Slashdot Mirror
Your Right to Travel Anonymously: Not Dead Yet
ChiralSoftware writes "Remember John Gilmore's fight to be able to travel on commercial airlines without having to show ID? It has dropped out of the news for a while, but now it appears that the fight is continuing. I remember in the 80s we used to make jokes about Soviet citizens being asked "show me your papers" and needing internal passports to travel in their own country. Now we need internal passports to travel in our country. How did this happen? The requirement to show ID for flying on commercial passenger flights started in 1996, in response to the crash of TWA Flight 800. This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader. How mandatory ID even prevents terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID. I hope the courts don't wimp out on this fight."
You wonder why?
;-)
Two words: PatrIDiot Act
Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people.
What's best for the people is only important in the last few months before an election - and only then if the issue is a truly popular one and you wouldn't know how to twist it.
[Watch the BBC classic comedy series of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" for some *really* neat insight into politics...
I 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
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.
Losing freedoms seems to be a one way street
Remember 1789?
(hint: it happened in France and involved guillotines)
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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:>
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...