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?"
How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?
Thats the wrong question / statement. The poster should have said:
"I refuse to obey a law that I cannot read".
For heavens sake, have you not read "The Trial"?
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
if the government argues this:
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.
Yes, tell the judge your reasons for the law... but the plaintiff and his attorneys aren't allowed to hear it. Baffling!
Find Nearby Indie Events
"Don't worry, Citizen. We'll inform/arrest you when you break the secret laws. Trust us."
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
A man is sueing because there is a secret law/rule that requires the airlines to check id before you can board a plane. Remember a few years ago when you did not have to show id to board the plane?
The government is arguing that this secret rule should be discussed in a secret court, so secret that the plaintiff in the case will not be allowed to hear the government's argument.
Are you scared yet or do you want to wait till the news starts referring to Bush as "Great Leader". Isn't bad enough they refer to him as the President when he lost the election.
No matter how strong the argument may be, that the ID requirement is an excessive imposition, the compelling state interest will always win over any such argument as long as people believe that they are in danger of an air terrorism incident. In other words, don't hold your breath.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I don't know about you, but more and more I feel like I'm in one of those countries that the U.S. fights to "Get rid of their evil totalitarian regeim."
I wonder at what point the general american populous will realize that things have gone bad. I would say right now that more than 80% of the population is still in the dark about these problems creeping up.
My own mother doesn't believe me when I tell her about all of it.
starts talking about how Gilmore is making a big deal about presenting his ID, remember this: the hijackers of the various planes on 9/11 used their own names. They did not try to hide who they were.
If my name is not on one of the secret lists the government maintains how is showing my ID with my real name going to stop me from doing anything? I'm not a list!
Besides, if I'm going to crash a plane (or car, boat, whatever), or use whatever vehicle as a mobile bomb, into a building or public gathering, why should I care if I use my real name or not? I'll be dead anyway.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If you really want to know, I can refer you to the Department of Love... currently on the sunny shores of Cuba!
Karma whorin' since 1999
One of the major reason to keep the requirement to show ID on domestic flights is it allows the airlines to stop people from transfering tickets and increases their sales. If you buy a non refundable ticket and your plans change you can't sell the ticket to someone else to get your money back, the best you can do is pay a fee to change your flight times or buy another ticket. Not that I agree with this, it is just one of the possible reasons from the airlines perspective.
And buddy, I most certainly will not get over the damage done to our democracy by that act of blatant criminality. My forefathers died so that the people could have a voice in government. When Republicans -- or anyone else -- usurp those rights then the appropriate response is most certainly NOT to "get over it."
he didn't lose teh recount - the recount was stopped -- third party recounts counting all ballets showed gore winning
then there is the one case of ballots that some county sherrif loaded into his truck and drove off with and never returned - so we'll never know the actual outcome
or the diebold machine that malfunctioned and returned about -65000 (yes negative) votes for gore - so all votes tabulated on it had to be discounted
or the hanging chads crap, etc
PS: when Bush's 1st Cousin in the tabulation room at Fox News decided to call the election for bush (when the data clearly showed 'too close to call') that's when things went down hill
on a side note: the electoral collage, since it has obviously failed in it's purpose: due to never being implemented properly due to vaugness in it's constitutional description, should be eliminated: direct popular vote, no more 'ballot dilution'
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
"There must have been a reason," Yossarian persisted, pounding his fist into his hand. "They couldn't just barge in here and chase everyone out."
"No reason," wailed the old woman. "No reason."
"What right did they have?"
"Catch-22."
"What?" Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt hiw while body begin to tingle. "What did you say?"
"Catch-22," the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. "Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?"
"The soldiers with the hard white hats a clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. 'What right do you have?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in ager and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
You do realize that all the 9-11 terrorists had proper ID, right?
First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Further, claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.
But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.
Just out of curiousity, why do you think it is reasonable to show ID to board a plane?
How exactly does that make you safer? If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers. You realize the hijackers had and showed valid ID to board don't you? It could easily happen again as long as they pick people with no previous "alerts" tied to them. Showing ID does nothing for security.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
While one should always keep bias in mind when considering the source, that isn't a blank cheque to dismiss entirely any source which expresses an opinion you disagree with.
Here is my hypothesis: America, laregly due to fear first brought about by the cold war and now due to terrorism, has largely abrogated its dedication to a fair justice system, robust liberties, and a government that the people can meaningfully change through the democratic process. As a result, 21st century America shares more characteristics with traditional fascist states (viz. communist Russia c. 1975) than with secular democracies.
Counterpoints are welcome. And to those whose first reaction might be to call me an "America hater", I can assure you that I am not. I criticize my nation because I want it to be better. That means not ignoring it's faults when they are obvious to all.
Which actually brings up an interesting point in my mind. How can we defend ourselves against accusations that we broke the secret law, if we don't know what the law is or what arguments are being used against us?
By no stretch of the imagination is this a "fair trial". Part of the ancient definition of "fair trial" is the right to meet your accuser.
There is precedent to seal the records of a case, though I am not familiar with the details of when it is acceptable. But to tell one side of the lawsuit that it can not hear its arguments? Absurdity!
I think the EFF ought to argue this is unconstitutional.
The airlines started asking for ID in order to restrict use [& resale value] of frequent flyer miles as well as highly-restricted [non-refundable, etc] tickets. No security involved!
"You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
No.
The electorial College should be removed from the constitution. It is just bad goverment.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Seems the bigger issue is the governments request/demand that the arguments be sealed. Even if Gillmore and his attorneys were able to attend, the arguments being kept from the public is still a bad thing! Hope this doesn't become a precedent for future government hearings regarding privacy/patriotism.
I believe in rule of law. Without rule of law you have a priviledged class that gets away with pretty much anything, a middle class that can muddle through, and a minority of people who just get fucked because no one cares and the executive branch can do whatever they want. And if we're going to have rule of law, the first thing the feds have to do is follow the constitution.
I quote some pretty smart people:
No gov't official in the US has the right to stop me and search me without a good reason to believe I'm doing something wrong. No matter what. They don't even have the right to dictate that someone else search me before they can provide me some service. It's against the constitution, and if they want to change that there is a process for making constitutional amendments.
And your assertion that "the law is clear" is perhaps dubious -- that's the point of Gilmore's case, that the law is neither clear nor (perhaps) the law, so show me.
I sure as heck don't need to show ID to get on a bus or a train, or even to get into a car as a passenger. (all journeys assumed to be within the confines of the continental USA for purposes of discussion, eg I'm flying the shuttle down to NYC from Boston, or taking the Acela, or the Greyhound)
Cthulhu Barata Nikto
Maybe when it comes to US Passports, but there's no unified method between states for how a driver's license is made, and if there was it probably wouldn't be much of a secret.
Unless we have a repeat of 2000 (popular vote* is different than electoral college), if the current administration "gets in for another four years", the hostilities would be between it and a minority segment of the population.
* The popular vote doesn't mean dick, so who cares what it is anyway. You don't like it? Amend the Constitution. Good luck!
Regardless of whether this is "standard practice" it's still not right. I wasn't alive 100 years ago to make a fuss, but I am now. So I'm making a fuss.
You know the mistake your buddy made?
He didn't SHUT UP the instant he was not free to leave. You might say "I want my lawyer" (And it's a very good idea to know in advance who you are going to call), but after that, you don't say *ANYTHING*.
If the police are going to arrest you, nothing you say will stop them. But anything you say, including the mere fact that you chose to speak at all, can be used against you.
Since the government [theoretically] is only concerned when control leaves the airline and enters into the terrorist hands (because at that point the jet becomes a weapon),
The likelihood of terrorists gaining control of an airliner with box cutters again is essentially nil. The entire plan depended on the passengers believing they might live if they cooperated. Until September 11th, the majority of the flying public couldn't even conceive of someone using a 767 as a missile and the primary concern for hijackings was the lives of the passengers. It should also be noted that most of the hijackers had valid ID.
Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.
Very simple. Lock the cockpit door and don't open it. Even if the hijackers threaten to kill everyone on board unless the pilot opens the door, he has no reason to believe they will survive if he does.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Clearly the police were wrong about the law they were trying to enforce. That is the exact reason why courts exist. To provide an impartial and neutral interpretation of the law.
The Police are part of the executive branch while the courts are part of the judicial branch.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Pilot's response: "Better that than another few thousand people on the ground." *click*
Bias is one thing, credibility is another. Michael Moore has none.
You entirely missed the point. The poster was not talking about some piece of information gleaned/interpretted by Michael Moore. He was referring directly to interviews in which those who had voted for PATRIOT admitted that they had not fully read the act.
Bias does not magically change video tape. You can discount whatever spin you find in f911, but please dont deny flat-out evidence. PATRIOT is bad, was passed in a time of desperation, and is now being reconsidered. This is a Good Thing. Introspection and questioning MAKES democracy!
You know, the one thing that irks me the most is all this post-9.11 crap that people must endure in their daily lives now...
Is presenting ID THAT big a deal? Has anyone ever bothered to think about what airline security, etc was like before 9/11? IIRC the nice(or not) lady/man at the counter would ask for my ID and ticket(s) while checking my baggage in. This certainly isn't something *new* except that maybe now some people on the Hill want to make it federal law rather than corporate policy.
What's next, are we going to fight the law that requires people to show ID when purchasing alcohol or tobacco? Yes, in reality you cannot compare the two...but think about it, we're given state ID/Driver's Licenses for a reason--just like passports. Last time I checked I didn't have anything on any form of identification (except military id [ssn]) that isn't public record.
Further up I saw a post that other methods of travel do not require identification. What do you think the license plate on your car is for? Sure, those can be fake--just like id cards--but the fact is those numbers and letters attached to your car identifies you to anyone willing to look up the information.
Most K-12 schools now have identification cards. Does that mean that the evil administrators of that district are sitting in their offices tracking the whereabouts of the students? Unlikely--in this case those cards provide a variety of functions such as meal purchases and entrance into the building. Colleges have had the same for a while now as well.
My view may be crazy, and a minority one at that...but I feel that some people need a reality check to realize that not everything is Evil, not everything is the result of Terrorism, and the Government couldn't really care less about what you do in your bathroom.
If you sit and think for more than 30 seconds, you'll realize that in the great US of A, you have to present identification in one form or another for just about everything you do that has a financial liability or carries some type of responsibility with it. Why should this be any different from boarding an airline; not only because you don't want terrorists getting on a plane, but because you want to make sure the person who purchased the ticket is the one using it, and heck...what about the few individuals that have a history of unruly behaviour during flight? I could go on, but I see the sun outside and would rather enjoy it than debate such a futile argument.
This sort of attitude is why I fight against things like required ID, "Big Brother" surveillance, etc. NOW. Not because I'm that worried about how the current implications will effect me (although some of them are scary enough), but because -as the parent poster showed- when you grow up with a thing, you can find it acceptable for the rest of your life.
The parent poster grew up with having to show ID all her life, what's one more time? Certainly it'll make him object less to "the next step" (mandatory ID with biometrics and RFID?) much less strenuously than somebody who is used to buying a Pepsi without showing ID.
Seventy years ago people were "getting their panties in a knot" so much over the idea of being tracked by a federal-mandated number that it was specifically stated that your social security number would not be used to that purpose. Nowadays, who cares; it's de rigeur. People are putting RFID chips in kids already; how will they react to the next security requirment?
It's a step-by-step process, people. Look beyond how it effects you today; look at how it may effect you in ten years, or how it'll effect the next generation. You can strip away rights is easy; getting them back is very, very hard. Don't let them go unless you have a definite, palpable, provable return.
Congressmen(people?) have admitted it in other forums as well. But it shouldn't matter. Are you claiming that Moore falsified those interviews? Cause thats a pretty serious alegation, far more serious than creative editing or bias. You're going to need a lot more than a bitchy website for that one.
So how does requiring this easily faked document prevent terrorism?
You don't even need a fake ID. If I were a terrorist legally in the country and without prior arrests etc., I could just use my regular ID -- just as the 9/11 hijackers did.
Explain to me again why "Your papers, please" prevents terrorism?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
And all this changed after the Bush coup in 2000. Think about it
Do I smell a post hoc fallacy? Had Al Gore won Florida and thus the Presidency, wouldn't his adminstration have responded to an attack on the World Trade Center by beefing up airline security in much the same way?
That's a symptom, not an attribute. Denying citizens even the chance of understanding shifts the foundations of democracy in a way so many people here find suprisingly, frighteningly and depressingly acceptable.
Was your friend guilty of WWB? Perhaps SWB? If your friend happens to be, errm..., of the black persuasion then the mystery is solved. He was either walking while black or shopping while black or *anything* while black. This is particularly true if you are a Florida black.
If he isn't black, then perhaps he was scruffy looking in an uptight, rightwing, nutbag religious town.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Typical Republican, "Michael Moore Lies!" Click on this link to buy my book that shows you how he lies. What is so complicated that he can't put it in an HTML document? Humm, maybe it could be read by everyone, and debated openly?
Meanwhile Moore has every source for every comment posted here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
There was no lie in the face of that congressmen, when he asked if his kids were going to enlist in the military. It was utter panic. You could see, "Are you stupid? Why would I do that?" written on his face.
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)
Er, that's pretty much the definining tenet of libertarianism. Subject to frequent debates about what your rights actually are and what actions violate them, of course.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Yea, your right, checking for ID's would stop terrorists, and make us all safer. Oh wait, the 9/11 terrorists had there ID's checked, and they were valid ID's too, and yet it didn't stop them.
The simple fact is showing your "Papers" (sounds a bit like mother Russia that way doesn't it?) to travel in your own country has nothing to do with searching for weapons, explosives, or other devices of destruction.
Join the EFF people, it's 30 bucks.
Given the secrecy of laws you'll pardon me for missing the legal interpretation where John Ashcroft repeals the Magna Carta and re-established the Divine Right of Kings and Bushes.
I guess we're going to nice simple system, easy-to-understand, based on only two precepts:
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Did Kerry vote on the PATRIOT Act? If so, for or against; and did he read it?
Did Bush sign the PATRIOT Act? If so, did he read it?
Whether either voted, signed, wrote, or read the bill, at the time it was considered (by many) as essential. 9/11 shocked everyone, and quick action was seen as more important than properly debated, methodical, slow, correct, action.
If you want to decide your vote by the PATRIOT Act, it might be better to research what the two candidates think of the Act now, and if they plan on strengthing, or to weakening it.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
The ID check "law" is almost certianly the "magic regulation" that lets the Airlines be able to make sure you didn't transfer that "non transferable ticket." I mean goodness, I could buy a ticket to the next Super Bowl todya, and SCALP it later and the Ariline wouldn't see a dime of that extra revenue. Oh the humanity... 8-)
The Airlines probably asked for this law.
The other probable law is the unwritten law of Alibi. If they don't check the ID's then I could buy a ticket to Desmoins and send a random stranger or good friend on a round-trip in my name while I go out and kill my ex-wife. Then the "I went to Desmoins, here are my canceled airline tickets" alibi wouldn't work. In the existing system I'd have to get a fake ID, or an illigimate real ID, and we *know* that isn't possible...
oh, wait...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Look at what happens as a result of all the security at airports. Businesses that operate within the zone can (and do) charge extortionate prices since they have a captive clientele to prey on. Similarly, airlines require ID mainly to prevent a secondary market in airfares that is not subject to their current highly-evolved system of price discrimination.
Checking ID does nothing for security. But since when has the government cared about the security of anyone but the elite? This is about getting us used to intrusive control. The controlled areas (airports, theme parks, shopping malls, the prison system) will gradually expand, genuine life will be increasingly marginalized, and we will be increasingly administered in the interest of corporations. Asymmetric information is power. Therefore we should deny them information, even if (as is not proven in this case anyway) this increases our personal exposure to risk.
In order to get a true idea of risks, you have to compare the risk of not being tracked (and all its consequences) against the risks of being tracked (and all those consequences).
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
This is a republic, not a democracy. Abridging the rights of a minority group is not OK, even if a majority group supports the idea.
live(free) || die;
Hey, if they were honest about it and people still voted for 'em, I'd be happy. What bothers me is when the majority get suckered into voting for their own destruction.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Real people are getting hurt and hurt badly because of this law.
I don't mean to kick you when you're down, but what you say is what the root of the problem is: nowadays Americans talk about real people, as if there are different classes of people. Once you start classifying people you've lost the battle. "First they came for the Jews..."
All people are real, like every suspect is innocent until proven guilty, every person has human rights regardless of citizenship. These are ideas that, sadly, have disappeared from USA.