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."
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)
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.