Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Government Asks Court to Keep ID Arguments Secret

Posted by michael on from the catch-22 dept.

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?"

14 of 857 comments (clear)

  1. U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. by suso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There should never be a law passed that is so super-secret the law itself can't be discussed or debated in an open forum, such as a court. The concept is anathema to democracy - and Republicans used to have the nerve to say that Democrats supported a "Nanny State" - note how you don't hear that attack so often any more - after their revered leader, Dubya, created a Nanny State for all of us. I am all for reasonable security measures as a New Yorker, but I'm not sure I see how asking for ID and checking it against a super-secret terrorist watch list really makes us safer (the same watch list they put Ted Kennedy on apparently, which took him months to get taken off of).


      Anybody who's lived in New York for a while knows that there are about 20 thousand dudes named Mohammed Ibrahim or Mohammed Mohammed driving cabs around the city. Just having a generic Arab name on a watch list is far more likely to flag a cabbie than it is a terrorist. I'm not saying I wouldn't search every Arab looking fellow who got on a plane extra carefully, but I don't think even 5 or 10 guys with knives would be able to hijack a plane in the US, post September 11th.

    2. Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When people realize there is no significant difference between Bush and Kerry is when people will also realize that things have gone bad. It's pretty shocking that Bush and Kerry aren't debating real issues, perhaps it's because they agree on all major points. They'd rather debate vietnam military records and what is fair and not fair in political advertising.

      Ask yourself the following: Which canidate is for war in Iraq and which is against? Which canidate is for reduction in the size of the government and which is for providing more government services? Which canidate is for providing universal healthcare and which is for a free market healthcare system?

      Given only two choices, Bush and Kerry. It's hard to say that you have any choice when it comes to issues.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. by wedg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The funny thing about glaciers is that they can sneak right up on you. One day it's off in the hills somewhere, and next thing you know, your grandkids are sledding down it in the back yard.

      The people making moves towards a fascist/nationalist/totalitarian government are not stupid. I doubt the 'people', meaning 50-90% of the population will never notice anything: Because there's nothing to notice. They constantly hear about small changes in new laws, procedures and whatnot, which are semi-regularly talked about, i.e. DMCA a few years ago, PATRIOT after that, PATRIOT II and INDUCE, one law at a time. And one law at a time, things will gradually change, until some old bastard like me is sitting around saying how, back in my day, we were free to walk down the street without fear - not fear of terrorists or anything else - but without fear of our own government. And they won't *remember* that a mere 10, 20, or 30 years ago, our country wasn't like this.

      And don't even get me started on the idea of the media's involvement in this. The fact that a handful of companies controls all the media's focus, which topics they choose, combined with the sensationalism, and lack of any attention to any one subject... Not only are we being told what's what, we're losing the attention span to remember what was.

      But yeah. There won't be a realization that things went bad. They've *been* bad. It's just a matter of time before they get *so* bad that there's violence involved.

      --
      Jake
      Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
  2. Before anyone. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Re:Choosing your fights by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But all the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks HAD VALID IDs!!!! Thus, the secret law serves absolutely NO purpose!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  4. Ticket Resales by kooshvt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Two things by DruidFyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You do realize that all the 9-11 terrorists had proper ID, right?

  6. Problems with Gilmore's story by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:The typical American cannot read the law by Saucepan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You cannot use Fahrenheit 9/11 or the Da Vinci Code for primary source material. I see this too much.
    If the GP had cited f911 to argue that Saudi Arabia is controlling the president with mind-control rays then you'd have a point. But, in f911 there are congressmen on-camera admitting that they themselves did not have time to read the PATRIOT act before passing it.

    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.

  8. Re:Well, the EFF will hear the argument.... by b12arr0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Follow that law? by Beautyon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    should be shot

    Each piece of legislation should reqire that it is signed by the people who voted for it, with a statement asserting that they have read and understood the meaning of the law.

    If they fail to sign it, or it can be demonstrated that they did not understand what they were signing (everone else) up for, then the law should be rendered automatically null and void.

    If we were talking about a contract to which the legislators themselvs would personally be bound, you can be sure thhat if they did not read it personally, they would get thier lawyers to read it before they signed it.

    Its absurd that they should be able to sign the whole poulation over to be bound by laws that they have not read before adding them to the statue books, and it is irresponsible for anyone to obey these laws.

    It just encourages them.

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
  10. You missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  11. Re:The typical American cannot read the law by arkanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.