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."
Bruce Scheneier calls this "Security Theatre".
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's at least slightly possible that people in the government are trying to make it harder for thousands of people to be blown up. Knowing who is present on board internally guided flying bombs might be helpful in that struggle.
All the hijackers on 9/11 HAD legitimate goverment-issued ID, and were required to show it before boarding their planes. A fat lot of good the ID requirement did then.
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)
Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Z C1.html).
You are on a hiding to nothing if you want to argue that this doesn't entitle Congress to regulate aviation.
You *might* be able to argue that the Commerce Clause doesn't entitled Congress to regulate flights within one State. See Thomas's concurrence in US v Lopez (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AFAIK, being required to identify yourself is considered a "search".
Each citizen has a right to tell the government (and anyone else) to "step off". The citizen is assumed to be 100% innocent, legitimate, approved, etc. unless otherwise noted using appropriate means, such as a warrant.
I don't have to show you anything, papers or not. Period. Only a judge can say otherwise, or a law enforcement official with probable cause that a crime has been committed (and even then I am not required to identify myself....I would be booked as "John Doe").
I support Gilmore, but it looks like a gray area to me (IANAL). An airline is a corporation, not a government.
Actually, the US Supreme Court just decided otherwise in the case of HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. Dudley Hiibel was approached by a cop and told to identify himself to help the cop "investigate an investigation." He was given no indication of probable cause (the cop was responding to a passerby who thought there was a "domestic disturbance" in progress, though in reality Dudley was arguing with his daughter on the side of the road.) His arrest for failing to identify himself was upheld. HE HAD COMMITTED NO OTHER CRIME! All other charges were dropped immediately. His "crime" was being John Doe, for which he was arrested, convicted and fined. See Hiibel Revisited at Slate for more analysis.
You aren't doing anything illegal? Are you sure? By the time you choose to "stop", you have already been tried, found guilty and charged or fined.
Laws are so complicated, chances are you are doing something illegal without relizing it. And, despite that a Lawyer needs 7 years of post-graduate training, for the layman, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it
One example:
Sex toys are illegal in Texas.
Now, personally, I have no problem with anybody popping a Mr Buzzy into any handy orifice if that's what gets them off, but its appears to be a problem in Bush's home state. Maybe there's something in the Bible about it. No idea.
Sure, you aren't going to bomb a plane, or extort a million dollars.
There are already toll-roads who will fine you if the time you took between the entry and exit implies that you sped. You were never detected actually speeding, and you can easily get around it by stopping off at a gas station and drinking a coffee.
But, hey, suddenly you get a letter in the mail for jaywalking, because there was no legal way you could have made the trip between two sidewalk monitoring points without having crossed the road illegally.
Then you go to jail for buying a vibrator in New Mexico and then driving to Lousiana. You must have passed through Texas, right?
Extreme example, but if big-brother is watching you, any little seemingly unimportant infraction becomes revenue for the government.
Realize that if you are focused on 20 different things, not a single one will ever get done
I'm so glad you don't work for me. Take a time management course.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Why are people on here so frictional? You got modded as insightful, but all you do is flame me.
In any event...
You are right about point 1. Everyone is doing something illegal right now. What you want is privacy so cops can't call you on it. What I want is better politicians willing to get rid of stupid laws. Lack of privacy is just a symptom of a bigger problem. We need campaign finance reform. Once we have good politicians, we can work on the smaller things.
Point 2. The point isn't to stop a terrorist. You can't do that! Ever! The point is to have a good paper train back to his funding. Then you assasinate the man with the money. The next guy with money MAY have second thoughts. Sure, there will always be some way around having an ID card. Let's try and make that system better. We need a way to track people from the time they enter the country till they leave. This won't be a problem as long as we can trust those in office. We can trust those in office if we know they are working for us vice Disney/Exxon-Mobil.
As for point 3, I think it's valid. I hate giving my Drivers License to a hotel clerk. I fly a lot more than most. In fact, I was due to fly internationally on Sep 12. I spent an extra 3 weeks overseas because of terrorism. I really hate having to show my ID and have my bags searched 5 times between the curb and the gate. I know it adds nothing to security. However, as much as I travel, it's still a small hastle. If the voters would focus on finance reform, we could take care of a much larger hastle. Choose your battles and only fight the important ones. We can get election reforms as long as we fight hard and under the same banner. Abortion, prayer, school vouchers, privacy, health care; these are all side issues to keep us distracted from the fact that our representatives take millions of dollars in bribes.
Who is the sucker? I can join with my enemies to fight the good fight. Could you?
We invaded Iraq so that GWB could get more money. How is your not showing an ID card gonna stop that?
I was educated in public school. I still have a valid point: All the privacy in the world does not fix your politicians.
I do have a clue. It just seems that I'm choosing to fight a much more important fight.
BTW, don't be so quick to flame. Take a breath before you hit 'submit'. We are all on the same side here.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Actually, no they didn't... at least not ALL of them. In fact, the majority of them were forged in a manner common among Al Qaida operatives. It's in the 9/11 Commission's report. Read it some time. :)
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -- Voltaire
When they tried to board, after presenting identification several of them were red flagged by CAPPS. Unfortunately nothing was done with that information
Please stop spreading this misinformation. The entire purpose of the CAPPS system was to guarantee that flagged passengers are on a plane before their baggage is loaded. This system was developed in response to Pan Am 108 which was destroyed by a bomb in a checked ghetto blaster, placed on board by the bomber who failed to board the flight. You have repeatedly said the government did nothing for the passengers flagged by CAPPS, when in fact they followed 100% of the procedures ordered by that system. Policymakers just never believed that someone would execute a suicide hijacking, let alone four simultaneously. Judging by your multiple posts, you really do need to read the commission report.
And if you did read it, read it again. If you can trust a government commission long enough to sit through its report, it's a very interesting read.
Intelligent Life on Earth
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
I live in the Washington, D.C., area, and I have several good friends who were in the area on 9/11. One of them watched the plane fly OVER HIS CAR to crash into the Pentagon. He was close enough to feel the heat from the explosion. Federal authorities ordered he and the other people on the road to leave their cars on foot and come back later to retrieve them. Another friend was at National Airport and watched the crash. Nobody saw the plane? I think what you meant to say is that "Nobody *filmed* the plane" If a nobody like me who just happens to live in the area knows several trustworthy people who saw it, plenty of people saw it.
(I apologize in advance for the rant here, but this really pissed me off). Nobody was in that section of the building? I work with people who lost family members in the resulting crash. I know people who still bear the scars from burns they received helping others escape the flames. One hundred and twenty-five people lost their lives on the ground. Nobody? Congratulations. You've just told the grieving widow in my wife's office that her dead husband was "nobody." Not only is your post simply wrong, it's offensive. Get a clue about the facts before you post.