Your Right to Travel Anonymously: Not Dead Yet

Why else? by beh · 2004-08-16 22:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

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... ;-)

Re:Why else? by mikael · 2004-08-16 22:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

In other words (Bernard's Longest Sentence):

Apparently, the fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.

Or to summarise:

It's better that the government knows what it dosn't know, than it dosn't know what it dosn't know.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Why else? by beh · 2004-08-16 22:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ah - you mean this is an issue of Donald Rumsfelds "known knowns", "known unknowns", and "unknown unknowns"? ;-)
Re:Why else? by Bios_Hakr · 2004-08-16 23:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem with privacy is that 90% of the people will never have an issue with it. Really, as long as my neghbor does not spy on me, I'm OK. The reason?

1. I'm not going to do anything illegal. Sure, the government could make something I do now illegal and then come after me. If it's a small thing, I'll stop it. If it's a big thing, I'll use the soap box, ballot box, and ammo box.

2. It makes it slightly harder to get away with something. If you are required to use ID everywhere, tracking you back to your source quickly can give other possible sources a moment of pause before they try anything else. If we could attack the terrorist heads within hours of a major attack, we might be able to keep them from trying anything.

3. There are more important things to worry about. Education, health care, campaign finance reform...those are things I choose to focus on. Privacy, while it is on my list, does not even make the top 10. Review your priorities and decide what's important. Realize that if you are focused on 20 different things, not a single one will ever get done. Attack the problem and, when it is solved, move to the next thing.

Really, do you travel on a plane enough to really give a shit?

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Re:Why else? by nonmaskable · 2004-08-16 23:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people.

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.

AFAIK this isn't in the (yes I hate it too) Patriot Act.
Re:Why else? by Salgak1 · 2004-08-16 23:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then the US Government should look for TERRORISTS, not WEAPONS. But, alas, doing so would require likely profiles of terrorists, and GOD FORBID we look closer at people whose background makes it more likely they are terrorists. . . .
Re:Why else? by Zeromous · 2004-08-16 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people."

Don't mean to troll here but Generalizations such as above only serve to seriously marginalize any point the contributing article and other reasonable activists try to make.

I call it the "damn dirty hippie syndrome". Unfortunately, if you speak in generalizations and analogies only a single side of an argument can relate to, no one will take you seriously. :(

Change is rarely spawned by a single bold polarizing statement, but usually by subtle creeps and subterfuge.

Anything else is just a meaningless catchphrase.

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Re:Why else? by beh · 2004-08-17 00:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Question: How will the passport help you establish whether someone actually is a terrorist or not?

Finding a BOMB in his/her luggage, now THAT would be a sign. But a passport reading "Hassan Al Brahimi" (name just made up) is hardly clear indication of a pending suicide bomber, no is it?

Nobody is fighting the governments luggage screening process to make sure that no weapons get on board - but what danger would the passport be (unless - are there any "sharp edged" passport)?

On an interesting side note: Don't you think that it's a tad ridiculous that you'll have to put nail files in your check-in luggage - but a solid metal pen or a single 10-pound Toblerone bar [yes, these exist, and I've taken one on board a flight as carry-on luggage -- all other weaponry was forbidden], now that's not a problem...

Somehow I think a 10 pound Toblerone bar might come in a tad more handy if you want to ram open the cockpit door, than if you tried to "nail-file" your way through the door...
Re:Why else? by rvega · 2004-08-17 00:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'll use the soap box

Like Gilmore is doing? You ought to stand up for him now. What are you waiting for? For the situation to get even worse? To find yourself with even less options at your disposal?

ballot box

November's getting closer.

ammo box

Well, then you'll be a dead terrorist. You're not going to make an armed resistance against the US Government and live. Or make any difference, for that matter. And don't forget, as a summary of the old saying goes, that by the time they come for you, there will be nobody left to stand up for you. Anybody with the sense to notice the creep of the police state and the guts to try to head it off will be long gone, if the 90% who don't care -- a group you appear to be among -- do not wake up and solve problems while they are still (relatively) small.

Basically, your stance boils down to apathy, laziness and pessimism. I also find it interesting that, while privacy and personal security are Constitutional rights that are under attack and being eroded yearly, the "important" issues you choose to focus on are all derivative governmental programs and policies. Not quite bread and circuses, but certainly a far cry from our most precious, fundamental rights.

Incidentally, you also have recourse to the jury box -- the other half of Gilmore's defense.
Re:Why else? by Mant · 2004-08-17 00:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not going to do anything illegal.

And you trust law enforcement to only ever invade the privacy of those they suspect of doing something illegal? And not, say, people whose politics those in power don't like such as civil rights activists, as they have historically done?
Re:Why else? by kalidasa · 2004-08-17 00:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

How would a profile have told you that Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald, Eric Rudolph, John Salvi, and Ted Kaczynski were terrorists?
Re:Why else? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 00:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

Or maybe members of the IRA?

Oh wait the "war on terror" is only against brown people who are terrorists... Everyone else is a-okay!
Re:Why else? by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-08-17 00:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Question: How will the passport help you establish whether someone actually is a terrorist or not?

It will when your made up name "Hassan Al Brahimi" also shows up on other lists. Producing ID does not 'prevent' anything. It makes the terrorists job harder. Juggling multiple 'safe' ID's, etc. Make it harder, and they will slip up.
Re:Why else? by wraith0x29a · 2004-08-17 00:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would modify your quote thusly..
If the stupid people are in power, you get Nazism.
If the smart people are in power, you get Communism.
If you can't see who is in power, you get America.

--
~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
Re:Why else? by bonkedproducer · 2004-08-17 01:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, we can start with the 4th Amendment. The right to be secure in one's person houses, papers , and effects seems to uphold a consitutional right to privacy, when coupled with the 14th Amendment you have a pretty strong listing of rights (also remember, a right cannot be taken away from you with a law, laws regulate privilages - very important distinction.)

Also, you may want to examine Griswold v. Connecticut where the supreme court first upheld the right to privacy. Hope that helps you get a better grasp on a fundamental human right.

--
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
Re:Why else? by FictionPimp · 2004-08-17 01:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

How? They only have to use 1 name once, then they die. I dont see how they have to worry what name they used before. They blew themselves up. As long as they choose people willing to blow themselves up and have no criminal record. They could just use their own name. I dont see them having to juggle multiple ID's. My take on this is that it should be the individual airlines who decide if they want ID before boarding a plane. I recently went to a concert and seen a sign that said something similar to this: "You must submit to a search before entering this arena. You do not have to submit to the search. If you choose not to submit to the search, we will refund your ticket price and refuse entrance." I mean whats next, you can't bring babies on board because you could use them as a hostage to get the pilot to open the door so you can crash the plane?
Re:Why else? by elefantstn · 2004-08-17 01:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

How is the above insightful? Unless the parent post said somewhere that such a profile had to be based exclusively on Middle Eastern males -- and I don't think it did -- the above post makes no sense at all. Anybody want to explain?

--
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Re:Why else? by colmore · 2004-08-17 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you are referring to people of the Islamic faith from the Middle East and Northern Africa, you should probably be aware that there are nearly a *billion* of them.

England would have had as much luck trying to round up all the world's Catholics in attempt to curb IRA attacks.

And if we make Arab Americans second class citizens wave everyone else by security, it will only A) get them that much angrier and B) teach Al Quaeda to recruit caucasians with caucasian names.

No, a just law applies to all citizens equally. If we're going to be sacrificing freedom for safety, then we've all got to give it up.

--
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Re:Why else? by JaffaKREE · 2004-08-17 01:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

good examples, but there were more terrorists flying planes on 9/11 alone than names you mentioned. and they all had something in common, whether you want to pull the racist card on me or not. Just because you can't stop 100% doesn't mean you should'nt try.
Re:Why else? by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-08-17 01:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

"1. I'm not going to do anything illegal."

Yes, you are - you just don't know it yet, because the law hasn't been passed.

More likely, you probably are already doing something illegal - you just haven't had a cop inform you of the particular one of the millions of statutes in this country that you regularly violate without being aware of it. DO something he doesn't approve of (whether it is illegal or not) and you will then be informed of *some* law you are violating. React to the obvious injustice and you'll do time for "resisting arrest" and "interfering with an officer."

Your number 2 point is brain-dead. Nothing related to "paper checking" is going to stop any professional terrorist for an instant. Granted, most of these clowns aren't terribly professional, but anybody in the business will have any number of sources of perfectly adequate ID and cover stories. A good terrorist will waltz right through a check that would hang you up merely for technicalities (your papers aren't *quite* in order because your local state moron screwed them up - the terrorist's forger won't screw his up.)

Your third point is completely oblivious. You choose to focus on one issue - airplane privacy - and ignore the overall effects of repeated invasions of civil liberties on all levels. Meanwhile, you focus on issues involving sucking at the tit of government (education, health care) or which are never ever going to be changed (campaign finances) as long as politicians can draw breath.

In other words, you're just another American sucker.

You probably think we invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqis and safeguard America from those evil Iraqi terrorists, too, right?

A product of the American educational system.

No clue.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Why else? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 01:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Terrorists? More like wack jobs.

Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols
Anti government wack jobs.

James Earl Ray
Racist wack job.

Lee Harvey Oswald
Commie wack job.

Eric Rudolph
Right to life wack job.

John Salvi
Right to life wack job.

Ted Kaczynski
Luddite wack job.

Out of all of the above wack jobs only Tim and Terry begin to approach the organized nastiness that is terrorism by conspiring and working together. All of the rest were single, solitary wack jobs working alone.

So no, a profile would not have told you that they were "terrorists" since the only thing they have in common is that they areall wack jobs.
Re:Why else? by A55M0NKEY · 2004-08-17 01:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

ammo box
Well, then you'll be a dead terrorist. You're not going to make an
armed resistance against the US Government and live.

No. You can get away with terrorism and live, it's just that so far all the terrorists have been either idiots ( McVeigh ), or only doing terrorism as a means to get their 70 virgins in paradise. ( idiots of another stripe ) They WANTED to die in the act.

In fact, getting away with terrorism and living over and over again is the basis for what is called guerilla warfare.

There is no moral reason not to use your individual soveriegnty and wage war against the state for good reason if you think you can win, but unless the general populace is likely to side with you, you have no chance of winning an out and out military victory. However, if everyone were armed with rifles, pistols, shotguns and homemade bombs and booby traps, and all decided not to obey a government - even one as militarily powerful as the US govenrment, then there would be no way for officials of that government to administer the towns and cities without having their heads sniped off. Sure, the government could nuke areas, but if the general populace wanted the government overthrown, nuking all the enemies of the state would leave nothing left to govern.

Of course there are wackos that die 'defending their compound'. Nobody sides with them because they are nuts. ( If you have a 'compound' you ARE nuts. ) But using the ammo box for real COMMON grievances is not stupid or futile.

If the US govenrnment were to do drastic things to remove the Soap Box, the Voting/Jury box, or the Ammo box, then that would be a wise time to revolt with whatever of the three means would be most EFFECTIVE. Individuals letting themselves be emasculated of their power is like them giving their lunch money to a bully. If you were a country and a bigger country demanded tribute or else they would attack, then paying it would only weaken you and make them more powerful making the inevitable invasion easier for the invader. It's always best to stand and fight at such a time and hope that others see that siding with the weaker party in a battle is in their own best interest. After all, letting the invasion stand leaves a more bloated potential future enemy ( nations failed to stop Hitler in WWII and his Reich grew to become a bigger problem than if it had been nipped in the bud. )

When there was a dispute between Kuwait and Saddam over the rights to pump oil from their shared reservoir, Kuwait correctly refused to buckle, and let itself be invaded. Because siding with the weaker party is in every countries best interest, Saddam was pushed back by those from outside, and eventually his entire regime obliterated. The Kuwaitis won in the end.
Siding with the weaker country leaves the 'rescued' country as a firm ally to the rescuer, and the beligerent country in the power of the allies. These time tested principles for being a sovereign are drawn from 'The Prince' by Machiavelli. Individuals, sovereigns of themselves should take it's lessons to heart.

The only way a few terrorists with interests counter to those of general populace could get their way would be to manipulate events subtly. A simple method that has been used the world over is to provoke the target regime to make enemies for itself within and abroad by attacking it. The attacks are like a mosquito bite, but the problems the giant creates for itself do it in. This strategy is so simple that it almost fails to qualify as being subtle. Influencing events in more clever ways would probably yeild even more bang for the terrorist buck. "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum, and I will move the world" - Archemedes A butterfly in Hong Kong could very well cause a hurricane in the carribean.

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 violent or even illegal.

I say we bomb the Stonecutters.

--
Eat at Joe's.
Re:Why else? by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-08-17 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Other lists? This would be the same lists that various people's names - who are not terrorists - have shown up on which resulted in their being detained, searched, interrogated - only to discover that said person was a ten-year-old boy who happened to have the same name as a "terrorist"?

I reiterate what I've said elsewhere. No terrorist worthy of the name is going to have a problem producing perfectly adequate ID which will sail through any check you care to devise (with the possible exception of biometrics, which is not feasible until you have everyone on the planet in your DNA database - and as I recall, in the movie "Gattaca" they beat that one, too.)

As for "slip ups", make the paperwork more voluminous and the morons in our government departments will "slip up" - with the result that innocent people will be detained, and terrorists will slip through the cracks - as always.

For proof of that, read the statements pertaining to the effectiveness of the FBI translation department as outlined by Sibel Edmonds, the FBI whistleblower.

And even if you succeed in making the terrorists' jobs "harder", that will not stop them either. They will simply find another way to accomplish their goals.

The only way to eliminate terrorists is to eliminate the social, religious, economic and political causes of terrorism and then kill the ones still living. No live ones, no replacements. Nothing else is going to be effective. Nothing.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Why else? by arkanes · 2004-08-17 02:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

The oversights you're talking about are exactly the things that the Patriot act is removing, and are exactly the things that privacy advocates are complaining about. And people say "so what, I'm not doing anything illegal".
There's a basic flaw in perception, here. There are a LOT of people out there, including many law enforcement officials I know, that think that the job of the people is to serve the State. They'd never phrase it quite that way, but thats what it comes down to - that you have an obligation to the state. Of course, the original ideal was the opposite - that the state is supposed to serve the people. The web of trust neccesary for the kind of unrestricted powers law enforcement wants is huge - individual officers, beurocrats, politicians.... And of course it's easy to marginalize the people who disagree. Abuses DO happen. That's just a given. Clearly the oversight we have is not sufficent, thats self-evident. Removing existing oversight (as limited as it may be) is hardly the answer.
Re:Why else? by LaCosaNostradamus · 2004-08-17 02:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not going to do anything illegal.

You break the law constantly. There are far too many laws on the books to avoid criminality. Traffic law is notorious for this. I have a friend who's a cop. Occasionally when we are driving along he'll point out how many people he can pull over and ticket. On the highway in modest traffic, that translates into about 1 person every 30 seconds ... and that's just within the radius of 1 travelling car. All it takes is a split second or an inch of play in the movement of your vehicle, over a line or by a line on the road, and then your just another dirty, lawbreaking motherfucker who deserves to be punished. Right?

When you have more law, you have less justice. If we pass enough laws, everyone becomes a criminal. The wise man knows that criminals are primarily made by the legislature, and exercises restraint when empowering the legal system.

As for terrorism ... we have plenty of law enforcement to get terrorists. But as FBI whistleblowers demonstrate, law enforcement is constantly under poitical pressure to avoid investigation of certain families, even racial/national groups. For example, Saudi Arabians are still being handled with kid gloves. You DO know that 14 of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, don't you? Shit, it seems that half of polled America thinks 9-11 was an Iraqi operation.

--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:Why else? by sjames · 2004-08-17 03:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's implicit. At the time the constitution was framed, there were few privacy concerns because technology provided few tools for privacy invasion. No photographs, no fingerprinting, no DNA. Want a new identity? Move 100 miles and say you're someone else. Want to prove your identity? You'll have to do it using a web of trust system.

Technology has changed a great deal in tghat time. Unfortunatly, social advances have happened a lot slower, so we have the technology to violate privacy, but not the social maturity needed to keep our government from doing so at every opportunity.
Re:Why else? by gilroy · 2004-08-17 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Blockquoth the poster:

Just because you can't stop 100% doesn't mean you should'nt [sic] try.

No, it doesn't. But you have to make a rational cost/benefit analysis. How likely is your suggestion to make a difference? What other costs does it impose on a free and open society?

We must not get so wrapped up in protecting our society that we ourselves destroy the value of it.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Why else? by pyros · 2004-08-17 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Are you implying that if there is a law requiring you to identify yourself you lose the right not to not have to identify yourself?
I'm assuming that double negative was a typo.
Federal courts have already stated we do not have the right to not identify ourselves to law enforcement. Obviously, we are still physically able to refuse to identify ourselves, but doing so will result in arrest. I'm not commenting on whether or not this is acceptable, or whether or not the right to refuse to identify one's self is one of those inalienable rights or anything philosophical. I'm just saying that as of today, the judicial and executive branches of government do not observe a right of the people to refuse to identify themselves to law enforcement upon request. As such, from a legal standpoint, refusing to identify yourself to a police officer who has no probable cause on matter of principle is civil disobedience.
Re:Why else? by boodaman · 2004-08-17 03:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Incorrect. You are arrested and booked as "John Doe". The police can arrest anyone they like, any time, with ID or without. If they're wrong, the arrest is voided by a judge (that's why they have arraignments before going to trial) and you're free to go. Then you sue for wrongful arrest.
Homeless people without ID are arrested for vagrancy all the time. They're not arrested for not having ID.
Re:Why else? by boodaman · 2004-08-17 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Unreasonable search".
Over the years, this has come to mean "the government can't track you legally without probably cause". By "track" that means anything, including but not limited to travel.
A search is a quest for information not limited to physical property. What do you think keeps the government from tapping your phone?
In other words, a citizen has a right to privacy: a right to keep his or her activities anonymous, without government intervention or monitoring, unless there is probably cause.
As I said earlier, an airline asking for ID is an issue if 1) the government is requiring them to do so, and/or 2) the airline is furnishing that information (along with what flight you took, how you paid, what you ate, etc) to the government.
If you think the Fourth Amendment merely keeps the government from "entering your home" or "going through your pockets" and that's it, you're incorrect.
Re:Why else? by bigpat · 2004-08-17 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Actually, the US Supreme Court just decided otherwise in the case of HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY [cornell.edu]. Dudley Hiibel [papersplease.org] was approached by a cop and told to identify himself"

yeah, the majority was wrong on that one. All too many times the courts pin all speech rights when regarding criminal matters on the 5th amendment, but relegate the 1st ammendment to only protect speech that it considers political in nature. Silence is a type of speech.

They did however leave the the door wide open to reconsider the opinion: "If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here."

Interesting, so if identifying yourself when such action is not voluntary provides a crucial link in chain of evidence, then by this ruling that evidence could be disallowed. Seems if that is the case, then the Supreme Court really provided a major reason for Police officers not to ask people to identify themselves, unless the case is already made.

People of good conscience have a responsibility to practice civil disobedience on this one. One of the real possibilities here is that police set up a system of justice outside of the courts, where evertime someone is seen doing something "suspicious" their name is recorded which serves to build up a record, so that laws which have been enacted to give police wider "discretion" will be enforced against those that are the most "suspicious" which usually means those that are most unlike or unfamiliar to the policeman.
Re:Why else? by Reziac · 2004-08-17 12:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not only that, but you have the "if I don't stick my neck out, *I* won't be shot" issue -- unless *everyone* is going to die for sure (as happened on the 9/11 plane that went down in Pennsylvania), you just can't get average people to cooperate sufficiently to nullify a lethal threat. To illustrate:

"Live killer games" used to be popular at SF conventions; one was based on Logan's Run, and went like this:

Two people are "Sandmen" and are issued dart guns. Everyone else are "runners". Any hit with a dart kills a runner. To kill a Sandman, a runner must get close enough to lay a hand flat on the Sandman's chest. The object of the game is for the Sandmen to kill all the runners, who in turn try to stay alive as long as possible -- but it is possible for the runners to "win" by taking out the Sandmen.

When the game starts, the runners all scatter like sheep. In a group of 100 or so runners, I was the only one who tried to organize a strike force to take out the Sandmen. I figured it would take 5 runners to swarm one Sandman, and probably 3 runners would "die" in the process. But wasn't the goal worth the risk? After all, it would set the remaining runners free (by winning the game).

Apparently not. I couldn't get one single runner to collaborate on a strike against the Sandmen, or even listen to the concept. They all just ran away like frightened sheep, and perforce I had to do the same, since no way in hell can a single runner get close enough to kill a Sandman without getting shot himself.

Now, imagine this same scenario in real life, with real guns and real bullets. That armed soldier is ordering a thousand citizens to go back to work, or you will be shot. Which of you are willing to risk your lives to take him out, with the knowledge that some of your children will be fatherless tonight??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Why else? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 14:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

The notion of "civilized war" is propagated by the mighty to enslave the weak; knowing full well that an ill-equipped but determined peasant militia is unable to afford smart bombs and missles, but quite capable of buying fertilizer, we create a set of baseless rules that make his methods of warfare barbaric and ours humane.

Because after all, he doesn't have the tactical weapons required to make a surgical strike against the navy aircraft carriers firing MIRVs at his village from hundreds of miles away. He targets civilians because they are easy to target, relative to soldiers, and because they damage the will of his opponent -- all sound decisions from the perspective of fighting to win.

But we, well, we can (and do) launch weapons from miles away, and where he has stones to throw at us we have tanks to assault him. We call the civilians we kill collateral damage and hide behind our compliance to an artificial set of rules like the Geneva Convention, using it as proof that we are a civilized nation.

Our targetting of British officers during the revolutionary war was considered barbaric and uncivilzed at the time; the philosophy was, soldiers (men of little upbringing) required gentlemen to manage them, and that by killing those men we were inviting chaos on the battlefield. Ridiculous, by today's standards, but taken very seriously by the British, who resented our departure from a battle framework which they had already proved numerous times was an effective one -- for them.

What really upsets me is that so called thinking people could ever call war "civilized". It doesn't matter what artificial regulations you impose upon it. If you thought about it, you would realize that only very rich and powerful countries can wage effective war and abide by the Geneva Convention, especially when their opponent is Goliath and they are only David.

When the odds are against you, you worry about winning, and about the cause, and you forget all else. We certainly weren't going to help the British defeat us by fighting them by their rules; why should anyone engage us by ours?

Ho Hum by turgid · 2004-08-16 22:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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;

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

Re:Ho Hum by beh · 2004-08-16 22:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sorry - how does having showed your ID actually help in identifying a specific corpse out of all the corpses surrounding a crash site?

If you were after THAT - shouldn't you rather go for DNA samples of each passenger before a flight (and discard the samples unchecked in case the flight landed safely)?

As for the fake IDs - again, the terrorists used their original IDs. Nothing fake to spot there...
(Especially if you bear in mind that unlike, say, a thief who might have several previous offences as a thief, a suicide bomber will never have a previous offence as such -- either he succeeded; or in case he didn't - intelligence agencies will probably stay sooo interested as to whom these people deal with that they'll never be in shape to try again [once they're released from prison, that is].
Re:Ho Hum by mec · 2004-08-17 00:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, fine. Nobody's suggesting that the airlines forbid you from flying under your real name, so that your family is notified if your plane crashes. Your choice.

However, many political activists have also been screened out of commercial airline flight. Google for "tsa political activist" and read the stories yourself. Or here is a representative story:

No-fly blacklist snares political activists

John Gilmore wants to travel to Washington, DC to petition his government. Maybe I want to fly out to Las Vegas for the next DefCon without getting into a FBI database. Maybe you want to fly to a WTO meeting or a political convention, either to attend or to protest.

Of course, you can come back and say "the airlines have a security interest in knowing the identity of their customers". I acknowledge that. Perhaps that overrides the liberty of passengers to travel anonymously; perhaps not. However, that's different from your desire to declare your name. You can choose to declare your name, for your own reasons, without stomping on other's people's rights not to declare theirs.
Re:Ho Hum by jarich · 2004-08-17 00:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

You serious? Trying to make sure the people on the plane are who they say they are is pointless?
You don't remember that little 9-11 thing? Highjackings?
If you want to travel anonymously, drive a car. If you want to get in a big metal tube filled with flammable material that floats in the air, pony up some ID.
It's not giving up freedom. It's common sense.

--
Agile Artisans
Re:Ho Hum by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 00:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you want to travel anonymously, drive a car.

You mean I don't need to have license plates or a license to drive a car? Man, I've been wasting my money on registration when it wasn't necessary...
Re:Ho Hum by Threni · 2004-08-17 00:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

> If one crashes, I think my parents will at least be happy that they'll know to
> almost 100% certainty whether I'm on it in the case of a crash. If there was no
> IDing, they wouldn't have any idea, and might not for several days.

Your mothers uncertainty is a price that i'm prepared to pay. You can just tell her which flights you're taking if you're bothered - there's no way to opt out of a surveillance society.
Re:Ho Hum by Paradise+Pete · 2004-08-17 00:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Without some sort of identification, the names on tickets suddenly become worthless and you haven't a clue who is on any given plane that takes off, lands, or crashes.
You know it used to be like that. If you had a ticket you could get on the plane. No ID, no questions, no nothing. It was like living in America.
Re:Ho Hum by Rogue974 · 2004-08-17 01:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bound to be very unpopular stating on slashdot, and late enough bound not to be read, but here goes anyway. As this posted put it, "the airlines have a security interest in knowing the identity of their customers", and if they want to mandate ids to fly, they can do that. I agree that if the government put this into affect, they need to put the law/reasoning available to see. If the airlines decide at some point to require id, there is nothing we can do about it. The airline is privately owned and when you step foot on a privately owned property, you all but give up all your rights except the right to life according to the owner of the properties dictates. Airlines can say, we will not allow you to fly without id, and they can do that and whil it may infringe on some privacy issues, they own the airline, they do not have to allow anyone not willing to follow their rules on their property. An airline could impose a ban on talking and if you fly our airline you agree to give up your right to communicate period. NO one would fly, but as they own the airline, they can set the terms of the contract and you would have to abide, or not fly them. Now, that being said, the government and the airlines stating this are two different things and like I said, the governemtn should put the laws and information out there available, they are held to a higher standard. Finally, even if this case wins and the government doens't require ids anymore, the airlines are already cehckign them and will undoubtedly not want to retrain thier people or stop verifying ids, so they would then leave it in as a policy and we would have no choice but to abide by their rules or not fly their arilines. So, fight the good fight, but in the end we will still need valid ids to fly, if not government imposed, privately owned airline imposed.
Re:Ho Hum by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 01:27 · Score: 0, Insightful

My subway token doesn't have my name on it.
Re:Ho Hum by Bob+Uhl · 2004-08-17 02:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why should a ticket even carry a name? When I go to the theatre, my ticket hasn't a name on it. A few years back, airline tickets had an optional form on the reverse which permitted one to identify oneself if one wishes (additionally, most folks already do travel with ID).
Why should anyone be forced to carry papers to travel? The next step is to confiscate someone's papers so that he cannot travel.
What's the stereotypical German railway station scene in a WWII film? There are the guards asking for people's papers; there are the guards patrolling with dogs. Well, when I flew a month ago I was forced to show ID, and there were dogs patrolling the aeroport.
My great uncle died on Iwo Jima to keep this country free; my brother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather have all served in wartime to keep this country free. Millions of other brave men have done the same. So why the hell is it getting less free every year?
Not that I fault either major party more than the other: they are both to blame, because they are run by the populace, and the vast majority of the electorate are sheep who are willing to trade all their liberty for the temporary illusion of safety.
Re:Ho Hum by WNight · 2004-08-17 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

So make the name voluntary. You, wanting your parents to know, would provide a real name and contact info.

The whole ID-to-fly thing came out because the airlines don't want you to be able to resell tickets. They jack the prices up up the last minute and they don't want a free market where they'd have to compete with resold tickets. Poor babies probably just need more government subsidies.

I don't think asking for ID really helps security. Nobody is going to send a convicted criminal to hijack a plane, at least without fake ID, so all it provides is a corpse inventory. I'd really rather not give up the ability to remain anonymous in trade for that small bit of convenience.
Re:Ho Hum by DunbarTheInept · 2004-08-17 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

That depends on if you mean a physical ticket in your hand or an e-ticket. Yes, you should be able to transfer a physical ticket to another person if you want. But with an e-ticket, I *want* that ID system in place because otherwise anyone who knew I was going to be on that flight could just walk up to the counter and say, "Yeah, I'm him. No really, I am. Give me the seat on the plane.." There needs to be a way to match up my purchase online of the e-ticket to my physical presence at the airport or someone else can defraud me.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

To identify... by pixas · 2004-08-16 22:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:To identify... by tobirius · 2004-08-16 23:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Now that seems sensible, giving up my freedom, so after I'm dead, people won't have to much of a hassle.
Re:To identify... by dave420 · 2004-08-16 23:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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), everyone who could have been on the plane is either on it or somewhere else in the world. Taking a quick roll-call isn't a matter of "everyone raise your hand and we'll be done in a minute".
People are reading too much into this. They're getting annoyed because they have to show their ID to a private entity who's letting them use their aircraft. Also remember, with the American litigious climate, people have to cover their asses, and I'm sure that's the major driving force here.

Sort of understandable by paganizer · 2004-08-16 22:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Sort of understandable by the_twisted_pair · 2004-08-16 23:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
*/me checks list*:
Intention to cause destruction, check;
plastique, check;
evil plans, check;
fake ID - oh bugger, there's no way I'll carry that off. Perhaps I'll stay home and water the roses instead.
It's called the illusion of security - insert Ben Franklin quote here. It does not solve any of the issues that lead the one or two to cause, or attempt to cause, harm. If we tried a little harder to understand or even address the causes, we wouldn't be in this mess now.
Re:Sort of understandable by dnoyeb · 2004-08-16 23:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they required ID to fly in a private plane, or ride as a passenger in a auto, I would bitch very loudly.

Which are the public planes?
Re:Sort of understandable by sig226 · 2004-08-16 23:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ok, so someone may be able to get a fake id.
Do you lock your car, your house? Why, someone
can pick the lock??
Its called a deterrent, nothing more.

If you want to travel anonymously, try the bus.

BTW, no where in the constitution does is say you
have the right to be anonymous. If a LEO approaches
you and asks for ID, and you can't provide one, they
can detain you. Thats before the patriot act.

And the patriot act is only law because it hasn't
been tested yet, where is the ACLU?? Be nice if
they spent less time on their secular pursuits and more time living up to their name.
Re:Sort of understandable by HeghmoH · 2004-08-16 23:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is just too much chance of 1 person being able to cause harm to a large number of other people.

You don't need an airliner to kill a couple of hundred people. A truck filled with ammonium nitrate does just fine. You can get close with a bunch of explosives guns on your person, as is demonstrated in Israel on a regular basis.

And before you jump in with the "almost 3000" figure from 9/11, that was a one-time event. Airline passengers are never going to sit still for a hijacking again. The largest possible loss of life is still the passengers plus whoever the airplane accidentally lands on when it crashes.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

UK domestic flights by MBAFK · 2004-08-16 22:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Security helps create insecurity by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-16 22:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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'.

Re:The horse is out of the barn for good..... by WormholeFiend · 2004-08-16 22:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Losing freedoms seems to be a one way street

Remember 1789?

(hint: it happened in France and involved guillotines)

Re:Gummint by turgid · 2004-08-16 22:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, I hope you Americans depose your dictator :-) Then I hope that cretin Tony Blair gets a clue (and David Blunkett too) and we can depose him next year as well! :-)

This "War on Terror" is nothing but a war on Freedom. It is an instrument of corrupt government to entrench their political and financial interests at our expense.

--
Stick Men

ID's by l3v1 · 2004-08-16 22:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Its not a conspiracy by WormholeFiend · 2004-08-16 22:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I admit I don't know much about aircraft crash investigation, but it seems highly improbable to me that any number of aircraft crash victims would still be in their seats after, well, a major crash...

I think that's what dental records are for.

Contacting Family. by jellomizer · 2004-08-16 22:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Some questions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-16 22:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-16 23:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

Airline security is a sham anyway by Buzh · 2004-08-16 23:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Airline security is a sham anyway by Daniel+Boisvert · 2004-08-17 03:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree with your thesis that airline security is a sham, but your maglite theory is a little flimsy. I'd bet cash that a hijacker who attempted to take over a plane with a blunt impact weapon would go down hard. Some guy who isn't afraid of "a couple bruises" would tackle him, and when everybody else jumped in it would be all over.

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.

You're nuts. The handle of a blade is primarily useful for less-than-lethal techniques, as a fistload or for use in targeting nerve bundles. I'm not discounting the use of a maglite, but at least one study has shown that humans are vastly more afraid of edged weapons than they are of other kinds, including blunt impact weapons and firearms. There is good reason for this, at least in the case of edged vs. blunt weapons. Firearms are just too clean and "magic" for people to be properly afraid of.

I'd contend the best solution is for everybody to be armed. Weapons are equalisers that help to compensate for size and/or numbers. If an attacker could no longer gain advantage by being armed amongst an unarmed group of passengers, and was reduced to being one person against 200, the odds of him taking over a plane go down by an awful lot.

Re:Its not a conspiracy by sita · 2004-08-16 23:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

The requirement (and the reason you can't change seats *after* boarding an airplane) is purely (as another said) to identify the corpses.

If that was the case, then there would only be one toilet on a plane, right? (When was that requirement introduced? I don't fly all that often, and mostly in Europe, but I haven't noticed.)

Re:simple solution by jellomizer · 2004-08-16 23:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

"don't fly unless absolutely positively there is no other way to get to there from here in a reasonable time frame."

You people with your faulty forms of boycotts. I am boycotting a product unless I really want it. Boycotts are not an easy thing to do. If you are going to boycott a product then do it right. Boycott it even when it is to your disadvantage. The company cannot get a single cent from you. Unfortunately it seems little people know how to boycott anymore. Thus we have all these problems

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

What a troll... by Big+Sean+O · 2004-08-16 23:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Bingo! by ColourlessGreenIdeas · 2004-08-16 23:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Is My Constitution Outdated? by John_McKee · 2004-08-16 23:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Is My Constitution Outdated? by hugesmile · 2004-08-16 23:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Constitution specifically spells out what powers the government has, and requirement of an ID (or passing such a law) is not one of them.
You have it backwards. You shouldn't be looking for the clause that provides your right to travel anonymously. You should be looking for the clause that permits Congress to pass a law that restricts your right to travel anonymously.
Congress also cannot pass a law that allows police to install cameras in my toilet, but the reason isn't because it's specifically mentioned in the Constitution "People have the right to shit privately" - it's the fact that specific responsibillities have been ALLOWED to Congress and the government. All others are prohibited.
Please read The Constitution, and also Federalist Papers which provide a lot of background information about the thinking of the framers of the Constitution.

Right? by jdh28 · 2004-08-16 23:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Where exactly does the right to travel anonymously come from? I tried to look up the 28th amendment, but couldn't find it.

john

why? well... by dr_d_19 · 2004-08-16 23:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Anonymous travel a right? by SetupWeasel · 2004-08-16 23:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Anonymous travel a right? by Thapa · 2004-08-17 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. In order to legally drive a car you have to pass a series of tests; you are required by law to carry a license when you drive in order to prove that you have passed them.
There are no laws stating you need to show an ID when you fly, at least not ones you or I could read in a law book. They are secret, set up by the FAA and the TSA, and changed at whim without the knowledge or care of congress. This is the main point of Gilmore v. Ashcroft.
And you're right about racial profiling. Cops have been pulling over black people for years. And airport security will be searching Arabs for years. Nothing is stopping a white person from speeding or blowing up a plane. Certainly not their ID.

Flamebait? by philbert26 · 2004-08-16 23:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't agree with the parent, but how is it flamebait? I think we should have a "-1 against /. convention" button, just to make us honest.

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.

Librarians = on our side by No+Such+Agency · 2004-08-16 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!"

Re:Stealing tickets by vidarh · 2004-08-16 23:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

If someone is going to die aboard the plane anyway, why would they care if they were anonymous? The 9/11 hijackers didn't seem to have a problem with having to present their ID's.

Re:Is My Constitution Outdated?-Bill of rights FUD by Ada_Rules · 2004-08-16 23:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

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

Surveillance by eraserewind · 2004-08-16 23:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Only autocracies maintain spies, these are not needed in democracies" - Woodrow Wilson

Re:This is the trade-off, isn't it? by argent · 2004-08-16 23:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is ironic that many slashdotters work in information systems, yet they are anxious about identity systems.

I think that should tell you all you need to know about the security and reliability of databases, shouldn't it? If a "rocket scientist" tells you he wouldn't fly on a rocket, would you suit up and climb aboard?

As for databases, all of them have a mechanism for automatically generating a unique key for a record. There's no technical reason that different databases need the same key, so that part's a red herring.

What a question. by Beautyon · 2004-08-16 23:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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

Re:What a question. by loqi · 2004-08-17 04:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

Although I agree in spirit with much of what you're saying, I'm going to have to disagree overall on the ID card issue. The only thing worse than having a national ID is having a broken national ID. The SSN is essentially that, and it's not going anywhere. Personally, I'd rather see individuals that cared be able to quickly and efficiently prove citizenship and individuality before certain parties figure out more efficient schemes to disenfranchise large sections of the voters.

--
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack

The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by Katravax · 2004-08-17 00:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by ifwm · 2004-08-17 00:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then explain Mike Moore. While I disagree with some of his tactics, he has said numerous unflattering things about extremely powerful people, yet there he is.
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by RLiegh · 2004-08-17 00:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

He's there because he can easily be "discredited". You'll notice that there is no-one who is both credible as well as high-profile who is saying anything "unflattering".
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by brett42 · 2004-08-17 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the parent was referring to the common sign-waving dissenter rather than the famous documentarian when talking about the disturbing trend of forcing protestors into 'first amendment zones' away from important political events.

It seems to me that Moore's extreme style, more than his actual messages, are what attract the media. Controversy and spectacle always get attention, but more complex opinions that can't be easily compressed into a soundbite are often seen as boring and easy to ignore.

Of course, it's hard to make the arguement that excessive security measures around a few events will lead to the complete destruction of free speech, as is demonstrated by the pretty public uproar about the problems with the new voting machines. Also, what's this about arresting people for opinions?

It's about 3 in the morning here, and I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, so I'll cut myself off here.
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-08-17 01:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

You can say anything because most people are morons who either won't hear what you said or won't believe you because it interferes with their cognitive dissonance.

Moore has undoubtedly had some effect on the voting public who had doubts about Bush anyway. He has probably not swung the election in any direction it wasn't already going.

And all Bush has to do to swing it back is come up with an "October Surprise" - say, another "terrorist incident" conveniently planned and agent-provocateured into "Al Qaeda" by some associates of Ariel Sharon.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by kuma_act · 2004-08-17 01:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

"And all Bush has to do to swing it back is come up with an "October Surprise" - say, another "terrorist incident" conveniently planned and agent-provocateured into "Al Qaeda" by some associates of Ariel Sharon."

Normally I ignore most of this political BS. Slashdot seems to have a higher than average concentration of far-rightists and far-lefties. However, the poster above went a bit over the line by accusing Bush of treason with no proof or even reason to suspect. You destroy your own credibility with such outlandish claims. I may not like Michael Moore's methods and I probably disagree with many of his conclusions, but at least he had source material to rely on.
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-08-17 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

rather than the famous documentarian

Please, please, please don't ever refer to Michael Moore as a docuementarian. He's a movie maker who claims his movies are documentaries, but they're not. They're filled with his views and opinions, not the documents and facts that define a documentary.

From Dictionary.com you'll see that a Documentary has two definitions:
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now if you can sit through any Michael Moore movie and tell me with a straight face that a) everything you see is based on documents (and documents that Michael Moore writes don't count) and b) are lacking editorializing or inserting fictional matter, then you are either stupid or a bold faced liar.

Don't get me wrong, he makes a really compelling film, but then so did the guys who made the Blair Witch Project (also, a supposed documentary).

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 02:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

The firearms that MOST Republicans want to keep/make legal will do very little for the private citizens ability to effectively resist the US National Guard, much less any elite forces that the paranoid think might be used against US Citizens. There are very few people out there that think armor piercing caliber ammunition, hand-held rocket launchers, and heavy-caliber fully automatic weapons should be in the hands of private citizens. What exactly are you going to do to resists tanks, helicopters, and armored troops?
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 02:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

You must not have heard about the FBI paying protestors personal visits before the Republican National Convention begins?
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by adamruck · 2004-08-17 03:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

You honestly think Bush isn't praying for another terrorist attack? Also I think Bush could easily get his self apppointed "intelligence committee" to come up with some juicy terrorist plot(2 days before the elections).

--
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by Skjellifetti · 2004-08-17 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

From Dictionary.com you'll see that a Documentary has two definitions: 1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Um, Those are the adjective definitions. Try the noun:

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Nothing in this def says a documentary can't have a point view. Also, dictionary.com, while convenient, is the Reader's Digest of dictionaries. If there are any subtleties in a definition, you won't find them there.

--
FreeSpeech.org
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by minion · 2004-08-17 07:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Nothing in this def says a documentary can't have a point view. Also, dictionary.com, while convenient, is the Reader's Digest of dictionaries. If there are any subtleties in a definition, you won't find them there.

I think what you meant to say was, "you won't find any perversions there". Lets look at a few definitions of the word Marriage:

From Dictionary.com:
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The state of being married; wedlock.

A common-law marriage.

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Note: they define same sex marriage as a seperate form of the word - not the same thing as Marriage (n).

Encarta's definition:
marriage (plural marriages)

noun

1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

2. particular marriage relationship: a married relationship between two particular people, or an individuals relationship with an individual spouse

3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

Gee, what do we see here? NO mention of opposite sex.Think that is surpising? Go to google and do a define:marriage and see what comes up. Most of the definitions are very similar.

Just because people are re-writing the dictionary or re-inventing laws (take the 1st and 2nd amendment wording and "define" it - for some reason its horrendously difficult to do correctly), does not make it right. All that proves is that that the liberals in our country are trying to bend society towards their morally questionable will, any way they can. Get enough people "educated" on the new definitons, and whadda know? Now its the established culture.

--

-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead by Mr.+Shiny+And+New · 2004-08-17 08:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

From Dictionary.com: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Encarta's definition: legal relationship between spouses.

I'd have to say that the definition of a word has nothing to do with how the "liberals" "bend society". A word's meaning is what people believe it to be, not what a book says it is. When enough people use a word a certain way, that meaning sticks. It's annoying for a person like me who likes to be precise in language, but there it is. Language evolves.

In your example, Encarta doesn't specify gender in marriage. Perhaps this is a political bias of the author. Perhaps it is a conspiracy. Perhaps the author wanted the definition to be more general, in case the legal definition changed.

Which brings me to my point: In Law, you have to define words very precisely. Not only that, but the definition of the words shouldn't change, or else the law changes. This is where it matters the most: the LAW defines a marriage one way (heterosexual), or, more likely, doesn't define it at all, hence the problem. Governements need to address this, either defining marriage as heterosexual or defining it as generic. In non-legal aspects, the word "marriage" will mean whatever people want it to mean. If enough homosexuals are "married" and the general population refers to that union as "marriage", then guess what? The definition changes (to the Encarta version), irrespective of the government's view about what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't matter whether or not you are liberal, whether or not you support homosexual marriages. What matters is how people use the word.

Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 00:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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?

Re:Huh? by ryturner · 2004-08-17 01:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

If no one had to show ID to get on the 9/11 planes, then we would not know who the victims or the hijackers were. How does that help us? Well a suicide bomber normally has help. By knowing who they were, the FBI can go talk to there associates and try to determine who actually master minded the event.

Re:Gummint by AftanGustur · 2004-08-17 00:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, I hope you Americans depose your dictator :-)

on the contrary, I hope he gets re-elected ..

Not because I think he is such a good president, but because I think Americans need to be punished.

I just told this to a couple of Americans I'm working with and they immediately pointed out that they realy didn't want that to happen. Up until now Americans have been able to correctly state that he wasn't elected President, so if he wins the next election, that will be the end of that excuse.

But I still think Americans need to be punished ..

--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc

Re:The horse is out of the barn for good..... by ratamacue · 2004-08-17 00:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

a government can never take away your rights, they can only chose to not honor them

Precisely. Rights are not something that you are "given" by those in power (like a gift), or something that you have to "earn" or "win". The truth is exactly the opposite: Human rights are derived from human nature. We are *born* with rights, because it is human nature that gives us those rights, not government. We have evolved as unique, thinking individuals, but at the same time we have evolved to work together in groups for mutual benefit. The only way to interact with other unique individuals, and retain mutual benefit, is to respect the natural rights of other individuals. There is no "list" of rights, nor could there ever possibly be a list. The very notion of enumerating rights implies that freedom will be limited to somebody's arbitrary idea of how people should behave. This requires an initiation of force. The initiation of force is the only mode of human interaction that violates our natural rights.

We are born free, and from there our rights can only be limited. No soldier has ever died to "earn" or "win" those rights. They died to *preserve* the rights that have been with us since the day mother nature gave us the intelligence to respect each other as unique, thinking individuals.

Re:simple solution by dema · 2004-08-17 00:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

Where exactly did parent say he was boycotting anything...?

Re:You DO have the right to fly anonymously by 1024x768 · 2004-08-17 00:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

You might have presented your assertion with a little more elegance, however this point is quite valid and I had lost sight of it.

At this point the airlines ARE privately owned (with some heavy government subsidy ie. airports, air traffic control, post 9/11 economic help) and are entitled to require identification to enter their property if they so desire.

Can I see your ID please. Sir. by Golobarti · 2004-08-17 00:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Get over it! by Paradise+Pete · 2004-08-17 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

But the result is the safest form of travel

It was also the safest before they checked IDs.

"Right" to fly? by mrscott · 2004-08-17 00:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

Re:"They that..." - totally specious argument by Glock27 · 2004-08-17 00:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

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?

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

Re:simple solution by Gannoc · 2004-08-17 01:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't fly unless absolutely positively there is no other way to get to there from here in a reasonable time frame.

Hehehe. Go Brother!. I'm also against the killing of dolphins by tuna fishermen, so I absolutely refuse to eat tuna. Unless i'm like, REALLY in the mood for it.

Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously? by eriko · 2004-08-17 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, you didn't.

Amendment IX says that "Just because we've enumerated these rights does not mean that we have enumerated all the rights." It does not say "Anything we didn't mention is a right of the people." Amendment X is irrelevant -- it deals with the powers of the federal government, not with the rights of the people.

The problems is this -- the Constitution, as amended....

1) Does not say that there is a right to privacy (no mention)
2) Does not say that there cannot be a right to privacy. (Amendment IX)

Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the Constitution is:

C) There may, or may not be, a right to privacy.

People always assume that Amendment IX automatically grants any right they wish. This is wrong. It just prevents the courts from automatically denying a right because it wasn't listed. The courts *can* deny that rights exist, but need to do so based on the body of law -- of which the Constitution is *only* a part. It's the supreme part, but it is not the whole body of law.

The right of privacy has come about only through judicial and legislative action -- and may well go away from that same action.

--
Ceci n'est pas une sig.

Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously? by Perl-Pusher · 2004-08-17 01:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem with your example is those certain "rights" are not spelled out. What is a right and what is a priveledge? Amendment X was meant to limit the size of the Federal government and give more power to the States. Yeah that's worked out! The civil war basically nullified any power the states once had. Now States only have powers the Federal government wants them to have. And anytime the federal government wants control, they either ammend the constitution or get the states hooked on federal dollars (Education!).

No, both the Reps AND Dems are wrong on firearms by Katravax · 2004-08-17 01:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Re:The horse is out of the barn for good..... by qwijibo · 2004-08-17 02:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

The majority of people have been taught that the rights they have are given by the benevolence of the government.

The fact that these natural rights exist for all who choose to use them doesn't change the perception many people have.

Consider jury nullification as an example. While each juror has the right to vote their conscience, even if it contradicts the letter of the law, many have accepted assertions by courts that this is not true. If the citizens truly are only supposed to vote the way they are directed by the judge, why do we have juries?

We are born with certain inalienable rights, but only those who reject the teachings of society retain those rights.

Re:JetBlue and Southwest are no wave by glrotate · 2004-08-17 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually they're mostly medium-haul routes, eg KC to Chicago. Phoenix to LA etc.

The myth of passenger heroics by Buzh · 2004-08-17 02:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 is an film maker by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-17 02:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Re:No, both the Reps AND Dems are wrong on firearm by pfleming · 2004-08-17 03:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Lost my ID recently by mwillems · 2004-08-17 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:>

Re:Sorry, but WTF? by Experiment+626 · 2004-08-17 03:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

We are born to our position in society, and from there we have only the rights our leaders see fit to grant us.

I must disagree. Rights themselves exist regardless of the whims of one's leaders; they are inalienable. However, the set of rights you might actually be able to exercise are very much dependent on the leaders.

It might seem like a trivial distinction. Who cares if you still have rights if you are in no position to use them? Actually, it makes a big difference. If governments grant and take away rights at will, who can say if they are just or unjust in doing so? One could not claim something like slavery is wrong -- slaves have no rights, so nobody could possibly infringe on those rights.

On the other hand, if rights are an innate part of the human condition, one can easily discern good government from bad by looking at what rights people have that are being repressed. The goal then is to minimize the dichotomy between the rights people are born with and the rights they are actually free to exercise.

Re:Michael Moore is an amateur by Scrameustache · 2004-08-17 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (June 11, 1807)

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Re:WTF Is Wrong With You People? by praedor · 2004-08-17 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone travels with ID on them (well, at least most of the time) so they can be identified that way after a wreck if they need to be. Of course, how often does a plane crash that this is such a burning issue? The BIGGER question is how does showing ID prevent a terrorist attack onboard an aircraft that simply screening each anonymous passenger for weapons doesn't do better? If passengers don't have weapons on-hand capable of damaging/taking over the aircraft, then it doesn't matter one whit who they are or what their desires are. You are covered by the weapons screen, NOT the ID check.

There are other ways to identify people than insist on there being an enforced showing of "your papers". This is the US, not Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia. We do NOT need internal passports or government permission to travel within our own frickin' country. It is not the airline's business, nor the government's business, where I travel to or whom I meet unless they have a valid reason to be suspicious of ME (rather than everyone in general). That is the way it works. They don't get to setup border crossings at each state line to check the papers of all motor vehicle passengers so they have no valid reason for the same with regards to aircraft, river barges, trains, camels, rollar skates, etc.

If they need to be on the lookout for a specific criminal individual, then they can put out an all points bulletin and have police at the various travel hubs and look for that person. You know, exactly the way they do on the ground in motor vehicles.

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.

Re:Think first! by AnotherBlackHat · 2004-08-17 03:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say you have the right to travel anonymously.

At least two places;

Amendment IV

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.

And since I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says you don't have the right to travel anonymously...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of course, a piece of paper means nothing unless we the people choose to enforce it.

-- less is better.

Re:Sorry, but WTF? by drinkypoo · 2004-08-17 04:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is no such thing as an inalienable right. You have only what you can make or take and hold to yourself, and only for as long as you can hold it. Eventually you die and then it all goes back where it came from, which is to say into the pool for other people to take control of whatever it is.

If slavery is legal in one place, and illegal in another, then slaves still have no rights in the one place, and in the other they are not slaves. Slavery is a condition and not a type of person (with certain exceptions irrelevant to this conversation.)

Governments do grant and take away rights at will. It's called law. They grant you the right to own property, for example, or the right to not have your head caved in by a bad man with a shovel, through various civil and criminal laws. Other than that you have only rights which relate to the laws of nature; You have the right to respirate until you die, for example. But frankly, all these things which we call rights are not inalienable, they can all be taken from you by anyone who is determined, and the only things stopping them are you, and the threat of law.

You are born with no more rights than an insect. You have only the rights which you can guarantee yourself, and those which you are granted.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:I'm taking advantage of.... by zogger · 2004-08-17 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it's because everyone can see that there's not only something screwy going on, but there's a variety of somethings screwy going on. Bering practically prepared for an uncertain future is just prudent. I've always been what is now called a prepper or survivalist, and daily I can see where it comes in handy. Look at those poor folks in florida now with the hurricane damage. those that had a generator and some stored food and canned water had a leg up on everyone else.

I've already been through two factories closing up and moving offshore, then I went through the invasion of the illegals. I can smell what's happening with the economy. I've seen, like I related, what's happening with energy in the future. and anyone can see that warfarte hasn't gone away, and that living in the US is no guarantee it won't touch you. I can read the economic reports and cut through the stock shills BS and see what's happening. I've read the latest figures-it's bad. Record deficits, record bankruptices. The pension inusrance dealie is almost bankrupt itself. Lowest interest rates for two generations have failed to do anything but pluf a crack in the leaking dike, they haven't "fixed" anything. I read the anecdotals here on slashdot, quite a few people with decent college degrees in the "new economy" type pursuits still struggling to get employment, even undergoing the indignity of training foreign replacement workers.

On and on.

man is a carbon based thinking being. We all need water-food-shelter-security. As much as you can become independent on those four critical areas, the better off you are-and it helps to be hip to technology. Old technology, not so old, and brand new, because it's all useful.

Basically I am living the same as most people lived right up to world war 2, it's not that long ago either. People used to think it normal to have a very large pantry, it was the rule, not the exception. Being out of debt was a virtue, now to be decades in debt is considered "cool" for some reason, even though you can see the evidence how that is biting people. I remember when ten year home notes were common, now they are 30 years. Car notes-12 months, now 60 months.

That is not evidence of an improved economy, it's the opposite. It really started getting bad when they pushed unfair and grossly mis-labeled globalist "free trade" on us. all that has done is make millioniares billionaires and put almost everyone else into serious long term debt, and to make it worse, the globalists keep calling that a "good thing".

It's nuts. No law says anyone has to go along with nuttiness. The herd can, but I don't have to. And being an old time geek and nerd, I'm pretty used to being "different", I just never lost sight of physical realities. And it helps to have had a rural upbringing, great skills, still useful today. As to being a luddite, which is more useful modern tech to adopt, solar panels or a video game console? A wind charger and some transceivers, or a home theater and the latest throw away cell phone complete with games and ringtones?

I just pick and choose my technological interests differently than most people. I embrace the new that is useful to me, but I don't have to abandon the old that is still working *fine*.

Re:simple solution by ChaosDiscord · 2004-08-17 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

The old-line airlines are failing, while new line airlines like JetBlue and Southwest are stepping forward with simpler flight schedules and pricing models. They appear to be the wave of the future there.

Please! We need to stop propping up the old, out of control airlines. Let them go bankrupt. Smaller, more nimble airlines will snatch up the planes and run a sustainable system.

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events

Real reason for checking IDs by KillerCow · 2004-08-17 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Travel papers != ID by DunbarTheInept · 2004-08-17 08:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Step AWAY from the tinfoil hat... by Grimster · 2004-08-17 09:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Slashdot Mirror

Your Right to Travel Anonymously: Not Dead Yet

125 of 1,353 comments (clear)