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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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."
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;