly popular one and you wouldn't know how to twist it.
[Watch the BBC classic comedy series of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" for some *really* neat insight into politics...
I honestly don't see us being able to travel san id ever again. Losing freedoms seems to be a one way street.
However, a government can never take away your rights, they can only chose to not honor them.
I suspect it is for two main reasons: to help identify the corpses and in the case of fake IDs, to provide a starting point for the police to investigate.
I agree though, it does nothing to improve safety.
Stick Men
How mandatory ID even prevents terrorist attacks is also not clear to me
It probably doesn't, but i imagine it helps to identify the passengers in case of a crash.
I'm not known for supporting or even tolerating anything that infringes on anyones civil liberties, but I don't really have a problem with people having to show ID to fly aboard a commercial carrier.
There is just too much chance of 1 person being able to cause harm to a large number of other people.
If they required ID to fly in a private plane, or ride as a passenger in a auto, I would bitch very loudly.
Of course, they just made it so that you have to tell the myour name when asked, but as far as I know it's not illegal to lie about what your name is, unless you actually end up being arrested.
So I'm just bitching quietly, for the moment.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Some airlines require ID for domestic flights in the UK. One theory is that they want to stop people from buying lots of cheap "£1" tickets uses by the airline as a marketing ploy and then selling them on to random people for a profit. Rynair is an example.
A good thing the November election is not that far away any more.
This is good for nothing. Ignore it or send it to the Customer Care Dept.
Every time they build up a wall,
they create something that makes someone want to pull it down.
The more Orwellian the world becomes, the more disempowered people become, and therefore the more they seek to assert their independence by attacking the 'security'.
They knew about terrorist threats back in 1996 but it was hard for people who haven't seen the damage to believe in them.
The government wasn't sharing and correlating all the data with the passenger manifests by 9/11.
I for one want them to!
This isn't an issue that is theoretical now. It is about knowing the people climbing into what are effectively giant bombs aren't nut case extremist's intent on killing the rest of us.
I know /.ers tend to believe there is a conspiracy behind every bush, but there isn't in this case. The requirement (and the reason you can't change seats *after* boarding an airplane) is purely (as another said) to identify the corpses. Its for the insurance companies and pending lawsuits etc. It has *nothing* to do with the Patriot Act, your removal of civil liberties or anything else.
Karma: Neutered
Funny thing, when we in eastern europe start loosing papers, you guys just begin to get some more.
:)
I don't like what I see day by day, that people just have to give up a bit more freedom to ascertain "safety" (baah). Where I have lived most of my life, you could go nowhere without papers, let alone fly (god forbid).
Hopefully you guys won't loose too much and hopefully we will get some more and then we could meet half ways up
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Vote with your wallet. I don't fly unless absolutely positively there is no other way to get to there from here in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, I avoid airports. They consume my time and have wasteful, feelgood 'security measures' which actually provide no security at all.
The last straw for me was having my shoes searched three times on the way to a plane. I was wearing a pair of sneakers. No metal in there.
Government mandated security measures in airports are geared to one goal, and one goal only - maintaining the status quo in the airline industry. It's an attempt to construct a valid excuse for the next hijacking. "After all, we made you show ID and confiscated your 3/4" long insulin needles, don't blame us."
Security professionals my ass, they don't have a chance in hell of catching a committed hijacker either before 9/11 or now. Get people used to that idea and stop with the stupid 'security' crap. You can also die on your morning commute to a truck driver snorting crank. Get a grip, death is all around us. You could drop dead reading this post. Really.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
This is all about money. This keeps you from selling/giving your tickets to another person, unless you buy their high dollar, refundable, exchangeable, transferable ticket.
ID papers are so last century. What you need is to operate positionable biometric chips into people's hands.
Yes, I did watch Demolition Man yesterday, why do you ask? Greetings and salutations, citizen, and a happy day to you.
The various post-9/11 inquiries from the government and the media all seem to have agreed that we were close to breaking up the attacks before they happened, but we didn't connect the dots in time. MSNBC-TV recently aired a special edition of their Hardball program where they spotlighted twelve seperate things that could have prevented the attacks had any of them gone perfectly, but they didn't.
For all the attacks that happen or that we hear about after being broken up, there's got to be dozens of plots that are being aborted or lose key personel to arrest before they had time to mature into being specific enough to pick an exact target.
As scary as it is for our "free" government to be fighting a "secret" war, we have to remember that a government-like entity without any homeland is already fighting against us that way.
It is ironic that many slashdotters work in information systems, yet they are anxious about identity systems. To function, databases depend on unique primary keys for each record, and from that comes the need to overtly establish a person's identity. It isn't just in airlines where this is done. You have a number on your car for a similar reason, and a NI number of some sort. If we want to systematise, this is the trade-off, isn't it?
I stole this
Well people like to say it is security, but I think it is more towards financial security. When ever there is an accident and people unfortunately die. There is the issue of notifying the victims family to inform them of their death. And the families gets the insurance money from the airline, as well other donations from generous people. With all this money moving around after the accident you need some method of making sure the family saying that their Brother and Husband died actually was on the plane. Because there are a lot of unscrupulous people who will report that a person had died on the plane to collect the insurance money and worse collect some donations from kind citizens. Besides this person who "Died" in the air plane may had an alternative method of wanting to get off the records of police. So there is a air plane explosion were there was no survivors and everyone was vaporized, just get some family to say that you were on the plane you are labeled dead. And police are no longer looking for you, and your family gets some extra cash that they might push your way.
I Find that there is often 3 reasons why people do something.
1. The reason they promote it. (It is good for security!)
2. The reason why they care about it. (It was save me a lot of money)
3. Suff they dont want to tell. (This could be use to track anyone.)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'm not an alarmist, but I travel by air often enough that I wonder about a few things:
- How do we know that the person who bought the ticket is the person who boarded the airplane? Without an ID check, it would be possible for person A to buy the ticket and person B to board the airplane. A simple ID check prevents this.
- As a previous poster stated, how do we know who is in which seat? I've seen "seat hopping" on many flights, and I've done it myself. Frankly, I'd like my family to get *my* remains, not those of the guy who took my seat after I moved to a different row.
- I sometimes order a special meal. How do I prove that the meal is for me, and not for someone claiming to be me? Not that someone would like my veggie special... but...
- What's wrong with "profiling" the *frequent* flyer? I'd *love* the idea of a "frequent flyer ID card", if it would speed up my passage thru the security checks - the most time-consuming part of flying. If all I have to give is my name, address, place of work, and previous flight history... shit, they can get that on the internet!
I agree that an ID doesn't prevent a mechanical failure. But, that statement is tantamount to saying that there is a direct corollary between wearing a watch and arriving on time. They don't relate at all.
ID checks are simply that: ID checks. Unless the government begins to use them in a *negative* way, I don't see ID checks as an issue. And, by "negative", I mean restrictions on who may fly, where they may fly, and when they may fly... if at all.
Say a plane crashes today in the Atlantic, and you know that many bodies may never be recovered.
How many families will want to know for sure if a relative was on board or not? How many individuals may want to claim they, or a given relative, where on board to get a hefty life insurance payment?
Even if bodies are found and recovered, it really helps for any kind of forensics to have the IDs of all passengers.
I do not think that having to show an ID is such a problem. The issue I'd have is with the storage and centralization of ID information.
You should be responsible for your actions. Public travel falls under the umbrella of being responsible. If you want to travel anyomously you can, just not on regulated travel systems that are trying to be safe. The excuse that you shouldnt have to show ID because people can fake it is like saying you should use the default root password because anyone can bruteforce your machine if given the chance.
How mandatory ID even prevents terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID.
Well, maybe not on the plane. But if they travel by plane to commit a terrorist act at their destination, maybe the ID requirement could help preventing the terrorist act. (maybe...could, right)
You guys have been checking ID at the border for a long time. Since most people who hate the American government are already inside the US, this seems to be of uncertain value.
ID is now required so that airlines can cross-check against the politcally-motivated, secret, error-ridden watch lists of people who are from unpopular countries filled with little brown people.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
I met a guy once who said he'll never fly commercial until he can carry his handgun aboard. I bet the people posting here wouldn't want to fly with him.
Seriously, after all that's happened...don't you want some kind of security?
The same people complaining about this are the same people who complained about the government not stopping 9/11.
The public wants/demands security on airlines. Our legislature and executive branch created the Patriot Act while representing us. The Senate voted 98-1. The House voted 356-66.
A lot of people would like to ignore this and pretend that John Ashcroft wrote it, but it's our public officials. He just does his job trying to enforce it.
For some reason or other, items such as nail files and scissors, screwdrivers, your trusty leatherman, even pieces of common cutlery only suited for cutting butter are stricly verboten to carry onto commercial airliners. However, what sort of security is this supposed to provide?
I just flew from the UK two nights ago, and in the tax-free area after the security control, you are able to purchase D-cell maglites. As those in the know would tell you, the most dangerous part of a knife for use in close combat is not the blade, but the handle. Applied to the head of the adversary it is more likely to be deadly than the blade applied to the torso. Same thing with a maglite or any other object of similar hardlyness for that matter.
A highly motivated would-be hijacker could easily find similar makeshift weaponry that would be just as effective as knives or nail-files. In fact, the easiest of all would be simple social engineering; i.e. claiming that there was a bomb onboard and that an unidentified accomplice would set it off if certain conditions are not met would probably allow a hijacker to meet his requirements with little or no danger of being apprehended before the plane was airborne.
So why are we being hassled to such a ridiculous extent in airports? Probably so that most passengers will be lulled into a sense of security as well as making the task of airline hijacking seem much more complicated to the casual hijacker seeking escape from a hostile regime, political attention, quick cash, or some other common reason. The dedicated terrorist would likely find a way around anyway.
-- Buzh
It seems that "Your right to travel by Jetliner Anonymously" is what's at stake here. Get in to your car, drive from Florida to California, pay cash along the way. *POOF*! You're traveling anonymously!
Say a plane crashes today in the Atlantic, and you know that many bodies may never be recovered.
On an internal flight? RTFA
ID on airlines really started being required just after the DB Cooper hijacking in 1971. Prior to that, riding an airplane was just like riding the bus.
After the shenanigans involved in trying to ID the passenger that hijacked Flight 305, most airlines got serious about seeing ID on their passengers.
Note, however, that there has been a slippery slope since then leading to the current state of affairs where boarding a plane is like getting booked into jail.
You have to show ID to check out a library book. Just carry your drivers licence and relax!
The FAA has always be a bit on the over cautios side. But the result is the safest form of travel (if not the most cramped) in the world.
I don't know if having to flash ID is quite comprable to having to file with Moscow to travel between cities.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Seriously, you've never been on a plane where you couldn't switch seats after you sat down? My wife and I travel and when our seats are separated, people usually are very willing to swap seats to put us closer.
I've also flown internationally where there was so many empty seats that we were able to move around and get our own row (in some cases).
Plus, have you ever been to a plane crash? It's not like everyone stays in their seats.
So, if you've got better information, share it. But your vague assurance that it's just for lawsuits is bs.
My father is a blogger.
For all the attacks that happen or that we hear about after being broken up, there's got to be dozens of plots that are being aborted or lose key personel to arrest before they had time to mature into being specific enough to pick an exact target.
m e_can_be_worse.html
These measures will stop all the terrorist equivalent of script-kiddies, the copy cats that try to repeat 9/11 (or similar). But what really made 9/11 9/11 was that these guys thought outside of the box. Noone expected hijackers to use planes as missiles. Now everyone does, so 9/11 type of attacks are more likely to fail since hijacked planes risk being shot down by the air force.
There is always the risk that someone will come up with a novel idea that circumvents all the security measures put up to prevent the repeat of 9/11. This is a thought provoking article by Jef Raskin: http://humane.sourceforge.net/unpublished/next_ti
What do you mean if. BTW, looks like you had a little too much spicy food last night, huh? And next time, don't forget to wash your hands afterward.
It isn't a per-se identification or security issue. The airlines are the ones who overbook and don't allow you to cash in your unused ticket. Complain to the airline in question.
:-)
Congress mandated *identification* rules. The FAA is a useless piece of toast. And the airlines just want your money: it's ok with them if you never board the actual flight
For as long as I can remember, airline tickets are personal, meaning that you have not been able to fly anonymously for years.
Having to show an Id to proof that you really are the person you claim to be is only logical.
As other posters have already pointed out, identifying the bodies is another good reason, and while showing an ID will not stop terrorists, it can be a big help in tracing them after the fact (i.e. find their associates and chase them down) which was indeed what happened after 9/11
Figting for your rights and freedom is fine, but this sounds like fighting windmills to me
The next sentence was along the lines of "this may mean we soon will have a national ID card".
I'm glad we're not letting the terrorists win by changing our way of life. *snort*
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I believe one or more of them had expired visas. So if requiring IDs could help spot cases like this, I am all for it despite the loss of privacy and such..
You know, there's another option everyone has available to them to avoid having to show ID when boarding domestic flights.
Don't fly.
It was the country of liberties or only the country of the statue?
That was one guy's response when I said I liked to take Amtrak whenever practical. If true, they were minding their own business and never gave me any trouble.
I have had to conclude that my fellow Americans are cowards with their SUVs and Patriot Acts. Bullies, but that defining heart of cowardice. Better to kill a 1000 third-world children now than risk the chance that one of them might grow up to be a terrorist -- and on-and-on.
You've spotted the reason for all this; it's to prevent a trade in non-transferrable tickets. As well as absurd RyanAir offers, returns cost about the same as singles everywhere, so they want to prevent a trade in return-leg tickets. And of course they want to do it for 'security reasons' so the inconvenience isn't their fault and is all for your benefit.
Of course it doesn't really affect security.
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
I just checked mine and I can't find the article on the right to board a commercial airliner without proving you are who you say you are. No one is being kept from traveling anonymously, there are still bicycles, buses, Segways, as a passenger in a car, oh, and your feet, heck, you can even charter a private plane without getting your ID checked. You know, honestly if there was an airline that didn't check your ID before boarding I and I am sure most travelers would avoid them at all cost. If I am going to be trapped in aluminum can 33,000 feet in the air I would like some very basic assurance that there was at least an attempt to check that everyone else on the flight is on the level and that dangerous people that wish to board the flight with me were at least inconvenienced a little bit.
I just flew from LAX to Sea-Tac and was not required to show ID.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Where exactly does the right to travel anonymously come from? I tried to look up the 28th amendment, but couldn't find it.
john
For the same reason the american government is digging up three year old intelligence reports for the lone sake of raising the threat level, and thereby controlling it's people (uniting it through fear and a common enemy).
Since adding ID checks is cheaper and less controversal than taking care of actual reasons behind terrorism (third world poverty and the stupid foreign politics of the USA / west world) this is the way to go. Plus, it adds a false sense of security for american citizens, which helps Bush in the upcoming election.
I had all the required ID checks last week when I flew, but no one caught the Swiss Army Knife I accidently took on the plane with me (it was attached to my keychain and I totally forgot about it).
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
Last I checked, every car I've ever driven or ridden in has had plate identifying it, and many blacks in this country have dealt with cops pulling them over IN CARS for no reason other than their skin color for many years. They ask for ID every time they do, but the car had some form of ID on it anyway.
This isn't new, it's just happening on planes to white people. You are about 100 years too late to stop it.
The point is that the government is requiring government employees (TSA screeners) to check IDs without saying why!
I guessed the ID checkpoint was an opportunity for someone to do a basic check for people acting suspiciously. Most people really do lie poorly. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were flagged for further searches, the inspectors were just too stupid to recognize the pattern.
Personally I'd rather expend the effort preventing flights or other forms of travel from countries known for exporting or growing terrorists. Put it in the air and we'll ground it. Put it in the water and we'll sink it till you start policing your own people and shut down schools preaching hate.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Note to author of parent: Next time, end with something like "go ahead, mod me down", or some such. There is no "-1 reverse psychology" button (how I wish there was) so you'll be +5 insightful in no time at all.
Who's there?
Zee German Inspector.
The German Inspector w.....
I AM ZEE ONE ASKING ZEE QVESTIONS HERE!!!!
Insert appropriate agency personnel for the inspector.
"Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
except in a few years all cars will have rfid chips in them (you have no choice, driving is a privilege, not a right). You could always walk, I suppose, except the Supreme Court recently upheld the right for police to ask for id for no cause.
If librarians could use a system that would let you check out books anonymously and still get their books back, I'm sure they would. Librarians tend to be very concerned about civil rights and freedom, but they also need to be able to hunt you down if you don't bring back that copy of "Catcher in the Rye". Just thought I'd make the point.
Freedom: "I won't!"
...is harder if you need a vaild ID to board.
The question of how someone could legitimately want anonymous access to tons of high-explosive fuel going 800 km/h aside, comparing ticket names to an ID makes enough sense for the above reason alone.
At least to me, as I fail to see how showing ID to do certain things that might be dangerous to others is a reduction of any meaningful freedom. Flying is not the only way to travel, so you are still free to go anonymously where you want. You just have to pick a vehicle where any one passenger can't easily cause the death of all the others on board.
You only need a unique identifier within the system of the travel carrier. In the case of flying this is provided by a 'ticket'. No need exists to identify a person outside the system of the travel carrier. I.e., attaching my identity at the airport to my identity in my real life is completely unnecessary to the task of travel.
*looks over Bill of Rights*
Nope, no Right to Travel Anonymously. Where did this right come from? Hrmmm...
It's sorta like your right to privacy, it DOES NOT EXIST once you leave your home. Your right to privacy only exists within the confines of your home, so get used to it.
This is honestly going TOO FAR, you don't have the right to do-anything-you-want. What's next?
Your right to miniature golf?
Your right to Six Flags?
Your right to drive slow in the left hand lane?
Guess what, some things are priviledges and not rights, and sometimes priviledges are taken away... like when children are bad and their mommy punishes them. Sure, maybe *we* weren't the bad ones, but all mommy knows is that one of the neighborhood kids is being naughty and needs to know who each kid's mother is before she lets them in the house.
So if you don't want to show your papersss, SCHNELL! to travel, you get to travel by slower, less comfortable means. Unless you're rich, and can rent a plane just for you, or own your own plane, and travel unchecked and unmonitored. Once again, two sets of rules, one for the masses, one for the chosen few.
Freedom: "I won't!"
The constitution was meant to give specific limited rights to the government. Everything not listed was intended to be a right of the citizens. There was actually an argument agaist doing the bill of rights because it was feared that people would eventually believe that if it were not listed then it was not a right.
This is not the intent of the constitution!
This is an interesting read about this argument.
One can make reasoned arguments about the restrictions associated with airtravel and many other elements of our lives in the public but please don't spread the "FUD" that if it is not listed in the constitution than we do not have a right to it!
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
"Only autocracies maintain spies, these are not needed in democracies" - Woodrow Wilson
I don't see any harm in the airlines requiring an ID to board there planes. After all, most tickets you bye are non-transferable, so it makes sense to make sure that the people you think are getting on are actually the people whom are supposed to be getting on.
OTOH Ohio is already making sure that you can't DRIVE anonymously through the state by putting scanners on the turnpike that reads every license plate. Won't be long and they will be asking for 'Papers' at every state border.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
Um, no. IDs were required. The highjackers all produced legally valid IDs. It did not stop or spot or otherwise impede their task.
visitors visas are buried in the middle of a passport, and NOT checked on domestic flights.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
While the airports may now require ID, it's primarily for show. In the 6 round trip flights and ID checked 12 times, not once did my ID match my flight information and not once did anyone even question anything.
I generally leave it up to friends to book my flights because I don't care what airline/airport I fly into and out of but they do. So for a wedding in North Carolina in 1999, the friend put down "Crackpipe Johnny" as my name while booking. I chuckled until we actually got to the airport because I didn't know how they'd react. Instead of showing my ID, I showed my Zippo which had Crackpipe Johnny emblazoned on it. "Ok sir, go right through."
Since then it's been a running joke and even post-9/11 Crackpipe Johnny has had no problem booking a flight or boarding a plane.
I wouldn't recommend trying this, but until someone tells me to stop doing so, I will continue to do so. Just because someone says something is so (in this case mandatory ID carrying) isn't reason to freak out.
Civil liberties advocates say that they are now backing Gilmore's challenge both because the stakes are high and because the political mood in the country has shifted since 2002.
I thought groups like EFF and EPIC stood up for things because it was the right thing to do. That their principles were stronger than the country's "political mood". The "stakes" are just as high as when Gilmore first filed his suit.
I am sick of you f*cking leftie slashdot folk. Damn. Yes, I want everyone who is on a plane to show ID and have that ID checked against a central database of "suspicious" people. If I see one f*ckng terrorist on a plane that I am aboard, I will take his damn head off with my shoe if I have to. F*CK M. MOORE and the leftie slashdotters.
You have airplanes and shoes in Alabama?
A visa allows you to enter an country, once inside that country the visa is of little or no import until you wish to enter again. So an 'expired visa' would/should have little impact on their ability to travel. Consider the following, a student arrives on a visa that is valid for 6 years he never attends school, his visa has not expired but he is out of status. Or alternatively, he attends school and after graduate he works eventually switching to H1 status. He is in the country longer than 6 yrs but the only visa in his passport is the expired school visa. He is in status and legal, and he only needs a new one if he decides to leave the country and then re enter.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
If you have to present ID that matches the name on the ticket then you cannot resell the ticket. It used to be the case that people would resell tickets they couldn't use. Now, depending on the type of ticket you didn't use, your money is either gone, locked in an airline account with one year to spend it on another ticket, back in your hands less 25%, or some other such "arrangement".
The airlines fight tooth and nail to prevent the expense of new "security" measures. If one is accepted it usually means that someone, somewhere is making solid profit on the scheme.
In the U.S. during the growth west, the railroads did something similar ( I don't know if anyone objected ), they would when taking your ticket, punch holes in it based on your appearances. That way when the train was robbed, they did not have to worry about eye witnesses to describe the robbers, height, eye color, and weight had already been recorded for each and every passenger. In order to figure out what the person who robbed the train looked like you just gave everyone their ticket back and ...
Checking for ID is not to prevent the determined attacker. It is so we can identify them after the fact. What are the chances we would have found out who all of the hijackers were if anon travel was ok?
It would amaze me if ID-controll would ever stop anyone from hijacking a plane. Not that I think showing your ID is a problem, in Europe we have to flash ID every time we travel. But using it as a terrorist/hijack prevention that is just giving people a fake feeling of security.
It always stuns me how they take away, nailclippers an the like but let you take glass bottles of liquor on the plane. Pair of nailclippers VS broken bottle: 1-0 so again they just want to give a fake feeling of security.
#1) Respect the privacy of others. #2) Think before you type.
Both of them supported this act, and both of them want larger government. Libertarian for teh win!
the Political Inquirer
I am a dual citizen, born in California from French parents. I was raised in France. At age 19, I decided to move back to my "home" land (which I really had only visited once in my lifetime, having left California at the age of 3 weeks!).
I had my US passport renewed at the US embassy in Paris, France. This is the only ID that I carried for many of the following years. This passport carried no address.
In subsequent years, I lived in Florida and California, without getting a state ID or driver's license. You see, I didn't know how to drive ...
I was able to register & vote in Florida in 1996 for the presidential election without a state ID or a DL.
When it was time to move from Florida to California, I believe I did have to show my passport to fly, as that was my only ID. I thought nothing of it at the time, being used to having to show papers in France at any time to cops when requested. You see, over in France, it's illegal to even be out in the street without your national ID card. Let alone board a plane ...
Once in California, I lived nearly another year without a state ID or DL.
The only reason I got a California state ID was that after I bought a house, I needed to furnish it. But the furniture stores wouldn't take my checks without an ID. My non-existent credit history was good enough to get a $200,000 secured mortgage for the house, but not an unsecured credit card with more than $500 credit line, which wasn't enough to buy furniture for the house, and at the time my bank did not offer a debit card ... So I had to use old-fashioned checks, and that required ID ...
It wasn't until 4 years later at the ripe old age of 25 that I learned to drive and finally got a California driver license . Now I'm sure my name appears in many files. It's very reluctantly that I drive at all, but at least it's a low-polluting hybrid car ...
I have just noticed that my French national expired last month. 10 years, eh ... I have been taking annual trips to France to visit family. I always use my French ID to get in to France, rather than show my US passport, so it never gets stamped (there is no stamp on ID cards, and I never carried a French passport, I used the US one lifelong). It always confuses the immigration officers when I come back to California at SFO and they never see any foreign stamp on my US passport. They can't really tell where I have been. The US passport is full of stamps - but only those of US officials, coming *back* into the US ...
I need to renew my French ID so I can continue using this trick ...
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
"How did this happen?"
Read any slashdot thread about ID cards, biometrics and the new passports they are trying to issue. Some of the people who post here, who really should know better because they can READ, are aplolgists for all of these techniques and technologies.
The number of times that I have read "i dont have a problem with it as long as"...that is how we have arrived at this juncture; people who should know better are apathetic, compliant or simply asleep. Then you have the morons who whip out the "Tin Hat" jibe whenever someone posts that a Totalitarian state is being built right in front of your eyes; they are also a part of the reason why these measures can be introduced without even a fight.
That question is really quite astonishing; "how we got here" is right in front of you, and has been for three years. It isnt too late to turn it all around; the "joined up government" isnt joined up yet. If you are not willing to use this place to solve the problem (and by the tone of this question, I am presuming that you DO think its a bad thing) then don't even ask; its completely infuriating.
By "use this place" I mean consistently promote the FIPR, Privacy International, No2ID and the other organizations that are trying to orgainze resistance to these measures both in USUK.
If you are not willing to do this, then accept what is being done to you and your country quietly. This should be one of the loudest places screaming against these measures, not somewhere where once in a while, we get a single stunned question.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
If I see one f*ckng terrorist on a plane that I am aboard, I will take his damn head off with my shoe if I have to. Why not let the armed flight marshal shoot him as he scrabbles helplessly against the reinforced cockpit door? ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
That information is not privy to you. You must immediately report to the nearest police station for interrogation, citizen.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
This is a specious argument against the use of a national ID - as in "identification" - card. I wonder how B.F. feels about this quote being used when someone feels that their "personal liberty" is being threatened, in comparison to the liberty and freedom of the general population?
When this quote was penned, Franklin was reflecting on the actions of some colonists who were taking the side of the English in order to keep English soldiers from imprisoning other colonists... and possibly themselves. The English were an occupying force, and there were *NO* legal means which could be used to appeal their decisions. If they felt you were a threat, you were imprisoned without recourse.
The legal system in the US may move slowly, but it *does* move and it *does* work. Court decisions have said that the prisoners in Guantanamo are now required to have legal representation, and some may even be released. Abu Ghraib was being actively investigated *before* the media "caught on" and the case became "interesting" - look at the public record. And, the fact that we are having this discussion in an open forum without the fear that the "gummint" will arrest us, simply means that we are free to do so.
If the ID card is solely used to *prove who you are*, then it follows that you are who you *claim* to be... and *probably not* someone who wishes to hurt, maim, or kill as many grandmothers, wives, or children as he/she can. The assumption is, of course, that we haven't naturalized or home-bred more Timothy McVeighs -- something no government can defend against without totally invasive security measures which would never pass Congress' muster.
The problem with a national ID card isn't freedom, it's forgery: how do you prove that the ID card is not fake?
Let's get real. Those who wish us harm are not targeting the military. If they were, the 9/11 attacks would have been felt at military bases around the US and the rest of the world. These malcontents are targeting *us*. I don't see how carrying a national ID card, which proves that I am *ME*, means that I have given up my liberty to obtain freedom.
Fly from New York to Washington DC, and there's a pretty good chance that part of the flight will take place over the ocean.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
I have flown without showing ID in 1999 and 2000..all commerical flights right out of OHare..
I think someone is lying to John about the reasons why he was denied flying privelages fro not showing ID and thus the circumstances for wining are in John's favor..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I havent got a problem with carrying ID. I have got a problem with it being requested without due cause though. I'd prefer they get rid of the guns.
kin242.net
It's pretty sad that the following example can happen....
Buy ticket to Knoxville, TN from Columbus, OH online
On day of flight:
Show up 3 hours ahead of time.
Sit and wait an hour because the plane is delayed.
Fly a half an hour away and wait another hour for the connection
Fly to knoxville in another half an hour.
6 Hours for a PLANE to Knoxville.....it takes about the same amount of time to DRIVE to Knoxville from Columbus....something's WRONG here!
Some will say, well, Columbus and Knoxville are not exactly busy airports, but the same thing would happen when flying from Philadelphia to New York or to Boston. Plane travel should be FASTER not the same speed as driving.
Gorkman
Unfortunately it seems little people know how to boycott anymore.
Well, I think many people of all sizes know how to boycott. Please check your discriminatory attitude at the door.
creation science book
The courts will cave in because our society has lost their common sense and clear thinking. The majority of "activists" are just "reactivists" whose knee jerk response fuels Gov't interference in every aspect of our life. Think people, think. http://spyware.pcwash.com/browser-hijacker.html
If we're so against it, why sit back and watch it happen? The more people that refuse, rebel or what, then the less it will happen. Maybe im trying to start a revolution or maybe im just trying to help when i say WAKE UP. You dont belong to the govornment.
Another fun thing would be to just bare faced LIE to everyone who stands in your way of freedom. These people don't deserve to know who you are, because theyre just being nosy.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
"How did this happen? The requirement to show ID for flying on commercial passenger flights started in 1996, in response to the crash of TWA Flight 800. This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader"
You have no idea that it was definitely a mechanical failure, but let's say it was 75% a mechanical failure, but there is still a 25% possibility that it was a terrorist attack.
I don't see the problem with having to show ID on a plane, unless, of course, I have something to hide. If you really think that you're anonymous when you're traveling, you're pretty naiive. The reason we have the names of all of the 9/11 hijackers is because they bought the tickets in thier name. Even if you buy a ticket for someone else, you need to indicate the name and location of that person so he can pick up the tickets remotely.
Bottom line: you seem to ignore the issues that face this country in terms of open borders and the need to track not only international travelers but those of us who are considered citizens. And why do we need to track ourselves? Because it's politically incorrect to single out muslims / middle-easterners although they are the notorious haters of America who would have no problem crashing planes into buildings, as witness in September of 2001.
In your own Plane!
What makes you think YOUR right to privacy trumps the Airlines (you know the people that actually own the planes - not the government you dopes) right to know who is on their planes?
Given the "free speech zones" (a cage within a cage surrounded by barbed wire at the DNC, the "no-protest" areas, and the arrests of people with unpopular opinions), as well as fully tamper-tolerant electronic voting machines, your options are getting narrower.
Parent was modded "3; Funny". That should have been more like "5; Cynical but hit the nail on the head".
"Knowing who is present on board internally guided flying bombs might be helpful in that struggle."
In what way?
Stop being vaguely theoretical. Follow your thought process through and show us how it helps.
On 9/11, we knew and know everybody who was on board. And it helps how?
In fact, it turns our the government knew these people were trouble, knew they got on board, and it didn't help.
How does tracking my movements within my own country help in this struggle?
Checking the ID of boarding passengers means that at least one pair of eyes matches the signature and appearance of the person in the photo with the person standing there and it allows a check of the person's name against intelligence reports, watch lists, names of persons with expired passports or visas, etc.
It's not as lame an idea as some seem to think.
Don't we all wish the world was not so full of potential hostile intent, that we could go about our business unencumbered by all this, as we did 40 years ago...
As long as I can remember, I have had to buy airline and bus tickets and give someone my name. And as long as I can remember, such tickets where not transferable.
People who want to travel anonymously are in the minority and I don't really give a f*ck about them nor their perceived expectations. It's just like the guy in Portland Maine who wanted to prove he had a right to carry a firearm in public, and choose an outdoor, family oriented festival to prove it.
He was a self-righteous a**hole too.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Having just watched Bowling for Columbine, here's a theory about why we have to show IDs (and submit to other "security" measures): it helps promote the culture of fear in the U.S.
On top of overreporting of violent crime in the media, the gov't isn't a slouch when it comes to reminding us how dangerous the world is. Having pervaisive "security" serves as a constant background reminder of this.
The typical person might think, "Oh, I have to submit to all these security measures so the gov't can keep me safe. Therefore, there must be quite a bit of danger out there to warrant such measures."
That's right folks - all terrorists have a big light saying "suspicious" over their heads that comes on when they get IDd.
I agree that that the gov't is going overboard with there flexing the contol muscle. As a republican - I can say that Bush is not doing a good job with the patriot act (I wish it would just go away), but it has to be better than what Kerry would do. Lefties don't even want citizens to own guns.
ChiralSoftware writes "Remember John Gilmore's fight to be able to travel on commercial airlines without having to show ID? It has dropped out of the news for a while, but now it appears that the fight is continuing. I remember in the 80s we used to make jokes about Soviet citizens being asked "show me your papers" and needing internal passports to travel in their own country. Now we need internal passports to travel in our country. How did this happen? The requirement to show ID for flying on commercial passenger flights started in 1996, in response to the crash of TWA Flight 800. This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader. How mandatory ID even prevents terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID. I hope the courts don't wimp out on this fight."
Sure TWA 800 was likely caused by a mechanical failure but the investigation of that incident uncovered a lot of concerns about vulnerabilities in the security of commercial air travel in the US. This is why the requirement to present government issued ID was introduced.
The fact that the 9/11 hijackers had valid government ID doesn't mean that the only protection this offers is the possession of said ID. There is a lot going on behind the scenes with that passenger manifest that passengers do not see. The checking of ID at the gate is the last step in the process, the verification of the data they've been working with (i.e. the passenger manifest) to spot potential problems.
Who would want to fly to DC? It is a shit whole. The only worse city in the US is Detroit.
It started with small things like having to put coins in supermarket supermarket trollies, and now it's spreading almost everywhere.
It's the assumption that most people (including you valued customers) are dishonest scum, and treating them accordingly.
Find funky gifts
The PROBLEM is that our government is too untrustworthy to implement these without abusing them. Seriously, if I could trust my government with my information, I wouldn't mind a national ID card. But the fact of the matter is, this country (the US) is hopelessly up corporate America's butt. Any benefit to a system like this, or a national ID card, would be quickly nullified by abuse.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Since the Atlantic Ocean is in the other direction, its likely that any plane would likely not fly over the ocean, mainly because any lengthy flight in the wrong direction would deviate from a flight plan and therefore be open to possible abuse. Fuel is expensive too.
Additionally even if a plane did fly in the wrong direction (possibly to allow other planes to more easily land), it is unlikely they would venture far enough to spend a protracted amount of time over the ocean.
One of the flights were San Francisco to Washington DC (additionally I see no flights between NY and DC mentioned), so as illogical as your suggestion is, it doesn't apply regardless. You should read the article
"You don't remember that little 9-11 thing? Highjackings?"
Right. You don't remember that the terrorist all legitimate governement IDs? You don't remember the terrorist all showed their legitimate government IDs and had them cataloged?
And this helped us how? How did it help us? See, that's the trouble with this world. You're a guy of average intelligence. Great. You should get on the plane and just get to where you're going. Let the thinking to other people who are smart enough to do it. You're not. Unfortunately, people like you get elected. Average, non-thinking people. And you come up with stuff like "Well, lets get ID's! Because people who are willing to kill themselves for a cause will never show us ID's....oh...wait..."
This is the one that really makes no sense to me. How does requiring a boarding pass to get through security, thus inconveniencing family members looking to pick up or see off loved ones, help improve security or reduce terrorism? If I were a terrorist, would I really be stopped by this? All I would need to do is buy a ticket! Bingo, instant access to the terminal. Same thing for the alarms raised when someone buys a one way ticket. Terrorists are not stupid - of course they will buy a round trip, even though they obviously don't plan to use it that way.
Yup, like surface to air missiles. I hear that not all black-marketeers ask for ID when they swap you three 'stingers' and a launcher for a suitcase full of Afghan heroin.
Tightening security at one weak point just forces the terrorists to find another.
Security can only go so far; there will always be viable and vulnerable targets for terrorists.
Policing can only go so far; for every terrorist you imprison or kill another fills his plastique-soled shoes.
By addressing the causes of terrorism such as the actual and perceived injustices and abuses perpetrated by certain groups of people by other groups of people we could reduce terrorism but as long as one person on the planet is pissed off with their lot in life and feels that their only option is to use violence and terror to affect change terrorism will always be with us.
The unpleasent reality is that we cannot hope to win this 'war' on terrorism, we can only hope to survive it.
~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
I have been interested in this issue for many years. A heads up. There is a new model law being pushed by the AAMVA called the Driver's License Agreement (DLA). It is a compact that is suppose to replace the "Driver's License Compact (DLC)" which requires the state you are licensed in (home state) to assess a point penalty for an out of state ticket and the "Non-Resident Violator's Compact (NRVC)" which requires your home state to pull your license if you ignore an out of state ticket.
The DLA is much more draconian than than the DLC & NRVC. It also has "backdoor" provisions for a National ID Card such as minumum requirements to be on/inside a driver's license such as smart chip, biometric information. The AAMVA supported the Clinton Administration's requirement that Driver's Licenses display your Social Security Number. The DOT got as far as issuing proposed regulations but Congress refused to fund the mandate and eventually repealed it. However, Congress did not remove the provision that states had to collect the number as per the revised Welfare Act.
The DLA also will be an instrument more severly punish traffic offenders for an out of state infraction than under the current system. The NRVC cannot be used by states to pull a license for ignoring non-moving violations such as parking tickets. Also with the DLC, you could only be punished for an out of state infraction only if your home state has the exact infraction on its books as well. If you get a ticket for careless driving away from home and you home state has no such offense, you get no points. The DLA would require some form of point penalty. Also, the DLA will allow for the suspension/revokation of your car registration which is supposedly aimed at people who ignore out of state parking tickets. It also requires states to post ALL offenses on your driving record including parking tickets. Some states only post offenses that incur points on your driving record where as non-pointable offenses don't show such as a tinted window violation or not front plate.
The worst part of this DLA is it is International. It will include reciprocity with Canadian Provinces and Mexican States but the AAMVA mentioned it will not stop there. They are working on drafting aggrements between states and foreign countries which will eventually include reciprocity for traffic violations. So one day, you get a ticket from an asshole French cop or get a reckless driving ticket from a cop in Cancun Mexico since you refuse to pay a bribe, you will end up paying when you get home such as points against your license and the mandatory insurance increase because of out of country tickets. Unfortunately, coming to a state near you thanks to the DLA. The AAMVA will start pushing it very hard starting next January.
- drive a car
- apply for a job
- buy beer
- open a bank account (and, therefore, buy anything)
Come to think of it, without the above (a job, therefore money), how would he buy an airline ticket in the first place?Seriously. This is just (another) bogus example of someone attempting to construct a problem and therefore a legal remedy out of thin air. This would be the definition of a frivilous lawsuit.
I've highlighted two particularly interesting bits of spin in the quoted section above. The first implies that the deputy did not tell Hiibel what he was investigating, which is a lie. The deputy did tell Hiibel why he was there - he said he was investigating a report of a fight.
Secondly, the description implies that the Deputy arbitrarily decided that Hiibel "wasn't going to cooperate," and made the decision to arrest him. Again, this is extremely misleading. The deputy didn't "decide" Hiibel wasn't cooperating - he flat out asked Hiibel if he was going to cooperate, and Hiibel very directly said "No." Also, the deputy didn't "decide" to arrest Hiibel - Hiibel repeatedly demanded that the deputy "take me to jail." When Hiibel finally said "No, I'm not going to cooperate, take me to jail," what else could the deputy have done?
This is a clear-cut case of obstruction of justice. The deputy didn't just pop by because he had nothing better to do. Someone called in a potentially dangerous situation. He was there to help. Upon watching the video, it is clear that there was a domestic violence situation being played out, and the deputy was totally justified in trying to investigate.
Hiibel was nothing more than a beligerent, abusive, and ignorant hick, who clearly has no respect for the law. He was trying as best he could to make trouble, and the deputy finally arrested him, with clearly just cause.
Watch the video yourself, and you'll see that this isn't a case of Big Brother. This isn't a deputy randomly arresting a citizen who didn't have their papers. This is an obvious case of a deputy trying to investigate a violent offense, and arresting an individual who was doing everything he could to impede Deputy Dove from carrying out his job.
Nothing to see here, folks. Just a criminal getting what he deserved.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
- I travelled by train from Boston to New York. To buy the ticket I had to show my passport. Excuse me!? Was I going to cross an international border, then? At home I can buy a ticket to wherever I please without showing any identification.
- I travelled by rental car, twice. Identification was required. Well, I understand that since they give me an expensive piece of equipment, but I couldn't have rented the card anonymously.
- I travelled by plane, once internally and of course coming in and leaving. Not only did I have to show ID, but _each_ _single_ _time_ I was asked to step out of the line for a "random" search. Yeah, like that is really random.
Ironically, the one place where noone was interested in my ID at all was at the immigration desk, where I was waved right through. Noone thought to check my papers, or my bag (and I was hiding a dangerous Nail Clipper of Mass Destruction in it too, carrying it around the US for two weeks with impunity!)
So saying "don't fly" is cheap, since it only leaves you the option of not travelling at all. And not being able to move about, being imprisoned in your little region as it were, that's not freedom at all...
Do pilots and flight attendants have the right not to fly a passenger who refuses to show ID? I would be very reluctant to do so if I were part of the flight crew. Also, don't airlines have a right to make a policy that they won't fly a passenger who refuses? If it were your airline, would you want some customer telling you under what conditions he will fly? As a business person I have a right to run my business the way I want. If someone doesn't want to show me ID, I don't want to fly him. We both get to exercise our rights.
" You have to show ID to check out a library book"
You have to show a library card.
To get a library card, you fill out a form. The contents of that form may or may not be accurate. Librarians (god bless them) don't check and don't care, because those quiet people have understood for centuries that anonymous access to information is a hallmark of a free society.
I'd rather live in a society with free and anonymous access to info and travel and live with the occaisional terrorist act than give up all our freedoms in the name of hoping to save us from terrorist acts.
In August of 2001, I lost my wallet while travelling. I thought getting on a plane without ID would be a problem, but when I showed up at the airport without ID, the airline employee said it was *illegal* for them to require ID (although not illegal to ask for it), and let me board the plane with just the ticket.
Okay, let me ask you this: If after Sept. 11th, the airlines weren't asking for peoples IDs, what do you think people would say? They'd be going nuts. They'd be up in arms about how dangerous the airlines are and how they're not taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough.
Really, could someone think before posting these ridiculous stories?
You want a real issue? Let's talk about the FBI investigating college students planning to protest the GOP convention. I mean, that to me is a serious waste of taxpayer money and is a much more real "big brother" issue than this stupid airline stuff.
Where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say you have the right to travel anonymously. Get over it. We live in a different world now. You want to complain, go to complain to the terrorists. They're the reason we have to do all this stuff. Whether or not it's entirely effective, the fact is, if they weren't doing it, people would be complaining.
You don't want to show your ID? Fine. Get a job and buy a car. But stop complaining about your "right" to travel anonymously.
When you are dependent on government to give you all your rights, you will be in bad shape eventually.
You have no inherent right to travel on planes without any ID though.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I think a lot of people have forgotten 1789. Doesn't "Department of Homeland Security" sound a lot like "Committee of Public Safety?"
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
This is a corporate fascist police state. What do expect? to travel state to state without your papers? What do you have to hide, comrade?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
all terrorists have a big light saying "suspicious" over their heads
/facetious
That is why they were those "towels" on their heads right?
My father just recently had to pay to have a background check, get finger prints, and all sorts of other obtrusive things to fly his own private plane. Oh, and passengers are required to check in with ID before flying.
"I just checked mine and I can't find the article on the right to board a commercial airliner without proving you are who you say you are."
I just checked mine and I don't see the section where it says that morons can own computers.
Please pass yours in. Thanks.
Seriously, if you don't understand the constitution that well, I suggest you read it. Particularly the 10th amendment.
Understand the constitution DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS!!!!!!! The constituion enumerates what the government is allowed to do. It specifically says that unless its in that document, the power to do something belongs to the people.
God, what are they usign to teach civics these days...ubermorons?
If you wish to travel anonymously, then it is easy for you to walk, ride a bike or drive across the country.
All the worlds indeed a
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/lun_ekranopla n.pl
r ans/PRT/
Ekranoplans could easily revolutionize air transportation. And bullet trains. Can't be used as missiles or easily held hostage.
PRT's could easily revolutionize urban transport.
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/it
Instead, we pay for missiles, and things that go 35mph average every day, and planes we can't pilots ourselves.
Where's all the technology for alternative transportation? Where's the US bullet train? A desert-crossing ekranoplan? Private Rapid Transport (PRT)? Smothered somewhere, surely.
Where's the "free market" and "free enterprise" that was so touted before, so someone could build these? Smothered.
We all increasingly live under the iron rule of GM, Boeing, and Exxon, and we don't dare even truly question their empire for fear - of losing a paycheck.
Technology seems more over-rated to me every day. Public mass organizing is where the trouble, and action is.
All we get to do is work pounding code for these corporations that screw us.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
While there are lots of things terrorists may do on a plane, to f*ck is not one of those things I'd expect them to do there.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Let me state clearly that I think beable to travel with no ID is a GOOD thing. Freedon is ALWAYS beter then the TINY risk of something happening.
But, this arguement:
This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader.
Leaves me to try under stand the point. Nobody would realy think showing in ID would stop a mechanical error. There is no doubt that those who implimented the new ID rules, had one thought on their mind, terrorism.
Is this point designed to cause outrage in those you are trying to influence? It surely would do that. Instead I would suggest you state your oppion clearly and used evidence to back it up.
I would argue that freedoms, detailed in the bill of rights, insure our right to anonimity. That also these rights where felt to be for more important to risks to life.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Privacy is becoming much more important in the age of identity theft. I went around with a cell phone provider on a service quote because I wouldn't give them my social security number. I tried to explain to them if I'm not claiming income from them, they don't get my social security number. First they said it was the law but once I questioned them about which law they backed off to it being company policy. The dentist office tried to claim the insurance company requires it, but all they really need is your group policy number and employee ID.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Could it be that showing ID is a nice way to prove that it really was you who purchased the ticket?
I actually know someone who had their flights stolen....twice. All the person did was show up with the ticket and got themselves a nice little trip.
By showing ID, the ticket is....well, it's just something to write your gate assignment on so you don't forget it. But to actually fly you have to show the ID, the picture has to match, all that.
Could this be part of some vast left wing conspiracy to protect consumer rights?
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
IIRC, it has been read as one of the few meaningful rights in the "privileges and immunities" clause: the right to interstate travel. It has real meaning too: it is what prevents states from charging you taxes upon entering or leaving. Presumably, this includes travel by common and usual means (such as driving and flying); it would become meaningless if it required you to walk to preserve your rights.
Being forced to show ID before boarding used to be a "security ramped up" sort of move-- something they'd do after a lot of hijackings or a notable plane crash.
In 1989, after the crash of a jet into a cornfield in Iowa, (a plane which I was supposed to board if it had landed in Philadelphia as planned), the FAA temporarily ordered this. (They also did it at the time of the 1st Gulf War)
I distinctly remember I was forced to show ID to board a commuter plane in Colorado the day of the crash. As I didn't have my passport with me, and didn't yet have a driver's license, this proved to be a problem, which was only solved with the intervention of the airline's manager at Stapelton airport, who confirmed my identity with a few phone calls and let me board. They were ostensibly concerned with identifying bodies if something went wrong. (The jet crash, which was notable for the large number of survivors, turned out to be a mechanical fault)
But a lot of the security measures now in place (no stopping with a car at the entrance to the airport, no short-term parking, ID to board aircraft, etc.) were things that were ordered temporarily once in a while pre-9/11 if the FAA wanted to be serious about security.
"The world is a safer place" -- George W Bush...
If you think forcing people to carry IDs is that important, try changing the constitution to allow the government to do so. Good luck, let me know when you are done.
I recently travelled on a plane chartered by the Canadian military from Ottawa Ontario to US Army base in Grayling Michigan. Every one on the plane was a member of the Canadian forces, we all wore our uniforms. During the pre-flight 'security' we were told to submit our military ID's, remove all metallic objects from out pockets, our berets and our boots. Imagine 30 soldiers and officers stripped of jackets, boots and headdress waiting in line to a security check point manned by pimply 17 year olds and couple of fossils passing their time between retirement and death. I think I can speak for everyone when I say that we never felt more humiliated. It boggles the mind that someone will do this to our guys many of which are veterans who proved their sense of duty and honour under fire. It seems that we are all terrorists until proven innocent.
Do not look into the laser with remaining eye.
I, for one, welcome our RadLib, masochistic-narcississtic, superficially intellectual, ironically narrow-minded (I am tolerant of everyone, as long as they think like I do), activist judge appointing, U.N. ass kissing, ass reaming guv'na electing, reporting news that only agrees with my radical left politics, secular humanist utopia striving, God-hating, mankind hating except when it serves the purpose of stroking my own ego (like talking about helping minorities and the poor, (only talking, mind you. I wouldn't want to catch some exotic disease from those poor folks)), perpetually angry at the hand life has dealt me, wealth-redistributing (because the folks that actually write most of the paychecks must be punished for being more ambitious than me), Clinton-loving (they're great folks. I know Vince Foster really committed suicide), marriage-redefining (we are now more enlightened than the sum of all humanity throughout all history, so drastically redefining the core unit of civilization will not have disastrous side effects), infant killing, violent criminal execution protesting (no, that's not ironic in light of my stance on abortion), revisionist historian overlords.
According to the 9/11 Commission's report, one of the 19 hijackers on September 11th got on his plane without ANY sort of photo identification. He wasn't even able to answer the security questions in English to anyone's satisfaction.
If you wish to anonymous, then it's better to live in a cave, but i'm not sure if you don't need to show papers for that too.
I didn't realize that flying was a basic human right... bear in mind that some of these measures really aren't intrusive. So what if you have to show them your license. They probably want to make sure you are still the person holding the ticket and that it hasn't been picked up by someone else and used for something bad. And, if it makes people (the general public) feel a little better about the process, then so be it.
I'l be the first one to stand up and say that the Patriot Act, the DMCA, etc, etc, etc are all bogus, but this one... not such a huge deal in my book. Hell, I've given banks more information about me just for the privilege of being able to apply for a loan and not too many people squawk about that.
A true story.... I was on business in Taiwan last year and flew from Heathrow via Hong Kong to Taipei. Apparently Heathrow was on high alert at the time after some mumbo jumbo about a possible terrorist attack (which never happened surprise, surprise). I'm a bit of an old goth type so I had my long leather coat with me (it may be hot in Taiwan but 5AM in the UK is still wet and cold). I had already passed the bins for sharp objects when I suddenly realised that I still had a large metal broach on my leather. This is an EVIL looking broach over 3 inches, solid steel, with sharp spikes on either end and a needle sharp clasp about 2 inches long. Welllll.... I didn't really know what to do. I left my coat folded over my arm and placed it on the x-ray conveyor belt.... what do you reckon happened???? Answer... I got all the way through security, all the way to Taipei (Via HK) AND BACK without a single double check or funny look... well done guys... well done.... On the other hand I wasn't going to kill anyone and I'm glad I got to keep my broach.... which I subsequently lost at a club about a month later!!!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Were B.F. to have an opinion at this point, I'm quite sure it would reflect the fact that "personal liberty" and "the liberty and freedom of the general population" are the same - you can't have one without the other.
When this quote was penned, Franklin was reflecting on the actions of some colonists who were taking the side of the English in order to keep English soldiers from imprisoning other colonists... and possibly themselves. The English were an occupying force, and there were *NO* legal means which could be used to appeal their decisions. If they felt you were a threat, you were imprisoned without recourse.
I suppose you mean like those arrested and held indefinitely without formal charges today in America? But I digress...
The legal system in the US may move slowly, but it *does* move and it *does* work. Court decisions have said that the prisoners in Guantanamo are now required to have legal representation, and some may even be released. Abu Ghraib was being actively investigated *before* the media "caught on" and the case became "interesting" - look at the public record. And, the fact that we are having this discussion in an open forum without the fear that the "gummint" will arrest us, simply means that we are free to do so.
Yes, it means that we are free to do so...today.
However, any thinking person should see that our liberties are at risk, from many different directions. For instance, the right to peaceful assembly has been seriously undermined. Now, dissenters are allowed to assemble - in cages well away from public view. What a travesty - the DNC should be ashamed!
If the ID card is solely used to *prove who you are*, then it follows that you are who you *claim* to be... and *probably not* someone who wishes to hurt, maim, or kill as many grandmothers, wives, or children as he/she can. The assumption is, of course, that we haven't naturalized or home-bred more Timothy McVeighs -- something no government can defend against without totally invasive security measures which would never pass Congress' muster.
In other words, it's an ineffective measure which does very little besides erode our freedoms further.
Reflect on the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists would have had shiny, legitimate national ID cards...now what good would they do again? And at what cost, both in dollars and liberty?
The problem with a national ID card isn't freedom, it's forgery: how do you prove that the ID card is not fake?
That is another problem. You know, you're right - I think instead of national ID cards we should have bone-implanted RFID tags (as 161 Mexican officials have). Anything for safety, right?
Let's get real. Those who wish us harm are not targeting the military. If they were, the 9/11 attacks would have been felt at military bases around the US and the rest of the world. These malcontents are targeting *us*.
And, miraculously, we've managed to avoid any further attacks for nearly three years - without national ID cards. How is this possible?!?
Meanwhile, ~150,000 of our fellow citizens (yes 50 times as many as died on 9/11) have died in traffic accidents. Let's keep our risks in perspective, eh?
I don't see how carrying a national ID card, which proves that I am *ME*, means that I have given up my liberty to obtain freedom.
I don't have a "liberty to obtain freedom" - I have an "inalienable right to be free". See the difference? I wonder why assurances were made when the Social Security Number was introduced that it would "never be a national ID"?
At any
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
No, just the ones who are bent on forcing Islam on the rest of the world.
When I flew into JFK from London on an Air India flight just after they'd resumed after 9/11 there was passenger checking by immigration on the jetway. The guys in front (brown) stopped and were questioned; I (white) stopped too only to be waved through - the officials had a "what do you think you're doing?" look on their faces.
Obviously an Air India flight from Mumbai is going to be absolutely full of Muslim terrorists...
what does identify your self for a flight on a private company plane has to do with freadom of moving around, absolutly nothing!
wake up! find the real problems!
welcome to the EU, please submit all sixteen types of biometric data necessary for us to satisfy our equal-ops quota's.
The EU, equality and mediocrity, all part of a happier superstate.
If the United States would spend one half of the resoruces on enforcing its borders that invests in violating the sovereignty of other nations, it might very well have homeland security without 1984-style human rights violations.
Seastead this.
even assuming for the sake of argument that post september 11th (I refuse to use 9/11, it is a meaningless fraction) it really was harder for a hijacker to take control of a commercial passenger aeroplane... which is making a MJOR assumption on bugger all empirical evidence, everyone is making a fundamental mistake here....
commercial passenger aircraft and analagous to buses, requiring ID and stripsearching people before they board a greyhound might well limit the ability of passenger to take control of the vehicle and drive it into a hospital lobby with the pedal to the metal.
so your crazed terrorist simply hijacks an articulated truck instead, fuck it weighs more so more kinetic energy anyway....
the skies are FULL of cargo planes with absolutely sod all security, many of whom routinely have company staff or crew family and friends dead heading for free with nary a ticket or boarding pass in sight...
hell, 2 minutes with google and lets see what a multimillionaire international terrorist can do...
Hmm, 250,000 US dollars buys me one of these
http://www.airliners.net/Airliners_net_ima
an antonov 26 from here
http://www.aviatorsale.com/aix2279/
max payload 6300 Kgs, no problem lets fill the bitch up with a fertiliser bomb, eg "Anfo"
Remember a couple of hundred pounds of this stuff blew a 20 foot x 40 foot hole (http://www.tldm.org/news2/753887.jpg) in the USS Cole.
What? Can't fly planes into skyscrapers? USAF will shoot them down?
No problem, power dive into a handy VLCC, I'm sure a few million barrels of burning fuel oil spread across new york harbour will have a suitable effect.
What? just given this good idea up? Never mind, there's thousand more and you can bet those who want to do this shit have already thought them up.
It's about time you lot learned the lesson we in the Uk learned bloody years ago when your NORAID donation supported bombs (hey, that makes the USA on a par with Libya, let's invade) were going off in our capital cities, that lesson is you CANNOT prevent terrorist attacks, it simply is not possible, no matter how much money and effort you are willing to spend.. in fact such effort soon becomes counter productive and breeds a whole new generation of malcontents.
What's the betting this non USA viewpoint gets modded troll within ten minutes?
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
was likely shot down by a Stinger missile, which the Clinton White House admitted may have been part of three of them which came across the Canadian border into the New York area - although some theorists still insist it might have been a bomb. Most witnesses reported one or two points of light moving up to the aircraft before the explosion.
The perps were likely Iranians and their motivation was revenge for the Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner, which in itself was probably deliberate provocation of the Iranians.
Which is why Flight 800 was covered up, as it might have led to a re-opening of the Vincennes case.
Irrelevant to the main issue, of course, which is the stupid and malicious reduction in civil liberties which will have absolutely no effect on reducing the conduct of terrorism in this country.
I'll go further than that. The government of this country WANTS more terrorism so they can further reduce civil liberties.
How else to explain the outing of the Pakistani double-agent who was the US's best chance to penetrate Al Qaeda? Somebody in the Bush administration is a TRAITOR who views Bush's poll ratings as more important than national security.
Karl Rove, perhaps? Possibly the same asshole who outed Valerie Plame and compromised an entire CIA network devoted to tracking down WMDs?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
is a myth. The battle has already been lost. Accept it. Move on.
...seem much more complicated to the casual hijacker..
If this isn't calling out for a Seinfeld standup routine I don't know what is... "The Casual Hijacker".
Well, y'know, i didn't have much else to do on the flight - I'd already read the inflight magazine on the outward leg - so i thought, hey, what the hell, why don't we just fly this darned plane to Cuba! So I grabbed my plastic spoon in one had and the stewardess in the other and next thing I knew, I was landing at havana...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
No reason to get upset just because your worldview and your perception of others' beliefs happen to be completely wrong.
Last time I checked, the government wasn't telling him he couldn't travel from one place to another. Public transportation isn't a constitutional right. The only thing that would be is if all methods of transport were closed off to him. I know that he can't drive or take any other public transportation because he doesn't have a government issued ID, but he has the right to travel, just not used the privilege of public transportation. The No-Fly list and secretive laws are a totally different issue than what Gilmore is trying to protest. I don't think that he'll get very far in the court system, this is something that legislature needs to address to stop the sliding slope of our invasion of privacy.
Exactly right. I'm fairly surprised you could ever fly without showing ID. It's just an invitation for stupidity in a place where stupidity should not be tolerated.
I don't want to be on the same plane with you if you're so obsessed with your anonymity you won't show ID. Who knows that crazy crap you'll do because you think nobody can call you on it.
Honestly, I'd rather people had to wear name tags complete with barcodes at all times. Then I could send you a bill for having to put up with your horrible children on the plane, everyone would know exactly who that jerk with a tree as carry on is, etc.
I honestly think a world where all people (cops too) have to take full credit for all their actions, all the time, would be a lot better then what we got now. The great thing is, thanks to our friend technology, it's going to happen no matter what. The transition may be rough, but high tech beats privacy, and unlike guns, cameras can't hurt anybody, so you might as well pass them out, cause like with the guns, you know the government isn't going abstain.
I just thought of something. Terrorist Children. They would be too young to have ID's. I cant see you getting a state ID for a ten year old kid. just a thought.
They'll never fly to Missoula, MT because doing things like that mean they'd have to have different types of aircraft for different routes and they'd have to build a route system to feed passengers to and from the main trunk routes between hubs. Doing that would increase their costs and they'd be just like the other airlines that are on the verge of or are already in bankruptcy - United, Delta, USScareways.
Excuse me, but WTF d00d?
Rights are set forth in laws. Those in power are born to it, or lobby for it, and like the tribe's betas for a Silverback, we vote to show our approval.
The only rights we are born with, or evolved with is the right to thump our chests in approval (or rage) for the Silverbacks we like (or who come from the opposing tribe), and to try to scrabble out a bit of advantage for ourselves when the Silverbacks aren't paying too much attention.
> We are born free, and from there our rights can only be limited.
We are born to our position in society, and from there we have only the rights our leaders see fit to grant us. Next thing you know, you'll be spouting poppycock like "all mans are equal", provably untrue by even the most cursory observation.
P.S. Whatever it is you've been smoking, lay off it for a bit. The silverbacks of both tribes disapprove.
I work with a guy who once lived in Russia during the cold war. He says that this reminds him of home.
Just like Hitler or Stalin, the administration just wants to protect us from the great outside evil.
More importantly: are you engaging in commerce with them?
-rozzin.
If not I am sure one of you can find time to link to the article that was here ~6 months ago regarding it.
The software that inter-relates pieces of forensic evidence for crimes? Well guess what, the government uses an advanced form of that to interelate data SUCH AS IDs, locations, patterns of travel, duration of stay, calls made, etc..
If you've done nothing wrong, you most likely do not have anything to worry about. Are there mistakes made? Sure, and the media doesn't miss a chance to glorify each instance in a negative light.
Tracking terrorism is an advanced form of criminal investigation in a broad sense of the term. It's not something you want to be reactive about, aka 9/11, so there are things that must change to be proactive about it.
No one is trying to take your rights, or your tinfoil hats for that matter, they are trying to keep you alive to enjoy them. The guys making these laws stand more to lose than the ones protected by them.
Do you honestly think that the people they do catch are by chance? Do you think that organizations such as Interpol and technologies like Echelon are really setup to see what you are trading plat for in Everquest?
see you've been reading sinfest.
"The requirement to show ID for flying on commercial passenger flights started in 1996, in response to the crash of TWA Flight 800. This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader."
There was confusion about exactly who was on that plane ... if you don't have a complete accurate passenger list, it's hard to get the usual ID tools like dental records, DNA samples from relatives, and photos.
I have to show a government-issued ID to buy beer. This is a travesty! The government is spying on my beer-buying habits! It's not fair! Wahwahwah.
The Democrats generally want to ban them all. The Republicans want to ban some of them, and make you register all the rest. They're both wrong. Guns shouldn't have to be banned OR registered. With gun registration, whose doors do you think the martial law stormtroopers are going to knock in first?
Maybe it also helps them keep an accurate passenger record in case something bad happens. They know who was on the plane and can contact the appropriate parties afterwards.
In addition, the last time I checked, all the airlines were private businesses. If they want to require you to submit to a cavity search before boarding their planes, I don't see why they couldn't. Their customers (or lack thereof) will indicate whether anything like this is tollerable or not.
Nobody sides with them because they are nuts.
This is the problem with politics (and people) today. Those who want power and use it are quite busy defining what a 'nut' is to include their enemy.
Yesterdays patriot is todays terrorist. And we've got so-called 'experts' re-defining sanity daily.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
How about accountability then? See, when the plane goes down, the airline would like some way of notifying your next of kin. (This wasn't mandated to prevent any kind of failure, accident or attack, it was done for the same reason the military records the names of people getting on and off combat helocopters - they want to know who died without having to run dental records).
He's a publicity-seeking self-aggrandizing hack that accidentally manages to get things right on occassion. His most recent only told 1/10th of the story on 9/11, and then pretty much pinned it all on Bush, and Bush is barely more than a clueless puppet of the real power-brokers. If you want to hear a real patriot, listen to Alex Jones. He's a bitter pill at first, but once you realize he backs up 100% of what he says with public, mainstream news sources, you can't help but know he's right.
You can't derive an ought from an is.
The real reason for this exploitation of the recent terrorist attacks is so that large corporations who engage in ethically questionable practices can keep track of and discredit (through political destruction) those who are a threat to their existence. Whether it is Bush or Bin Laden, this is all about money. 'We' are just pawns, to be manipulated at will. And if anyone steps out of line (just a little bit too far) or shows too much intelligence and perception, well, they are as good as gone. Scary and happening already. And far worse than terrorism which is often highly focused rather than effecting everyone (directly) across a nation.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Governmental powers are situations where individual rights are withdrawn or restricted.
The 10th Ammendment deals with the balance of power between states and DC. It has nothing to do with this case.
I mean who gives a flying fuck! Why is it you idiots make a huge fucking deal about showing your ID to get on a plane!
Jesus fucking christ you people are retarded!
carries penalties of up to $2,500 and 1 year in prison if convicted in Illinois...
Where in the Constitution does it say that you can't:
Beat people up
Steal
Sell drugs to kids
etc
It's called getting in your car and driving wherever you want to go. You do have the right not to show your ID to get on a plane. Just make sure you're also ready to exercise your right to walk your butt out of the airport. If I pick up a hitchhiker, and if they want to ride in my car, they better have something with their name on it or, they can keep walking down the road.
Also, I hate to burst any bubbles, but, nowhere in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to privacy.
You nailed it, on all points.
I don't have links handy on the arrests, but this is a good jumping-off point: Google search of First Ammendment Center
The evil ticket counter lady? She's one of us. She's a neighbor, a girlfriend, a mom, a daughter, an aunt... The evil guy at the liquor store who cards you?
They're just doing their job, if they don't ID you they could get fired (especially the liquor store clerk). They don't make the rules. It's the ones who make the rules who are "THEM". And by and large, THEY would be more than happy to see US subject to constant monitoring, censorship etc. in the interests of their Big Evil Plans (which generally involve becoming even more obscenely rich).
Even the Evil Cop who pulls you over has very little interest in locking you away forever, and quite possibly has better things to do than ensure that your "Guaranteed Total Anonymity In Public" is taken away.
I'm sure most cops are generally good people, but they do tend to think that your business is their business (like if you're doing something weird-looking but perfectly legal), and to prioritize law and order over individual rights. That's why THEY like to give them new powers to watch/control us, because they know most police will happily exercise them, in the honest belief that they're protecting us by doing so.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Still, it's deadly, I agree, but you kill one person with a mag lite, the rest of the passengers will rush you and you're done.
Seeing another human being brutally and swiftly killed by a person acting in a highly intimidating manner will be enough to scare most anyone out of any action, especially your average tourist-types on a crowded, stressful and uncomfortable place like an airplane, but even a person trained for such circumstances might well be incapacitated by their own psychological response.
In behavioural psychology, it's well known that human beings act in a very predictable manner in unfamiliar or stressful situations; probably as similar to the rest of the group as possible. Observe, for instance, what happens if someone is lying motionless, possibly ill or dead, on a street corner with lots of people walking by. In many cases it will take forever for anyone to actually stop and see what's going on, simply because no-one else is doing it. Once one person stops to check, more people will stop by and offer their help almost immediately.
While a very few might actually have the clarity of mind to consider taking such action, in most cases no-one would be the first to get up out of the chair and try something simply on account of their instinct. In fact, I'm willing to bet you a pint that a lot of people seing a scene as described above would swear to their chosen deity that the person was not in fact wielding a flashlight but a nightstick, knife or even a gun. Simply because their brains' panic-button would be well and truly pushed and their fear-response would render them incapable of calm deliberation.
Hijacking an airplane is not a matter of firepower. And as for random civilians acting to subdue or inhume percieved threats, it's not the kind of security you would want to count on.
Rather, it's a comfortable self-decieving thought that might tickle certain patriotic nerves when the meme of the "heroes" that "stood up and fought" for "what's right". Practically speaking, most people would be scared way too s**tless to remember their birthday, much less take effective action.
Not to mention the fact that such an action would more than likely aggrevate the situation further in the face of a well organised gang of hijackers. Most hijacked airplanes land safely with few or no casualties, not least due to the fact that the hijackers aren't forced into desperate measures.
I understand completely, however, that people who have watched too much CNN and too many hollywood action movies would like to fancy themselves a mean mofo, partaking in selfless heroics against terrorists. Only problem is, that's just your ego talking. Your ego will go remarkably quiet in the face of a chaotic and life-threatening situation.
PS: Please let me know if I've made any further wordcraftling. I appreciate your attentlyness.
-- Buzh
Michael Moore makes movies to convey his worldview. Yippee. Alex Jones is purely a polemecist, and has been in the game longer. OK, fine. That doesn't make his opinions any more valid. Nor does the appeal to authority:
> once you realize he backs up 100% of what he says with public,
> mainstream news sources, you can't help but know he's right.
You can dragnet the news for tons of info that supports your argument by ignoring others. How does this prove anything?
The only opinion that matters to me is mine, ultimately. These personality cults that everyone seems drawn into are simply the result of news overflow. You can't process everything, so you trust others with similar opinions. The problems come when you trust someone for so long that they start to realize it and jerk you around - and what if they weren't as like-minded as you thought? What if they pull a Hitchens on you? What if you've been trusting them for so long, you barely notice because the rhetorics hide the change in philosophy?
Oh and by the way, on the front page of "Alex Jones's Diary" I see a big fat article about how he is the better man. Does he think anyone cares? Who did you say is self-aggrandizing, now?
That's my guess as to why you were searhed.
If there was no IDing, they wouldn't have any idea, and might not for several days. Wouldn't you give your Mom and Dad a call? Wait, you do have a point - if you are horribly wounded, and there were no IDing, they might think you were dead, and you weren't. On the other hand, you probably wouldn't be far from the crash site. Hmm. I see no clear advantage or disadvantage in this specific case (IDing bodies) to showing ID, but your post did make me think of an analagous (or rather, more extended) situation. Imagine if you had the ability to register and unregister yourself with a system that kept track of your whereabouts. Then, if you were doing something remotely dangerous (surfing, flying, ...) You could register, and when you were done, you could unregister.
It's pretty clear that the individual being monitored (or their legal guardian) should have control over that system, tho.
Showing your ID is a warm fuzzy. Every person who boards a plane is ID'd apart from his or her ID anyway. The next time you think you can fly without someone knowing, you better have your own unregistered stealth fighter away from established air space.
My wife just recently flew from Nevada to Oregon via America West with no ID. She even picked up her e-ticket. They did give her a lot of trouble and made her board the plane last and stuff, but they let her fly. She accidentally left the part of her purse with all of her ID at her sister's house a few hours from the airport.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
Although ID is not strictly required for UK domestic flights, it's generally required by most airlines, because the majority of domestic flights are now run by the budget airlines (EasyJet and the like), who need ID to verify the tickets belong to the ticket holder. In a recent flight with British Airways from Bristol in Edinburgh, I wasn't even issued a ticket, and so ID was required to obtain my booking reference.
Actually you just need ID to buy a ticket but an ID is needed for each ticket you buy on Amtrak which is the big train network in the US. I often buy tickets for other family members but we did have a problem when I had 2 people with me who did not have ID. They would only sell me one ticket.
.sigs suck, thus nothing here.
You make jokes in reference to the Soviet Union and what you call "internal passports", and then imply, via the Hiibel case, that somehow this has come to pass in the US too. First, this didn't "just happen". Over 20 states have required that individuals identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested to do so, and some have had them for many years (indeed, some while you were apparently joking about the Soviets - the other bit of irony is that it was the resolve of the US and men like Reagan which greatly contributed to the gradual defeat and fall of the Soviet Union). This is not a recent creation. Additionally, Hiibel did not even need to produce identification, only verbally communicate his name. Further, this wasn't some guy innocently standing around. The officer was responding to a 911 call in which the caller informed the dispatcher he saw a man and woman fighting in a pickup truck, and that the man had possibly hit the woman. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the persons who matched the dispatchers description, and skidmarks on the road and disturbed gravel on the shoulder, indicating the vehicle had been stopped "aggressively". He was then greeted by a person who refused to identify himself. Maybe my definitions of privacy are different, but if this is the best you've got, that's a really, really bad example. Some here will likely say "well, if the cop had reasonable cause, he should have just arrested him - no need for him to identify himself" - identification is a key aspect of investigation. If you always have an inherent distrust of police and authority, like many on slashdot do, then I guess it's no surprise which side you take. Also, it's worth noting that "slopes" have varying degrees of "slipperiness".
If the best you can come up with as "proof" that we're living in a police state is having to show a drivers license at airports, or a guy who goes to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, uses a Muslim name, and has plans and interest to attempt to detonate a dirty bomb in Chicago (Jose Padilla), or Dudley Hiibel, then you'd better come up with some better examples.
If you want to argue for privacy, please do, but the use of fringe examples, and implications that somehow police/government/Bush/etc have some kind of evil ulterior motives to Rule Us All don't help the argument.
Look what Rambo did with only a knife!!
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
... still cheap manufactured items and using my analysis and projections to plan for the future. I've gotten some alternative energy and I'm gettimg more now while it's still cheap. My solar panels are up and running well, they work, and no matter how expensive elctricity gets, or how weird the availability, I know my girlfriend and I will always have *some* to use that isn't tied to global geopolitics and market shenanigans. I don't buy big screen home theaters and then sit back and think everything is gonna be rosy for the next 30 years. Also have been expanding the garden,including this winter more of a real greenhouse and not just the single bed hoop houses we have been using, and we just this week got our first small cattle herd, to expand our farming efforts-as no matter how borked the economy gets, people will still need to eat. I'm also thinking of converting an old junker little car I have to all electric, some place to dump the solar power we are getting. In addition to that, I think I'm gonna get some horses. May sound weird to city folks, but they still work and you can easily grow your own fuel and also your own replacement vehicles. a horse with the right equipment is a car, a truck and a tractor. cool beans.
I think of the future as an amish like existence with some advanced technology mixed in. A good blend of the old tried and true and cheap with what good technology we have developed over the last 50 years up to today. I remember filling my first tanks of gas for 2-3$. Not a gallon, a TANK of gas, and it hasn't been that long ago in historical terms.
Since when has it been a right to travel anonymously? We can argue whether the government ought to ask people for identification, and whether the airlines ought to ask people for identification; but when you call it a right, you are saying that it is a foregone conclusion that part of the proper treatment of a human being consists in not asking him who he is when he steps on board an airplane.
This is nonsense, stark and staring. If travelling anonymously is a universal right, the system of driving licences is a human-rights atrocity of gigantic scale.
Then again, this could come in handy. I think I'm going to tell my boss that I have a right to make over $200,000 a year. That way I won't have to argue about whether he ought to be paying me so handsomely. My rights are at stake!
The defining trait of this sitting Supreme Court is its reluctance to issue clear judgments on any Constitutional issues.
If there's any way they can avoid judgment, they'll take it. Be it loophole or error, they won't rule on this.
A flexible SC (like this) allows the tenured jurors the ability to periodically trade aconstitutional privileges to a particular Administration in exchange for personal favors, without having to deal with the furor that would ensue if they just permanently cancelled or suspended the Constitution. It is a way to "bend" the Law to grant power to special interests. If you thought the judicial branch was exempt from the corruption plaguing the other two branches, you were mistaken.
You slashdot geeks are so dumb sometimes it amazes me. Do you really think it's a good idea to have people on flights without identification, not only considering the possibility of unidentified hijackers getting on the plane, but the inability of the airlines to identify corpses or notify relatives in the event of a crash?
There is a unique form of ignorance that only happens among the ultra-liberal reactionary; some naive belief that the world will function perfectly by their ideals despite all proof to the contrary. Or to put it more plainly: you guys make me laugh.
The government is out to get us! Linux is better than Windows! Coke is better than Pepsi! What a bunch of morons.
I would hope it would never be SOP to actually open a biohazard box for inspection. "Gee sure, you mind if we open up this potentially infectious box here in a public place and examine it?"
I'm more shocked that they didn't demand paperwork indicating you had some legitimate reason to be carrying a sealed biohazard box on a plane.
I should think transporting that kind of stuff would require a lot of paperwork. Especially when you're travelling across international borders.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Anybody know what the ratio of mechanical related crashes to terrorist related crashes is? I'm just guessing but I bet it'd be in the hundreds or thousands to one. I don't mind sacraficing an hour or so to ensure my safety on a flight but maybe that hour should be spent training the mechanics and inspecting the planes. But that's just silly-talk. This is, in fact, business and those kind of inspections cost businesses money. Taking the time to have federal employees inspect an 80 year old lady's shoes is free... to them and the the illusion is sufficient.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
It was not a move for security so much as being able to verify who was on the plane in the event of a crash. If no ID was required there would be no way to confirm who was on a flight.
I wonder how the beliefs fall based on such links?
For instance, in my lifetime (I am now 45), I have lost the following freedoms, among many:
- Anonymous travel
- Anonymously buying a car
- Secrecy of my communications, unless a judge decides my letters need to be opened
- Paying cash for a car (soon: anything)
- Carrying $10,000 in cash around
- Board an airplane by walking onto it
- Travel without regularly having shoes, belt removed (whoich used to be for criminals)
- Travel without being fingerprinted (if I want to travel to the US and I am now a US citizen)
- The right to just walk to an airport and take a flying lesson, without lots of prior paper
- The right to walk the streets without being filmed continuously, if I live in the UK
None of these rights in themselves are a giant deal; but together, they make life a lot less free than it was. We are always talking about "spreading freedom" - how is any of this freedom? And it is the insidiousness that gets me - as well as the fact WE did this. Not some idiot terrorists - this is all of our making.Seems that due to our collective apathy we have lost that battle - the police state is here to stay, and my children will have a much more 1984-like life as a result. I remember the days when the term "police state" meant a bad thing!
MW
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
It's going to be difficult to debunk the requirement of ID to board aircraft.
In a captialistic society, laws and social views are pushed in accordance with an ability to make the rich richer. This is something not outspoken, but this is the way the machine runs. Some even wish to ignore it, becuase capitalism is made to seem so fantastic the amount of oppression it's capable of, simply scares people.
Nonetheless, what we have here is a deep desire to those with tons of cash. Who are the consumers, what do they do, what are their names and how am I able to predict what they will spend their money on next. Did this consumer get on the plane? Where is he going? Is it a male, female? Are they black or white, what languages do they speak and how many times have they bought a Tweenkie in the past three days. Does Nike have a store in Frankfurt Germany? Becuase, we confirmation that a lot of Americans who purchase or have purchased Nike shoes getting on planes heading for Germany.
This all sounds ridiculous doesn't it? It's the truth, a side benefit of getting the consumer to mail in a rebate; so now they have your address and can add that data into their demographic statistics.
Anything that can verify the activity of a consumer will hardly ever be illegal in the United States. Take a look at how often you hand out your social security number in the United States. I bet the number of Americans is very small, that realize that in the beginning, we were supposed to keep our social security number to ourselves and only make it known upon select governmental requests. Now, you have to give your social security number to cash out in a casino.
It works in parallel too, anything that deters consumerism in this capitalistic society will be illegal. Of all the drugs, why is it the ones that are illegal are the ones that deter consumerism? A person smoking, still desires merchandise. People browse through malls popping pills of aspirin, drinking Coca-Cola. Women are never content on Mydal... etc. But, a person on Ecstacy no longer cares about advertisements, doesn't care about the items in the window, the bling bling, the flashy On Sale posters and they won't care for a considerable amount of time... is it just a coincidence? Maybe so.
Consumer tracking... that's the benefit that will convince legislators to permit airlines to require proof of ID to board planes. Ofcourse, Bush isn't likely to admit it, but in the United States Bush isn't running the show now is he? Noone gave me a ballot to vote who is the next CEO of Exxon... where's your democracy now?
Does anyone know if registering guns has actually led to the lawful arrest of anyone? Or has resgistation basically turned up nothing for the burden it places on the consumer?
You want what with that?
With gun registration, whose doors do you think the martial law stormtroopers are going to knock in first?
I love this argument against registration. I don't personally own a firearm, but have plenty of family members who hunt, target practice, etc. and none of them- even the NRA lifers- has ever made this argument to me (granted, it has never come up)
This argument is made by the NRA in their propaganda arguing against gun registration. The same propaganda that claims that criminals should have the right to carry guns even if their rights have not been restored and that those same criminals have a fifth amendment argument against registering their firearms and so such a law (registration) is unconstitutional.
The same NRA keeps their membership list secret so the government can't just get the list and break down the gun owners' doors- just don't forget to pay the annual dues, non-members don't get the same 'protection'.
But truthfully if it came down to it, wouldn't the government go door to door to remove our rights and our guns?
Ah yes. Want to find out how much the 9th Amendment is worth? Go read Justice Douglas' opinion in Griswold v. CT, and *then* go read Justice Goldberg's concurrence, in which he tries to resurrect the 9th amendment from being basically the useless nullity that it de facto is. Notice, this is a concurrence, which in the long run usually means squat outside of Socratic crucifications in Con law classes. There is effectively no 9th amendment in modern supreme court constitutional jurisprudence, which is the only constitutional jurisprudence which counts a damn for more than academic theory and whining. Want a different doctrine? Change the court - vote for presidential candidates who will require as a litmus test that all of their judicial nominees need to believe that the 9th amendment should be worth more than the paper it's written on.
just my $.02 - another mad lawyer-in-training pretending to be a troll
Last month, while travelling to Amsterdam my briefcase was stolen at the airport and I lost all my ID. Everything. Money, Credit cards, driver's license, passports, social insurance card, tickets - everything.
It was an eye-opener. NO-ONE can do anything for you. Amex ($400 a year platinum card with "concierge service") would not send me a new card because I had no ID. The cops would not initially write a report because you need to show ID. A new passport at the Canadian embassy was very difficult when you have no ID and have lost your citizenship certificate as well (though they were helpful). Try to check into a hotel without credit cards or ID - it cannot be done. Try to rent a car - same. Try to buy lunch. Nope. If I had not had a support network in place (relatives living there) I would have slept in the street.
The moral of all this: nice to have ID at the basis of everything, but just wait until you slip off the road.
Not sure anyone would want to go through what I went through in that week. Before you say "normal people should have nothing to fear from having to show ID" - wait until you lose it.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
It's not just limited to flying. In San Diego I had to show my ID before boarding a boat for a 2-hour harbor cruise. The tour boat's personnel seemed genuinely embarrassed at having to do so, and explained that it was required of them by the Coast Guard.
The controls on fertilizer are much more strict than the controls on trucks.
If so, then how have the last five U.S. federal administrations been able to spew such bullmanure?
Had to fly from Amsterdam to the US this weekend. We had to deplane in Cincinnati, claim our luggage, go thru immigration, then RECHECK our fucking luggage and go thru the metal detector no-shoes dance again. Are you fucking kidding me? This is making us safer?
Stupid older people (like my parents) who truely trust the gov't just go along and this shit gets deeper. Soon they will die out and perhaps sanity will reign again.
Blar.
Ask the Aussies what gun registration led to in their nation.
(hint: people aren't kidding when they say 'the first step to gun confiscation is registration')
Because it really is indefensible and pointless. ALL that is necessary is that passengers be screened for weapons (like paperclips and nail clippers, bazookas, claymore mines, etc). After that, a persons identity is irrelevant. No hijacking will take place and no detonations will take place because the plane is full of rightfully anonymous individuals without any real dangerous weapons on their persons or available to them.
What possible need is there to make sure you are who you say you are? If you paid for your ticket (anonymously should be permitted) and you are not carrying weapons, that's all the airlines and the gov't needs to know. I/We have a flatout right to travel ANYWHERE in our own frickin country without being tracked and printed by the government or law enforcement. I applaud this man's fight and really hope he wins out in the end. If you have a right (and you do) to travel anywhere in the country in your car without having to pass through checkpoints to identify you, then the fact that you are traveling on an aircraft or train is irrelevant and needs no ID either.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Undoubtedly I shall get flamed for bringing this up, but if you ever read None Dare Call It Conspiracy, you will remember that in the final chapter, the authors list 14 signposts to slavery, with number 13 being "Any attempt to restrict freedom of movement within the United States". No matter what you may think of this book, looking at this list and comparing it to the current state of affairs in the USA should surely make intelligent people think twice about summarily condemning the rest of the contents as puerile fantasy.
;-)
I do not live in the USA, and do not have any such 'restrictions' imposed upon me for domestic travel, yet given the eagerness of my country's government (Australia) to kiss GWB's ass, and be general toadies to the Americans, it is no doubt only a matter of time.
Most of the Slashdot crowd knows full well the erosion of freedoms that has been occuring in America over the last few years. Can you tell me that it is definitely not possible for those on the inside of the conspiracy to engineer some terrorism (or at least fund it), providing the 'necessity' for imposing such laws as the PATRIOT act upon American citizens? Do you who live in the USA still honestly believe that it is still the home of the free? I have been to the US several times in the last few years, and it is more of a police state than I could have imagined...or maybe that's just California
I am not trying to diminish the reality of terrorism, or the tragedy that was 9/11, but it is in my view a greater tragedy that not only is America becoming more socialist each year, but that it is still hell bent on imposing it's brand of (socialist) democracy and freedom on the rest of the world.
The conspiracy is real - it is not just a crackpot theory that only loonies and fringe dwellers swallow whole. If you haven't read the book, go and read it, and see if it isn't happening in your country. It scares the hell out of me, and I don't even live there, but it has ramifications for my country, and much of the rest of the world.
I can't think of any exact cases off of the top of my head, but I know it has. I also have seen cases where it lead to, say, the son of the registered owner. In other cases it has lead to the review of police reports of gun theft when the stolen firearm is recovered and suspected of use in a crime.
The interesting question is would the registration of the firearm in any of these types of cases prevent a crime?
What a superb idea! Let's make every drunken lovers' tiff aboard an aeroplane a pontentially fatal activity not just for the lovers, but for everyone else on board! :-)
Stick Men
I do not have proof of this, but I heard a woman describe how they kicked in her door at 5 in the morning and arrested her husband the day after his firearm license expired. I hesitate to mention it since I cannot find the documentation, but as far as hearsay goes, it's happened.
As far as I know, most states have a short grace period for renewal. I do not know exactly when or where this occurred (it was supposedly recent).
Technically, he may have been in violation of the law since the registration had expired 5 hours earlier, so the arrest may have been lawful. Since I don't know the details, I can't say any more. But from the woman's description, it sounded like a pretty big waste of storm troopers.
You can always drive.
...not as much as it sounds like Committee for State Security...
The parent of your post never claimed anything to do with seating arrangements, he was talking about the flight having a known roster of who was on the plane at all. If flight 1234 falls from the sky, they know exactly who was on it; that's what he meant by identifying the corpses, not physically wading through the wreckage tagging bodies.
Doug
Of course if you want to use another type of technology, such as something that could be easily turned into a guided missile, you may have to sacrifice some degree of privacy for that convienence. Considering their vulnerability, I think it makes perfect sense to be able to find out who exactly was on a plane in case something happens.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Ashcroft is very selective in his definition of terrorist - this is much less publicized than it ought to be, IMO.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The duration of this case will be measured in minutes.
The government is in no way required to provide you with the "right" to travel on a commercial airliner on your terms. Its amazing I had to come this far down in the comments to find this....this case won't last ten minutes.
Yet Another Biometrics Post
What is a photo ID but a crude biometric?
The crudeness, in a way, is a virtue. The person being identified must actively participate in being matched to the biometric. The verification is also self contained.
It's the active nature of participation which raises people's hackles and puts them in their gummint paranoia mode. So, if enough people get on this high horse, then the simple way for the government to get around opposition is to make the biometric verification passive, for example automatically scanning people's faces. Since it can be made inivisible, you don't have any point at which people can be reminded that its going on.
Furthermore, to make this work, the system can't be self contained. It has to be networked to a cenral database. Simply record access to this database, and, as a side effect, you have a nationwide person tracking system. Once the terminals are manufactured on a scale enough to be relatively cheap, they can be placed in bus terminals and key subway stations. Each round of increase in system scale enables the next: the system will eventually be able to be placed in public places like cafes, restaurants and gas stations. At each step, the barrier to the next expansion will be policy, not technology. As the policy pendulum swings back and forth, technological advance and growing public familiarity with the system will act like a ratchet on the pendulum, forcing it continually in the direction of greater monitoring.
So, for all you people wearing tin hats out there, you should be pushing instead for the development of a self-contained, verifiable biometric system (e.g. a digitally signed biometric ID card) that will not need a network or live access/update to a central database. Furthermore the infrastructure for this system should be paid for by a scanning tax, set high enough that people won't use it for frivolous purposes. Since there is no compelling reason to biometrically verify the identity of a person pumping gas or travelling by bus or train, anonymous travel is still possible.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You just have to fly yourself where you want to go. At no point in time do you have to show ID to fly a small airplane. I regularly fly across the US without ever showing ID to anyone. I also don't have to pass through security gates. And at times its faster than flying commercially.
Gotta disagree with you. It has nothing to do with freedom. If you want to travel anonymously, take the bus or train or walk or ride a bike - nobody is stopping you.
The "freedom to take a plane without showing ID" is arbitrary and has little or nothing to do with freedom.
New York City's "Sullivan Laws" were eventually used to confiscate ordinary rifles, and threaten with arrest anyone who didn't hand 'em over.
More recently, in the Peoples' Republic of California, a court case held that the DOJ was wrong to continue accepting "assault weapon" registrations, and that all weapons registered between 1993 and 1999 were illegal. The county sheriffs then proceeded to make house visits.
Only a few months ago, a deputy mis-interpreted the PRC's "assault weapon" laws, saw a perfectly legal rifle for sale at a gun store in Orange County, and went ape-shit. The store's records of purchases were reviewed, and the sheriff made middle-of-the-night visits to the homes of purchasers. The California Rifle and Pistol Association came to the rescue with documents from the CA DOJ - the very people that are supposed to enforce the law - showing that this particular rifle was quite legal. After much wrangling, the rifles were returned to their lawful owners.
I won't even get into how ridiculous the "assault weapons" laws in the PRC are, compared to the federal law; that's a post for another time.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Where is he now? He's one of the most well-known politicians in America. Despite the edited campaign rally scream pushed by TV networks afraid of his unprecedented Internet fundraising (leaving TV behind), he's increased his political influence, and that of the Internet. Where are you?
--
make install -not war
I believe all the Isreali airlines make serious efforts to isolate and secure the pilots cabin.
Airlines seem unwilling to pay this one off cost for something that will genuinely increase security.
link to story which mentions the idea of securing the pilots cabin
http://dssresources.com/newsletters/37.php
One "low tech" solution that comes to mind is making it
physically impossible for any passenger to enter the Pilot's Cabin. I've
heard suggestions that a controller on the ground should determine
access or that a lock should secure the cabin. Given how ruthless and
brutal terrorists can be, I doubt that such approaches would work. An
alternative on large passenger airlines is to only allow entrance to the
Pilot's Cabin from outside of the airplane. This solution will be
costly, but it is more likely to keep terrorists from hijacking an
airliner and using it as a weapon. Also, a physical modification of an
airliner involves a one-time cost rather than on-going costs. From a
psychological standpoint, passengers would have a visible indication
that a terrorist in the passenger cabin could not force or cajole entry
into the Pilot's Cabin.
This has historically proven to be a very affective way to get rid of all kinds of trouble makers, from intellectuals to religious "minorities" to anyone the government finds a threat to their authority. Totalitarian governments have been doing this for decades.
I guess I've gotten paranoid in my old age. Where is my tinfoil hat?
Guns shouldn't have to be banned OR registered. With gun registration, whose doors do you think the martial law stormtroopers are going to knock in first? So you are rooting for the insurgents in Iraq, right? They are exercising their right to bear, and use, heavy weaponry against 'imperial' oppression. Or do you expect everyone to cooperate (and preferrably see things your way) when they are so armed?
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Documentary:
AKA: Docu
A non-fiction narrative without actors. Typically a documentary is a journalistic record of an event, person, or place. See also: cinema verité.
Genre Browser: Documentary
No one has discredited Moore's statements, or even argued coherently with them. His political opponents depicted so disparagingly in his film could sue him for libel, but have no grounds.
And for good measure:
" bald faced liar"
--
make install -not war
You don't live in California then.
The SKS was declared legal and the California Department of Justice sent out letters saying it was fine. Later they changed their mind and arrested & charged people with felonies for having one. How did they know who had them? A registration list.
Even people who turned over the gun where threatened with a felony charge. Sure, you have a letter from DoJ saying it's legal, but ooops, it's now a felony.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
http://www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/news/local/sto ries/local_16971594.shtml
Tell your mother where you are.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
About a year ago I was ordered off a Southwest Airlines (SW) flight by a very rumpled, and very fat, SW pilot named Thomas Marquardt. (If by chance you run into him at your airport, see how fat he looks to you. I have never seen one like him before, and I have previously seen thousands of pilots.) My "crime" was I reported two safety violations in the middle emergency exit row to a cabin attendant. I stopped in the boarding area to write some notes about what had just happened. Several minutes later I was surrounded by seven SW ground employees. Three were agitated. After some chatter among them, I was asked my name. They had no idea who I was! I spoke my name. Several ran to a boarding area computer. After several minutes one came back and told me they could not find my name. After some thought, I pulled out my boarding pass stub and gave it to that employee. Apparently they were able to find me from it. I was then told they needed to verify if I had checked baggage. The computer said I had none, and the three frantic employees ran back toward the aircraft. Several minutes later it backed away from the gate and left. To me, this episode says more about SW boarding practices than anything else. It is also another confirmation to me that US airlines use the ID requirement issue primarily to impede the continuing secondary market in airline tickets. This episode also caused me to see an enormous gap in the present airline security system. I leave it to you insightful ones to discern it from my episode description.
Solution: Flying Johnny Cabs
- The secret to not getting pulled over is removing responsibility for the operation of the vehicle from the driver. I have some family who work as Engineers for Ford. This type of automobile design is currently illegal in the U.S.A. -- We need to start a new campaing:
LEGALIZE JOHNNY CABS
I know this would not solve the airport problem at first, but it would solve the Driver's License delemma.
in other words, this is basically proof that the US recognizes the true cause was *not* "mechanical failure"?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
There isn't an ISBN number listed anywhere on my copy, which is a paperback. It is unknown whether the above address for Concord Press is still active (unlikely?). My copy lists three printings: Feb 1972 - 350,000, March 1972 - 1,250,000, April 1972 - 4,000,000.
I haven't read my copy yet (next on my list!) - but based on that last chapter, Nixon figures into it all, which might explain the huge ramp-up in printing in such a short time period. This book is most likely out of print. Check used book stores for copies...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The one where the droids are hidden, duh.
Now examine these lists, and ask yourself if this can be called a War. Are we safe yet?
Next Week: Make a list of the individuals and organizations that are receiving the money spent on the War on Terror. Sort by Net Profit, and by amounts contributed to national political campaigns.
ChiralSoftware: How mandatory ID even prevent terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID.
Devil's Advocate: If the 9/11 terrorists did not use their valid IDs, how would we have even known who they were?
I'd happily trade lives (even my own) for ideology, thank you very much!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
There is no right to travel anonymously anyway. First off, it wasn't flight 800, it was Locherbie, which wasn't a mechanical failure. The process put in place was for baggage matching, so bags didn't get put on planes if the person that checked them didn't board. The ID check made it asier to verify that the same person that was issued a boarding pass used it to board the plane. This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act or an other recent nonsense. We as a ticket buying public demanded changes, the airlines implemented them as cheaply as possible because we demanded low air fares. Anyone that doesn't like it needs to stop whining and start driving instead of flying. The only right you've lost is the ability to go to Hawaii, so give it up already. You've always had to show id to cross borders.
Second of all, YOU DO NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FLY ANONYMOUSLY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FLY. This is where they can always get you, it's what makes you required to show your drivers license to a cop who pulls you over, when you get one you sign a little form which says in return for getting this license I will show my license if pulled over if I do not I understand my license will be revoked, if they haven't put this into the ticket contract yet(which I doubt) they will now.
Thirdly, this is not like the Soviet Union because the problem with the USSR wasn't that you had to show a passport to travel in your own country(and this was any sort of travel including walking as a point, it was that not everyone got one and even those who did weren't always allowed to travel. This will be like the USSR if and only if they refuse to give large segments of the population which they wish oppressed an ID which allows them to fly.
That said, I hate the Patriot Act as much as the next guy(well so long as the next guy isn't a gun toting militia man or a libertarian). I admitedly think we probably have bigger things to worry about now, like getting rid of the asshats who made this sort of crap possible in the first place(Bush, Ashcroft, 99/100 members of the Senate).
On a related but somewhat off topic rant, what idiot came up with the term illegal combatant and expects that to fly, does our government really believe that, regardless of their guilt or innocence, the rest of the world is going to accept that argument for revoking the rights of the Geneva convention as well as those granted to humans in general?
you have more power as a jurist than you do anything else. your single vote probably won't decide a president, but it can decide life or death.
fuck your apathy.
These terrorists are not entirely stupid. Any organization capable of launching an effective/damaging attack against any major government will have members not yet discovered by the government. Which means their ID will be accepted and their records clear of a glaring "THIS IS A TERRORIST" mark. All of this neatly circumvents any difficulties provided by checking ID. I'm not saying security is not important, because it is; I'm saying that there is a balance somewhere between security and privacy where we still catch the terrorists, but our nation does not revoke our personal rights.
"Im such a nonconformist I'm going to not conform to the rest of you!"
"Dude I think we just got goth-served"
Because we live in a country that can not be Politically Incorrect, unlike the rest of the world where Jewish people are openly persecuted and hated.
I know from first hand experience, I have Muslim friends who hate Jewish people for the fact that they are Jewish. Hating people because of race is wrong regardless of wether or not centuries of abuse have taken palce. The middle east has been fighting over the same land since Jesus walked the earth and they probly always will.
We don't need internal travel papers, or to even show our ID's. What we need is to say FUCK bieng POLITICALLY CORRECT and racially profile. You can say, "well thats racist" you know what, it wasn't Jewish, German, black, Russian, nor white people that commited the terrorist acts that led to our whole country losing freedoms. It was a radical Islamic sect comprised of Arabic men.
Am I the only one that sees a problem here?
Airport security: sir could you please remove your shoes?
wall street exec: what?
security:please remove your shoes sir!
security: you arab with a bazooka, you can board.
Stop fucking hassling people who have been in this country since birth. The ones you should target are the ones that got visas in order to learn in our schools (which we pay for) and then go back home.
America home of the not so free, and chicken shit to step on the toes of a fuckin 3rd WORLD! Not 3rd world country but a fucking world that forgot when their asses were getting invaded or their people were starving what country pulled them out of oblivion.
FLAME ON!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
At the end of a journey you will have to file a report describing any suspicious parts of conversation that you overheard while on the plane. That report will be compared with reports from other passengers to see if you deliberately missed anything.
You will not be allowed to speak to foreigners.
Terrorist attacks will cease to happen. The news will only report limited information about some really bad accidents always blamed on human error.
And on the birthday of comrade Staline you won't have to go to work, you'll just watch the parade. Oh, wait...
You don't need rifles, grenades, pipe bombs, or other weapons to disobey the government. If everyone disobeyed the government there is nothing they could do. If they disobeyed violently the government has a pretext to crush rebelion. This is why the FBI would infultrate peaceful protests in the 60/70's and try to instigate violence.
On the other hand, if everyone just refused to tollerate the government there would be nothing they could do. A government can only govern those willing to be governed.
Currently though, the price we would pay by toppling our government would be worse than trying to fix it. It hasn't gotten to the point, at least not for me, that it is worth the damage it would do to not have a government. Soon maybe...
NR
The reason you need to show ID is so the airline knows exactly how many people are on the plane, and who they are, if it crashes. Unlike a car crash etc where bodies remain, in an air accident some may be completely obliterated.
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
I fly regularly, and never carry a knife, box-cutter, blunt instrument, anthrax or anything else that might be used as a weapon. (Well, my laptop is heavy enough to bludgeon someone to death with, but that's a different argument).
But once I'm through all the security checks, I can buy a glass bottle of wine, whiskey or whatever and carry it on the plane with me. Ask anyone who's been in a bar fight how dangerous a broken bottle is....
You can check my shoes all you like, confiscate my belt for x-raying (this has happened) but you can't stop me breaking a Vodka bottle on a bulkhead and attacking anyone I want.
I can also take matches on board, even though you can't smoke on the plane. I bet you can start a great fire with a box of matches and an air-sickness bag full of torn up in-flight magazine pages.
If they were serious about security they'd banish all those things too - but they'd have a revolt on their hands. Not just from the public ("I can't buy duty free any more! Now I'll have to pay 50p more for a litre of Gin when I get there!") but from the shops and airports who make a fortune off the captive audience.
Anon.
PS Only posting anonymously so I don't get 'grounded' - for what it's worth, I'm not the first to point this out, I won't ever be doing it, so when the gummint tries to blame me to 'giving the terrorists a blueprint' they can bite me. I'm sure the terorrists have already figured this out, and will use their legally purchased traveller's checks to buy cheap liquor in the airport before they board the next time...
Are you sure that the particular slant of his views are not the reason for your disagreement?
Loss of privacy is merely a symptom of a government run amok. By itself, it is not the primary problem. But, unless you fix the problem, those seemingly larger problems will become small compared to those looming on the horizon. Yes, campaign finance reform is needed - but, that is assuming we have free elections in the first place. Without privacy, we might not, and any progress toward campaign finance reform would be irrelevant at that point.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Unlike those noble souls forcing U.S. commercial pop culture and consumerism on the rest of the world.
That is only true when and if a motor vehicle enters the equation. It is not true in general public situations (i.e. you are walking on the sidewalk); the police can pull up and ask for ID, but you do not have to provide it to them. My source is the ACLU. I highly recommend everyone read (and memorize) their What to do if you're stopped by The Police page, accessible here.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
hmm. I went on an airplane earlier this year, and I did not even show my id. Just my close wallet :) They scaned my ticket and let me in anyway. If ID's are supposed to make travel more secure, they are not doing I good job.
__ Jesus Loves you! He died in your place so you would not have to die and go to Hell.
I see it a little differently. Their protest wasn't the problem, it was the location. I think it's perfectly reasonable to restrict locations of protests. You shouldn't be able to say, walk into a convention center that has been paid for by party A in order to disrupt their right to free assembly/speech.
After 9/11, George W. Bush made the statement
...)
"Those who are not with us, are against us".
Shortly thereafter, an exact duplicate DNA
version of the Ames strain of anthrax bacteria
as resides at Ft. Detrick, MD Army Labs was
unleashed upon (1st) the publishers of the
National Enquirer (investigating vote fraud
in Florida), the (2nd) the liberal (ie not pro-
Bush) TV media in NYC, and then (3rd) the ranking
US Senate membership of the opposition party.
The FBI's "Keystone Kops" quality investigation,
after nearly three years, has only turned up two
"persons of interest" and no suspects. This is
the very same FBI that allowed a plane-load of
Saudi Arabian "guests" to leave the USA before
any further investigation into possible ties to
the terrorist events of 9/11/01.
The Saudi Arabian embassy/Riggs Bank cash cow
debacle has yet to be fully investigated --
where exactly did that 20 - 30 million dollars
in US currency actually go? Into the hands of
more terrorists, or into the hands of Bush/Cheney
for their part in bringing down the Saudi's
greatest external threat -- Saddam Hussein?
Between new eVoting fraud, a press that has been
cowed into submission, the US Patriot Act, the
general blanket of nearly total secrecy now
in government interspersed only with lies and
double-speak, and the tens of millions of dollars
contributed by Bush's "corporate friends" for
the propaganda campaign leading up to the Nov.2
elections, which political party represents the
greatest threat to the future of American
democracy?
(I now put on my tin-foil hat, and peek through
the curtains for black helicopters
The approval rating of George W. Bush prior to
9/11/2001 was not going to win him the votes to
get his neo conservative legislative program
through Congress. The terrorist acts of 9/11
bought him the patriotic cover to do nearly
anything he wanted to do, including going to
war against Iraq. With the agenda that Bush/
Cheney had to shove down voters' throats, the
GOP needed an event like 9/11 to pull it off.
Welcome to the "Corporate National Socialist
Republic of America", where corporate welfare
is the norm, the middle class is becoming non-
existent, and those jobs not going overseas
are being filled by illegal aliens from across
US borders still little better secured than
before 9/11.
The problem with privacy is that 90% of the people will never have an issue with it.
True enough. But as an individual it might be harder to guarantee that you'll never be victimized by a stalker, which happens to about 10% of the population at some point in their lives.
I've known a couple of people that have been victimized by stalkers. If you've ever been subject to that kind of stress, all of sudden you become keenly aware of just how much information about you is easily available.
It's not just John Gilmore exercising a principle here, as vaunted an ideal as that might be. There are loads of current and former stalking victims intently making choices to minimize their exposure to the realm of publicly-accessible data.
Unlisted phone numbers, using post office boxes instead of getting mail at a residence, paying cash, giving fake names and phone numbers for people without a legally-mandated need to known but only a direct marketer's desire to know.
One of the people I knew was stalked by someone that worked in the health care industry, so suddenly it was in her interest not to provide complete and accurate information to certain health care providers for fear of providing her new address and phone number to the loonie.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Just think of the logistics in doing the same thing for a crashed plane. The "building" is 2,000 miles out at sea (and 300m under).
When my US domestic flight is 2,000 miles out at sea, something has already gone horribly, horribly wrong.
Once we have good politicians, we can work on the smaller things.
You know what? Murder, rape, and theft will disappear when human nature evolves out of its present state. You are indirectly advocating the status-quo by fixating upon conditions that will not be fufilled in your lifetime. Like Don Quixote, your Good Fight is a struggle against the realities of an imperfect world.
Please prove me wrong and point out any point in history wherein the majority of politicians were Virtuous and Decent men, and not aristocrats trading favors with one other. Please, just one example.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
See http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/07/Terr orism.shtml
If you want to kill someone with the blade of a knife, you don't generally go for the torso, you go for locations where veins and arteries are close to the surface - sides of the neck, top of the shoulder near the neck, inside of the thighs, under the arms, etc. With that, death happens in a matter of seconds.
Bludgening someone with the hilt of a knife (or a flashlight, etc) limits your targets much more (you would be more likely to knock someone out rather than kill them). Killing spots in this situation are limited primarily to the temples, an upward thrust under the nose (causes the bones connected to the cartilige to be driven into the brain), and the throat (not part of the head, but I'll let that slide anyway).
In answers to questions of how I know this, I grew up being trained martially as a serious practice rather than as a sport. One of my teachers was ex special forces. It's been an interesting trip.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Not sure there's any value in casting my vote that way, but geez, it's getting ridiculous
If you vote libertarian, you won't get libertarian policies, you'll get the exact opposite. The problem is not that we have two parties, the problem is that we have plurality voting which enforces the existence of two parties and penalizes third party voters by giving them the opposite of what they want.
If you don't like politics as they are, then you need to start encouraging people to support Approval Voting. If enough people are educated about what Approval Voting is and how it would change politics in this country, then the change would happen, and third party voters would be rewarded for their votes. Right now we have a big job of educating the public ahead of us, so start with the people you know.
the new government's position (and that of the
Coalition Forces) is that Iraqi's may have one
AK-47 (full auto) assault weapon per household,
for defense. What the Coalition Forces are
going after are heavy machine guns, mortars,
RPG-7s, artillary shells, and other explosives
that keep turning into IUD roadside mines and
car bombs.
Of course, I don't know if they are required to
register those weapons, which could be later used
against them (like in Australia and California).
How mandatory ID even prevents terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID.
Showing ID does nothing to enhance security. We know that IDs can be easily faked, or secured by bribing officials, and that having a valid ID does not prove that you wont do something bad. The problem is that for this to enhance security, the airlines need an "I will not do something bad" card to determine the intentions of their passengers. ID cards are not it.
The airlines put on this theatre though, since it solves a business problem of theirs. Namely, it prevents people from reselling tickets. If you have to show ID to get on a plane, and that ID has to match the name on the ticket, you can't buy a ticket from someone who doesn't want it anymore. Therefore, you have to buy a new ticket from the airline, so the airline gets more revenue. So, the airlines use ID checks to ensure that tickets can't be resold, and they explain it to the public as "enhancing security" which it isn't.
You shouldn't be able to say, walk into a convention center that has been paid for by party A in order to disrupt their right to free assembly/speech.
There you have the issue in a nutshell. In today's USA money is worth more than freedom of speech. If you tried to have a demonstration like the Boston Tea Party today, you'd be shot the second you showed up at the docks.
http://tinyurl.com/5t5hw
http://tinyurl.com/5lsr7
http://tinyurl.com/4ywjw
This is meant to be redundant, to drive home the point that:
WHO REALLY CARES IF THEY KNOW WHO YOU ARE?!?!?!?!
Shit! The Power Company nearly does a BACKGROUND check to start service, the cellphone companies need credit card history, bank loans outstanding, etc. If you are getting into my $X0,000,000 piece of flying machinery you should be happy I don't call your family and ask to confirm that you're not a flying pain in the ass!
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
It's not security or the major airlines' fault that flights out of O'Hare are always late. Due to the limited space on the tarmac and in the control tower, there are about 10 more flights per hour can be safely land or take off. American has the most late flights because American has the most flights. JetBlue might be able to make up the time in-air, or they might simply have less of a cascade effect due to their smaller operation. American and United keep having to reduce peak hour flights because the FAA wants to bring the number of late flights down. But the FAA keeps letting smaller airlines add flights because they'd be accused of fostering anticompetitive behavior if small airlines weren't allowed to grow.
Even if the security process was more complex, or JetBlue had the biggest terminal instead of American, flights out of O'Hare would be delayed until another Chicago area airport took over the overload. I'd rather wait a few minutes extra at O'Hare than slum at Midway, but I'd be glad to fly to whatever new airport gets built.
And back on topic, so what if the government and the airlines want to see your ID? Unless you're living in a cabin on in Alaska hand-writing your manifesto by moose-tallow candlelight, the government and the major corporations already know all about you.
Any chance you think you have at privacy is an illusion. Either trust that the system is working for you, hope that the system is ignoring you, or step up and change the system. Refusing to cooperate with the policies of an organization you're patronizing is just going to annoy everyone around you.
Travel papers are documents allowing you to take a specific journey. Want to take a different journey later on - then you need a new set of papers for that trip. So they essentially require approval for each and every trip you take, on a case by case basis. Requiring to show ID, on the other hand, is nothing like that, since whether you are allowed to fly with that ID has nothing to do with where in the country you are trying to go, and you don't need approval for each and every trip.
Anonymity is overrated. Sure, it allows people to circumvent bad laws, but it also allows them to circumvent good ones, like the law against spreading false slander about someone - do it anonymously and you can get away with it scott free.
If there is a bad law for which anonymity is the only way to get around it, then the law is what should change, not the ability to be anonymous.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If the airline wants to see your id to let you on THEIR plane it's THEIR business, DON'T FLY. DRIVE instead. When they setup checkpoints at state lines THEN it's time to get pissed, no one has a RIGHT to fly on an airplane anonymously, there are many reasons, one of which is WHAT IF THEY CRASH? A passenger list is gonna be handy in knowing WHO DIED. I mean come on people. I like a good government conspiracy as much as the next man but this is ridiculous to bitch about.
If you don't like the AIRLINE'S rules then DRIVE (take a bus? I've never ridden a bus do they check id too?).
--- www.f-theocean.com
To conquer people in the modern world, you don't need guns. don't need violence. All you need is the ability to convice the people that some things that are opposed to their interests are reasonable, and some tyranny is acceptable. Eventually we will all be slaves without knowing it. Why fight your populaous when you can pacify them and rule without opposition. In Canada, regaurdless of the government the beuracrats are the same. In the US regaurdless of the administration, certain unelected individuals weild an ungodly amount of influence.
They've conquered us. and theres not a damend thign you can do about it with a gun.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
How about this: You allow rifles and shotguns for hunting and target use, and ban pistols all together unless you submit to a thorough background check and are in an occupation that needs one(police, bodyguard, etc.). This way we prevent shooting massacares and save the children while still allowing hunting and the like. Seriously, what's the point of a pistol but for injuring people? Why use a pistol when you could use a rifle, except for concealment?
Here's a link for a load of Bush quotes - it's hilarious !
Check out my PHP Url Validator
The same propaganda that claims that criminals should have the right to carry guns
It doesn't matter whether or not criminals have the 'right' to carry a gun. They'll carry it anyway, regardless. Because they're CRIMINALS.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
"The contents of the records were no one's business, being about his personal life. we need more of that. Being a public servant doesn't make your life a video game."
I have to wonder, do you feel that way just because Dean was a Democrat? Or do you think the same thing about Jack Ryan, the Republican Illinois Senate candidate, who was torpedoed after his divorce records were unsealed (against both his request and his ex-wife)?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
How is the Boston Tea Party a demonstration? Is looting a store and throwing the goods in the river a "demonstration"?
They were criminals. They were our criminals which is why we think it was a cool event.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
They demonstrated a basic value of American democracy: freedom is more important than the law. The law is made to reflect the freedom, protecting it by permitting reasonable advance expectations among free people of the protocol for respect of one another's freedom. Regardless of the rightwing "framers' original intent" crusade to portray the founders of America as saints, they broke a lot of eggs to make their omlette. Then they created a legal system that wouldn't require breaking & entering and vandalism to protest politics like bad taxes. Comparing the property rights of a vendor to commodity goods with the self-evident rights to freedom of speech and assembly makes either property, or the comparison, look bad.
--
make install -not war
Maybe not, but you should be able to demonstrate on the public sidewalk across the street, or nearby. How about restricting the NYC RNC demonstration scheduled for Central Park's Great Lawn? Is there some kind of excuse for (Republican) Bloomberg stopping that? Or the loyalty oaths being required to attend Cheney's campaign speeches? Or the declarations of support, and prohibitions of opposition, required to attend Bush campaign speeches? All those places are being paid for by all the constituent taxpayers, regardless of party, and are mostly being held in public places. What's the excuse for the supression, other than politically valuable repression?
--
make install -not war
From his essay- which is even more applicable to the US as we've been losing these rights already: "A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around... if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away...
"The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others... The right not to be known against our will - indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves - is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.
"The Government ... has absolutely no business creating a massive database of personal information about all law-abiding Canadians that is collected without our consent from third parties, not to provide us with any service but simply to have it available to use against us if it ever becomes expedient to do so...
"It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant disregard for the rights of Canadians. This database is legally wrong and morally wrong. If the Government can get away with systematically logging and analyzing all the foreign travel activities of every law-abiding citizen, then no other private activity will long be safe from being included in the same personal dossiers - our shopping, our banking, our communications, our movements within the country...
"[Bill C-55 would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines] I have raised no objection to the primary purpose of this provision, section 4.82, which is to ena
The english language is constantly evolving, and will continue to. Words get used in different ways, and over time will come to mean different things. Trying to read something in Old English is near impossible, and that was still in use less than 1000 years ago. In the last few hundred years our grammar (the way we construct sentences) has changed, along with the meanings of many many words. Ever seen the marks in a dictionary that denote an archaic definition of a word? A good number of those definitions were in common use at the turn of the century.
The simple fact is the English language is constantly evolving, and there's not much you can do to stop it. "She is *married* to her college sweetheart" "He is *married* to his work." "This is the *marriage* of many ideas." All are in common usage now, probably in that order. Who knows what will happen in the next hundred years, perhaps the word marriage will only mean "the union of people/ideas" or something along those lines.
Like all the all the other dictionary zealots out there, you can go on all you want about how according to Encarta (or whatever other end all source you choose) that someone is wrong...but in the end it's the common usage that will prevail, not the definitions that you seem to be "married" to. The English language makes progress just like any other type of technology.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Both of them have the same strengths and weaknesses, that is both of them are willing to take positions that are unpopular (with corporations and officials) on the subjects in current affairs and history that affect our lives, but both of them are a bit lacking on the homework end.
When someone takes a popularized apprpoach to current history and issues that is as rigorousle researched as the work done by Peter Kornbluh does at the National Security Archive, then maybe I'll start following every word. Until then, I'll continue to skim the headlines (including those of messr.'s Jones and Moore) and apply my knowledge of history in order to determine how much is factual and how much is simply another garden path waiting to lead us astray.
Read, L
> Seeing another human being brutally and swiftly killed by a person acting in a highly intimidating
> manner will be enough to scare most anyone out of any action, especially your average tourist-types on
> a crowded, stressful and uncomfortable place like an airplane
Tell that to the guys who rushed the cockpit and brought their hijacked airplane down in a Pennsylvania field on Sept 11.
Fact is, the mindset now is "I stop the hijacker, or I die". People believe their best chance of survival is to overcome hijackers or other violent types on airplanes, a belief that has led to several thwarted hijackings/attacks (shoe bomber, also Canadian ex-mil on Aussie flight) as well as several beat-downs of violent travellers.
> Most hijacked airplanes land safely with few or no casualties
That's not what passengers believe anymore. True or not, hijacking an airplane from the West is currently a recipe for getting your ass kicked by a terrified mob.
People act like sheep, but even terrified sheep with no alternative will stampede. We've now been socially engineered to believe "hijacking = death", and will react accordingly. That may be an abberation to normal psychology, but it's also true.
Civilians have been open game since time immemorial. A few of the more notable examples:
- 332 BC: Siege of Tyre - Alexander the Great executes the male population of Tyre, and sells the women and children into slavery.
- 1099: First Crusade - civilian population of Jerusalem massacred by crusaders
- 1209: Albigensian Crusade - civilian population of Béziers massacred by papal troops
- 1500s-1800s: Indian Wars - wholesale slaughter of indigenous tribes and nations
- 1618-48: The 30 Years War - up to 30% of the civilian population of Germany killed
- 1945: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden - air attacks on purely civilian targets that claimed 100,000 lives each
- 1968: My Lai - several hundred civilians massacred by Charlie company
Terrorism has nothing to do with the targeting of civlians, or you might as well define it as being synonymous with war. Terrorism is the use of fear to achieve political ends, and while it is employed by some violent radicals, it is more effectively used by certain states and governments against their own civilians. Most violent radicals perceive themselves as guerilla warriors anyway, and the truth of this belief is primarily a function of how widespread their movement is, not of their methods or beliefs (cf. IRA). For instance, it is a well-understood principle of revolutionary war that terrorism-like tactics lead to police strong-arm counter-tactics, which increases resentment against the state, which allows the revolutionary movement to grow into full-fledged insurgency, and by similar processes into open war. Exactly the profile we're seeing in Iraq, not coincidentally.> As those in the know would tell you, the most dangerous part of a knife for
> use in close combat is not the blade, but the handle
That's a dubious claim, at least based on my training and research, and based on the selection of blades over sticks by most knife-fighters (such as in SE Asia, where some actually use the skills).
Nevertheless, there are three main reasons why a Maglite is much safer in a bad guy's hands than a knife:
1) A knife is deadly even in a close grapply; a Maglite is almost useless when your arms are grabbed.
2) A knife can injure or kill anywhere on the body; a Maglite requires skill and strength, and most bad guys aren't exactly Special Forces-trained commandos.
3) Blood is scary; knives are better for intimidation and cowing.
> the easiest of all would be simple social engineering
The current level of social engineering is "hijacking = death". Unless hijackers can overcome the passengers by force, they're not likely to succeed any time soon.
Why are you even asking this question? One BIG reason you have to give your ID is in case the plane goes down. The reason that Flight 800 prompted airlines to ask for ID was because in the aftermath they had a hell of a time trying to determine who the hell sat in what seat (do you want to bury someone else's remains, or your loved one's?), and if someone was actually on the friggin plane!
Yeah, it's an inconvinience; yeah, you're afraid the big, bad government is gonna come after you once they learn who you are, or where you're going; I've heard it all before, basically because I used to be one of those conspiracy nuts. Then I realised that this is the same government that created Amtrak.
Two points:
a. What are you REALLY afraid of? Don't answer me on this, ask yourself. And sit down and think, don't just blurt it out like so many reactionaries.
b. You do know you have the option of living in a country that doesn't ask you for your ID.
Of course, option B probably means that you will go to a country that doesn't even have planes, but I digress.
Neither is it rare enough, hence the coinage of the term "air rage".
Moreover, that assumption is (or should be) well-known to most potential hijackers, meaning that the odds of a "leverage" hijacking (hostages) being attempted are now much lower (since they know we'll probably beat the hell out of them when they try taking over).
Besides, who would expect "I have a bomb, honest, but you can't see it" to actually work? That's one step above "that's not my finger in my jacket, it's a gun!!"
Typical of Moore's detractors, who dislike what he says yet cannot argue articulatly and must resort to the most trivial and banal of semantic attacks. Like the pathetic meatbags who whined about the Charlton Heston speeches being used "out of context" in Bowling for Columbine or the precise timeline of events in Roger and Me. I'm all for accuracy, too, but if you're going to use these semantic quibblings to dismiss entire arguments and points of view out of hand, then you're a cock.
The right loves to trash Moore for this idiotic bullshit, but notice how they never argue the real issues. You think he sucks, fine, then argue about what he's saying.
I saw the bit Moore did with Bill O'Reilly where O'Reilly baited him into that same semantic bullshit about whether or not Bush "lied" about WMDs. There's no shortage of solid reportage about how and why the WMD argument came into being, and I just saw the spinsanity.com guy on the Daily Show talking about how brilliant the Bush administration is about never letting themselves being cornered into an actual lie. As far as I know, it's not possible to trap the Bushies into a rock-solid semantically-accurate lie about WMDs, but take the time to read and it's painfully obvious what they were doing. It may be more accurate to call it deceptive, but I think wasting time debating the finer points and what-ifs of a "lie" detracts from what should be the real debate: did the administration "cook the books" (you know, in the Halliburton/Enron sense) in their case for war, and if so, was that appropriate?
Anyway, tell you what - we'll stop calling Moore a documentarian on the day that you stop calling Fox News "news."
And as far as your A) is concerned, Moore has an extensive bibliography on his website where you can check his references for yourself, and B) I'll tell you with a straight face that I don't see "fictional matter" in Moore's films, and if you'd care to point to specific examples of substantive fictional content, I'd like to see it. And by "substantive," I don't mean stupid shit like, "Moore made it seem like it was the South Park guys who made that animated short, when really it wasn't."
A flash of ID and I get a boarding pass, no preprinted ticket to loose, no paper usage. It's all good.
They know who you are from your booking/airline ticket. The ID is just confirmation that it was you who bought the ticket, or that the ticket was bought for you.
Airline tickets are like cash, if you loose it, tough (In theory anyway). The only way to replace it is to buy another. If you find one, you can use it. The need to show ID helps with this a bit.
Further more, I want the airline to know it's me on their plane, after all they have my luggage.
Here's an interesting story out of lovely Maui. I read it in the Maui News, but the link no longer works, sorry. There was a second story which tempered the first one a bit, but didn't answer the most fundamental issues.
A rather disagreeable traveler was recently allowed on a domestic U.S. flight without any sort of ID (valid, or otherwise). What's more, it seems that security officials (also off-duty sworn officers) helped her bypass the valid-ID requirement by ginning up a "lost or stolen ID" police report, on the spot.
The TSA spokesman brags about how his agency just doesn't check anyone's ID. The Maui police can't figure out what the big deal is -- they issue these police reports all the time. The security guards volunteer obscure and/or sensitive security bypass information, on behalf of an otherwise hapless traveler. Great stuff.
I love to fly, and I won't stop travelling anytime soon; but, if I were ticketed for that particular flight, and I happened to witness this incident, then would I then ask to be re-scheduled? Yes; but, not primarily because of the ID flap. Her angry presence on the aircraft creates a stand-alone hazard.
In my opinion, a belligerent, disagreeable traveler should *never* be allowed to board a revenue flight, no matter what other circumstances may exist. Allowing such people to fly has been repeatedly demonstrated (occasionally with sad results) to be a safety risk to all crew and passengers.
Consider that squirrelly flyers (inebriated, uncooperative, or otherwise potentially disruptive) are often asked to debark before departure, at the discretion of the pilot-in-charge, with lots of help from the flight crew. So, why did the PIC -- who allegedly witnessed the ID adventure -- let her board, in the first place?
I'll wager that, after seeing the police report, the airline's ticket agent still went through the motions of comparing her "identity" with the name printed on the flight coupon. If you haven't seen it yet, the "Airline" documentary / reality-show about Southwest Airlines depicts several incidents of ID ambiguity.
We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone. -management
No it doesn't. This is a nonsense myth that has at best marginal basis in reality. See, for example:
here
here
here
Many places perpetuate this myth, and some even try to explain it. The notion of driving cartilage through bone into the brain may be theoretically possible, but is sufficiently inefficient that anyone capable of doing that would be better off smacking the target somewhere else.
The average juror has no clue to what degree the judge, prosecution and law enforcement can manipulate the evidence and court procedure to make the phrase "fair trial" a fucking joke.
well since you are obviously "not" the average juror, you should vote your conscience on a jury. since you're smarter than everyone else. jury nullification is a powerful tool against "the evil empire".
by advocating avoidance of jury duty and by avoiding it yourself, you just exacerbate the problem, by leaving juries entirely up to those "average jurors" you so despise.
you could make a difference, but your apathy leads you not to.
or maybe it's just plain laziness on your part.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
The fact that flight 800 was eventually ruled as a mechanical failure doesn't take away from the notion of using valid IDs to hamper terrorist access to flights.
Why are you so shocked about ID requirements on domestic flights? was it an international flight that hit the WTC in 2001?
Just because there are paranoid libertarians out there doesn't mean that the government doesn't have the duty to protect air travel. If you're so paranoid about flights, which are a public space, then get your own plane and jet around anonymously at your leisure.
The fact that terrorists target commercial airlines isn't a new one, and has extended far before the patriot act. Frankly, the US has always been naive about anti-terrorist measures.
I can't believe the level of grumbling there is regarding showing a fucking ID at the ticket counter. If you value your anonymity that much how about going homeless?
No. Your premise is wrong; therefore your conclusion is wrong. Go back to school, little boy, and learn some fucking history.
Planes are regulated by the government.
The Airline industry gets billions from our tax money.
To line in a world where you must show ID to get from a to b (within the borders of the US) is a control on your freedom.
I remember when it would be unheard of to show ID just to travel.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Juat becasue you are to young to remeber when people could travel around without need ing to prove who they were, and thus prove that thay are innocent, I guess it's all right.
People who want to travel in anonymously are NOT in the minority. The people who speak out are. Most people in Airports would rather not show ID.
I guess people searching your bags when you leave a store is alright too? And naturally living in a world where a DnD game book is conficated as inapropriete is all right to? Hey, maybe we should have your car report to the DMV where you are at all times?
Becasue we all want to be drones bound be some overly rigid laws so we don't step out of line.
Hell, we can't even go see the president without signing an oath.
The US is getting very bad, and the fact that you can't be bothered to look is sickening.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"The requirement to show ID for flying on commercial passenger flights started in 1996, in response to the crash of TWA Flight 800. This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader."
Um, you've missed the point, it's more for the fact that if the plane crashes the police can notify your next of kin. Or at the least can verify who's on the plane when it crashed.
Sure there is a privacy issue here, but the really paranoid among us are welcome not to travel on planes.
Exactly right. Now the problem becomes how to recover the lost rights. The last time it took a revolution, eight years, and thousands of lives to achieve the goal. I think that this next election may be the last "free and fair" (for some defintions of free and fair) election this nation will see. Both parties are set on forcing closed-source, no user-servicable parts, no valid audit trail electronic voting machines on the American electorate. Unless we are able to convince the entrenched powers-that-be in Washington that it's in their best interests to restore the Constitution and the rule of law to their rightful places in America we will have a totalitarian government sooner than any of us want to believe.
Think it can't happen here? We now have secret police, secret court proceedings, holding of persons without charge or meaningful legal counsel, secret search warrants, secret searches, roving wiretaps of anyone a prosecutor might want to call a terrorist, continuous encroachments on essential liberties such as free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. Need I go on? If either major party candidate gets elected look for more of the same. Kerry would be a bit smoother than Bush, but the end result will be the same: an American public that will wake up one day and wonder "why are the police searching my house?"
As someone's signature here mentioned in another discussion:
There are four boxes associated with liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Start now.
Vote Libertarian. It's our only hope.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
This way we prevent shooting massacares and save the children while still allowing hunting and the like. Seriously, what's the point of a pistol but for injuring people? Why use a pistol when you could use a rifle, except for concealment?
You obviously know nothing about self-defense.
Please, go wear a load of expensive jewelry and walk through a low-income (and probably predominantly-black) neighborhood at night. Do not carry any guns, knives, or anything else which may be a weapon. The law *should* protect you from violence and robbery, right?
Please, for your sake, go try it. I dare you.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
While this is true, the argument is used against any gun registration. Would the same kind of arguments exist today if automobiles had existed when the framers wrote the Constitution? I don't know. Would anyone really have that much attachment to a car? All kinds of 'bad' things will happen if we get invaded or become a police state, but is it really any more of a stretch to say that a firearm should never be registered but a car, the title/deed to your house and your dog should? Registration in some fashion establishes proper ownership and in some cases that you actually know how to use the item registered. Why are some people so adamant against gun registration? Dunno, but this becomes an emotional issue when it really should be a greater good issue. One must take an exam administered by the state to get a driver's license why not with a firearm as well? Each of these things is potentially a deadly machine but only one requires that you prove to someone that you actually know how to use it.
"...waiting in line to a security check point manned by pimply 17 year olds..."
I don't see the need to insult those teenagers. Maybe in a couple of years those "pimply 17 year olds" will join the Forces and do something usefull for all of us, including you.
"...and couple of fossils passing their time between retirement and death."
Those "fossils" are old folks, maybe trying to make ends meet. You will be one too, one day, should you be so lucky. Also, they could very well be veterans from the Korean War.
You are a moron, but I hope you grow up someday.
Shall we go through the list of countries in which gun registration led, more or less directly, to gun confiscation? Let's start with England, then add Australia and, I believe New Zealand. Those are just current examples. Going back to the WWII and post-WWII era the list includes Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Rumania, and Bulgaria. In all of those countries either the Nazis used gun registration lists to confiscate weapons after the country was conquered, as in France, or the USSR used the lists for the same purpose in order to make sure that there was no real means of resistance when they marched into Eastern Europe and took over former German allies such as Hungary and Rumania.
Do I distrust those who say that gun registration will help deter crime and I shouldn't be worried that my guns will be confiscated one day? You bet. In all the history of this country there is no evidence to support that claim. There is good evidence that allowing an armed citizenry has a deterrent effect. Why do you think places such as Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and other states, where weapons kept loaded in households are traditional, have the lowest crime rates in the country? If you're a criminal where would you rather practice your trade: in New York City, where law-abiding citizens can't have guns and your chances of being resisted, particularly since you probably have an illegal gun, are minimal, or in Laramie, Wyo. where you'll more than likely get splattered into next week if you break into someone's home and they happen to be there?
Gun registration does lead to gun confiscation. How do you think the New York City cops knew where to find the weapons when the "Sullivan Laws" came to town? An unarmed populace is a helpless populace as any dictator worth his salt will tell you. Given this administration's assualt on constitutional freedoms I don't think it's beyond them, and I know it's not beyond the Democrats, to try to disarm this nation's people in toto. As Thomas Jefferson once remarked, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Based on what I've seen and read about I think the Founding Fathers were right not to trust the government. People forget that the first goal of any government is self-preservation and governments will go to great lengths to insure they meet that goal.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
The Hiibel case was a very narrow decision that supported laws in certain states that have laws requiring persons to identify themselves to police. The court ruled that those laws were constitutional. The Supreme Court case does NOT require citizens in states that do not have such laws (which is most of them) to identify themselves.
Having said that, I think it is a travesty that the Supreme Court ruling degraded citizens' right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution in ANY state.
I'm strongly in favour of effective gun control, but gun registries do not help keep guns away from criminals and hot heads.
Anarchists never rule
scroll to the bottom of the ACLU page and you will find that it was archived in 98 and will never be updated. as a guide to the law since 9/11 it is worthless.
While those are all valid reasons, they are not necessary. When submitting a reimbursment, your name is on the itinerary, ticket, etc. That the airline checked your ID doesn't prove anything else. As for people cheating on reimbursements, that's between the reimburser and the traveler, not the airline and the traveler. There are other methods to ensure cheating is curtailed. As for getting your ticket stolen, one can print a picture of the traveler on the ticket if they so choose, or print "ID required" on the ticket if they so choose. It should be up to the traveler if they want the insurance against ticket theft, not forced upon them. As for the manifest, it too can be opt in. As for keeping people in the gate area to a minimum, enforce a one ticket one person (plus assistants if needed) policy, no need to match names or ID.
yeah, and the federal building in okc was dropped by a cowshit bomb.look at the id's used by the so called hijackers of 9/11.oh,sure the very ones needed to prove arabs were the perps survived the crash and following tower collapse(another bullshit story).did knowing whom caused such a senero make a change in the outcome? no. of course not, it was for political gain by another country.what a bunch of crap.i can hear it now...."hey, fellow terror mongers everyone got their proper id on them?".i guess that would eliminate the need for wearing the masks used in the beheading flicks where a certian group claims responsibilty anyway.just wear your id badge.lol.
Yep, time to go to the only free country left ...or their ole men are always fallin down drunk on vodka or sterno. Just sell 'em
in the world.....Russia! Won't have any trouble finding a wife there...they all want to come here for some reason....think they like Americans
computers...oh they make their own and sell 'em to wal-mart and they re-mark 'em as 'dell' and then sell 'em to us!
The cleverest terrorists may already be fully in control of the world. Their 'attacks' may not be indentified as such. They may be so subtle that they are not even...
Hmmm. This sounds a lot like the Saudi Royal family.
but is it really any more of a stretch to say that a firearm should never be registered but a car, the title/deed to your house and your dog should?
There's a vast difference between VOLUNTARY registration and COMPULSORY registration. Given the choice most people would register their more important pieces of property - and they do, through insurance - in order to track that property in the case of theft, or to be reimbursed if the property is stolen or destroyed. Those that don't would take their chances - but it would be THEIR CHOICE.
Why are some people so adamant against gun registration?
Because it's compulsory, and because it only tracks the ownership of law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't bother with registering their firearms - BY DEFINITION.
but this becomes an emotional issue when it really should be a greater good issue.
There is no greater good without individual good. You cannot do good for a society without doing good for the individuals that comprise that society. Most 'greater good' arguments are really about doing harm to individuals and passing off the debate as ultimately being good for some nebulous entity known as 'society', which paradoxically somehow doesn't have anything to do with the individuals that actually make up that society.
'Greater good' arguments are, by and large, bullshit. You can only do good for individuals. Do good for enough individuals, and you do good for the society those individuals belong to. You can't do it the other way around.
One must take an exam administered by the state to get a driver's license why not with a firearm as well?
The argument here is "why a driver's license"? There is no evidence whatsoever that acquiring a driver's license has any effect on the accident rate. So what's the real purpose of a license? It certainly has nothing to do with learning how to safely operate a vehicle, so what exactly is the point?
And why license a gun when there is no requirement to take a training course in how to use that gun? Especially when the licensing is only effective at tracking LAW-ABIDING citizens in the first place?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The fifth box at the bottom of your ladder is "pine". We have more hope than going out in a blaze of gunfire. The soapbox is the most important, in this communications age. We're "nerds", or at least geeks - we have the chance to help people communicate with one another. That free communications has always been America's advantage in increasing liberty. Help make some infosystem easier for everyone to use, so we can hang together - or be shot separately.
--
make install -not war
Which is why that misdirection piece(blamed the saudis instead) was shown. The real enemy of the us is israel and all of our politicians they bought. It's also the one very significant way Kerry is worse than Bush and why I won't be voting for him.
bullshit.
you know absolutely zilch about the legal system, quit playing armchair lawyer and get off the couch for once.
if you really believe jurists have no say in the matter then you've never heard or seen the OJ simpson trial. you've been living under a rock for decades.
it is your right as a jurist to believe whoever and whatever you want. if you believe the prosector is making shit up, if you believe the witnesses are not credible, if you believe the case is a farce, then it is your absolute right as a jurist to deliberate and vote that way.
there is no law saying to have to believe any single thing the prosecution or defense presents is credible.
the judge can't hold you in contempt of court for thinking the prosecutor is a lying sack of shit or that the defense is guilty as hell despite the evidence.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Dean got his ass handed to him in the Iowa caucuses, and his "concession" speech congratulating Kerry on his win was the infamus "scream" speech. Totally ignoring the screaming bit (which, as you correctly point out, is not his fault), what kind of a fucked-up, tasteless, unprofessional concession speech was that?
I've listened to the correctly-mixed version of the Iowa speech, and I agree with you that the media really dropped the ball on that one (of course if Dean would have had better sound engineers, none of this would have happened...). But the truth of the matter is that the real reason Howard Dean lost because he was, is, and probably always will be, a total jackass.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
There's a vast difference between VOLUNTARY registration and COMPULSORY registration. Given the choice most people would register their more important pieces of property - and they do, through insurance - in order to track that property in the case of theft, or to be reimbursed if the property is stolen or destroyed. Those that don't would take their chances - but it would be THEIR CHOICE.
And those same people would and do register their 'legal' firearms with their insurance company.
The argument here is "why a driver's license"? There is no evidence whatsoever that acquiring a driver's license has any effect on the accident rate. So what's the real purpose of a license? It certainly has nothing to do with learning how to safely operate a vehicle, so what exactly is the point?
But one must still demonstrate the ability to use the vehicle properly.
And why license a gun when there is no requirement to take a training course in how to use that gun? Especially when the licensing is only effective at tracking LAW-ABIDING citizens in the first place?
For this I'll revert back to my days on the gun range. At that time- and I have no reason to believe that this has changed- you could go to a gun show, watch a twenty minute video and someone would sign your 'Gun Safety Course' certificate. With that certificate you could get a concealed carry permit. There were also some very good instructors who insisted that their students spend real classroom hours and practice time at the range. I know the difference in training. The scariest people holding a firearm/concealed permit were the one's who had a 20 minute video course. There was, and probably remains, very little state supervision of actual ability. The state just approved the applications based upon whether your fingerprints were 'clean' and you had a certificate. There should be a 'licensing' of the individual who wants to own and use a gun to demonstrate knowledge and safe use of that gun. Want to argue against registration of the actual guns? Ok- I do buy some of it, but not for the same reasons usually stated. If only licensed individuals who have demonstrated safe and proper operation can purchase a firearm then some of the problem is solved. Unfortunately, that would be, or least would be seen as, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Back to the car analogy, do you want someone who has not demonstrated safe and proper operation of a car to be allowed to slide behind the wheel of a car? I would prefer that those using cars (and guns) know how to safely operate them. The best way to assure me is if they have to demonstrate that competence to the state.
He wants your SSN 'cuz it makes it easier to collect from you if you don't pay your bill. Cellphone company prolly has the same intentions. Usually you can get phone service if you leave a deposit with them in leiu of your SSN.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Look, asshole, the text box automatically wraps text for you; you don't have to do it yourself. If people want to read three words per line, they can resize their browser windows. Forcing narrow text on people will just mean that some people, like me, won't even read what you have written.
"...I don't see the need to insult those teenagers. Maybe in a couple of years those "pimply 17 year olds" will join the Forces and do something usefull for all of us, including you..." You mean I should not insult people who insulted the uniform? Frankly folks with that kind of attitude have no place in the Forces. "...Those "fossils" are old folks, maybe trying to make ends meet. You will be one too, one day, should you be so lucky. Also, they could very well be veterans from the Korean War..." I highly doubt that the folks who treated us in such fashion were a part of the military at any time or had a concept of what the military is. "...You are a moron, but I hope you grow up someday..." Maybe and maybe, meanwhile enjoy your right to say what you want while you can.
Do not look into the laser with remaining eye.
You make a valid point. The problem is that corporations and the government are doing their damnedest to prevent the use of technology to promote or enable "speech" that they don't like. That's what DRM is all about in the end. If you make it impossible for information to be disseminated you go a long way to controlling the ability of people to think about possible alternatives as the information needed to develop the alternatives is not obtainable.
;) Anyway, if a stand is to be made at some point better to do it while we still have a reasonable chance of putting up a fight and having the information regarding what the fight is about get out to the world. I'm not advocating revolution, but if we continue on the current path we may have to remind ourselves what Jefferson said about the "Tree of Liberty."
I'm not so sure about the pine box. I plan on being cremated.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with freedom - it was an act against what they perceived as an unfair trade policy. Essentially, they (local tea wholesalers) rallied against what we might consider today to be fair trade. The British government passed an act that eliminated tax on tea and allowed the East Inida Tea Company to bypass the local colonial wholesalers (who were selling smuggled tea from Holland) and sell directly to consumers. Consumers got tea at a lower price because of it.
To put that in to a modern context... Suppose a group of local buisness owners rally together to loot a local WalMart because Walmart's lower prices hurt their buisness. Would that be a demonstration of a basic value of American democracy?
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
Bugger all of those - they're mostly to do with who paid for something and who gets it.
I don't want some known terrorist strolling on to a flight, grabbing a sharp implement and deciding it might be a laugh to bring my flight down in the name of Allah/God/Zarquon/Kevin Next Door, whether any of those guys want this to happen or not.
Yeah, they might have fake ID but fake ID can be tracked. No ID can't.
What is this insane obsession with being able to travel anonymously? Do Americans think passports are an infringement of civil liberties? Fancy the muggers, rapists and con-artists rolling in unchecked?
No, didn't think so.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
"Taxation without representation is tyranny."
--
make install -not war
I am aware of the definition. Mine is the same - finding in opposition to the facts of the case means acknowledging the facts of the case but refusing to convict because while the law is clear and the circumstances are clear, it is "unjust" to convict because either the law is itself unjust or the circumstances outweight the law.
My point was that judges do not allow it.
Try it in a courtroom and see what it gets you.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Karma-Bonus Modifier +1 (Edit)
Total Score: 1
Bush's comment surely encourages flames. Maybe we're getting somewhere with these "rightwing denial" mods. While my post has attracted only 100% "Informative" posts.
--
make install -not war
Mace, etc. Why use a lethal weapon. And why would you be enough of a fool to walk through this neighborhood? At night? With jewelry? I suggested banning pistols. A knife is a great idea. I never suggested banning them, because you can't massacare with one. I support knives used for what they should be, I just can't see a pistol a good weapon to be carrying around because of its mass murder potential. A knife, mace, etc is good. I just cant see the pistol.
Mace, etc. Why use a lethal weapon.
.45 and a 6" knife to bring to a life-threatening fight, believe me, I'll happily bring a .45, every time (and my martial arts skills, should the area be too crowded for a gun or knife, or if my opponent is too close or if I get disarmed (if that happens, then I would want the knife - but my scenario asked me to choose between a gun and a knife...)).
Because when your life is in danger, you don't play around with toys that are not 100% effective at stopping your opponent. Mace is just such a toy (does mace work on people doped-up on crack or meth? No, it does not).
How about tasers? Oh wait, those didn't stop Rodney King. Whoops, what now?
And why would you be enough of a fool to walk through this neighborhood? At night? With jewelry?
WHY SHOULDN'T YOU BE ABLE TO? Since when should you have to live in fear of people in a particular neighborhood? What the hell kind of society is that???
You're an idiot. The law protects your right to walk through such neighborhoods wearing as much jewelry as you can carry. Why should *you* have to go out of *your* way to avoid some neighborhood, just because it has a crime problem? THE CRIME PROBLEM IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM, IT IS THE PROBLEM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OF THE POLICE'S FAILURE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
But in the meantime, you will require some means of self-defense.
I suggested banning pistols. A knife is a great idea. I never suggested banning them, because you can't massacare with one.
Wrong. (and this is from a Socialist website, no less! So I'm sure you'll love it)
I support knives used for what they should be, I just can't see a pistol a good weapon to be carrying around because of its mass murder potential.
Pistols as a means of mass-murder? That's entirely laughable. Shows what you know about guns... Keep talking, your ignorance will show you for who you really are.
You can kill maybe a dozen people with a pistol, assuming some of the bullets in your 8 or 10 round clip ricochet and kill more people than you intended. That's rather rare though.
Regardless, that's hardly mass-murder when compared to the power of WMD's. Or, for that matter, ruthlessly-dangerous totalitarian politicians, like Hitler (killed 6m Jews), George W. Bush (killed how many Americans by going to war, and how many foreigners have died because of him?), Stalin (killed 20m Soviets), and Chairman Mao (killed 35m Chinese intellectuals during the "Great Leap Forward").
A knife, mace, etc is good. I just cant see the pistol.
Why not? You said it's more-dangerous than a knife (this statement actually depends on your distance from the weapon holder. If you are within trapping range, i.e. you can grab the person, a knife is actually more dangerous, because a gun can only hurt you out of one end; a knife hurts you on 1 or 2 entire edges of the weapon).
When your life is in danger, are you going to play around and hope your annoyance-spray will save you? Or are you going to use your legally-justifiable right to use sufficient and at least equal force to prevent harm to yourself against your attacker in self-defense (and if they're coming at you with a knife, that's a deadly weapon, meaning you have the right to also use a deadly weapon, e.g. a handgun)?
A knife is certainly a deadly weapon, if you're close enough to the person. But if not, it's effectively worthless. I've studied martial arts for years -- believe me, I know my non-firearm weapons very well (and I know firearms well enough).
Given the choice between a 9mm or a
It's people like you that prevent the common citizen from defending themselves when the police aren't around. Why you would make innocent people subject to the brutal force of the criminal element defies reason or logic -- then again, defying reason and logic is typical liberal thought (typical conservative thought too, but I digress).
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
First, I reject your premise that terrorist regimes are poor. Bin Laden is a billionaire. The governments of the Arab oil countries have extreme wealth. The citizens may be poor, but there is plenty of money for arms. Yassir Arafat is a multimillionaire, possibly a billionaire. The PLO gets millions of dollars every year from dozens of foreign governments (including Israel) and sympathetic groups. Arafat keeps his people poor intentionally in order to attract international sympathy for the Palestinist "plight."
You have it exactly backwards that the "rules of war" favor the weak regimes. Read this piece by Alan Dershowitz. Here's the condensed version of what he says.