Slashdot Mirror
Government Asks Court to Keep ID Arguments Secret
RobXiii writes " CNN has a story on privacy advocate John Gilmore (Co-founder of the EFF) taking the federal government to court, to stop the requirement of ID for in country flights. In an ironic twist, the U.S. Department of Justice is asking the court to keep its argument for the secret law secret. How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?"
This is not setting a good precedent for future laws. The Government is keeping even the guythat broke this 'supposed' law and his lawyers outside of the courtroom. I hate to sound paranoid, but this could lead to some 'police state' kind of thought.
You forgot to include the author so people can find the right copy. Franz Kafka
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
RTFA: "The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys."
T!
Gilmore has a website, http://www.freetotravel.org/ with more info and court documents regarding his case against the US government.
I've already seen this law. Anyone can see this law:
3 4/ qid=1094579012/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-4743479-211 2060
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/04515249
The law is not secret. The law is clear - you must show identification before being allowed to board an airplane. The gov wants to keep their argument in support of the law secret. This I find as absurd as most people here. (Double meaning intended) Being required to provide ID before boarding an airplane in todays day is entirely reasonable. Personally I think the EFF needs to join the 21st century and realize that they're being profoundly stupid fighting against this.
Actually, the whole point of the trial is that the government refuses to disclose the regulations in question. Gilmore is suing to compel the government to disclose them.
That particular bit has been ruled on by the US Supreme Court. You do not have to show a cop ID, you do have to provide your name. Check the ruling.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Uh, ok. Like what? My wife is from Uzbekistan, which has lots of human rights issues and their own problems with government. How is that for perspective?
For those with short memories: Gore asked for a recount of certain precincts. He got it. He gained a few votes, but was still losing Florida. In other words, after that recount, Gore lost the election.
Gore then asked for another recount of certain other precincts. He gained a few more votes, but still lost. So he asked for yet another recount. At this point, Bush filed suit, saying that Gore shouldn't get to selectively recount, cherry-picking his precincts. The Supreme Court agreed, 7-2. (They also ruled, 5-4, that it was too late to ask any more.)
The only recount Gore one was the one that the press conducted, which took months and recounted the whole state. Gore won that one by two votes. Ironically, Gore never actually asked for that recount.
So get off your rhetorical high horse and look at what actually happened. Every recount most certainly did NOT have Gore winning.
Disclaimer: I'm european.
I'm not entirely sure that (Democrat+Republican)/2 = Middle, they both seem pretty damn far out to the right from where I'm standing..
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Amtrak, our national railway system, requires ID to ride the train: http://www.amtrak.com/idrequire.html.
On some parts of the Amtrak system passengers may board without ID. Ticket purchases onboard require ID. Tickets can be purchased by credit card without ID... but tickets purchased with cash require ID.
I'm guessing that when you get this you've hit a machine in the round-robin/load-balancing cluster that hasn't been updated with the new article yet.
Gilmore isn't the defendant, he's the one suing the government. So dismissing the case wouldn't really be a logical response to an unreasonable request from the defendant.
Denying the government their secret presentation of evidence might work.
This has been happening in the United States for almost 2 centuries now. Even back in the 2 decades after the REvolutionary war people bitched about having petty criminals held almost indefinately without being charged while the White collar criminals got a slap on the wrist and released almost right away...
Nothing new here, just standard practice for American justice for the past 200 years.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
But if the Judge has to hear the law and the reasons behind it, then the "secret" is out - or will they appoint a "friendly" Judge (a la Hutton) or invoke the US version of the Official Secrets Act? Therefore, what is wrong with releaasing it to the general public, provided they have all signed up to the OSA? And who says the Judge won't reveal it to colleagues, who in turn reveal it to the world? In short, how can the US State Deoartment prosecute somebody for something they cannot possibly know about? And how can Judges prosecute if they don't know the law themselves?
Due to lack of disk space this user has been discontinued
The only reason that John Gilmore is pursuing this in court is the "regulations" that require ID before boarding a plane are, in fact, secret. So secret that the FAA is not allowed to even say if such regulations exist, even though law requires that all FAA regulations must be made public. See the problem? The FAA must publish all regulations and the regulation that requires ID does not exist, therefore according to law, the regulation does not exist. That is what he is trying to prove in court.
If you have read previous articles you would have known that he was previously permitted on planes without showing ID simply by asking the airline to point out the regulation that requires them to ask for ID. Since the regulation is secret (however that is possible), there is no way of knowing whether the regulation exists or not.
However, note that he was indeed allowed to fly with no ID out of SFO if he submitted to search; he chose not to.
On the contrary, Gore lost nearly every recount by every common standard. Unlike you, I'm not making an empty assertion and don't expect people to take my word for it. The New York Times has a web page where you can do the recounts yourself. Choose your standards for hanging chads, optical ballots, observer agreement, whatever you like. It's been awhile since I did this, but IIRC all but one permutation returned Bush as the winner. Sometimes, admittedly, by a small margin. But to assert that Gore won every recount is simply not true.
yes, the current one is available at Papers Please.
I'm sorry but if you don't know that:
1) Cousin Jeb ordered the FLA state police to park their cars in front of precincts in black (democratic) areas; lights flashing, police standing next to the cars with batons out;
2) The company that wrote the software to determine voter eligibility put bugs/features in the code that favored eliminating black democrats from the voting roles. There are numerous links between the company's executives and the state republican party...and a number of "tests" were done to determine the accuracy of the software.
One black woman, never arrested, in fact a leading community member (and the f*cking head of a major voting precinct) was astonished when she arrived at the polls and was not allowed to vote...because of "her criminal record"--she didn't have one.
The state of FLA was sued by the NAACP and settled out of court. The terms were not made public. The evidence against the state was overwhelming.
If you do not understand exactly how far the USSA has sunk, exactly how corrupt the government is now, if you haven't even bothered to read what happened in the 2000 election...your fucking stupid, even for an American.
Where is the law written down?
What part of the US Criminal or Civil code contains this law? When was it passed by Congress and when was it signed by the President? That's how laws happen in this country.
Oh wait. It wasn't passed by Congress.
It's a federal regulation then. Regulations happen when a federal agency is granted specific rights to create little mini-laws by Congress. So it's published in the Federal Register, as required for all federal regulations, from the EPA to HUD. Even the FAA has to publish all of their regulations on everything in the Federal Register.
Oh wait, it wasn't published in the Federal Register.
Perhaps it's an Executive Order then? The President has limited authority to do things like that within the Executive branch, which can be overturned by either Congress (by passing a law striking down the EO) or by the courts. Of course, executive orders are generally published unless there is a very good "national security" reason not to. Given that all of the terrorists on 9/11 had valid (not even faked, truly valid) ID's, this argument isn't carrying much water.
It comes down to this: Ignorance of a law is no excuse for violating the law. The only way that postulate of the legal system works is because all laws have to be published in specific ways, like the Federal Register. If there are "secret laws" that can't be read, then you could be violating it.
They don't tell you what the law is that requires ID checks. They tell you that the law requires it, but they don't tell you exactly what law requires it, the penalties for noncompliance, or even the agency responsible for enforcement of the law (is it DHS, FAA, NTSB, TSA?).
If I don't agree with the law, if I think the law isn't just, which agency do I get my congressman to go after to fix it?
There could be a secret law against eating M&M's on the day after Labor Day. Oops. Since ignorance is no excuse, the vending machine cops should be by shortly to deal with me. What if I accidentally get on a plane without and ID check? How many years can I go to jail for? What's the limits on the fine I may be forced to pay? Is it a felony, a misdeameanor, or a criminal act?
Is checking ID just required for commercial airlines, or do General Aviation pilots need to check their friend's ID before they go on a little sightseeing trip? Since the law isn't written down, nobody outside the agency responsible knows.
Indeed, the passenger of a car is much more likely and able to influence a car (how hard is it to reach over and grab the steering wheel?), than an airline passenger is (hijacking is pretty much your only chance of changing an airplane's course, and that is very hard, especially since 9/11/1). If airplane passengers need ID, then so do car passengers.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Disclaimer: I'm another US Citizen
The Republican party has been usurped by massive right wingers- People who think the Seperation of Church and State doesn't exist, people which thing supply-side economics work, and that might-make's right -- they think that getting ou the guns is the first option, and that if you have a different opinion than the president (protected by 1st ammendment) then you're a 'traitor'
The republican party is MASSIVELY right wing
ps on the authitarian->libertarian y, and liberal-conversative x axis plot the libertarians would got in the conservative/libertarian quadrant -- but i find most libertarians naive: the do not understand the concept of right vs license (ie the only protected exercises of a right are those exercises which don't violate the rights of others), and they don't have any conception of required-minimum public services for a functional electorate (Such as unbiased public education)
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
"Out of idle curiosity, what happens if I lie, and do so very blatantly?"
Well, you can be charged with obstruction of justice or for making a false statement to a peace officer.
If you refuse to identify yourself, that's something else entirely. You can insist that the officer identify YOU, but when you do this, you are agreeing to let them hold you for a period of time (between 24 and 72 hours), while they do this.
It's probably better to just give your name. Choose your fights. You won't win this one.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Here ya go http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2 896~2375599,00.html...
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
You don't need to. Go look up when the law was made available, and then when the vote took place (hint - hours later), and check the number of pages (hint - over 1000). How many legislators are you implying could have read it?
... As well as the FAQ at the plaintiff's website. From what I understand, the effect of the law (don't show an ID or permit a "more intense" search) is known, but the actual law itself is not.
My grandfather, a man who had been both a judge and an attourney, once told my mother that ignorance of a law is no excuse for breaking it. I have to wonder what he would say about enforced ignorance about a law; were I able to visit his grave, I'd ask him. In this case, my gut feeling and my own opinion will have to suffice.
At the moment, both are that a law that cannot be known cannot be a law at all.
I have willingly volunteered to subject myself to the "more intensive search" I believe is referenced. I was not pulled out of line, but volunteered to do it when a friend was selected, so that I could keep said friend in sight. It was a matter of security agents rifling through my carry-on baggage and passing a metal-detector wand over the entirety of my body, as far as I recall.
Though I object to the secrecy of the law, I find myself ambivalent about the practice of the law as I know it thus far. I don't need to show my state-issued ID so long as I put myself through more of a search. I can understand the search, and I can show my ID, and I can see how both would help stop a terrorist intent on boarding and destroying a plane. (Though the 9/11 hijackers used their own IDs, it doesn't mean that some jerk won't try to board a plane with a ticket in someone else's name and try to hijack it or whatnot.) Then again, I'm far from being an expert, and I readily concede that there may be other, better ways of protecting people in an airport or on a plane.
~UP
Eat the Path.
My understanding of this case, is that the airline is passing the buck. They aren't saying the ID requirement is a (theoretically) negotiable term of business; they are saying the ID is required because of a law.
Does the airline have the right to not ask who boards their own airplane? Now there's the public safety concern.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
After reading several posts claiming that the NYT site showed GWB winning under every (or nearly every) permutation and several claiming exactly the opposite to be true i took it upon myself to actually investigate all 24 available permutations.
Surprisingly, exactly half of them resulted in a Bush victory and half in a Gore victory. The largest margin of victory of any permutation was 493 votes (Gore) and the smallest 2 votes (Bush).
That is all. It is sad to see both sides directly linking to a data source while at the same time making ridiculously inaccurate claims about the information therein.
lysergically yours
Showing your papers doesn't make your plane ride safer. That is handled by metal detectors and x-raying or chem-sniffing luggage and carry-on. Your papers are irrelevant.
This country doesn't require papers be shown at the exits/entries to each city, at the borders of each state, and only barely requires the same at the country's borders. There is NO need to show ID for a plane ride anymore than there is to ride in a car or bus. All that matters is that you have a paid-for ticket or equivalent. Beyond that, your right to anonymous in-country travel is more important than any airline's desire to make sure you are reselling your ticket (none of their business - law of first sale takes effect). It is trying to prevent you from reselling your ticket that the airlines are interested in and that's it. They know that your papers have no way of preventing a hijacking.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I watched CSPAN the day they voted for the PATRIOT act. The Speaker allotted 2 hours debate on the new bill (ignoring the one the Justice Committee had spent 3 weeks hammering out) and said copies of the bill would be available later that day, but it was vitally important that they pass it *RIGHT NOW*, so sorry, you don't get to read it.
But those who are under the purview of secret laws themselves know what those laws are. They have to in order to be able to properly function.
I have a security clearance, by the way, and not some cheesy little secret clearance. At no point ever was I (nor anyone else I have worked with) informed of any "special laws" that apply. The only rules/laws we need to know about is that it is illegal to divulge classified material. We are also instructed (but not by law) to not divulge related, non-classified information because of the possibility of a bad actor being able to piece together a bunch of non-classified tidbits about classified X and figuring out what classified X actually is.
No secret laws, just laws that deal with secrets. It's good enough for nuke weapon handling, it's more than good enough for terrorist or "homeland security" crap (non-secret laws, that is).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
What's wrong with Ashcroft?
Ashcroft crucified as racist, but the record shows otherwise
Of course if you follow the ACLU then Ashcroft is essentially Satan.
If we are allowed to pick and choose facts as we please, then Ashcroft is either a great man or a villian. Unfortunetly for you, after reviewing the facts, he's somewhere in between.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
On the contrary, he was not charged with any traffic violations, including driving without a license. So the legality of his operating the vehicle was never in question. The officer kept asking for his "papers" with the justification, "I'm investigating an investigation." It had nothing to do with him being licensed to drive. Dudley was asked to identify himself before he had been accused of anything, before there was even probable cause to accuse him of anything.
we are better off for that ruling which defines clearly what can and can't be asked for at a roadside.
But this ruling doesn't provide that! It says that being asked to identify yourself is not self-incrimination, except in those unusual cases where it is self-incrimination, of which Dudley's wasn't one. So the cops are allowed to ask who you are, unless your name itself is incriminating. This case didn't, AFAIK, determine anything else the cops can or can't ask you.
It's pretty well established that the cops can ask to see your license (and registration) if they have some question about how you're operating a motor vehicle. That was never the issue here. Dudley wasn't driving, or doing anything else that required investigation, arrest, or a license, when the cops got to him.
That order was rescinded:
l ate=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentI D=72299
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&temp
"WASHINGTON, DC - The American Library Association (ALA) today welcomed the Department of Justice's decision to rescind its request that the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of five Department of Justice publications addressing forfeiture. The Justice Department claimed that the documents are "training materials and other materials that the Department of Justice staff did not feel were appropriate for external use." ALA disagreed with this categorization of the public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, and with the instruction to destroy them. ALA trusts that there will be no repetition of such unjustified instructions to destroy government information."
Though you are right in bringing it up to show what sort of "creepiness" they are trying to get up to.
cheers
front
C'mon does this really surprise anyone? ,technically,we have been at war with north Korea since the Korean war.Yes,we have a treaty that doesnt end the war so much as just call a halt to the shooting.George and the boys didnt need this iraq/terrorist gig to do what they want but I'm sure it makes it look more valid than the excuses (korea) that all the other administrations have since used for secret naughtiness and other unconstitutional acts against the citizens of the several states.
Lets review,
during times of war the government has given itself the power to DO ANYTHING IT WANTS.
Those of you with a short attention span will please note that
Might as well take up drinkin,I swear......
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
It started with FAA security directives, SD's. The first was in 1990. There were 3 SD's in effect on 9/11 with a short list of names of people who were banned from flying because they were presumed terrorists. It wasn't actively enforced until after 9/11 though/
Here is a TSA memo describing the justification for the no fly and selectee lists. This was acquired by EPIC though FOIA requests. They weren'f very successful since you see most of the memo is censored. In particular they wanted to know who was putting names on the list and could take them off, and they wanted a copy of the list to see if the people on it are terrorists or if it includes political opponents of the Bush administration and anti war activists as anecdotal evidence suggests.
After 9/11 there was a slew of FAA directives that expanded the lists and then the TSA came on the scene, took over the lists and it ran amuck.
I'm not positive these are the basis of the ID requirement though I think they are. Since there is a list of people who are not allowed to fly and people allowed to fly only with extra scrutiny(selectees) it follows you have to submit an ID so your name can be checked against the list. It is needless to say insane to identify potentially dangerous travelers based on a simple name but the U.S. government, especially since 9/11, has gone completely insane.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush, December 2000
@de_machina
Actually anyone can travel between European Union states without a passport. Even travelling between France (an EU country) and Switzland (a non-EU country) can often be done without needing to produce identification.