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?"
And how accessable is legalese? How many people can read and understand the legal codes that govern their lives? Our legal code is absolutely huge, even ignoring case law that forms the precedent portion of it. Hell, the PATRIOT Act didn't get read by the legislators responsible for passing it -- do you expect the *people* to do so?
May we never see th
It's not uncommon for there to be secret/unknown laws and rules that some people must abide by - if they're workers with security clearances. However, it's absurd to make secret laws the norm and take proceedings that should be part of the public domain (ie most parts of terrorism trials) behind closed doors. When everyone has to abide by a rule at pain of prosecution, then it quickly becomes trivial to figure out what the rule is.
The default manner to develop and issue policy should never be behind the veil of secrecy.
Yea that's a tough one. On the one hand I can understand consumer choice of how "violated" your privacy is to fly on an airline. On the other hand it's the federal goverment's concern when someone obtains control over the jet and crashes it into public, private and governmental buildings killing thousands. If the airline implements these requirements, then their passengers are free of the search requirement.
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), I'd prefer to see some requirements put in place that completely remove control of the jet from anyone on board and puts it in the hands of a security group on the ground as soon as there are any questionable issues on-board. Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.
Now that doesnt prevent someone from blowing up a jet in air, but hey, at least the damage is probably going to be a lot smaller if that happens as opposed to ramming it into the WTC.
Besides, we have Air Marshalls on jets still right? right? :/
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
This reminds me of an editorial in the Chicago Tribune (written by Molly Ivins) last Thursday:
"The Department of Justice has asked the Government Printing Office "to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the department has deemed 'not appropriate for external use.' Of the five publications, two are texts of federal laws. They are to be removed from libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to a law office or law library," according to the American Library Association. All the documents concern either federal civil or criminal forfeiture procedure, including how to reclaim items that have been confiscated by the government during an investigation."
What possible reason could there be to destroy federal legal publications? Thank you, Adolf, ahem, I mean John Ashcroft.
-Mark
I remember when we used to be make fun of secret laws in The Soviet Union back in the eighties. The commies also tortured political dissidents. Now it has all turned around. The USA is where you have secret laws, have to carry papers around, and can be detained and tortured idefinetly without a court order.
And all this changed after the Bush coup in 2000. Think about it..
If that is the case, then they'd have to at least reveal it to those people checking IDs (otherwise, what's the point?). Given the conventional wisdom regarding the intelligence of the average airport security employee, that's not exactly keeping things secret.
This sadly reminds me of something that actually happened to my buddy.
Without any previous charges or arrests, my buddy was once arrested for resisting arrest. He kept asking 'What am I being arrested for?' and the officer kept saying, 'You are resisting arrest.'
--- We need more Ron Paul!
One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.
On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
- Hold suspects on terrorism charges for long periods of time or indefinately without trial
- Present secret evidence to the court, without the defendant or the public knowing what that evidence was or even that it was presented
Sources: Secret Courts and Detention LawDoes the airline have the right to know who's on board their own airplane?
That's what this all boils down to. Do you have the right to get onto someone else's private vehicle and demand anonymity? Or do the airlines have the right to demand ID to know who you are before transporting you in their own private vehicle?
make world, not war
When they stop listening to the Rupert Murdoch Propaganda Network (Fox News and over a hundred local channels - tv and radio) -- Fox News is not news, it is not journalism - it is propagandization -- Even the Venerable Walter Cronkite is speaking out against Fox News. Fox's "Fair and Balanced" claim is the biggest piece of false advertising since Microsoft Claimed windows is secure
2 _03_Report.pdf
thorough studies [correcting for every possible bias] have shown that 80% people listening to Fox News are hold misconceptions about the state of the world - particular the iraq war, compared to 23% of PBS viewers - furthermore there is a positive correlation (ie more a causes more b) between "More Viewing of Fox News" and "Holding Misconceptions' http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_0
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
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.
I don't think this is quite correct. You do, in fact, have to have ID in order to travel by motorcycle, car, or boat because you have to have a license on you in order to legally do so (which is a form of ID... usually photo ID). Also, I think the Supreme Court recently heard a case where a man (in Texas?) was jailed for refusing to produce ID when asked by a police officer. He was not in a vehicle at the time, so he was a pedestrian. If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that he did not have a right to fail to produce ID because the law had an overriding concern in establishing his identity. I personally think that this is a bunch of baloney... a pedestrian that is not breaking any laws should never be forced to show identification just because a police officer decides he wants to see some. Nevertheless, I think this pretty much destroys your initial point, and contributes to the point of the original article.
Fact is, you can't go anywhere in the United States right now (outside of your own private property... and I wonder how much longer that will stand) and expect to have the right to not show ID at a moment's notice.
-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Great question. And the day the airlines quit queueing up for federal subsidy after federal subsidy, I will let them treat their planes as their private property. Until then, they can cry in their Wheaties all they want but I won't pay them a thin dime to fly if they think they can demand I pay for the ticket, show them ID, AND get supported from my income tax whether I want them to or not.
Considering one of the flights was for a job interview this really sucks. The funny/sad thing is at a previous job about seven years ago I had a DOE Class Q clearance. Now I can't even get on a plane and no one [claims] they can fix it.
Real people are getting hurt and hurt badly because of this law. I hope Gilmore prevails.
So why does an airline need to know my identity? Why can I not pay with cash and board anonymously? (Assuming I'm willing to submit to a reasonable search for security -- say metal detectors and/or X-ray.) I don't need to carry papers on other modes of transportation like buses, ferries, trains etc. or while walking. I bet a terrorist could kill more people by putting a bomb on a ferry in cold waters, like the Seattle-Victoria ferry. Why then do we have this hysterical attitude towards aviation?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Any legislator that votes for a law that is later overturned as unconstitutional should be FIRED (or worse).
cpeterso
I want the news to challenge my assumptions. I want investigative reporting uncovering causes and correlations that I didn't know existed before. I want open-minded reporting that doesn't bash reasonable perspectives on both sides of the political spectrum. I don't really see why the politics of the owner have to be so flagrantly reflected in the reporting - CNN was owned by Ted Turner for many years, who has many radical positions I don't agree with, but while not perfect, I've certainly never seen that kind of flagrant bias on CNN (about an equal number of people seem to accuse CNN of overly liberal and overly conservative bias as far as I can tell).