Slashdot Mirror
Your Right to Travel Anonymously: Not Dead Yet
ChiralSoftware writes "Remember John Gilmore's fight to be able to travel on commercial airlines without having to show ID? It has dropped out of the news for a while, but now it appears that the fight is continuing. I remember in the 80s we used to make jokes about Soviet citizens being asked "show me your papers" and needing internal passports to travel in their own country. Now we need internal passports to travel in our country. How did this happen? The requirement to show ID for flying on commercial passenger flights started in 1996, in response to the crash of TWA Flight 800. This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader. How mandatory ID even prevents terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID. I hope the courts don't wimp out on this fight."
I suspect it is for two main reasons: to help identify the corpses and in the case of fake IDs, to provide a starting point for the police to investigate.
I agree though, it does nothing to improve safety.
Stick Men
Some airlines require ID for domestic flights in the UK. One theory is that they want to stop people from buying lots of cheap "£1" tickets uses by the airline as a marketing ploy and then selling them on to random people for a profit. Rynair is an example.
Funny thing, when we in eastern europe start loosing papers, you guys just begin to get some more.
:)
I don't like what I see day by day, that people just have to give up a bit more freedom to ascertain "safety" (baah). Where I have lived most of my life, you could go nowhere without papers, let alone fly (god forbid).
Hopefully you guys won't loose too much and hopefully we will get some more and then we could meet half ways up
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
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.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Well people like to say it is security, but I think it is more towards financial security. When ever there is an accident and people unfortunately die. There is the issue of notifying the victims family to inform them of their death. And the families gets the insurance money from the airline, as well other donations from generous people. With all this money moving around after the accident you need some method of making sure the family saying that their Brother and Husband died actually was on the plane. Because there are a lot of unscrupulous people who will report that a person had died on the plane to collect the insurance money and worse collect some donations from kind citizens. Besides this person who "Died" in the air plane may had an alternative method of wanting to get off the records of police. So there is a air plane explosion were there was no survivors and everyone was vaporized, just get some family to say that you were on the plane you are labeled dead. And police are no longer looking for you, and your family gets some extra cash that they might push your way.
I Find that there is often 3 reasons why people do something.
1. The reason they promote it. (It is good for security!)
2. The reason why they care about it. (It was save me a lot of money)
3. Suff they dont want to tell. (This could be use to track anyone.)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
For some reason or other, items such as nail files and scissors, screwdrivers, your trusty leatherman, even pieces of common cutlery only suited for cutting butter are stricly verboten to carry onto commercial airliners. However, what sort of security is this supposed to provide?
I just flew from the UK two nights ago, and in the tax-free area after the security control, you are able to purchase D-cell maglites. As those in the know would tell you, the most dangerous part of a knife for use in close combat is not the blade, but the handle. Applied to the head of the adversary it is more likely to be deadly than the blade applied to the torso. Same thing with a maglite or any other object of similar hardlyness for that matter.
A highly motivated would-be hijacker could easily find similar makeshift weaponry that would be just as effective as knives or nail-files. In fact, the easiest of all would be simple social engineering; i.e. claiming that there was a bomb onboard and that an unidentified accomplice would set it off if certain conditions are not met would probably allow a hijacker to meet his requirements with little or no danger of being apprehended before the plane was airborne.
So why are we being hassled to such a ridiculous extent in airports? Probably so that most passengers will be lulled into a sense of security as well as making the task of airline hijacking seem much more complicated to the casual hijacker seeking escape from a hostile regime, political attention, quick cash, or some other common reason. The dedicated terrorist would likely find a way around anyway.
-- Buzh
There is just too much chance of 1 person being able to cause harm to a large number of other people
*/me checks list*:
Intention to cause destruction, check;
plastique, check;
evil plans, check;
fake ID - oh bugger, there's no way I'll carry that off. Perhaps I'll stay home and water the roses instead.
It's called the illusion of security - insert Ben Franklin quote here. It does not solve any of the issues that lead the one or two to cause, or attempt to cause, harm. If we tried a little harder to understand or even address the causes, we wouldn't be in this mess now.
You've spotted the reason for all this; it's to prevent a trade in non-transferrable tickets. As well as absurd RyanAir offers, returns cost about the same as singles everywhere, so they want to prevent a trade in return-leg tickets. And of course they want to do it for 'security reasons' so the inconvenience isn't their fault and is all for your benefit.
Of course it doesn't really affect security.
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
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.
There is just too much chance of 1 person being able to cause harm to a large number of other people.
You don't need an airliner to kill a couple of hundred people. A truck filled with ammonium nitrate does just fine. You can get close with a bunch of explosives guns on your person, as is demonstrated in Israel on a regular basis.
And before you jump in with the "almost 3000" figure from 9/11, that was a one-time event. Airline passengers are never going to sit still for a hijacking again. The largest possible loss of life is still the passengers plus whoever the airplane accidentally lands on when it crashes.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
"How did this happen?"
Read any slashdot thread about ID cards, biometrics and the new passports they are trying to issue. Some of the people who post here, who really should know better because they can READ, are aplolgists for all of these techniques and technologies.
The number of times that I have read "i dont have a problem with it as long as"...that is how we have arrived at this juncture; people who should know better are apathetic, compliant or simply asleep. Then you have the morons who whip out the "Tin Hat" jibe whenever someone posts that a Totalitarian state is being built right in front of your eyes; they are also a part of the reason why these measures can be introduced without even a fight.
That question is really quite astonishing; "how we got here" is right in front of you, and has been for three years. It isnt too late to turn it all around; the "joined up government" isnt joined up yet. If you are not willing to use this place to solve the problem (and by the tone of this question, I am presuming that you DO think its a bad thing) then don't even ask; its completely infuriating.
By "use this place" I mean consistently promote the FIPR, Privacy International, No2ID and the other organizations that are trying to orgainze resistance to these measures both in USUK.
If you are not willing to do this, then accept what is being done to you and your country quietly. This should be one of the loudest places screaming against these measures, not somewhere where once in a while, we get a single stunned question.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
You have it backwards. You shouldn't be looking for the clause that provides your right to travel anonymously. You should be looking for the clause that permits Congress to pass a law that restricts your right to travel anonymously.
Congress also cannot pass a law that allows police to install cameras in my toilet, but the reason isn't because it's specifically mentioned in the Constitution "People have the right to shit privately" - it's the fact that specific responsibillities have been ALLOWED to Congress and the government. All others are prohibited.
Please read The Constitution, and also Federalist Papers which provide a lot of background information about the thinking of the framers of the Constitution.
Given the "free speech zones" (a cage within a cage surrounded by barbed wire at the DNC, the "no-protest" areas, and the arrests of people with unpopular opinions), as well as fully tamper-tolerant electronic voting machines, your options are getting narrower.
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.
"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?
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.
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?
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)
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?
If the stupid people are in power, you get Nazism.
If the smart people are in power, you get Communism.
If you can't see who is in power, you get America.
~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AFAIK, being required to identify yourself is considered a "search".
Each citizen has a right to tell the government (and anyone else) to "step off". The citizen is assumed to be 100% innocent, legitimate, approved, etc. unless otherwise noted using appropriate means, such as a warrant.
I don't have to show you anything, papers or not. Period. Only a judge can say otherwise, or a law enforcement official with probable cause that a crime has been committed (and even then I am not required to identify myself....I would be booked as "John Doe").
I support Gilmore, but it looks like a gray area to me (IANAL). An airline is a corporation, not a government.
Actually, the US Supreme Court just decided otherwise in the case of HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. Dudley Hiibel was approached by a cop and told to identify himself to help the cop "investigate an investigation." He was given no indication of probable cause (the cop was responding to a passerby who thought there was a "domestic disturbance" in progress, though in reality Dudley was arguing with his daughter on the side of the road.) His arrest for failing to identify himself was upheld. HE HAD COMMITTED NO OTHER CRIME! All other charges were dropped immediately. His "crime" was being John Doe, for which he was arrested, convicted and fined. See Hiibel Revisited at Slate for more analysis.
If you are referring to people of the Islamic faith from the Middle East and Northern Africa, you should probably be aware that there are nearly a *billion* of them.
England would have had as much luck trying to round up all the world's Catholics in attempt to curb IRA attacks.
And if we make Arab Americans second class citizens wave everyone else by security, it will only A) get them that much angrier and B) teach Al Quaeda to recruit caucasians with caucasian names.
No, a just law applies to all citizens equally. If we're going to be sacrificing freedom for safety, then we've all got to give it up.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
No, you didn't.
Amendment IX says that "Just because we've enumerated these rights does not mean that we have enumerated all the rights." It does not say "Anything we didn't mention is a right of the people." Amendment X is irrelevant -- it deals with the powers of the federal government, not with the rights of the people.
The problems is this -- the Constitution, as amended....
1) Does not say that there is a right to privacy (no mention)
2) Does not say that there cannot be a right to privacy. (Amendment IX)
Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the Constitution is:
C) There may, or may not be, a right to privacy.
People always assume that Amendment IX automatically grants any right they wish. This is wrong. It just prevents the courts from automatically denying a right because it wasn't listed. The courts *can* deny that rights exist, but need to do so based on the body of law -- of which the Constitution is *only* a part. It's the supreme part, but it is not the whole body of law.
The right of privacy has come about only through judicial and legislative action -- and may well go away from that same action.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
"1. I'm not going to do anything illegal."
Yes, you are - you just don't know it yet, because the law hasn't been passed.
More likely, you probably are already doing something illegal - you just haven't had a cop inform you of the particular one of the millions of statutes in this country that you regularly violate without being aware of it. DO something he doesn't approve of (whether it is illegal or not) and you will then be informed of *some* law you are violating. React to the obvious injustice and you'll do time for "resisting arrest" and "interfering with an officer."
Your number 2 point is brain-dead. Nothing related to "paper checking" is going to stop any professional terrorist for an instant. Granted, most of these clowns aren't terribly professional, but anybody in the business will have any number of sources of perfectly adequate ID and cover stories. A good terrorist will waltz right through a check that would hang you up merely for technicalities (your papers aren't *quite* in order because your local state moron screwed them up - the terrorist's forger won't screw his up.)
Your third point is completely oblivious. You choose to focus on one issue - airplane privacy - and ignore the overall effects of repeated invasions of civil liberties on all levels. Meanwhile, you focus on issues involving sucking at the tit of government (education, health care) or which are never ever going to be changed (campaign finances) as long as politicians can draw breath.
In other words, you're just another American sucker.
You probably think we invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqis and safeguard America from those evil Iraqi terrorists, too, right?
A product of the American educational system.
No clue.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
No. You can get away with terrorism and live, it's just that so far all the terrorists have been either idiots ( McVeigh ), or only doing terrorism as a means to get their 70 virgins in paradise. ( idiots of another stripe ) They WANTED to die in the act.
In fact, getting away with terrorism and living over and over again is the basis for what is called guerilla warfare.
There is no moral reason not to use your individual soveriegnty and wage war against the state for good reason if you think you can win, but unless the general populace is likely to side with you, you have no chance of winning an out and out military victory. However, if everyone were armed with rifles, pistols, shotguns and homemade bombs and booby traps, and all decided not to obey a government - even one as militarily powerful as the US govenrment, then there would be no way for officials of that government to administer the towns and cities without having their heads sniped off. Sure, the government could nuke areas, but if the general populace wanted the government overthrown, nuking all the enemies of the state would leave nothing left to govern.
Of course there are wackos that die 'defending their compound'. Nobody sides with them because they are nuts. ( If you have a 'compound' you ARE nuts. ) But using the ammo box for real COMMON grievances is not stupid or futile.
If the US govenrnment were to do drastic things to remove the Soap Box, the Voting/Jury box, or the Ammo box, then that would be a wise time to revolt with whatever of the three means would be most EFFECTIVE. Individuals letting themselves be emasculated of their power is like them giving their lunch money to a bully. If you were a country and a bigger country demanded tribute or else they would attack, then paying it would only weaken you and make them more powerful making the inevitable invasion easier for the invader. It's always best to stand and fight at such a time and hope that others see that siding with the weaker party in a battle is in their own best interest. After all, letting the invasion stand leaves a more bloated potential future enemy ( nations failed to stop Hitler in WWII and his Reich grew to become a bigger problem than if it had been nipped in the bud. )
When there was a dispute between Kuwait and Saddam over the rights to pump oil from their shared reservoir, Kuwait correctly refused to buckle, and let itself be invaded. Because siding with the weaker party is in every countries best interest, Saddam was pushed back by those from outside, and eventually his entire regime obliterated. The Kuwaitis won in the end.
Siding with the weaker country leaves the 'rescued' country as a firm ally to the rescuer, and the beligerent country in the power of the allies. These time tested principles for being a sovereign are drawn from 'The Prince' by Machiavelli. Individuals, sovereigns of themselves should take it's lessons to heart.
The only way a few terrorists with interests counter to those of general populace could get their way would be to manipulate events subtly. A simple method that has been used the world over is to provoke the target regime to make enemies for itself within and abroad by attacking it. The attacks are like a mosquito bite, but the problems the giant creates for itself do it in. This strategy is so simple that it almost fails to qualify as being subtle. Influencing events in more clever ways would probably yeild even more bang for the terrorist buck. "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum, and I will move the world" - Archemedes A butterfly in Hong Kong could very well cause a hurricane in the carribean.
The cleverest terrorists may already be fully in control of the world. Their 'attacks' may not be indentified as such. They may be so subtle that they are not even violent or even illegal.
I say we bomb the Stonecutters.
Eat at Joe's.
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."
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.