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."

Comments

Why else?

[beh]

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?

[mikael]

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.

Re:Why else?

[beh]

Ah - you mean this is an issue of Donald Rumsfelds "known knowns", "known unknowns", and "unknown unknowns"? ;-)

Re:Why else?

[Bios_Hakr]

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?

Re:Why else?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real "unknown" is why does the "God" that "speaks" to Bush sound exactly like Ariel Sharon?

Re:Why else?

[nonmaskable]

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?

[Salgak1]

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?

[Zeromous]

"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.

Re:Why else?

[StrongAxe]

Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's at least slightly possible that people in the government are trying to make it harder for thousands of people to be blown up. Knowing who is present on board internally guided flying bombs might be helpful in that struggle.

All the hijackers on 9/11 HAD legitimate goverment-issued ID, and were required to show it before boarding their planes. A fat lot of good the ID requirement did then.

Re:Why else?

[beh]

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?

[cluke]

The only thing I want you to do whenever I do my girlfriend is to look the other way, that's all the privacy I need.

Sorry, man, God knows what sort of crazy terroristic shit you two could be thinking up when you are supposedly 'making love'. They gotta watch, it's for your own good.

Re:Why else?

[rvega]

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?

[Mant]

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?

[ZoneGray]

Yeah, right. Problem is, this started five years before the Patriot Act. It's fascinating how so many otherwise intelligent people simply shout "Patriot Act" as if it were actually a watershed infringement on civil liberties thought up by Bush and Ashcroft. But it's just another bipartisan slip down the slippery slope. Reason has an interesting piece:

http://www.reason.com/hod/jb072604.shtml

Which reminds us that Kerry used the Patriot Act to enact numerous anti-privacy banking provisions that had failed a few years earlier. It also notes that Kerry was an advocate of encrytption export restrictions, while John Ashcroft and the ACLU led the fight against them. How quickly we forget.

Those who think that electing Kerry will usher in a new era of freedom are fooling themselves... it will continue to get worse, not better. Unfortunately, the level of political debate in the US has sunk to the level of totemism, so a lot of people will uncritically accept the notion that the Dems are somehow better on civil rights than Repubs. Only difference I can see is that the Dems are better at hiding what they do.

Saw a bumper sticker this weekend that said, "Two parties, zero choice, vote Libertarian." Not sure there's any value in casting my vote that way, but geez, it's getting ridiculous how the two parties are more similar than ever. Yet each continues to paint the other as the second coming of of totalitarianism, while supporting the same policies. Worse, people still fall for it.

If the stupid people are in power, you get Nazism.
If the smart people are in power, you get Communism.
If nobody's in power, you get America.

I know which I prefer.

Re:Why else?

[kalidasa]

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?

[YrWrstNtmr]

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?

[wraith0x29a]

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.

Re:Why else?

[boodaman]

That would be the Fourth Constitutional Amendment. To wit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AFAIK, being required to identify yourself is considered a "search".

Each citizen has a right to tell the government (and anyone else) to "step off". The citizen is assumed to be 100% innocent, legitimate, approved, etc. unless otherwise noted using appropriate means, such as a warrant.

I don't have to show you anything, papers or not. Period. Only a judge can say otherwise, or a law enforcement official with probable cause that a crime has been committed (and even then I am not required to identify myself....I would be booked as "John Doe").

I support Gilmore, but it looks like a gray area to me (IANAL). An airline is a corporation, not a government.

Re:Why else?

[ckaminski]

Which wouldn't be an issue if the pilot had an H&K MP5 under the steering wheel. You want to take this plane, fine, try getting through my 9mm rounds, 3 at a time.

People without weapons are no match for two people trained in the use of a high-powered sub machine gun, especially along a narrow point of entry (cockpit door).

Re:Why else?

[bonkedproducer]

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.

Re:Why else?

[Master of Transhuman]

Neither the soap box, ballot box, jury box or ammo box is of any value at this time and will only become less so in the future.

The soap box is buried in the "Society of the Spectacle", the ballot box is rigged by the two-party system, the jury box is rigged by definition - it IS the fucking state, for Christ's sake - and the ammo box is only useful if you can get enough people to take it up - which you can't because the soap box is buried, etc.

Wait for nanotech and do the job right.

My prediction: Gilmore is going to LOSE - big time.

Re:Why else?

[FictionPimp]

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?

[mattOzan]

"I don't have to show you anything, papers or not. Period. Only a judge can say otherwise, or a law enforcement official with probable cause that a crime has been committed (and even then I am not required to identify myself....I would be booked as "John Doe")."

Actually, the US Supreme Court just decided otherwise in the case of HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. Dudley Hiibel was approached by a cop and told to identify himself to help the cop "investigate an investigation." He was given no indication of probable cause (the cop was responding to a passerby who thought there was a "domestic disturbance" in progress, though in reality Dudley was arguing with his daughter on the side of the road.) His arrest for failing to identify himself was upheld. HE HAD COMMITTED NO OTHER CRIME! All other charges were dropped immediately. His "crime" was being John Doe, for which he was arrested, convicted and fined. See Hiibel Revisited at Slate for more analysis.

Re:Why else?

[elefantstn]

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?

Re:Why else?

[colmore]

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.

Re:Why else?

[JaffaKREE]

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?

[Master of Transhuman]

"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.

Re:Why else?

[IdleTime]

It is people like you who are the corrupt politicians best friend. You, sir, scare the shit out of me!

If we can get more apathetic people like you, we don't need a constitution, we don't need elections, we don't need media.

I have said it before, and I'll be more than happy to repeat it again: USA is the new Soviet-Uinon! USA is getting further and further into the police state quagmire. Peoples rights and privacies are beeing thrown out with the bathwater. I remember travelling in the old Soviet-Union back in the late 70's and early 80's and the only difference today is that the stores in the US have goods to sell, the Soviet ones didn't. Else, your rigths as a private citizen is much the same.

So, unless you want to live in Soviet-USA, you better open your mouth and protest and use the election in November to show your disgust with the current chimp.

Re:Why else?

[Mateito]

You aren't doing anything illegal? Are you sure? By the time you choose to "stop", you have already been tried, found guilty and charged or fined.

Laws are so complicated, chances are you are doing something illegal without relizing it. And, despite that a Lawyer needs 7 years of post-graduate training, for the layman, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it

One example:

Sex toys are illegal in Texas.

Now, personally, I have no problem with anybody popping a Mr Buzzy into any handy orifice if that's what gets them off, but its appears to be a problem in Bush's home state. Maybe there's something in the Bible about it. No idea.

Sure, you aren't going to bomb a plane, or extort a million dollars.

There are already toll-roads who will fine you if the time you took between the entry and exit implies that you sped. You were never detected actually speeding, and you can easily get around it by stopping off at a gas station and drinking a coffee.

But, hey, suddenly you get a letter in the mail for jaywalking, because there was no legal way you could have made the trip between two sidewalk monitoring points without having crossed the road illegally.

Then you go to jail for buying a vibrator in New Mexico and then driving to Lousiana. You must have passed through Texas, right?

Extreme example, but if big-brother is watching you, any little seemingly unimportant infraction becomes revenue for the government.

Realize that if you are focused on 20 different things, not a single one will ever get done

I'm so glad you don't work for me. Take a time management course.

Re:Why else?

[A55M0NKEY]

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.

Re:Why else?

[clambake]

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.

Yes, you ARE naive. A perfect example is the CAPSII system of profiling suspects to search at the airport instead of a blanket random search. It's mathematically provable that the CAPS2 system is LESS secure and has a gaping fundamental loophole that terrorists can exploit that random sampling does not. But, to the ignorant, profiling SOUNDS much safer, since all the dark-skinned poor people can be pulled out of line and harassed, so it was enacted by the government.

(For mor information go look here)

And a personal anecdote: I was flying home from Japan once, and was searched 6 times during that adventure. The entire time I had a hermetically sealed biohazard box given to me by a hospital worker to put my home-made super-hot hot-sauce in, complete with all sorts of biohazard flowers and warnings that the content was amazingly dangerous. It wasn't some joke box, it was the real deal from a real AIDS hospital that a friend nursed at. This was looked at and passed over by not less than 15 different people who did not open it or even look twice.

They did take away my Korean chopsticks (made of metal, but not sharp or anything).

Your government is not trying to protect you at all. They ARE trying to offer you the slight illusion of protection and betting on the fact that the 9/11 events were a fluke.

Re:Why else?

[Master of Transhuman]

You check luggage because you're actually looking for a bomb. And if your tech is right, you don't have to open it to check it.

How does X-raying luggage violate your privacy - unless your wife (or you) has a collection of steel dildoes in there? X-raying and magnetic and chemical detectors just show the shape and composition of things and only things that look like weapons or explosives will be of significance. Nobody's going to record anything else they see in there and connect it to your name - unless they HAVE your name.

Your identity is irrelevant unless you HAVE such things in your possession. Then somebody might want to know who you REALLY are - and looking at your papers isn't likely to tell them that.

You do know that cops take fingerprints, right? They don't rely on identity papers to establish who a criminal suspect is?

There's a reason for that which our morons in Washington seem to forget - or don't care to remember.

Re:Why else?

[beh]

Apart from the issue that a suicide bomber dies on that particular flight, do you really think the guy really has to fly a lot first in order to get acquainted with planes so he could be a more effective suicide bomber?

It's nonsense... Also - depending on what people do, you might flag them for totally harmless things (i.e. what do you do if Hassan Al Brahimi is actually a consultant often flying between different cities staying at those for sometimes and afternoon, sometimes a couple of weeks.

Flagging people is just bound to cause a major fuck up sooner or later.

Also, for a while, the Department for Homeland security was apparently contemplating on whether they should color-code passengers according to their threat potential. One of their ideas was that (non-US) people known to have had training on automatic weapons should be chained to their seats for the duration of the flight... ...sounds like a great security publicity ploy - until you start thinking about the fact that terrorists will hardly ever tout their training (so you won't know whether the guy HAD the training or not -- actually, their plans would probably even hinge on the fact that you don't know. All the while you're harassing people, who like me, learnt to operate automatic weapons as part of their compulsory military service (i..e people who even had little choice about whether they WANTED to learn this or not)...

Personally, I've struck the US off my list of potential holiday destinations, until the whole patridiot act mess has been resolved (and removed). In the meantime, I will not even entertain job offers that might require me to go to the US - I'm simply sick of the kind of paranoia the Bush government is celebrating...

Re:Why else?

[CreatureComfort]

As someone who flies regularly...

whats next, you can't bring babies on board because you could use them as a hostage

Please, please, please God, let this be implemented.

Re:Why else?

[Master of Transhuman]

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.

Re:Why else?

[arkanes]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe there's something in the Bible about it. No idea."

I would definitely remember if there were dildos in the Bible. There aren't.

Re:Why else?

[Bios_Hakr]

Why are people on here so frictional? You got modded as insightful, but all you do is flame me.

In any event...

You are right about point 1. Everyone is doing something illegal right now. What you want is privacy so cops can't call you on it. What I want is better politicians willing to get rid of stupid laws. Lack of privacy is just a symptom of a bigger problem. We need campaign finance reform. Once we have good politicians, we can work on the smaller things.

Point 2. The point isn't to stop a terrorist. You can't do that! Ever! The point is to have a good paper train back to his funding. Then you assasinate the man with the money. The next guy with money MAY have second thoughts. Sure, there will always be some way around having an ID card. Let's try and make that system better. We need a way to track people from the time they enter the country till they leave. This won't be a problem as long as we can trust those in office. We can trust those in office if we know they are working for us vice Disney/Exxon-Mobil.

As for point 3, I think it's valid. I hate giving my Drivers License to a hotel clerk. I fly a lot more than most. In fact, I was due to fly internationally on Sep 12. I spent an extra 3 weeks overseas because of terrorism. I really hate having to show my ID and have my bags searched 5 times between the curb and the gate. I know it adds nothing to security. However, as much as I travel, it's still a small hastle. If the voters would focus on finance reform, we could take care of a much larger hastle. Choose your battles and only fight the important ones. We can get election reforms as long as we fight hard and under the same banner. Abortion, prayer, school vouchers, privacy, health care; these are all side issues to keep us distracted from the fact that our representatives take millions of dollars in bribes.

Who is the sucker? I can join with my enemies to fight the good fight. Could you?

We invaded Iraq so that GWB could get more money. How is your not showing an ID card gonna stop that?

I was educated in public school. I still have a valid point: All the privacy in the world does not fix your politicians.

I do have a clue. It just seems that I'm choosing to fight a much more important fight.

BTW, don't be so quick to flame. Take a breath before you hit 'submit'. We are all on the same side here.

Re:Why else?

[Sunrun]

Actually, no they didn't... at least not ALL of them. In fact, the majority of them were forged in a manner common among Al Qaida operatives. It's in the 9/11 Commission's report. Read it some time. :)

Re:Why else?

[LaCosaNostradamus]

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.

Re:Why else?

[sjames]

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?

[Titusdot Groan]

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?

Re:Why else?

[gilroy]

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.

Re:Why else?

[pyros]

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?

[boodaman]

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?

[boodaman]

"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?

[illumin8]

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.

You know, I was having a conversation with my friend from the UK last week and we were discussing the difference between US and the UK, primarily gun law. I asked him, "What can you do if the government becomes corrupt?" He had a very interesting response:

"There are other ways you can overthrow a corrupt government besides violence. Imagine what would happen if all of the citizens simply refused to go to work. The government would have to agree with their demands because they don't have enough soldiers to point guns at everyone and force them to do their jobs. The economy would grind to a halt and the government would be thrown out on their ass in a moment's time."

This got me thinking: Suppose Bush decides to steal the election again in 2004... If this happens, I think one of the safest and best ways we could protest would be to stop going to work for a few weeks. Imagine what would happen...

Re:Why else?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It's like "Exodus" in reverse.

Instaed of God as a burning bush commanding Moses, It's Satan as an Israeli PM, commanding a bush to burn Iraq, etc.

Re:Why else?

[bigpat]

"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?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Second the bullets might kill the passengers sitting right behind that same "narrow point of entry".

As the doctor said: 'The operation went perfect, but the patient died.'

I hate to break the news to 'ya, but we don't care too much about the passengers anymore.

If the pilot/marshalls/passengers can't stop the hijackers they're getting shot down but an air-to-air missile anyway.

Now, reconsider the options in the harsh light of today's reality.

Re:Why else?

[shyster]

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.

About 10 years ago, I did some work for a city (~30,000 pop) police station. They'd record "suspicious" persons on note cards.

A suspicious person could be, and often was, nothing more than a group of teenagers walking around the strip mall that the movie theater was in at night. They would be stopped, ID'd, and recorded on a note card. You could also get a card filled out for you if someone called in and filed a "suspicious" report on you (the caller would have to ID you by name).

Eventually, all those cards would end up in a database. So, don't worry...it's not a possibilty, it's been done for at least 10 years. ;)

Re:Why else?

[Reziac]

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??

Re:Why else?

[Robber Baron]

I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.

There are a lot of flag-burners,
Who have too many freedoms,
I want to make it legal
For policemen to beat'em.

'Cause there's limits to our liberties,
At least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

The horse is out of the barn for good.....

[Dr Reducto]

I honestly don't see us being able to travel san id ever again. Losing freedoms seems to be a one way street.

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

Re:The horse is out of the barn for good.....

[ArbiterOne]

Losing freedom is a one-way street? Do you still pay taxes under the Stamp Act, then? Not that I'm advocating such a solution...

Re:The horse is out of the barn for good.....

[WormholeFiend]

Losing freedoms seems to be a one way street

Remember 1789?

(hint: it happened in France and involved guillotines)

Re:The horse is out of the barn for good.....

[ratamacue]

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:The horse is out of the barn for good.....

[qwijibo]

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:The horse is out of the barn for good.....

[kinbote]

As expressed by Utah Phillips:

"Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free."

Ho Hum

[turgid]

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.

Re:Ho Hum

[beh]

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

[Epistax]

Out of everything there exists to ID someone over, transportation makes the most sense to me. 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. I'm taking a couple flights home. 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.

That being said the fact that I just mentioned I am going on a plane today and mentioned the fact that it could crash-- that everything I just said is a red flag to them-- THAT is wrong. Yes personal security through obscurity (Who am I?) would protect you from that, but your own civic duty supersedes that which should not even be an issue.

Re:Ho Hum

[r00zky]

to help identify the corpses

Sir, you should refer to the Yakolev-42 accident which caused the death of 62 spanish militars the 26th of May of 2003 (which surely were carrying identifications... being in the military)

One year later, the buried corpses had to undergo DNA tests to correctly identify them.
Something that the ones incinerated by the wrong familiars couldn't do...

Half of the corpses were found to be misidentified in the first place.

Re:Ho Hum

[jackb_guppy]

Remeber Flight 800 also made it so mailing a more than 1lb package anonymously is also illegal.

The government err twice on the smae flight.

Re:Ho Hum

[mec]

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

[Threni]

> 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

[Paradise Pete]

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

[Rogue974]

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

[eples]

If there was no IDing, they wouldn't have [...]

Is this a new product from Apple? How do I get it?

Re:Ho Hum

[Bob Uhl]

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

[WNight]

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

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

Re:Ho Hum

[WNight]

With the large ammount of government subsidies they've collected over the years they're only privately owned by technicality.

Besides, the government currently regulates what information businesses can collect and share. It's reasonable that they maintain their own private black list, nobody forces a bar to serve a troublesome customer, but when they start to share this data with law enforcement and credit agencies they aren't so free as they would like.

Anyways, the biggest reason the airlines want to demand ID is because they claim tickets are non-transferable. They charge up to 4x the early-booking price for last-minute tickets. If you could buy them on EBay from someone who bought early they'd lose the ability to dictate their fares and silly restrictions (must stay a weekend, can't use half of each of two round-trip tickets, etc). As soon as this gets taken to court by someone with the cash to stick it out till the end it'll be rules to fall under the doctrine of first sale like almost everything else on the planet and then the airlines won't have the huge financial incentive to ask for ID. Not that I think the airlines are lazy and corrupt, grown corpulent on taxpayer-funded handouts, or anything...

To identify...

[pixas]

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...

[tobirius]

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...

[dave420]

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

[paganizer]

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.

Re:Sort of understandable

[the_twisted_pair]

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

[richieb]

It's called the illusion of security - insert Ben Franklin quote here.

Bruce Scheneier calls this "Security Theatre".

Re:Sort of understandable

[dnoyeb]

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

[HeghmoH]

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.

UK domestic flights

[MBAFK]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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'.

Its not a conspiracy

[bshellenberg]

I know /.ers tend to believe there is a conspiracy behind every bush, but there isn't in this case. The requirement (and the reason you can't change seats *after* boarding an airplane) is purely (as another said) to identify the corpses. Its for the insurance companies and pending lawsuits etc. It has *nothing* to do with the Patriot Act, your removal of civil liberties or anything else.

Re:Its not a conspiracy

[WormholeFiend]

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.

Re:Its not a conspiracy

[sita]

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:Its not a conspiracy

[pjt33]

I know /.ers tend to believe there is a conspiracy behind every bush

I thought it was a Bush behind every conspiracy?

Re:Its not a conspiracy

[Mudcathi]

I thought it was a Bush behind every conspiracy?

Oh come now, don't get Kerried away...

Re:Gummint

[turgid]

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.

ID's

[l3v1]

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 :)

simple solution

[HBI]

Vote with your wallet. I don't fly unless absolutely positively there is no other way to get to there from here in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, I avoid airports. They consume my time and have wasteful, feelgood 'security measures' which actually provide no security at all.

The last straw for me was having my shoes searched three times on the way to a plane. I was wearing a pair of sneakers. No metal in there.

Government mandated security measures in airports are geared to one goal, and one goal only - maintaining the status quo in the airline industry. It's an attempt to construct a valid excuse for the next hijacking. "After all, we made you show ID and confiscated your 3/4" long insulin needles, don't blame us."

Security professionals my ass, they don't have a chance in hell of catching a committed hijacker either before 9/11 or now. Get people used to that idea and stop with the stupid 'security' crap. You can also die on your morning commute to a truck driver snorting crank. Get a grip, death is all around us. You could drop dead reading this post. Really.

Re:simple solution

[LostCluster]

At this point, even the airlines will thank you for not flying them.

Chicago's O'Hare airport is so overbooked that the FAA is threatening to cancel flights in advance simply because even if the condiditions are clear and perfect all day, there's no way all the planes can take off on time because of the schedule being too tight.

The current airline system just wasn't designed for the volume of users it currently has. 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.

Re:simple solution

[jellomizer]

"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

Re:simple solution

[sotonboy]

In the U.K we're planning for increased capcity for 30- 40 years from now. What these planners dont seem to realise is that 30-40 years from now, Airline flight will be unsustainably expensive, due to oil costs. I reckon passenger numbers will actually be way lower. Furthermore, I think youll start to see it drop in the next 5 years, not 30-40. So maybe you overcrowded airports wont last for so long.

Re:simple solution

[zogger]

You are correct. Thinking there's still going to be anything but mostly governmental flights and extremely rich people flying decades from now is beyond wishful thinking. The airlines are right now scrambling to stay operational. And 46$ a barrel oil hasn't trickled down to increased refined fuel costs yet.

I don't even give it five years, try two years maybe before it starts dropping off severely. And it's not only in terms of money, it's in terms of physics and energy conversion. Once it gets to the point that it takes a BTU to transfer another BTU, by drilling, pumping, shipping, refining, re shipping, then burning, you could have a lake of oil and it wouldn't matter. We've only had cheap flying "for the masses" from the phenomenon of really cheap energy conversion, and as fields peak and fall off it just ain't cheap no mo.

I honestly don't think many people or governments have bingoed to this yet. They just aren't finding exploitable fields at the same rate they used to, in fact, they have busted some oil companies for purposely over-estimating what they are currently sitting on. We are currently in the "good old days" of a semi robust global economy, it is unsustainable once demand quadruples-which it is with china and india and some others really modernizing- while available supplies are falling off.

I am a big proponent of alternative energy, and I'm also the first one to concede-and warn people-that there's no credible replacement for the really cheap (money + BTU conversion rate) oil of the 50s to the 70's which is the main reason for the planets manufacturing boom and wealth creation during that period.

Re:simple solution

[Gannoc]

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:simple solution

[poot_rootbeer]

The current airline system just wasn't designed for the volume of users it currently has.

It's not the volume of users that's the problem; it's the volume of aircrafts.

I remember taking airline trips from Newark to St. Louis twenty years ago, and the plane would be a 747 or some other jumbo jet, seating maybe nine people across, with two aisles splitting the seats up.

If I make that same trip today, I'd probably be flying on the jet equivalent of a puddle-jumper -- a tiny craft with fewer seats than a Greyhound bus
and a single narrow aisle.

People want the option to catch a flight to their destination at 5:30 AM, or 11:30PM, or at any two-hour interval in between. So the airlines have moved towards more frequent flights on smaller aircraft... and this has come to create an air traffic nightmare over time.

Re:simple solution

[ChaosDiscord]

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.

When the system fails, nothing works...

[LostCluster]

The various post-9/11 inquiries from the government and the media all seem to have agreed that we were close to breaking up the attacks before they happened, but we didn't connect the dots in time. MSNBC-TV recently aired a special edition of their Hardball program where they spotlighted twelve seperate things that could have prevented the attacks had any of them gone perfectly, but they didn't.

For all the attacks that happen or that we hear about after being broken up, there's got to be dozens of plots that are being aborted or lose key personel to arrest before they had time to mature into being specific enough to pick an exact target.

As scary as it is for our "free" government to be fighting a "secret" war, we have to remember that a government-like entity without any homeland is already fighting against us that way.

Re:When the system fails, nothing works...

[dave420]

Lots of those security threats are made up by the government or politicians with a vested interest. That fact alone means that there might not be any threat at all, or there might be more. Speculating on the amount is exactly what they want you to do, as the human psyche will undoubtedly conjure up tens of thousands of foiled attempts to blow up $NEAREST_CITY.

Don't fall for their game. They want everyone to be afraid. Try and figure out what's really going on (clue: turn off Fox)

Contacting Family.

[jellomizer]

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.)

This is about victim identification, not crashes

[ivec]

Say a plane crashes today in the Atlantic, and you know that many bodies may never be recovered.

How many families will want to know for sure if a relative was on board or not? How many individuals may want to claim they, or a given relative, where on board to get a hefty life insurance payment?

Even if bodies are found and recovered, it really helps for any kind of forensics to have the IDs of all passengers.

I do not think that having to show an ID is such a problem. The issue I'd have is with the storage and centralization of ID information.

It's All About The Lists

[RWarrior(fobw)]

ID is now required so that airlines can cross-check against the politcally-motivated, secret, error-ridden watch lists of people who are from unpopular countries filled with little brown people.

Airline security is a sham anyway

[Buzh]

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.

Re:Airline security is a sham anyway

[Buzh]

Last time I flew eu->usa I moved through four airports' worth of security checks, had a rest and then made a domestic US flight. I was stopped (ie, taken out of line) a grand total of seven times on that trip. Embarrasments include removing boots and belt, identifying the locations of my piercings to the not-very-amused guy with the handheld metal detector, and being asked to open my bags at several locations, leaving the contents in plain sight of anyone passing by.

They even confiscated my 5cm nail scissors. On the way OUT of the airport.

When I flew back to the EU though, the attendant that checked in my luggage just asked "Do you have any weapons or bombs in your luggage?" and I replied "Nope!" and that was mostly that. Apparently, hijackers are only interrested in flights into or within the US.

Re:Airline security is a sham anyway

[Daniel Boisvert]

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:Some questions

[richieb]

- 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.

And why would we want to prevent this? If I buy a non-refundable ticket and I am unable to fly that particular time, I can't sell the ticket because of the ID check.

So, the airline gets my money and an empty seat, and I get nothing.

Get over it!

[TheLoneCabbage]

You have to show ID to check out a library book. Just carry your drivers licence and relax!

The FAA has always be a bit on the over cautios side. But the result is the safest form of travel (if not the most cramped) in the world.

I don't know if having to flash ID is quite comprable to having to file with Moscow to travel between cities.

Re:Get over it!

[Paradise Pete]

But the result is the safest form of travel

It was also the safest before they checked IDs.

What a troll...

[Big Sean O]

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.

Fly anonymously ? Named tickets

[TheAcousticMotrbiker]

For as long as I can remember, airline tickets are personal, meaning that you have not been able to fly anonymously for years.

Having to show an Id to proof that you really are the person you claim to be is only logical.

As other posters have already pointed out, identifying the bodies is another good reason, and while showing an ID will not stop terrorists, it can be a big help in tracing them after the fact (i.e. find their associates and chase them down) which was indeed what happened after 9/11

Figting for your rights and freedom is fine, but this sounds like fighting windmills to me

Re:Fly anonymously ? Named tickets

[Sapwatso]

The current ID procedures airlines are using do not even guarantee that the person getting on a given flight is the person the airline thinks is getting on. I recently flew from Boston to Seattle via Chicago, and back via San Francisco on United. Four flights - and on *NONE* of the flights did I have to show my ID at the gate, only at the security checkpoint before the gates.

I can think of two exploits based on this to get on a plane the airline does not think you are on, though you do have to be able to get through security in the first place.

1) You and your associate buy tickets on two flights departing the same set of gates at a similar time. Go through security. Switch boarding passes once you are through security.

2) You fly into an airport shortly before your associate has an outbound flight booked for, making sure you are scheduled to arrive at the same set of gates as the outbound flight. Your associate hands you the boarding pass for the outbound flight, you get on the plane and your associate leaves without getting on a plane at all.

My conclusion: if this was a real a security measure, they would not leave loopholes like this. The ID check is there to keep people from casually swapping non-transferable tickets, and to give people a warm fuzzy feeling about security.

Bingo!

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

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.

Is My Constitution Outdated?

[John_McKee]

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?

[hugesmile]

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.

Re:Is My Constitution Outdated?

[BobTheLawyer]

Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce.

You are on a hiding to nothing if you want to argue that this doesn't entitle Congress to regulate aviation.

You *might* be able to argue that the Commerce Clause doesn't entitled Congress to regulate flights within one State. See Thomas's concurrence in US v Lopez (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.Z C1.html).

why? well...

[dr_d_19]

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?

[SetupWeasel]

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?

[Thapa]

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.

Knock Knock.

[Elvisisdead]

Who's there?

Zee German Inspector.

The German Inspector w.....

I AM ZEE ONE ASKING ZEE QVESTIONS HERE!!!!

Insert appropriate agency personnel for the inspector.

Librarians = on our side

[No Such Agency]

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.

Re:Stealing tickets

[vidarh]

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

[Ada_Rules]

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!

ID on domestic flights

[Mickey Jameson]

While the airports may now require ID, it's primarily for show. In the 6 round trip flights and ID checked 12 times, not once did my ID match my flight information and not once did anyone even question anything.

I generally leave it up to friends to book my flights because I don't care what airline/airport I fly into and out of but they do. So for a wedding in North Carolina in 1999, the friend put down "Crackpipe Johnny" as my name while booking. I chuckled until we actually got to the airport because I didn't know how they'd react. Instead of showing my ID, I showed my Zippo which had Crackpipe Johnny emblazoned on it. "Ok sir, go right through."

Since then it's been a running joke and even post-9/11 Crackpipe Johnny has had no problem booking a flight or boarding a plane.

I wouldn't recommend trying this, but until someone tells me to stop doing so, I will continue to do so. Just because someone says something is so (in this case mandatory ID carrying) isn't reason to freak out.

It's even simpler than that: it's profitable.

[ssclift]

If you have to present ID that matches the name on the ticket then you cannot resell the ticket. It used to be the case that people would resell tickets they couldn't use. Now, depending on the type of ticket you didn't use, your money is either gone, locked in an airline account with one year to spend it on another ticket, back in your hands less 25%, or some other such "arrangement".

The airlines fight tooth and nail to prevent the expense of new "security" measures. If one is accepted it usually means that someone, somewhere is making solid profit on the scheme.

Re:This is the trade-off, isn't it?

[argent]

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.

[Beautyon]

"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.

The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead

[Katravax]

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

[ifwm]

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

[RLiegh]

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

[brett42]

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

[dtrent]

Howard Dean.

Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead

[kuma_act]

"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

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

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).

Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead

[RLiegh]

YEEEEEEAAAAARRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHH

Um..you were saying?

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like HOWARD DEAN.

Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead

[adamruck]

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).

Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead

[Skjellifetti]

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.

Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead

[Catbeller]

Another "truth" that will not die, like Al Gore saying he invented the internet.

Dean was screaming to be heard above the noise of the crowd. Unfortunately, the microphone he was screaming into had a filter for ambient noise. It was impossible to hear anyone else but Dean.

When the sound of the crowd was mixed back into the recording, recreating what actually could be heard, Dean was barely audible.

It would have been the work of minutes for any network reporter to get the correctly mixed version of the audio. But they didn't. Only Diane Sawyer ever apologized for the lynching after she heard the corrected track.

It was too much fun for the networks, the rightwing cable pundits, the network executives threatened by Dean's pledge to break up their growing empires, the late night comedians- even John Stewart: come on, John you're smarter than this! - to slaughter Dean, whom the majority of the pundits disliked because he said things that caused massive cognitive dissonance in their unbelieveably uninformed minds.

Now we've Kerry, who won't even condemn Bush's straight-out lying about WMD's. Dean had the balls to tell the truth. Now he's been Gored, reduced to a joke because reporters simply would not be bothered to find out about filtering mics. Immense momentum killed by laziness and a willingness to kill the messenger.

Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead

[kuma_act]

"Speaking of which, why weren't any aircraft parts found at the Pentagon? I thought a plane hit it. Nobody saw the plane, and nobody was in that section of the building, but REALLY, a plane DID hit it. Not a missile..."

I live in the Washington, D.C., area, and I have several good friends who were in the area on 9/11. One of them watched the plane fly OVER HIS CAR to crash into the Pentagon. He was close enough to feel the heat from the explosion. Federal authorities ordered he and the other people on the road to leave their cars on foot and come back later to retrieve them. Another friend was at National Airport and watched the crash. Nobody saw the plane? I think what you meant to say is that "Nobody *filmed* the plane" If a nobody like me who just happens to live in the area knows several trustworthy people who saw it, plenty of people saw it.

(I apologize in advance for the rant here, but this really pissed me off). Nobody was in that section of the building? I work with people who lost family members in the resulting crash. I know people who still bear the scars from burns they received helping others escape the flames. One hundred and twenty-five people lost their lives on the ground. Nobody? Congratulations. You've just told the grieving widow in my wife's office that her dead husband was "nobody." Not only is your post simply wrong, it's offensive. Get a clue about the facts before you post.

Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead

[Mr. Shiny And New]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

[ryturner]

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:Huh?

[nonmaskable]

In fact, it turns our the government knew these people were trouble, knew they got on board, and it didn't help.

Right. When they tried to board, after presenting identification several of them were red flagged by CAPPS. Unfortunately nothing was done with that information. Hopefully the government does something next time.

Re:Huh?

[LinuxHam]

When they tried to board, after presenting identification several of them were red flagged by CAPPS. Unfortunately nothing was done with that information

Please stop spreading this misinformation. The entire purpose of the CAPPS system was to guarantee that flagged passengers are on a plane before their baggage is loaded. This system was developed in response to Pan Am 108 which was destroyed by a bomb in a checked ghetto blaster, placed on board by the bomber who failed to board the flight. You have repeatedly said the government did nothing for the passengers flagged by CAPPS, when in fact they followed 100% of the procedures ordered by that system. Policymakers just never believed that someone would execute a suicide hijacking, let alone four simultaneously. Judging by your multiple posts, you really do need to read the commission report.

And if you did read it, read it again. If you can trust a government commission long enough to sit through its report, it's a very interesting read.

Can you say BOOOORING!!!!

[johnlcallaway]

As long as I can remember, I have had to buy airline and bus tickets and give someone my name. And as long as I can remember, such tickets where not transferable.

People who want to travel anonymously are in the minority and I don't really give a f*ck about them nor their perceived expectations. It's just like the guy in Portland Maine who wanted to prove he had a right to carry a firearm in public, and choose an outdoor, family oriented festival to prove it.

He was a self-righteous a**hole too.

Re:Some questions

[tuxette]

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.

You don't. Not even with a "simple ID check."

I'm sure lots of people here have similar stories, but once upon a time during my wild youth, my ID said my name was tuxina (as opposed to tuxette) and the year of birth indicated that I was old enough to buy alcoholic drinks. During a bust of a bar that was serving "minors," a cop looked at my tuxina ID and gave it back to me. So cops, bouncers, barkeeps, etc couldn't tell it was fake. I could have easily travelled on an airplane using that ID.

So what _are_ the other options?

[johannesg]

I visited the US two years ago. I'm from the Netherlands, a country that desperately tries to prove it can play with the big boys by following US policy wherever it can no matter how bad the cost to ourselves. If people are guessing my nationality, they tend to say "swedish". And finally, I don't really have much of an accent when speaking english. So let us examine some of my travel options shall we?

- I travelled by train from Boston to New York. To buy the ticket I had to show my passport. Excuse me!? Was I going to cross an international border, then? At home I can buy a ticket to wherever I please without showing any identification.

- I travelled by rental car, twice. Identification was required. Well, I understand that since they give me an expensive piece of equipment, but I couldn't have rented the card anonymously.

- I travelled by plane, once internally and of course coming in and leaving. Not only did I have to show ID, but _each_ _single_ _time_ I was asked to step out of the line for a "random" search. Yeah, like that is really random.

Ironically, the one place where noone was interested in my ID at all was at the immigration desk, where I was waved right through. Noone thought to check my papers, or my bag (and I was hiding a dangerous Nail Clipper of Mass Destruction in it too, carrying it around the US for two weeks with impunity!)

So saying "don't fly" is cheap, since it only leaves you the option of not travelling at all. And not being able to move about, being imprisoned in your little region as it were, that's not freedom at all...

Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously?

[fdiskne1]

*looks over Bill of Rights*

Nope, no Right to Travel Anonymously. Where did this right come from? Hrmmm...

It's sorta like your right to privacy, it DOES NOT EXIST once you leave your home. Your right to privacy only exists within the confines of your home, so get used to it.

I found it listed right here:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

remembering 1789

[John_Sauter]

I think a lot of people have forgotten 1789. Doesn't "Department of Homeland Security" sound a lot like "Committee of Public Safety?"
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

Re:remembering 1789

[freqres]

Cripes, where did you hear about that? I would have figured that would have been edited out of any historical material by now. Better get those memory holes warmed up at the Ministry of Truth. Damnit Winston, GET WORKING!!

Re:I hate leftie slashdot folk

[maxwell demon]

If I see one f*ckng terrorist on a plane that I am aboard, I will take his damn head off with my shoe if I have to.

While there are lots of things terrorists may do on a plane, to f*ck is not one of those things I'd expect them to do there.

Re:You DO have the right to fly anonymously

[1024x768]

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.

Showing ID to fly is not the issue

[HangingChad]

Although it does smack of show me your papers, I don't think that's the main issue. What the court is looking at is the executive branch issuing secret regulations that are not reviewable by the courts.

Privacy is becoming much more important in the age of identity theft. I went around with a cell phone provider on a service quote because I wouldn't give them my social security number. I tried to explain to them if I'm not claiming income from them, they don't get my social security number. First they said it was the law but once I questioned them about which law they backed off to it being company policy. The dentist office tried to claim the insurance company requires it, but all they really need is your group policy number and employee ID.

Can I see your ID please. Sir.

[Golobarti]

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.

Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously?

[eriko]

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.

Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously?

[o1d5ch001]

Ok, Lets take a look at the US Constitution.

Oh look right here in the preamble... "secure the Blessings of Liberty...". What do you think that means?

It means that Liberty is a natural right that should not be interfered with by any-body. Be that corporate or Government.

And what about that beautiful document called the Declaration of Independance... "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty...".

Stop being a corporate toady and stand up for your rights!! You are not a number, or a machine, you are a free man!!

Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously?

[vinh]

If you think the Bill of Rights enumerates *all* of your rights, you are sadly wrong.

Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously?

[justins]

*looks over Bill of Rights*

Nope, no Right to Travel Anonymously.

You know, a lot is implied by the constitution, rather than made explicit. This is pretty fundamental to constitutional law. The country would be a radically different place if we stuck to only strict interpretation of the constitution, without ever inferring a deeper meaning. (I tend to think that approach would be completely untenable unless we were willing to give up our hesitence to amend the constitution, which would of course bring its own set of problems...)

Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously?

[Perl-Pusher]

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!).

Sorry, but WTF?

[Tackhead]

> 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.

Excuse me, but WTF d00d?

Rights are set forth in laws. Those in power are born to it, or lobby for it, and like the tribe's betas for a Silverback, we vote to show our approval.

The only rights we are born with, or evolved with is the right to thump our chests in approval (or rage) for the Silverbacks we like (or who come from the opposing tribe), and to try to scrabble out a bit of advantage for ourselves when the Silverbacks aren't paying too much attention.

> We are born free, and from there our rights can only be limited.

We are born to our position in society, and from there we have only the rights our leaders see fit to grant us. Next thing you know, you'll be spouting poppycock like "all mans are equal", provably untrue by even the most cursory observation.

P.S. Whatever it is you've been smoking, lay off it for a bit. The silverbacks of both tribes disapprove.

Re:Sorry, but WTF?

[Experiment 626]

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:Sorry, but WTF?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Sorry, but WTF?

[Qrlx]

Do you really believe that, in the absence of power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end), the entire concept of human rights would diappear, and we would be reduced ape-like interaction (where the most powerful rule over the rest, and nobody questions it)?

On the contrary, I believe that we are already acting this way, just with fancy costumes on, and plenty of shiny things to distract us from the cold hard truth.

I also take issue with your characterization of "ape-like interaction," specifically the part where "nobody questions it." What you've described is more of a hive mentality where all worker bees are loyal to the queen (though some research even casts that blind loyalty into doubt).

Now, when two individuals outside their tribe meet, it is usually (but not always) mutually beneficial for them to behave civilly. There is little risk in being nice, and much greater risk in trying to steal someone's wallet.

Human rights -- I just don't get it. Humans are animals, right? By extension, are there animal rights? Why or why not?

What you call human rights I call an ethical salad with a few moral croutons thrown in. Instead of oil and vinegar, today's salad is dressed with oil and blood.

Here's the outrage.

[scootr1]

I have to show a government-issued ID to buy beer. This is a travesty! The government is spying on my beer-buying habits! It's not fair! Wahwahwah.

No, both the Reps AND Dems are wrong on firearms

[Katravax]

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?

Hitchhiking

[nuntius]

carries penalties of up to $2,500 and 1 year in prison if convicted in Illinois...

Re:JetBlue and Southwest are no wave

[glrotate]

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

The myth of passenger heroics

[Buzh]

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.

Michael Moore is an film maker

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

There's still hope!

[chriso11]

Look what Rambo did with only a knife!!

Re:No, both the Reps AND Dems are wrong on firearm

[pfleming]

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

[mwillems]

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.

Re:Michael Moore is an amateur

[Scrameustache]

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)

Re:WTF Is Wrong With You People?

[praedor]

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.

Re:Think first!

[AnotherBlackHat]

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:A remarkable right

[pclminion]

If travelling anonymously is a universal right, the system of driving licences is a human-rights atrocity of gigantic scale.

It's nothing of the sort. The purpose of a driver's license is not track your whereabouts, it's a license to drive. When you pull out of your driveway and go to work, is there somebody waiting there to check your ID and ask where you are going?

Then again, this could come in handy. I think I'm going to tell my boss that I have a right to make over $200,000 a year.

I love this type of argument -- I call it the "Hey, let's draw a completely stupid and unjustified analogy and hope the other guy just doesn't notice" method.

Re:WTF? Are you people just stupid?

[pclminion]

I mean who gives a flying fuck! Why is it you idiots make a huge fucking deal about showing your ID to get on a plane!

Think of it like pain. Each person has a different threshold for pain. There are some things which one person barely feels at all, which another person would experience as terrible pain.

Tolerance for intrusions into our private lives is also a variable, like tolerance for pain. Some of us guard our privacy quite closely, while others seem willing to publish all the details of their most private thoughts right out in public (witness LiveJournal).

You're simply one of the people with a very high tolerance for privacy intrusion. The problem is, right now the entire country is on Privacy Morphine from the 9/11 attacks and the events in Iraq. It's much easier to buy the line of bullshit that we must give up more and more rights in exchange for protection against threats like that.

As any drug user can tell you, it's really stupid to make important decisions while doped, and here we are, the United States, making the decision to toss away all the things we enjoy about our lives in exchange for barely any real security at all. And one day I think you'll hit that threshold where you suddenly realize "I can't tolerate this level of government intrusion," but by then it will be too late. The drugs the United States is taking are some strong ones, and the kinds of decisions that are being made are not the kind that can easily be backed out of.

Re:No, both the Reps AND Dems are wrong on firearm

[chimpo13]

You don't live in California then.

The SKS was declared legal and the California Department of Justice sent out letters saying it was fine. Later they changed their mind and arrested & charged people with felonies for having one. How did they know who had them? A registration list.

Even people who turned over the gun where threatened with a felony charge. Sure, you have a letter from DoJ saying it's legal, but ooops, it's now a felony.

Re:I'm taking advantage of....

[zogger]

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*.

That is misinformation.

[lysium]

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.

That is only true when and if a motor vehicle enters the equation. It is not true in general public situations (i.e. you are walking on the sidewalk); the police can pull up and ask for ID, but you do not have to provide it to them. My source is the ACLU. I highly recommend everyone read (and memorize) their What to do if you're stopped by The Police page, accessible here.

Legitimate Needs for Privacy, Obscurity

[4of12]

The problem with privacy is that 90% of the people will never have an issue with it.

True enough. But as an individual it might be harder to guarantee that you'll never be victimized by a stalker, which happens to about 10% of the population at some point in their lives.

I've known a couple of people that have been victimized by stalkers. If you've ever been subject to that kind of stress, all of sudden you become keenly aware of just how much information about you is easily available.

It's not just John Gilmore exercising a principle here, as vaunted an ideal as that might be. There are loads of current and former stalking victims intently making choices to minimize their exposure to the realm of publicly-accessible data.

Unlisted phone numbers, using post office boxes instead of getting mail at a residence, paying cash, giving fake names and phone numbers for people without a legally-mandated need to known but only a direct marketer's desire to know.

One of the people I knew was stalked by someone that worked in the health care industry, so suddenly it was in her interest not to provide complete and accurate information to certain health care providers for fear of providing her new address and phone number to the loonie.

Real reason for checking IDs

[KillerCow]

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.

Re:a convenient excuse

[RiBread]

However, this movie is so obviously one-sided and defamatory that it should not be considered a fair and accurate documentary.

Why should a documentry be fair? Who judges fair?

I don't know why so many people have this altruistic view about documentries. No film can be objective. Think about "When Animals Attack" in comparison to a hypothetical documentry from Sea World showing Shamoo and her relationship with her trainer. Each shows killer wales, but in a different light.

Everyone has a bias, and it shows up in much more subtle ways that the filmaker's direct naration over images.

Travel papers != ID

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

Step AWAY from the tinfoil hat...

[Grimster]

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?).

Re:Step AWAY from the tinfoil hat...

[Grimster]

Swim? Your own boat? Your own plane? Charter a plane to fly you. With MONEY you can be as anonymous as you want. I guess the message is "anonymity costs".

And you're gonna show your id the SECOND you get to Europe anyway, they're not letting you in without a passport.

Re:Doc U

[Doc Ruby]

Actually, those are not true.

Of course, some of Kopel's quibbles, and even some of Fred's quibbles with the quibbles, are inaccurate. The map is not the territory - it's necessarily an oversimplification. For viewers, the question isn't just the difference between F9/11's story and the perfect truth. It's the difference between F9/11's story, and the Bush administration's story. Wildly different, in extremely important ways. And even the "media consensus" story is extremely different from F9/11's. Of them all, F9/11 is the closest story yet, while those others are much more wrong. Adults work from ambiguous, contradictory sources of info. The F/911 picture is a better package of important national info than adult Americans have had in at least a generation, maybe ever. And this time, it's not convenient hindsight on Watergate or Vietnam or even Iran/Contra. It's the prologue to the possible reelection of a lying corporate tyranny that we'll have a chance to depose, American style, in November.

Re:The same standard for everyone?

[bechthros]

no, jack ryan deserved just what he got for the simple reason that he got to fuck seven of nine.

that bastard.

a link to a page six years old

[westlake]

scroll to the bottom of the ACLU page and you will find that it was archived in 98 and will never be updated. as a guide to the law since 9/11 it is worthless.

What are you saying?

[lorcha]

Are you saying that you think Dean would have stood a chance had it not been for the noise-cancelling mic incident? That doesn't jibe with my recollection of the primary race.

Dean got his ass handed to him in the Iowa caucuses, and his "concession" speech congratulating Kerry on his win was the infamus "scream" speech. Totally ignoring the screaming bit (which, as you correctly point out, is not his fault), what kind of a fucked-up, tasteless, unprofessional concession speech was that?

I've listened to the correctly-mixed version of the Iowa speech, and I agree with you that the media really dropped the ball on that one (of course if Dean would have had better sound engineers, none of this would have happened...). But the truth of the matter is that the real reason Howard Dean lost because he was, is, and probably always will be, a total jackass.

Courts Contemptuous of the Right to Trial by Jury

[The Monster]

"jury nullification" which means a jury can find in opposition to the facts of a case

What it means is that the jury may find that the law itself is unjust and refuse to convict. See the Zenger case for details. Since nullification predates the Constitution, the references there to the right to trial by jury imply the right of trial by a jury that (knowingly) possesses the power of nullification.