Slashdot Mirror
John Gilmore interviewed by Greplaw
mpawlo writes "I have just published another one of those Greplaw interviews. This time, John Gilmore had the courtesy of answering a wide range of questions on various subjects such as terrorism and security, spam blocking, censorship, secret laws in airports and of course - sarongs. Gilmore starts: 'I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric.' Enjoy!"
From the linked interview, on the subject of secret airport laws: (emphasis orthogonal's) "[i]t even worked at the District Court; our judge decided that if she couldn't see the law then it must by definition be constitutional (she ruled that I had no possible way to show it is unconstitutional)."
Is this the United States the Founding Fathers built, or Stalinism by way of Kafka?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Domain Name: GROKLAW.NET
Created On: 03-Oct-03
Domain Name: GREPLAW.ORG
Created On: 11-Apr-2002
"Would you care to post a list of other people that have been taken out for thinking too much?
U s.gov and get the list. Oh wait a minute the US does not have a web site where they keep a list of people they assassinated. I guess that means the US govt has never assassinated anybody then.
For as much as some tend to complain about oppression in America, I'm not aware of such things actually happening."
Well if you are not aware of it then it probably never happened.
Here let me go the TheListOfPeopleWeKilledBecauseTheyDaredToQuestion
evil is as evil does
Speaking of drivers' licenses, I've always liked John's idea of a driver's license which was NOT an ID. It would prove that the person presenting it was the person who had passed the driver's test, but would not identify that person further.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You'll notice he's not fighting driver's licenses any more than he's fighting pilot's licenses. It's possible to travel anonymously in a car as long as you're a passenger. Similarly, he thinks it should be possible to travel anonymously in a plane. Aside from hijacking, it's pretty hard to hurt other people while riding in a plane. And having to show ID didn't stop the 9/11 hijackers; they all showed perfectly valid official IDs under their own names. So what's the point?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
I have always believed that freedom=responsibility, so the more freedom you have, the more responsible you must be for your actions. Accountability is part of this.
I don't want the police to start searching my house without a warrant, but I have no problem with the requirement of presenting identification when you are driving any vehicle under 25,000 pounds (standard license). To me, this is common sense.
Don't mean to harsh, but if someone wants to "live off the grid" and not have an id/dl then they shouldn't expect to share the same rights, since they are not willing to accept the same responsibility and accountability. Fine, live off the grid, walk or bike anywhere you want, you have that right. I just don't quite see how that extends to a drivers license that is not an ID.
print "Oink!\n" if ( $tail =~ "pull" );
I've always liked John's idea of a driver's license which was NOT an ID. It would prove that the person presenting it was the person who had passed the driver's test, but would not identify that person further.
We call those non-photo drivers licenses...you may still get one in Vermont and several Canadian provinces (New Brunswick and Quebec, perhaps a few others.) You may also get one with a bona fide relgious objection in many states, but as we know, that goes back and forth.
To this day, the most non-photo licenses out there are found in New Jersey, which only recently elminated the non-photo license (or is trying to.)
What I take from John Gilmore arguments, is that people should not be arbitrarily identified just because they are walking down the street or stepping on a plane. In a supposedly "free" societ you don't need a license to walk down a street, and you don't need a license to sit down on a plane and be flown somewhere. There isn't a good enough reason in a "free" society to just ask who you are if you are not doing anything wrong. Asking for ID as you pick up your ticket from the airport that you may of paid for earlier or something I think is reasonable so they can ensure that the ticket is given to the right person and not being stolen. Treating you as a suspected terrorist because you want to board a plane, that is not so reasonable in my books.
If you are driving a car and speeding possibly endangering other lives and the police stop you and want some identification then they seems perfectly reasonable to me. Using these forms of identification to find out who people are when they are not doing anything wrong I don't think is on. But these things are my opinions and are not facts.
I would have figured it the other way around, as a non-named ID. Think about it: if you have an ID without a photo, somebody could easily steal that and claim to be you. But if you just had an ID with your photo and the note "this person has passed the driver's test in state/province X", with no other identifying information, that would be proof that you are licensed to drive, without actually identifying yourself.
Of course, it'll never happen. But it's a nice thought.