Slashdot Mirror
John Gilmore's Search for the Mandatory ID Law
powerline22 writes "John Gilmore, the millionare who cofounded the EFF, has been prohibited from travelling because he refused to show an ID while boarding an airplane. He's been under this self-imposed ban since 2002. From the article: "The gate agent asked for his ID. Gilmore asked her why. It is the law, she said. Gilmore asked to see the law. Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is 'Sensitive Security Information.' The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection. What started out as a weekend trip to Washington became a crawl through the courts in search of an answer to Gilmore's question: Why?"
How does he make his trips to Washington now? That's a long drive.
"You've got to have rules, Jerry. Without rules there's chaos." - Kramer.
This writeup on Gilmore v. Ashcroft is kinda interesting too as is FreeToTravel.Org that includes an FAQ from John - all of this has been around for a while, but I guess the mainstream media just "re-discovered" John's story - don't think there has been any significant change in over a year (?)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Good. 10 points for confounding the airport security. But, if you pulled the same thing with a highway patrol officer, I think you'd end up with handcuffs, not a copy of the law.
Sure, eventually someone would produce the law, but was it worth it?
I agree, this sounds suspicious, though. I wish I had the money to test such systems.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Can't we be a little more original then quoting the first paragraph of the article into the slashdot post?
Maybe the memory is still lingering?
But seriously, is $30 million enough for such lawsuit? Didn't we just read that a session of 'Trek costs $32 million??
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
The quote at the bottom of Slashdot says "Our way is peace."
Sounds like all the explaination you will get from this administration.
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
Airlines are private companies...can't they require whatever the hell they want? A company doesn't need a law to back showing IDs. They can't ask you for your social security #, but ID is fine as far as I know.
Somebody has to make a point of standing up to the phantom menace. Sounds a bit like this.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
I always thought the old Soviet Union required authorisation for its citizens to travel between towns and provinces/states. Of course this is not the case on a free country ;)?
Oh, I see... Security means less privacy, according to some, uh?
I can see the need to produce a passport for international travel, but I have refused to show my passport for intranational travel just fine, a driver's license or national ID does it. And when you buy the ticket they do tell you to show up at the airport with ID usually, I did ask to see the rule about it to a travel agent and she gave me a webpage to look at.
Unfortunately the legal page hasn't been updated since November 2004. So what's happenin' John? Has things stalled? Has there been any more progress? If so, can you update the legal page? We are listening, and we do care. Our attention spans are longer than the average person. Why the silence?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Does anybody know how much ID you need to get a driver's license? My little brother went to get his, and I guess they require like 4 separate forms of ID. How can they resonably expect a highschooler to have 4 different forms of ID? AND they wouldn't except his school ID. He ended up having to bring in his birth certificate and everything.
How much is too much?
Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
The agent misspoke, and there's no law requiring travelers to show ID. It's still perfectly within reason for airlines/airports to request identification for passengers - if only to ensure that the ticket was sold to the same person making use of it. Don't like it? Don't fly. If you want to take a stand on something, why not those ridiculous security stations I'm forced to walk through barefoot?
"He was employee No. 5 at Sun Microsystems, which made Unix, the free software of the Web, the world standard."
Who wants to go to Washington, really? The transportation situation is mediocre at best and the weather is consistently horrid.
If I was driving down the freeway one day, following all the rules, going the speed limit, and a police officer pulls me over for "a traffic violation", but is not willing to tell me what this "traffic violation is", wouldn't I have reason to question why?
This sort of thing always annoys me. I'm basically a liberal in my views, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I advocate defending civil rights and liberties, and I'm pretty unconvinced by much of the recent erosion that's been done in the name of the "war on terror", but not to the extent that I put not offending someone's sensibilities ahead of an obvious-to-five-year-olds security risk.
Complaining about people trying to confirm basic identity details in a context where there is a well-known, genuine and, sadly, sometimes fulfilled threat is just the worst kind of anal retention. It does nothing to improve respect for civil rights; on the contrary, it diminishes the impact of any protest against genuinely over-the-line behaviour "for security purposes". This idiot should be grounded -- I don't care who he is -- and it would be better for all concerned if the media didn't give him any more attention either. People like him given civil rights organisations a bad name.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I have a friend who is doing 26 years in federal prison for drugs. He and his associates drew the attention of federal authorities in part because of air travel habits.
Forcing people to show ID will help the feds make cases. It's not going to stop terrorists. They can get fake IDs.
Here is a law, furthermore, that was not passed in accordance with the constitution. We have faceless individuals deciding on controls on everyday movement and almost no questioning of their right to do so.
I am actually surprised Mr Gilmore has not asked for a court injunction asking either for proof that such a law exists (and its text) or for the regulation to be lifted.
Why do people have to create problems with it. I'm not endoering blind faith of what is told to you, but let's be reasonable here. This is an airport where there's a chance very dangerous people can do something. Yes, the 9/11 hijackers did have valid ID and they got through, but the issue is chekcing for valid ID's are better than nothing at all. It angers me that elitists like this feel the need to screw around to prove their point. 'Oh god, they check for ID at the airport, the next step is concentration camps!' This is really a story about a guy with too little brains and too much time on his hands. Nobody is getting hurt, and it's very little inconvienece to hopefully make the airlines safer.
If he wants a copy of the law, then he is allowed use of a library and/or attorney. Gate agents shouldn't have to produce copies of every single law to enforce, thats just a part of keeping travelers safe. It is YOUR own duty to know the laws, and if they seem confusing to you then YOU seek them out. Don't require others to jump through hoops because you are ignorant and want to be proven every societal consequence that comes your way.
Next thing you know, you'll want to be innocent until proven guilty and question witnesses.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
I mean, the reason people go to law school and the reason pay lawyers so much money is because the law is something that needs to be done BY THE LETTER. It sounds like the airlines want us just to abide by the spirit of the law.
And while I personally wish society were at point where we COULD just go by the spirit of things, we are not there yet, and so in order to protect OUR rights, and OUR safety, we need to be able to view these laws and make certain we're not getting screwed over.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
"The company's founder, a Harvard dropout named Bill Gates, was selling Unix, a universal software on which the Internet would be based"
He was employee No. 5 at Sun Microsystems, which made Unix, the free software of the Web, the world standard.
WTF? I guess it is too much to ask for journalists to get a clue....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"He was employee No. 5 at Sun Microsystems, which made Unix, the free software of the Web, the world standard. "
Who made Unix? I thought it was SCO?
It reminds me of when my town's high school started making kids wear their sudent ID's around their necks in response to Columbine, with the stated purpose of trying to prevent such a situation in our town by discouraging unauthorized people from entering the school.
Only problem is, there has not been a school shooting I know if that was not perpetrated by a student who is authorized to be at that school.
Same thing with airplanes. "Ha ha, you dumb terrorists! Now you have to prove you bought the ticket to get on the airplane!" I'm sure this inconveniences them much more than it inconveniences me when getting on an airplane. In fact, I bet it inconveniences them so much that they would scrub years or decades of planning. Sure, I get on an airplane once every couple months, and it hasn't made life too much harder for me, but somehow it's magically different for terrorists.
Those metal bill o' rights aren't allowed through the security checkpoints...
Ticket Agent: May I see your ID?
Me: I'm sorry, I lost my wallet somewhere. All I have is some cash until I get everything replaced. You have no idea just how difficult this has been.
Ticket agent: Okay, you'll have to go thru some extra screening, though. [Meaning a guaranteed wanding, remove shoes, etc.]
Me: Okay.
Been there, done that. It works.
Of course, I actually DID lose my wallet on that trip, but the principle is the same.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
No, he can't - the federal government mandates that all airlines require identification. As I stated in another post, IF the airline were TRULY a private business imposing certain requirements on potential customers, THEN this would be acceptable. As it stands, however, the airline is a de facto corporation of the federal government.
Since you consider yourself a liberal, I'll take this opportunity to say "thank you" - you guys are the ones that have always clamored for more government involvement in everything.
RW
I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to drive without ID in most if not every state.
The FAA requires that you carry positive ID along with your Airman's Certificate (their gender-charged language, not mine) whenever operating an aircraft
Walking is an impractical method of moving around the country at this point in history, requiring people who don't want to show ID to walk would preclude them from many types of job.
Hitchiking is illegal in every state where i've bothered to research the law.
If he starts a private airline company then he will be subject to the rules of the FAA or TSA and have to impose the same requirements.
He actually has a pretty good point.
There are some people who are smart enough to be bothered by the whole concept of having a bunch of government bureaucrats enforcing secret and unwritten laws on an unknowing populace and then there are stupid bastards such yourself who aren't much higher on the intellectual food chain than say a retarded steer, or perhaps a particularly bright carp.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Did you even read the article?
oh, why do I bother? You retards deserve to live in a police state.
If I was driving down the freeway one day, following all the rules, going the speed limit, and a police officer pulls me over for "a traffic violation", but is not willing to tell me what this "traffic violation is", wouldn't I have reason to question why?
Only if you're white
You are exactly right.
But exactly wrong too!
Perhaps there should be a law so that you have to prove who you are to board an airplane. I'm not sure about that.
But if that is the case, then a law should be passed. If its really that important, congress should simply pass a law. They could do it in one day if it was important.
But they haven't passed such a law. Isn't that interesting?
Isn't it even more interesting that the government claims there is such a law, but that its too secret to tell you about? Doesn't that make you *the least bit interesting* in what the hell is going on?
Where do you draw the line? If the police asked you for papers when you crossed from one state to the other, but couldn't tell you under what authority, would you simply brush it off? Seriously, where will you draw the line?
In other news, congress is trying to get bigger fines on broadcasters in case they say "anal sex" on the air.
This very page says that he would have been allowed to travel at SFO without ID if he submitted to a search. That alone devastates the "secret ID law" claim, as allowing him to fly without ID, search or not, would have been in violation of that law. More here.
You would be correct, except:
TSA agents, who are *government* employees, are telling him he has to show ID because it's the law.
Airline officials are *not* saying that this is company policy; they are saying it is US law.
He is asking to see said law. No one will show it to him. Private laws are *not* something we should be saying "Oh, well that's okay then" towards; they lead in exactly the wrong direction.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
This reminds me, somehow, of Catch-22: Then again, a law so secret that I can't know the law
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
-kgj
-kgj
So let's see, the government can have a secret court issue a secret subpoena and go to my ISP to see all of my online activity. Screw the ISP, they can come into MY HOUSE without my knowledge do whatever they want and leave, and this is (purportedly) legal?
Our government is giving prisoners over to other governments with horrible human rights records just so they can torture them, because we have laws against it. We have a government that has suspended habeas corpus, one of the few civil rights the framers thought was so important that it was in the constitution without an amendment.
All of this is being done to fight the "war on terror". And the thing he decides to protest is being asked to show ID? Wow...
And foreigners choose other countries for their vacations and studies. No wonder... who wants to be treated as a criminal just because the government in "the land of the free" has grown paranoid.
From TFA:
"He was employee No. 5 at Sun Microsystems, which made Unix, the free software of the Web, the world standard."
Waitaminute. They're actually saying that:
Three complete falsehoods in one sentence! Is this country great or what?
This was a very thought provoking article. On one hand I would like to say "Screw the government! We're Americans!" But... the price of totally being independent of a government identity card means giving up a lot conviences.
First, he doesn't have a driver's license. Second, he doesn't have a problem with the law that says you have to show ID to get on a plane. He just wants someone to show him a copy of it and the government claims that the details of the law cannot be divulged to the public. Liberal or conservative you shouldn't like the idea that the government can hold you accountable to rules that they won't divulge.
-- Ecks
I don't think that this is dispositive. From the government's pleadings there clearly is a secret law. Many briefs went back and forth arguing that the government should/should not have to reveal the text of the administrative order.
It seems that the text of the secret rule might allow the TSA to forego the ID requirement in exchange for more strict physical searches.
If this is so blooming important, why can't anybody say why its a requirement?
If this requirement is so important, can congress not be counted on to pass laws that protect our basic safety?
We can draw a number of conclusions here, but lets go through the facts:
1) Identifying airline travellers is important.
2) Congress will not make a law that says such a thing
3) People at the airport claim such a law exists
4) But claim its a secret law (!!!!)
5) Some guy with money and time insists they show it to them
6) Congress is spending its time trying to get higher fines for Janet Jackson's breast, on the off-change it pops out again for the world to see.
Seriously, you can draw a lot of conclusions, but when our government can't follow its own rules in such a basic area, do you think they'll have any problem throwing your sorry ass in jail because you piss somebody off in government?
If the law is important, do the right thing and pass it, and show it to travellers who ask to see it.
Its so simple, But you blame the guy who points out that we have a government out of control. Does this not bother you even a little?
At one time, Microsoft did sell a UNIX port called Xenix. It eventually became SCO OpenServer.
It is old news but your ID is required so they can match your name against the "Do Not Fly" list. Not sure that there was ever a law passed to create the do not fly list. Its been around since the early nineties and ping ponged between the FAA and the FBI and now I think is the purview of the TSA and the FBI. It was pretty much useless throughout its history up to 9/11. In fact a couple of the 9/11 hijackers were on the "Do Not Fly" list or at least known terrorist lists but no one enforced the list before 9/11. Most of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID and weren't on the list so this ID requirement wouldn't have slowed them down at all though if someone had actually been checking the list on 9/11 two of them would have been stopped from flying. Still its pretty easy to recruit hijackers who are unknown to the FBI/TSA or they can easily develop aliases and fake ID's to circumvent this stupid list.
Gillmore does have a case though I'm not sure its the one he's is pursuing. The fundamental problem with the "Do Not Fly" list is its a relatively arbitrary list of names and aliases of suspected terrorist and is blatantly discriminating against people who happen to have the same name. If you happen to have the same name as one of the names on the list your life will turn in to a living hell if you try to fly. That is where these regulations are unjust and should be overturned.
You can suffer an arbitrary punishment, humiliation and it can destroy your career if you need to fly for you business and the only thing you did wrong was to be unlucky to have a name that some suspected terrorist used at some point in time. The guidelines for putting names on the list is secret, the procedure for getting off is secret and ill defined. It is a system ripe for abuse since some bureaucrat some place can apparently add any name he wants to the list and punish for example political dissidents or people opposing those in power. About all you can do to get your name off is petition your congressman to lobby for you. Its probably easier to slightly mutate your name or legally change your name.
Bottomline is it is institutional insanity and Gilmore is right to fight it though its iffy if he will win. The "Do Not Fly" list hasn't caught a single terrorist in the act or to anyones knowledge prevented a hijacking or bombing. It did nab Cat Stevens, author of the song Peace Train. It is just something an incompetent bureaucracy instituted to put on a show for the public they were doing something to protect them. The two things they needed to do instead, that worked, were:
- put armored cockpit doors on all airliners. DONE and there is almost no chance of a repeat of 9/11. Didn't cost that much, didn't inconvience the public at all or threaten their civil liberties
- better screen passengers and baggage for explosives and weapons. Kind of done though siezing sewing scissors and pocket knives is completely insane and unnecessary. With armored cockpit doors a potential hijacker can't seize the plane using crude weapons like box cutters, all they can do is try to attack passengers, and the passengers would fight back.
To fix the do not fly list is nearly impossible so it should be scrapped. Simple name matching is useless and going to punish more innocent people than catch terrorists.
You would have to go to a CAPPS type system where you are probing everyone's social security number, personal data, etc at which point it would be ridiculously intrusive and abusive. A terrorist group could still circumvent it with a stolen ID or recruiting someone with a sparking clean history.
And again with armored cockpit doors a repeat of 9/11 is nearly impossible. The worst you will see is maybe a bomb downing an airliner. It would be a tragedy but its not the end of the world. Again improve screening for explosives and real weapons to reduce this risk.
@de_machina
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.
Foot and bike do not reach towns whose only access road is an interstate. Motorcycle, car, and boat require licensure, and states reserve the right to deny licensure to people diagnosed with epilepsy.
That's all I have to say.
He couldn't start a private airline company that doesn't require ID because it's not an airline rule, it's a TSA rule. And as for buying a plane, walking, or driving. None of these are reasonable substitutes for a flight when one is travelling from california to DC.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
No such law exists.
They made it up, but won't admit it.
What started out as a weekend trip to Washington became a crawl through the courts in search of an answer to Gilmore's question: Why?"
Answer:
Because
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
In his case it would have been more effective to say, "I don't have one. I'm an epileptic." To which they might say, "Fine, no flight for you." And then he could sue the airport under the ADA. It would achive all of his aims more effectively.
He already proved to himself that this was false, as he says in his own description of events that SFO would have allowed him to fly with no ID if he submitted to a search.
Now answer this: What is the text of the law that requires a search?
First, I have no problem believing that the TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time
If the directives require the airlines to refuse to carry passengers at all who are not carrying an appropriate token on their person, then the passengers do need to know the requirements ahead of time so that they do not waste a trip to the airport and have to spend money changing their tickets.
But how does the presence of an ID solve the problems that a "screening" searches for ?
Can a person with an ID not have "impure" thoughts ? Or carry a knife ?
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint. (emphasis mine)
ato
The ID requirement is a rule imposed on the airlines by the TSA. But the TSA are saying that they cannot and will not disclose the text of the regulation because it is 'sensitive security information'.
The regulation under which the Transportation Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, instructs the airlines to collect such identification is classified as "Sensitive Security Information."
When Congress passes a law, it is as often as not up to some agency to decide what that law means and how to enforce it. Usually, those regulations are available for people to examine, even challenge if they conflict with the Constitution.
This wasn't the case when Congress passed the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974. ...
Nothing to do with the airline.
Perhaps you missed the numerous parts of my post where I said he was indeed allowed to travel by air with no ID, and that he just chose not to, by his own admission in his own account.
Since SFO would allow him to fly with no ID, that in itself proves there is no such legal requirement for him to show ID. I'm not saying it's not good he's asking these questions, or that airlines should be telling people there's a "law" if there isn't. He and everyone else should just be more honest about it. It undermines the larger idea that people - airlines/airports and customers alike - should simply be aware that there is no law requiring passengers to show ID to fly.
Think about it: the people checking in and working at the counters and as phone agents probably don't know if there's a law or not. They may have, in fact, been incorrectly told that there IS a law. And in the end, if the entire system is saying "there's a law", even if there isn't, that's all that matters. I "get" it. But that still doesn't mean there's some secret law. That means it's a broken issue that needs fixing. And yes, Gilmore's story can fix it. But not by dishonestly claiming he wasn't allowed to fly without ID and that there must be a secret law because someone at United Airlines said so.
The airlines are common carriers; they are pretty much required (as part of being common carriers) to accept anyone who shows up with a ticket. The exception to this would be if they were legally authorized and/or required to do so. When asked, they said it was a government rule that required them to do so.
When there is a question as to the legality of an action of one party towards another, or the applicability and scope of the law, the courts are the place where it is supposed to be resolved when the two parties cannot come to an agreement.
Older Slashdot stories
Not to argue with the rest of your post, but having certain types of epilepsy, and thus, not a driver's license, doesn't prevent you from having IDs. A friend of mine has no interest in driving yet despite being 20, and has a state-issued ID that is equally valid for ID purposes; these IDs can be issued to anyone who wants ID but can't (or won't) get a driver's license.
When you drive, you are required to have id/license with you.
If I am flying I expect to get ID'd. I don't want someone else impersonating me and taking my flight. I don't want them acting in my name. I'd also expect the security of knowing everyone else on the plane felt comfortable with showing their ID.
While ID alone is not a means for security that is enough to fly and consider yourself 'safe', I think it requires people to step out of the shadows to do their business.
All that said, and I used to fly a few times a year and now I drive instead, haven't flow since 9/11. (trips as far as 550 miles, but nothing cross-country or for work, luckily.)
If the issue here is wanting the law known, revealed, questionable, I agree. If he just doesn't want to produce ID then I don't get it.
-Joejoejoejoe
Silly Rabbit: tricks are for kids.
When he first refused to give an ID they offered him the more intrusive search option, which he took. Then while standing in line to get on the plane (presumably after some more intrusive search though nothing is stated) a guard pulled him out and said he could not fly today.
Bill Gates did! (evidently)
From the article...
The company's founder, a Harvard dropout named Bill Gates, was selling Unix, a universal software on which the Internet would be based, and he wanted Gilmore to find a way to make Unix work on the computers of a prospective customer based at Stanford University.
John Gilmore is a cool guy, but Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a figgin moron. I think I'll get my facts somewhere more...factual, thanks.
Remember though, Peace is a homophone of Piece. Perhaps they really meant:
- Our way is [a declaration of opinion].
- Our way is [a firearm].
- Our way is [tearing a part from a whole].
I can see most of the executive branch saying this.RTFA. The DOJ wanted *three times* to file secret documents on the case with the jury, without Gilmore or his lawyer being able to see them.
That is a good indication there is such a "secret law", since there is no other visible law requiring ID to be shown.
Either there is a law requiring ID or isn't. If there is, then the SF airport should not have let him through without ID; if there isn't, then ALL airports should allow him through.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?I
Republican President Bush backs a big-government national ID card. The "conservative voice" condemns this action as un-American as does the ACLU. Is it just me or are these labels sort of stupid? Perhaps destroying the checks and balances of the three-branch system?
Oh well, maybe it's just me.
I didn't quote at all. It wasn't in quotes. I said he would be allowed to fly out of SFO if he submitted to a search. They say a "far more intrusive search". Than what every passenger goes through? What about the ones that are picked for a more intensive search? How many kinds of routine searches do you think the TSA has? The "far more intrusive search" is likely the same general random, intensive searches that could happen to anyone flying. This type of search is likely what is requested if someone insists on flying with no ID. Like it or not "not being able to fly with no ID unless you submit to an intensive search" != "not being allowed to fly with no ID". It's dishonest and disingenuous - and likely counterproductive to his otherwise worthwhile cause - to say otherwise.
"but you shouldn't need a law to tell you to use your common sense "
...and that common sense could land me in jail!
I don't get what you're saying.
Its common sense that I can video tape a show from the TV and loan it to my friends to see correct?
Its common sense that if two adults get together, they can do anything sexually with each other. But men have been thrown in jail for admitting to having oral sex with their wives!
So how would you define common sense in this case:
1) "We need to see ID"
2) "Under what authority"
3) "Its a secret"
Don't you think that by this time, somebody could cite chapter and verse of this common sense law? It sounds like no such law exists.
This is old news, many college students have been exposed to this. Looks like /. has lost its edge or they are all out on vaccation.
But none the less a good article for most people to see and maybe cause some comotion on the airplane industry if enough people started to use such methods.
Yes, aren't you glad how your goverment let terrorisms control their actions...
This says that he _did_ consent to being searched ... and was then later pulled out, after passing through security.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
You, my friend, are an idiot.
Why isn't the law public then ? If it's so good for us, let us see it.
Are you really buying into the "it's secret for our own protection" bullshit ?
One: you didn't read the article which refutes a lot of your claims.
Two: you have posted THE EXACT SAME RESPONSE about three times already. I got the point the first time.
Three: Are you so insecure of your position you have to browbeat those who disagree with you?
Ohhh... You're on shakey ground with that post.
Posted anonymously for a reason. Flame on...
Bill
Like most such regulations, it's there to keep the soccer moms happy through the feeling of security. Realistically, it's meaningless. A criminal will either be sure to not have a prior record or use a fake.
Well your lengthy rant is pretty much completely wrong.
There isn't exactly a secret "law" but there is a set of secret regulations that have led to this requirement. EPIC made a set of FOIA requests to try to expose the same things Gilmore is pursuing. They got enough docs to prove its existence, and they have censored docs that concealed most of what they wanted to know about it, in particular who puts names on it, how do get them off and what names are on it.
Just because SFO let him fly proves nothing other than people at the airline in SFO probably weren't doing what the TSA/FBI ordered them to do. Chances are very low you will be able to fly without showing an ID so you wasted WAY to much time pretending that just because one counter work at an airline didn't check it, that this proves anything.
So its not exactly law that airlines have to ID every passenger and check them against the list, its more a regulation Homeland Security and the FBI is trying to shove down the airline's throats and I don't think Congress ever passed it as a law. It was done entirely withing the executive branch. I'm very confident airlines would be overjoyed if they weren't burdened with this law enforcement task, especially since the system is completely incompetent and is mostly nabbing innocent people who happen to have names the same as those on the list. Airline counter works are probably sick of the ugly scenes that ensue when a completely innocent person is pulled aside by the FBI/Homeland Security and harassed for no good reason than being unlucky enough to have the same name as someone on the list.
All in all you really ought'a be ashamed for defending such and insane and inept system.
@de_machina
If I'm getting on an airplane, I feel better that everyone has to show an ID. We live in a world where terroism is not a joke. Altough, I have to admit, most hijackers do have valid IDs.
he would have been allowed to travel at SFO without ID if he submitted to a search
RTFA:
As Gilmore tells it, he arrived at the gate two hours early, a paper ticket purchased through a travel agent in his hand. A Southwest agent asked for his ID. Gilmore, in turn, asked her if the ID requirement was an airline rule or a government rule. She didn't seem to know. Gilmore argued that if nobody could show him the law, he wasn't showing them an ID.
They reached a strange agreement for an argument about personal privacy: In lieu of showing ID, Gilmore would consent to an extra-close search, putting up with a pat-down in order to keep his personal identity to himself. He was wanded, patted down and sent along.
As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.
He DID sumbit to a "extra close" search, and was still denied travel.
I've seen these IDs. However his response is why get one? So far as I can tell they are only useful when you write a check in person, something few people bother to do anymore. (I get 1% back on my credit card, while I have to buy my checks. Add in float and for anyone careful with money checks make no sense)
Now if he needed id that id might be useful. Though I would suggest he is better of getting two forms of id: a passport. However he doesn't really need id. So far as he can determin there is no law that says he must have one for his activities, and he needs to pay a small fee to get an id.
While it is silly, I have to come out on his side. He should not have to show is in this case.
"Finally, remember that SFO was going to allow him to fly without ID. He chose not to because he did not want to submit to a search."
Actually, my reading of the article seemed to indicate that he did submit to an additional, more intrusive search in exchange for not showing identification. It was after this additional search, while standing in line, that he was not permitted to board his flight.
That's not the point. Gilmore had a valid ID. But he is incapable of driving which limits the methods he has available to him for travel.
Which goes to show that both Republicans and Democrats are only interested in their own benefit (obtaining more power over others), and that neither party should be trusted.
Well, his account here (Gilmore v Ashcroft home page) says this:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
(I am not a lwayer, and this is not legal advice for any person who thinks they face what may or may not be a similar situation)
One of the basic issues driving the airport case is the question of when ignorance of the law IS an excuse. The typical educated layman's answer is never - "Ignorance of the law is no excuse.". While that's generally good advice, real case law is slightly different. It sometimes involves a concept called scientier. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "scientier" in one set of cases as: "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.". In various legal situations, it's definition is broader, but is generally about the intent of the accused.
Several scientier related cases have established that ignorance of a law can become an excuse - IF the ignorance is not the sole fault of the accused. One example of this would be a case where the state itself has put impediments in the way of learning what the law is, and another would be a case where there were substantial natural impediments.
There have been successful challenges at the highest levels (The Supremes basically), in cases where the impediment was natural: One classic case in the area is that of a bookstore (general , rather than "adult") owner, who was found not guilty of violating obscenity law on this principle. He displayed for sale copies of a Grove Press work that had made the state's banned list. However, the copies he recieved from his normal distributer had rather innocuous cover art and a title that was not particularly indicative of the type of work. The court ruled that his defense was sound - the law did not compel a normal person to go to the rediculous length of personally reading every book in a shipment of tens of thousands of copies, or paying thousands of dollars each year for the necessary (at that time) postage and labor to constantly check a lengthy inventory against a state list not made widely available, just to comply.
There are fewer good precidents for cases where the action of the state is involved, and fewer still that have made it to superior courts or the U.S. Supreme court. This looks to be a possible one.
Right now, there is a claim in Texas that holds some of the state laws on sexual conduct are invalid. It's based on the fact that an agency of the state government struck out specific references to those laws in the state's high school text books. The theory is that once one arm of the state acts to make it harder for a person to become educated about the law, the whole state government loses the normal claim that ignorance is no excuse.
This case hinges on the same claim. If it's really that hard to get to see an actual copy of the law involved, how can an individual who intends to comply with the law actually do it? A decision here will impact not just cases like the one in Texas, but may impact a lot of IRS/Tax law, as one of the claims frequently advanced there is that the law is literally too complicated to be understood.
Who is John Cabal?
RTFA:
As Gilmore tells it, he arrived at the gate two hours early, a paper ticket purchased through a travel agent in his hand. A Southwest agent asked for his ID. Gilmore, in turn, asked her if the ID requirement was an airline rule or a government rule. She didn't seem to know. Gilmore argued that if nobody could show him the law, he wasn't showing them an ID.
They reached a strange agreement for an argument about personal privacy: In lieu of showing ID, Gilmore would consent to an extra-close search, putting up with a pat-down in order to keep his personal identity to himself. He was wanded, patted down and sent along.
As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.
He WAS searched, and still denied travel.
Sure, he can walk. But could he walk to, say, Washington, to appear before the Supreme Court?
And he could buy a plane, but I couldn't.
And as he points out, he can neither rent nor drive a car without ID.
And hitchhiking is illegal in a lot of states.
The right to assemble freely and anonymously sounds like it might be important, what do you think?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day. "He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,'" Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.'"
So, actually he wasn't allowed on the plane. There is a "Secret ID" law--so secret the government at first wouldn't even awknolge if it did or did not exist. Even today, the government won't cite the secret rule that allegedly requires people to show ID, saying that it is secret and can't be revealed without harming security.
It's official. We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments. It sounds too bad to be true, but each allegation I've listed is documented and verifiable.
You can fly without ID, you just have to go through the "extra-careful" security search. About 3 or 4 weeks ago, I was in line for the security checkpoint when I realized I couldn't find my driver's license. Before I could search my luggage for it, the guy at the entrance told me it was OK and made some sort of mark on my ticket and waved me through. At the metal detectors, they checked my ticket, saw the mark, and pulled me aside for the full pat-down and whatnot. I was surprised, because I remember reading about Gilmore's crusade a while ago and figured you couldn't fly without ID. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if nobody at TSA knows for sure what the rules are. I fly quite a bit, and rules vary from airport to airport and from week to week. Sometimes screeners will insist I have to remove my sneakers and pass them through the X-Ray, and other times they don't care.
"fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"
He's a karma whore, posting the same lengthy response in several places to get karma points from moderators who won't actually read his whole rant, but will instead mod it +1 insightful (or informative).
My other first post is car post.
There it's been said... deal with that !
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Except, as has been documented before, the ID requirement does absolutely nothing to increase security. All 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 would have been able to freely board, as they would have had the necessary documents and likely would have not necessarily been on any watchlist.
I'd like to hear about a town that only has access via interstate!
Well your lengthy rant is pretty much completely wrong.
Interesting, then, that our posts are in almost complete agreement.
First, you say that there likely isn't a "law", per se. I agree. And I said as much in my post when I said I was perfectly willing to consider that there are more than likely secret TSA "directives" to airlines and airports that have certain provisions, and are secret for ostensibly good reasons. Note I am not making any specific judgment on whether or not security processes at airports should remain secret and good arguments can be made either way.
Second, you make the claim that just because one airline worker would have let him fly proves nothing, as they themselves might have been inappropriately violating a directive of some sort. Indeed. Conversely, the same applies: just because an airline worker says there IS a law proves nothing.
Thirdly, you again agree, as I said in my post, that there is likely no law, but that it's a TSA/DHS "directive" of some sort. I have already said in other posts that if that's the case, then airlines and airports shouldn't make it seem that it is a "law", proper, that must be obeyed in order to fly. It should be clear, if anything, that if it is not a law, there is no reason a passenger should be compelled to show ID. Currently, I will be more than willing to admit that it is not clear.
Lastly, the system may be inept. But what real security measures should be taken at airports, then? And if ID checking is as worthless as its opponents claim, what purpose does it serve? Try to keep police state arguments out of a possible response.
It does not give "a place to start" unless a copy of the ID in question is taken when presented. That hasn't happened at any airline gate I can remember.
Is possible to take a domestic air trip anonymously using just cash and a name? I've never tried. But surely even if you have to flash a passport or other ID at the gate, unless they copy it or write down or memorise some identifying detail in addition to the passenger name, it's no lead at all.
you had me at #!
Let me rephrase: You left out an important piece of information while reproducing information elsewhere.
Your discussion of types of search is not only irrelevant but so ridicilous that it makes me think you are deliberately trying to mud the waters so people will not see the point.
ato
Enough of these hippies who feel the need to fight "the man" about everything.
It's not a matter of not being able to travel by plane without ID. I don't have a problem with law or federal regulation requiring airline passengers to show ID before boarding.
But I do have a problem with the government (and this was the government acting, through TSA) according to rules that it won't show you, that the public has never had an opportunity to comment on before being imposed. Those security directives are indeed "law" for all intents and purposes, at least to the people in the air terminals and airplanes. They are "law" because they absolutely control how government law enforcement personnel will deal with you and what those personnel will and will not allow you to do on their turf.
But unlike actual laws, these security directives were written in secret, and you find out what they are only by running afoul of them. And you, as a citizen in our democratic government, have no way to seek redress of your grievances from the government, because you can't point to some piece of paper saying what you can and cannot do; you are left with vague stories about what some guy at the airport, who may or may not have been a government oficial, told you.
Now, I am in favor of keeping most security procedures secret. I don't want to know the exact criteria by which passengers are selected for more intensive searches; that information could help terrorists figure out how to avoid extra scrutiny. But a rule like this affects all members of the travelling public immediately and directly, and (if it is in fact a rule) there is no reason not to publicize it, along with the citation to the authority by which the rule was promulgated by the TSA or the FAA.
I say "if it is in fact a rule" because the other problem with secret directives like this is that the public has no way of knowing whether it is really a rule or something just made up by some arrogant security guard. We are a government of laws, not men. The rules cannot be just whatever orders come out of the mouth of the policeman. But without knowing what the rules are, we don't know whether the policeman (TSA security guard) is really doing their job or just having a spot of fun or acting out an ego trip.
and states reserve the right to deny licensure to people diagnosed with epilepsy
Umm, Duhh?? Like I want to be driving down the road while some person who should NOT be driving has a siezure and kills my wife and child.
Use your head man.
No I didnt spell check this post...
It's about laws you're not entitled to know about but you are bound with.
This one is mostly harmless. But it's just a step away...
Imagine such a law: Any visitor to an anti-government website is considered traitor of the country, subject to arrest and lawsuit, without right to a lawyer, with methods of interrogation like tortures allowed, bound with secret about everything they see or hear, including this law.
Now this law comes into effect, except it's not being published anywhere. Just the same as the "ID check" - you don't get a chance to know it exists possibly until after you've violated it. The agents are free to drag you out of your house and keep you imprisoned for months, then eventually kill you and nobody can do anything about it, they can't even know what happened to you. And it's all fine in the eyes of law - and nobody can protest because nobody knows, and those who know, by knowing are bound by secret, or they violate the law and are subject of prosecution.
That's the method of rule of totalitarian government. Laws you don't know about until it's too late. And of course laws made up on the spot, just as binding because nobody can verify they were made up on the spot...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
"John Gilmore needs to realize that law and security is a balancing act. And he's adopted an extremist, unrealistic viewpoint."
Maybe if you go back and read the article again you'll notice the part where he talks about the tradeoffs and the fact that checking IDs results in such a minimal increase in security that it doesn't outweigh the privacy and civil liberties concerns.
If you really think checking IDs is gonna keep "bad people" off planes, you might wanna go ask your nearest college student how hard it is to get a fake one.
Again your whipping a dead horse.
There isn't a law until and unless Congress passes some version of CAPPS which they've been reluctant to do due to the invasive privacy intrusion CAPPS representz. A CAPPS variant might lessen the insanity of the current "Do Not Fly" because you might not be detained just because your name matches some name on the list, presumably your social security number or passport ID or other data would better discriminate you from the know terrorist. The down side is CAPPS will be much more intrusive and probably bring a host of new problems.
And again we aren't talking about a "secret law" we are talking about a well known set of "secret regulations" implemented by the FAA/FBI, under either Clint or the First Bush, and dramaticly expansed by the FBI/TSA/Homeland security post 9/11, again entirely by the Executive branch which doesn't pass laws but can implement regulations unless Congress or the courts stop them.
I'm pretty sure the unfortunate airline counter works might use the term "secret law" because to them secret law and secret regulation is basicly the same thing, all they know is the TSA has ordered their airline, and in turn their boss has ordered them, to ID everyone, match everyone's name against a secret list via computer, and everytime there is a match they call the FBI/TSA agents in the terminal who come and pull the unfortunate, often completely innocent passenger, aside for interrogation, often making them miss their flight, usually hugely embarrasing them, and sometime prevent them from flying all together. And again its nearly impossible to get get your name off the list once you prove your innocence, because the procedure for getting off the list is a secret as who puts names on the list, and whose names are on the list.
You really are defending an insane bureaucracy that is completely in the wrong, for no obvious reason. If the "Do Not Fly" list actually worked maybe you would have a leg to stand on, but it doesn't, it mostly just harrasses innocent people.
@de_machina
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
However, I've seen nothing that indicates there is ANY such "secret law", and the fact that SFO - the second airport he tried - would indeed allow him to fly with no ID devastates his claim.
You apparently haven't read anything except for the Slashdot summaries, and not even all of those.
The issue is not that he can fly without ID. The issue is that administrative code exists that is not available to the public, but which applies to it all the same. Yes, he can get around it by submitting to additional security screening. That's not the issue here. The issue is that the government has admitted that these rules exist, but says that they cannot be discussed in open court because they qualify as "Sensitive Security Information." Who decides what qualifies as SSI? The TSA. There's no oversight on this at all. And that's the problem people have with it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
So whatever is the prevailing opinion, that's the law?
I'm not trying to be obtuse; I just feel like you're backed into a corner and won't just admit that common sense is not the basis for law.
Nor, as you have to admit, is popular opinion.
I guess he feels like he isn't a terrorist so he shouldn't be subject to scrutiny ... the thing is ... I have pondered that the next terrorist attack will be perpetrated by a white male - paid off by Al Qaida as an operative or sympathetic towards muslim extremism or possibly hatred towards politicians or Christians in this country.
So - he SHOULD be required to give his ID, and he should be happy that we are TRYING in at least SOME capacity to stop a disaster from repeating.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
If the general public aren't allowed to view certain laws who is exactly?
Your discussion of types of search is not only irrelevant but so ridicilous that it makes me think you are deliberately trying to mud the waters so people will not see the point.
LOL! Discussion about types of search in a post ABOUT types of search is "irrelevant" and "ridiculous"? Oh man. I don't even know how to respond to that one.
Bottom line was that he was allowed to fly if he submitted to a search. It is unreasonable to believe that this search is beyond anything that is routinely given by the TSA to e.g., random passengers picked for more intensive searches, even if it is different from the "standard" search.
You're the one muddying the waters by ignoring that he was indeed allowed to fly with no ID, intensive search or not.
And quoting in writing requires quotation marks. The site says that he was allowed to fly if he submitted to a search. "A far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint" (that's a quote, by the way) is still a search.
Having RTFA, I think the only thing that has happened since the last time this was on Slashdot is that the Post Gazette did this story about him. It's more important than most of the dupes, and at least it isn't on the same day as has been their recent habit. sad that Slashdot has lowered the bar so much that only fucking up a little is acceptable.
lol
mod parent up
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
Well the court said that, in Roe v. Wade, that it was illegal for the state to tell a person what to do with their body.
And, well the court also said, that you must show identification to board an aircraft.
Case closed. Liberals, if you want to be able to change the laws from the judicial branch of governemnt (gay marriage, abortion, patriot act, etc) then you should at least live by the other court rulings as it would seem hypocritical to do otherwise. Oh wait....
OK, now mod me down!
> any random individual required to enforce an area of law (e.g., the guys checking ID at the airport) to quote me chapter and verse on demand. That is not their job.
Do you honestly believe what you wrote ?! I am often amazed at the stupidities flaunted as "common sense" around here. Have you people lost your mind ? Did the media did such a good job brainwashing each and every one of you ? What is wrong with America !?
What the hell does knowing who someone is have to do with whether they're carrying a weapon or bomb onboard? Absolutely NOTHING!
I have no problem w/ security screenings, even though they're ineffective at preventing weapons other that large bombs (which can still easily get through too). I could list 5 'innocent' things I can carry aboard a plane to kill someone with, if I were so disposed. I could probably come up with an even longer list of things easily smuggled aboard. But knowing who I am has nothing to do with any of that
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't it required by law that you have your driver's license with you at all times when driving a car?
I believe the same is true for a motorcycle, but I don't have any first-hand experience there. This might only be specific to a couple of states, too, but I believe that in South Dakota, you can be fined for not having your license with you.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
No. I've read all of these accounts, thanks.
First, I don't fundamentally have a problem with security measures and processes relating to US carriers being secret. This includes security directives that airlines and airports might use in their own internal processes.
Secondly, yes, he has framed the issue as being about traveling without having to present "identity papers". He himself has already shown that is not the case. His continued insistence that it's about traveling without having to show "papers", when there are several other means of travel that require no routine identification - and he makes no distinction himself - and that there must be a secret "law" to show ID when SFO would let him fly without ID, hurts his otherwise worthwhile cause.
As to the issue of sensitive information, who decides, indeed? Unless you're the type of person who fundamentally believes there should never be any secrets (e.g. classified material), I trust you can think of instances where information is appropriately secured. As for oversight, yes, the chain of accountability may be unclear. And the attention John brings to the issue is valuable. I just wish he wouldn't overdramatize it, for example by invoking the whole "Achtung! Papers please!" attitude as if it applies to all travel in the US.
They said he could get on the plane, then they pulled him out of line and refused to let him fly.
How does that end up meaning, "HE ALREADY FOUND HE COULD TRAVEL, BY PLANE, WITHOUT ID"?
No it's not, and I've never said it should be anywhere in this thread.
My point here is not that it's right for the law to be secret. I've never said that either.
My point is that going into an airport, and causing trouble because someone whose job is to enforce the law couldn't quote the actual wording to you like a lawyer, and not accepting "it's what the law says" as a reasonable explanation when common sense tells you the law could well say that, is an unhelpful approach.
The number of people who have replied to my original post and missed the point, the number of other posts elsewhere in this discussion that missed the point about the "hidden law", and the number of negative mods my original post got all support my case that Gilmore's actions here have done nothing to highlight what he should have been highlighting, and everything to make him look like a fool who wastes security officers' time.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm wondering why he doesn't sue? A secret law would seem to be in violation of a few parts of the Constitution.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Yes, but you're not required to present it to anyone unless you're violating an applicable traffic law and are stopped by a law enforcement officer with appropriate jurisdiction and authority. It is only when you don't obey applicable laws that you may be stopped and required to present ID by a governmental entity.
And before anyone brings up the Nevada case, Nevada has a public law on the books that requires a person to identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested. This case was a test to see if the law was constitutional (currently, the court decided that it is). Yes, he was a "pedestrian"; but police don't just randomly ask people for ID. In this case, there was a 911 call from a nearby resident who reported seeing a man and a woman arguing in a pickup truck, and seeing the man hit the woman (his daughter actually hit him). The 911 operator dispatched police. The responding officer came upon the scene to find skidmarks and disturbed gravel on the side of the road, indicating the vehicle had been stopped in an aggressive manner. Coupled with the domestic violence call, the officer felt it necessary to ask the man to identify himself, as he was (and is) allowed to do under Nevada law. When he refused some 11 times, the man was arrested. So that case has nothing to do with driving or anything, and not really anything to do with the Gilmore case, since Gilmore already found he could fly without ID if he submitted to a search, and he chose not to.
> If I am flying I expect to get ID'd.
Why ? Are you flying the plane yourself ? You're not required to have a license as a car passenger, why should you as an airplane passenger ?
You don't have to have identification. No law requires you to have an identification. But no law says everyone has a right to fly on a private airline either. The passengers and crew have rights to be reasonably secure from harm. If a regulation requires passengers to present an ID, you can choose to show it or find another method of transportation. There are alot more significant issues than whether or not you need an ID to fly on an airplane. Pick your battles, some things are too stupid to argue about.
Stop pretending you've been to law school, Dave Schroeder.
The Supreme Court already ruled (after John's experience) that you have to show ID when asked to by an officer, regardless of circumstance (i.e., no wrongdoing by you). Stick that in your non-legalistic pipe and go retain an attorney to tell you why you fail it.
Second, whatever he was told by the agent does not have any bearing on what the secret law says.
Finally, not knowing the content of the law, you cannot have any knowledge of whether it is followed or not. The actions of state actors based on unknown laws do not tell you what is in those laws. It only tells you how those state actors acted. You are (stupidly) assuming they followed the law.
No. His own account, on the primary Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been up in this state since the beginning of his case, says:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
So either he's now changing his story (a wise move, considering the first one was very contradictory), or one of the accounts is wrong. If the Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, one of the primary sources of publicity for this case, was wrong, you'd think it would be corrected, yes?
is so that you can't fly on someone else's ticket.
If you have a ticket you can't use, you can't sell it in the paper (or on eBay). There used to be all kinds of classified ads for airplane tickets for sale. No more. It's economics, not security.
I would feel better if all the girls did not wear clothes on the plane, in addition to having their phone # visibly displayed on a card.
conservatives are the ones who have pushed through regulations on personal freedoms as well as pushing their morals. Liberals have normally fought this.
OTH, Liberals, and the 1960-1970 republicans, pushed through such things as environmental laws. IOW, business regulations. Fortunately, some regulations have been destroyed, such as when the oil industry dereg occured due to Nixon and Carter (reagan simply accelerated their laws by 1/2 a year).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
He is suing. But the law takes a long time for his suit to wind its way to the Supreme Court.
lol d00d!!one1!
train, really?
= 10 80080554204&pagename=Amtrak%2Fam2Copy%2FHot_Deals_ Page&c=am2Copy
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?cid
now, he could ride local regional rail lines such as septa (se pa, nj, ny) and metro (md, dc, nva).
i'm not very familiar w/ the west coast, but i'm fairly certain bart/vta/caltrain don't cross state lines. it looks like tart would connect to something in nevada, but i'm having a hard time figuring out what.
Dosen't a law have to be published in the Federal Register to be legal?n the other hand it may just a regulation
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
o
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
If you had read the artical instead of well i dont' know what, he did consent, and he was about to bored when he was pulled out for not haveing ID.
:secret law" that have nothing to do with a employee saying its the law.
see other replys.
Also the artical makes numerous refrecnes to the
I highly recommend that you read the other comments in this thread before spouting such nonsense.
however, if there isn't a law and the airlines are making shit up the need to be called on it. Likewise if there really is some 'secret law' on the books it needs to be exposed as the very idea of 'secret laws' is totally against the basic ideal of having a free society.
This is a battle worth fighting.
It's not far from it, perhaps. There's been serious talk of requiring photo ID for travel by train and long-distance bus.
The whole security thing is overblown. There are things that need to stay secret, but things like this aren't one of them. A list of items that cannot be carried onboard might be something, but the basic conditions required to get past security and onto the plane should not be secret. There's not even been anything saying that you can get on a plane without ID if you submit to a search. None of that is public, and that's the problem here.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
"Interesting, then, that our posts are in almost complete agreement."
Uh not they aren't, here is why.
"Conversely, the same applies: just because an airline worker says there IS a law proves nothing."
THERE ISN'T A "LAW" but there is beyond a shadow of a doubt a secret set of regulations that the TSA/Homeland Security is forcing on any airline that flies within the U.S. or in to the U.S. Watch the fucking news man, this is the same system that causes airliners from Britain and France to be routinely turned back or rerouted to Maine when they discover, after the plane takes off, that someone on the plane had a name that matched the "Do Not Fly" list and they didn't catch it before they plane took off. Again this system is so badly implemented its basicly useless.
European airlines hate the living daylights out of the system but they have to go through the motions of enforcing it or the FAA/TSA will deny them entry to American airspace which they have to have.
"then airlines and airports shouldn't make it seem that it is a "law", proper, that must be obeyed in order to fly"
Get off the "law" thing. There are TSA/FAA regulations that are just as binding as law to the airlines. Whether you call it law or regulation the airlines have to implement it. If a counter worker refuses they will probably be fired. If an airline refuses they will be grounded if in the U.S. or denied entry to U.S. airspace if outside the U.S.
Commercial airlines are at the mercy of the FAA/TSA, just like the networks are at the mercy of the FCC. They have to do what they say unless Congress or the Courts step in. Gilmore is pretty much going to have to get a court to rule the regulation is illegal to stop this, or Congress will have to pass a law outlawing this practice which is unlikely due to politicians fear of being branded as soft on terrorism and security.
"Lastly, the system may be inept. But what real security measures should be taken at airports, then?"
Like I said in another post:
A. Armored cockpit doors, already done, didn't cost much, doesn't punish the public, makes it nearly impossible to seize control of an airliner thus and precludes another 9/11.
B. Pursue every improvement you can in screening passengers, baggage and freight, for guns and explosives. If someone gets box cutters on the worst thing they are going to do is attack a passenger and the passengers are going to fight back post 9/11.
The chances are slim of another 9/11 style hijacking and crash thanks to armored cockpit doors. Worst thing you are going to see is maybe a bombing and crashing a plane which would be sad but not a disaster of 9/11 scale. Again do your best to stop it by screening for explosives.
Bottomline is trying to screen people is never going to work. A terrorist group just has to recruit someone with a squeaky clean record or give a person first class fake ID.
Chances are Al Qaida is going to pursue a completely different strategy for their next attack anyway because armored cockpit doors make their old attack strategy a low probability of success strategy. If they want to get people in to the U.S. for a land based attacked, a truck bomb for example, U.S. borders are so porous they can pretty much walk across the Mexican border. Millions of people have done it and do it everyday.
@de_machina
we, the people ... who actually pay for the federal government
Why would you assume that because some powerful people rob you blind, that somehow makes them your employees or servants subject to your bidding, rather than the other way around?
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
From:
Appellant John Gilmore's Opening Brief
16 August 2004 (532 KB pdf)
At the Southwest check-in line, Mr. Gilmore was asked for his
identification. He politely declined.The Southwest clerk told him that he could
not fly without producing an ID because of "a[n] FAA security requirement." The
clerk then told Mr Gilmore that is he did not wish to show ID, he could instead be
screened at the gate before boarding the aircraft.
Mr. Gilmore then went through the airport x-ray security and when
presenting his boarding pass at the departure gate, Mr. Gilmore was again asked
for his ID. Mr. Gilmore declined politely and asked if the requirement was based
on governmental law or airline policy. The Southwest agent at the gate replied that
it was a governmental law. Another Southwest employee informed Mr. Gilmore
that he had to show a government-issued picture ID or he could not board the
plane. A Southwest custer service supervisor told Mr. Gilmore
the requirement was based on Southwest's policy. As a result,
Southwest did not allow Mr. Gilmore to fly.
The Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been the primary source of publicity about this case:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
Since those two accounts vary greatly, which one is correct? Which one is the truth?
by ignoring that he was indeed allowed to fly with no ID, intensive search or not.
No. He was indeed allowed to fly with no ID provided he did subject himself to an intensive search. There is no "or not" under those circumstances. The guy you replied to is right: you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters.
I have traveled many times out of SFO without State/National ID however you still need a document attached to your ID to fly.
The way it works is that in order to fly without your ID you need to flash them a credit card you bought the ticket with and submit to a search. You are SOL if you dont have your CC that you bought the ticket with. Also you have to notify the ticket agent that you have no ID and they usually print another ticket that flags you to be searched.
While you dont need your ID they need a document that is attached to you period.
Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
Nearly every services company in the USA has a "right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" clause in it.
If the airline decides that it requires an ID to get on one of it's planes, it's perfectly within thier right.
So my point is: Maybe it isn't a law, but a policy.
A gym requires ID to get in, so does a library. I need ID to get into my place of employment, into a bar (sometimes) and more often to buy cigarettes. I need to show ID in the form of a credit card to get nearly every utility hooked up (even though they are not billing the CC).
Gilmore's whole assertion rests on the claim that there is, in fact, a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
Uhhhh, you should take your lead helmet off. The government acknowledges that there is a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Sorry, that was for a Southwest flight from Oakland to Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
SFO WOULD let him fly with no ID (United).
Sounds like he's downplaying SFO.
However, I've seen nothing that indicates there is ANY such "secret law"
Sometimes the stupididity on slashdot makes me want to cry.
If his aims are to find out what law requires a person to produce a gouvernementally issued ID, then suing the airport under the ADA doesn't really help.
Put yourself in a similar situation. Someone requests something from you, and states: "It's the law." And then you ask: "Which law?", and the answer is: "I am not allowed to tell you." Wouldn't you get interested which law he is referring to?
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
I'd look at the legal papers that were filed:
Do you think that the government should set a precedent and begin revealing secret security procedures, even for something simple?
I think that The Law should not be secret. Why the hell can't they produce the law that says "All plane passengers must present ID before boarding."??? What is so secret about that???? The law doesn't have to go into the detail about what databases the info is put in or searched for in.
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
You are not required to carry ID with you at all when you drive. You are only required to furnish proof of a licence to drive within an applicable time period or you get a fine. They can still look you up by name and address. At least in the state of NY and most New England states, they can pull up your picture as well. Having an licence with your picture simply makes it easier for them.
Most cops I have met are really nice guys and are pretty lenient about a lot of things. Including not having I.D. when you drive. I don't carry any ID with me when I drive/fly/whatever. It's not that I'm a raving zealot about being free, it's simply something I never have done, nor was ever inclined to do.
It's natural to pay for things in cash, or over the internet, drive and fly without ID. It's not hard. You simply can't be clueless about it and even ask for help in situations where it'll be a hassle when someone does ask for ID (such as in airports).
You should never expect to have someone request ID unless you've done something wrong as in illegal, against the law etc.
I've spent a couple of days in jail since I didn't produce my ID for something I wasn't even involved in. I gave them my first name and called my lawyer. Nuff said. Since I didn't do anything wrong, they had no business knowing who I was.
Look, I'm not a privacy anal retentive person - but when people try and snoop into your business, people who don't know you or especially a government agent or agency when I have done nothing wrong - a "suspicion" based on profiling or my personality or any thing else they deem as "unnormal" is simply wrong and goes against principles of freedom the founding fathers wanted to ensure we had.
Not to mention I'm a white, upper middle class american. It's not like I'm an easy target to racial profiling (my apologies, but racial targeting and profiling is a sickening problem and I really can't stand it).
People don't have a head on their shoulders these days or excercise common sense. It's truely pitiful.
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
He obviously chose to enumerate in his court case (wisely, I might add) the instance he wasn't allowed to fly with no ID (Southwest at Oakland) and ignores the instance he WAS allowed to fly with no ID, and chose not to (United at SFO, because that time, he did NOT submit to the search).
Therefore, my original thesis stands.
I will now log your driver's license into our database for insurance purposes.
You have to be able to prove to your insurance person that you actually did see a driver's liscense.
I noticed that, at the security line, it was always "suggested" that I take off my shoes and put them through the X-ray scanner. I asked if I was "required" to take off my shoes, and was told I was not. But any time I walked through with my shoes on, I was pulled aside for hand scanning and was required to take off my shoes. On one trip, I asked an intelligent-looking security agent if I was required to take my shoes off and he told me "No." I then asked him if I would be automatically pulled aside for hand scanning if I wore my shoes and he gave me an "I could be fired for making this smile so unambiguous" smile. So, I guess the rules ablut shoes are secret, too, although it would take any normal person about 15 minutes of watching to figure it out. I have been really pissed every time since going through security, knowing my government refuses to be straight with me. What if we all wore our shoes through the line?
You're looking at the wrong problem. The real problem was lack of information sharing between the various agencies. At least a couple of them were wanted by ther INS for overstaying their student visas. An ID check by the airline, along with better cooperation between the various agencies, might have caught that.
I'm not saying this ID check requirement by the airline is right or wrong, but your oft repeated statement looks at the situation from the wrong angle.
An ID check may not necessarily prevent such an attack. But no ID check at all leaves that very tempting hole wide open.
Just to clarify a rampant mistake in terminology in this whole article. This is not a question of "law" it is a question of "regulation". The difference is the first is passed by Congress and the second is just written by the executive branch and its agencies, the FAA, FCC and TSA for example.
To my knowledge Congress has never passed a "law" implementing the "Do Not Fly" list which led to this requirement airlines ID all passengers. If they had passed a law it probably wouldn't be secret and someone could show Gilmore the "law", There isn't one.
Congress has toyed with passing a law for several versions of "CAPPS" which are the next gen successors to the current stupid "Do Not Fly" list but Congress has so far balked at at the privacy invasion of CAPPS though the executive branch keeps bringing it back over and over again.
The "Do Not Fly" list began in the early '90's as FAA "regulation" in concert with the FBI. It was lame and wasn't for the most part enforced. After 9/11 it was given new life, dramaticly expanded and turned over to TSA, Homeland Security and FBI and is now widely and badly enforced.
It is to my knowledge all done through secret "regulation". However all airlines that fly in or in to the U.S. have to at least go through the motions of enforcing it, ID'ing all passengers and preventing passengers from flying whose names are on the "Do Not Fly" list. When they get a match they are supposed to call TSA/FBI agents who detain and interrogate the person. The person is usually completely innocent and just an unfortunate victim of having the same name as a suspected terrorist or even an alias a suspected terrorist uses. These innocent people are routinely harrassed, embarrassed and often prevented from flying and there is no known procedure for cleaing your name. Your best option is to petition your congressman who in turn begs the FBI, TSA, Homeland security to clear you.
If an airline employee refuses to enforce the regulation they will probably be fired so its "law" to them. If an airline refuses to enforce it they will probably be denied access to U.S. air space so its "law" to them, but it is really secret regulation created by the executive branch and its agencies, the FAA, TSA, FBI and Homeland Security.
@de_machina
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
As like the income tax, which no one has to pay, but we are 'tricked' into paying, its not law to pay IT.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
And you're arguing for the other extreme. You're a prick for attacking someone who is standing up for his rights, something you obviously are not interested in doing for yourself. We are not any more secure because of this, but we are a LESS FREE!! We are treated like criminals now, just because we are flying. And there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY for the TSA actions. You can submit a complaint form to the TSA about the TSA, and are expected to give your name and address (God only knows what they'll use it for). It's not paranoia when they are actively taking away your rights!
Ah, I misinterpreted the situation. Gotcha.
How can we be bound by a law we can't read? Courts have ruled again and again that ignorance of the law is no excuse... How can we accept that we're bound by laws, which we must know, which we can't know?
This country has turned into a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
The ______ Agenda
- those Christians! - is making me want to bomb something.
I can't think of what though.
Someday we'll all be negroes
You missed what someone posted here:
c id =11798819
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140827&
He consented to the search and was still denied access. It's unclear whether this was in the first or second attempt to fly sans ID.
OK, so where's the law that says you have to submit to a search or produce ID? It's the same principle.
And by I, I mean my wife.
We flew from BWI to SFO, and back and she had NO ID at all. not even a library card.
They just searched her. And at BWI, we were so late for the plane, they didn't even search her.
The TSA people were pretty nice about it, too.
The difference between Us and John Gilmore? We're not millionaires who think bureaucracy should be spat upon at every step. Sure it sucks, but this is a persons job- show 'em some respect and they chill out (*'cept for the real jerks).
Speaking of which, you should see us get past TSA security with TWEEZERMAN tweezers- they come to two sharp points; every x-ray flags 'em. And everybody goes to their boss to double check 'em.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
What is wrong with letting the government know where one goes if one has nothing to hide? Is it the fear that the government will suddenly start restricting movement or require permission to go somewhere ahead of time? This sounds like a lot of paranoia to me. Some rich guy with too much time on his hands can decide he wants to fight it, but I'd rather choose my battles more carefully.
Not just a search. A more intensive search.
Do you think it's appropriate to force people to choose between privacy (not being forced to share their identity) and privacy (not being forced to submit to the groping of breasts and genitals and the probing of the rectum)? Gee, would I rather eat a shit sandwhich or have some piss soup?
Further, what is the point of a more violating search, other than to harass and intimidate the citizen? Because someone shows you a piece of photo identification, they can't possibly have some explosives hidden up their ass?
"If a regulation requires passengers to present an ID, you can choose to show it or find another method of transportation."
Seee? Its that simple. If there is a regulation that he should show it, then he should show it.
Umm.
That's the point though. There is no such regulation.
hehe fun to read, especially the bit about the bright carp.
John Gillmore doesn't use checks, he uses cash.
If I'm willing to lay down enough deposit to cover the cost of the DVD if I don't return it, why should I have to show ID?
> Since you consider yourself a liberal, I'll take
> this opportunity to say "thank you" - you guys
> are the ones that have always clamored for more
> government involvement in everything.
Oh yeah?
Seems to me that the Republicans are always willing and happy to extend government power into the private lives of everyone.
But corporations? NOOOO.... Never. They don't need regulations, the market will take care of itself, blah, blah, blah.
It's only the people that need to be regulated, right?
No. That was the first attempt. And since that was the time he was denied altogether (Southwest at Oakland), it's not surprising that he is using that in his court case.
But United at SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID if he, again, submitted to an intensive search. This time, he declined, and was not allowed to fly.
See http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html for details.
You are quick to whine when people accuse you of not reading the article. I am accusing you again. Mr. Gilmore did exactly what you just suggested he do! He talked to his lawyer. He was unable to find a law requiring him to show ID. So he went to the airport and attempted to fly.
In the United States you do not have grounding to sue unless you can prove that you have been harmed. That is why he went to the airport. He demonstrated that he was unable to travel to Washington D.C. to petition for a redress of grievances (a right guaranteed by the first amendment). The airline refused to let him fly unless he showed ID. He then inquired as to why he had to show ID. The airline's response proves it was due to a law.
How would the issue play out in court if he had not bothered to ask what law was binding him? Mr. Gilmore was not being childish at all. He was dotting his I's and crossing his T's. Regardless, I doubt he expected the guard to answer the question, but certainly the guard should have been able to find someone who knew the answer.
Here you go
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
OP is so completely wrong on so many levels. already been smacked down hard by numerous factual responses, definitely undeserving of +insightful.
Although this doesn't have to do with the article exactly, the article did encourage me to news.google.com search John Gilmore to find out more about him.
I came across something that led me to http://www.reason.com/0308/fe.bd.suspected.shtml.
What caught my attention in the above article is the below. My comment is that poor people are going to go for the supermarket loyalty cards because it's cheaper to pay 50% of the price rather than the full price for certain items. Why pay $6 per gallon of milk when you can get it for $3? One word of advice, if you can, leave your last name and house number off the form you fill out. At least that way, you remain a bit anonymous and the store gets their demographical information still, assuming that's what it's for.
From article I found: The popularity of supermarket club cards that collate permanent records of your grocery spending just so you can get 12-packs of Diet 7-Up on the cheap.
we are being held accountable to rules that we cannot know.
If we were around women more, we'd be used to it...
You can't take the sky from me...
By hiding in the front wheel bay of the aircraft... His new nickname will be John "Iceman" Gilmore.
I agree with him wholeheartedly, you shouldn't have to show ID to travel. Give me freedom! Get your regulations out of my life! Down with the paternal/maternal/nanny state! Rah, rah, rah!
But I do have to wonder why this is the hill John has decided to die on. Considering all the really big and important issues one could sacrifice oneself for, why choose this minor one? I really can't get excited about the right to travel anonymously on airplanes. Sorry, but I can't.
Let's fight the real wrongs of the world, not the technicalities.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
You're the one assuming this amounted to a strip search.
Likely, it was no more intensive than the "normal" intensive searches they do when they randomly pull people out of lin during the routine course of screening passengers.
And yes, I'm aware of times when individual TSA personnel have been abusive and/or inappropriate. But I'm assuming that they will operate within their guidelines, as the majority of them do, whereas you'd likely assume the worst.
Further, and I know this is a very cliche argument, but why do you think they want to search someone more intensively if they don't show ID? Whether it's the case or not, don't you think the prevailing notion is that they're hiding something? I'm not saying that's valid, I'm just asking you to consider it. And if searches are worthless, why do any searches or screening at all, seriously? Because rightly or wrongly, if there were security incidents and people didn't feel like we were doing "all we can" to secure air carriers, air travel would suffer greatly and our economy would suffer as a result. Whether that's right or wrong, or whether you think it's the fault of the "corporate controlled media" by not helping to explain that air travel really is a safe way to travel even if there are isolated security incidents and that people shouldn't be sacrificing liberty for security, etc., less people would fly if they were scared and didn't believe "the government" was doing anything about it, period. Like it or not, people don't react well to 50 or 200 people dying at once, no matter if they had a ten times statistical chance of dying by getting in their car.
I hope that someone understands all of this.
Oh, wait. Our elected officials and the people in charge do.
Disclaimer: I am a Canadian Citizen. Our travel security provisions are laid out in public law (If memory serves, bill C-55 most recently).
:)
I agree that as an air traveler that showing identification is probably a reasonable thing to request. I have accepted this fact for as long as I have flown. Canadians have had to show ID, and clear security with a boarding pass to get to our departure gate for as long as I've been flying.
What I cannot grasp, and cannot believe that so many of my fellow posters do not have serious issue with, is that the law requiring this is SECRET. If the contents of the law covers things that are very resonable, and common sensible as showing picture ID before boarding an aircraft, why the heck would you need to keep it a secret?
I hate to join the tinfoil hat crowd, but my security professional self is screaming. If a vendor wants to keep a crypto alg secret, I'm immediately suspicious and start looking for another vendor. I think most here would agree with this assessment.
So if your government says to you "trust us, what is inside this law is good for you. You don't need to see it." Why do you not treat this assertion with the same degree of suspicion?
To paraphrase Voltaire(1), I may not agree with his not showing ID when bording the plane, but I will defend his right to see the law requring it of him.
-----
(1) I know, the quote's attribution is arguable, but until someone can tell me who actually said it, I'll go with the popular opinion and give it to Voltaire
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
"I'm all for civil liberties, but this guy is distracting people from doing their jobs..."
It's good to see you are all for civil liberties. But now that you mention it, those civil liberties are pretty distracting.
Anyhow, we can tell you're all for civil liberties that don't distract people.
It's good to see you standing up for such strong principles. Civil liberties, and freedom and justice for all, oh, I mean, as long as they're not too distracting!
This had better not turn out like philosophy class, where the correct answer is "Why not?"
Citizens, do your part...
[o]_O
So let me get this straight: At the first airport, he was at first rejected, then told he would be allowed on the plane if he submitted to a search, then once he submitted to the search, he was rejected again.
And you're surprised that he didn't ask to be searched at the second airport? And you really expect that he would have been let on the plane that time when he wasn't the first time?
So why does it matter so much that you be identified before boarding? Isn't it true that private property can have any restriction not explicitly prohibited by law?
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Of course, under those conditions, he might
find it a bit difficult to update his website,
let alone talk to his family, o rtalk to legal
representation. And one of the more onerous
facits of the USA Patriot Act (I) is that the
US government can also slap a gag order on you
to prevent you're revealing exactly what has
happened to you. (This policy is unlikely to
change until the USA Patriot Act (I) is
"sunseted", since the former US AG J. Ashcroft
has only been following the directions/legal
opinions of the current US AG A.Gonzales.)
This is not +5 insightful. Schroeder is just whipping to death the fact that at one point in time some airline and airline worker at SFO was apparently badly enforcing FAA/TSA regulations that require all passengers to be ID'ed and matched against the "Don Not Fly" list.
I wager if you go back to SFO now chances are slim you will get on an airplane without an ID. It is FAA/TSA regulation and if an airline refuses to ID and check every passenger against the Do Not Fly list the FAA/TSA will eventually ground them or prevent them from entering U.S. air space.
The "Do Not Fly" list is however so badly implemented it wouldn't be at all suprising if some airlines or individuals are blowing it off. Thats what people do in the face of incompetent bureaucracy, throw wooden shoes in to it, sabotage.
The other obvious problem is in trying to keep the whole thing secret they've done a really bad job of enforcing the whole thing, in training airlines and airline workers on what is required by the regulation and in Europe especially they routinely don't complete the "Do Not Fly" list checks before the plane takes off leading to planes turning back or being rerouted to Maine.
@de_machina
I think it boils down to this: There is a difference between a rule and a law. The ID thing is an FAA rule, not a law. The FAA has the legal power to make, and enforce, some rules -- including this one.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
No he's right and John Gilmore is just being an ass.
The "federal law" is in fact an FAA regulation. Federal law allows the FAA to keep regulations concerning the details of security precautions secret. I hope the valid reasons for this would be obvious.
It is very clear from the FAA's letter that the situation is more complex than a single line in a regulation saying "passengers must provide a photo ID" that the FAA could excerpt to show Gilmore. Quite likely the photo ID requirement is part of an internal airline policy designed to meet a whole host of FAA regulations, some very precise, some general and vague. The airlines' internal policy is probably subject to federal review and approval. Think of it as something like the combination of zoning and building safety laws that apply to construction in a city.
So, what is *techincally* the internal policy of the airline is probably at least partly written by lawyers to conform to a bunch of regulation... the airline is a little loose in it's language and says it's required by "federal law" (which to their thinking, it is). The government on the other hand doesn't have a neat, single line of legislation saying "passengers must present a photo ID" but some lines about that (with certain proviso's, exceptions, procedures to take in the event that an airline chooses not to require photo ID's etc. etc.) a whole mass of regulation that leads the airline to simply cut the gordian knot and flatly require photo ID's without exception. The FAA doesn't have a nice neat one line to show Gilmore and doesn't want to release the whole mess because to do so would provide those trying to circumvent security procedure too many details.
In the end requiring a photo ID is a reasonable request. I'm happy that Gilmore is riding a bus instead... his brand of pedantic blindly ideological asshattery should have inconvenient consequences.
You are right in thinking that I still think that Gilmore has a case. Which account is right. I don't know, and either way there is still a secret law requiring us to "show our papers" to travel within the US.
Interestingly, I see that you can't challenge a single one of my assertions about the current state of the police powers in the United States: "We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments." My position stands unopposed by you with a single fact. The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no. There is literally nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says the Bill of Rights only applies to those the President approves of. This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.
Your straw argument that if some things should be secret then it is ok to have secret laws (like those in Communist China and Soviet Russia) rings hollow. Yes, some things should be secret, such as the details on how to make weapons of mass destruction, but the actual laws we have to follow day to day need to be public so we can know what they are and challenge them if they are unconstitutional.
We do live in 1984. The government can do sneak and peak searches, warrantless secret searches of your medical records, credit card transactions, library records and any "public" record. They can also, without a warrant, record who you phone and when, and many other transactions. The Administration to increase pollution is called Clear Skies; their plan to deforest is called The Healthy Forests Initiative. All I can say is that I think the President is double plus un-good.
Interesting, isn't it? Conservatives always claim they don't want stuff like this... Yet the instant they get into power, they start passing it left, right, and center, and blame the "Liberals".
He is asking why, not just going by what he has heard from every person.
There is a story of a woman that made bannana nut bread in a 4x6" pan. When asked why she did it, she said because her mother did it. Well, later her daughter started the same habit, one day her daughter taught her frind her recipe, but the friend did not have a 4x6" pan, the girl asked her grandmother how to modify the recipe for a non 4x6" pan, the grand mother said " use the same recipe, the pan does not matter", the girls asked " then why have we always used a 4x6" pan?" The grand mother replied "I used one because my oven was only 6" wide."
The dimensions were pulled out of the air, but its gets the point out there. Some people just go with the flow because everyone else does it, instead of asking what the resoning is behind it.
Now aftr hearing all this bullshit, why do you show ID to board a plane? they are already searching you for weapons. If the police want this to track people, why not check everyone entering/exiting an airport/state line?
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
1) armored cockpit doors.
2) armed undercover air marshals.
ask israel what security measures are effective. id checks isnt of them.
Oh, for fuck's sake. He's on a mission to test this, remember? His PURPOSE was to test this, and pursue it in court, and now you're going to use this bullshit argument on me? He made a premeditated decision to politely test this system, and see if he could shake loose the whole "papers, please" issue.
Since that is the case, hell fucking yes he should have tried to get on the plane at SFO. But you choose to take the "um, aren't you surprised he didn't try after he'd been rejected once" tack. By your logic, he shouldn't have even gone to the second airport at all! They told him they'd allow him to fly if he submitted to a search. And while that may have sounded familiar to him, if his goal was to go on a crusade with this, he should have tested it again, yes? And don't give me any bullshit about embarrassment, because he was prepared for this since his goal was to challenge this system.
And yes, I do expect he would have been let on, because *I* have flown without ID before. Twice now! After Sept 11. I lost my wallet and all I had was my plane ticket, going from ORD to MSN. And yes, I had to submit to the special search, but I still flew. So yes, I do expect he could have flown with no ID, albeit with much hassle. Of course you won't believe this, but no matter.
Look, I'm not saying that the system is great, and I think John's cause is worthwhile. I just think that exaggerating things (i.e., that he can't fly with no ID, even though SFO was about to let him - and we'll never know either way, will we - or, that this is a universal issue of being able to travel without "identity papers", when this case applies only to air travel, and there are numerous other ways to travel - and it doesn't matter if they're slower - without ID. The point is that he shouldn't hurt this case by overdramatizing things.)
No. They let him thru the security check point, but then stopped him from boarding the plane. From way down the article:
Also, note that regulations which are needed to enforce laws have the full force of law and need to be just as transparent as the laws themselves if we are to live in a free society. From further down:
It's this complete lack of transparency that makes it difficult for a US Senator to get on a plane to get to a vote! How can the typical citizen expect to get justice out of a system so opaque and byzantine that even a US Senator has a hard time flying?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
It has made flying MUCH more INconvenient. There is ALWAYS a CHANCE that Dangerous People CAN "do something" (?) Why is this guy an elitist? Small business people are getting hurt - I know three that have lost SEVERAL contracts due to travel delay issues (since all the extra 'security measures') with airlines. It is NOT a 'very little inconvenience'.
All this to "hopefully" make the airlines safer!?
I say again -
Fuqtard
So what about those of us flying out of airports other than San Francisco International Airport?
Do we even know?
It seems to me the level of uncertainty over exactly what you can or will be forced to do and why upon entering an airport is the exact problem here.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I can definitely understand having strong, rather passionate negative feelings towards certain individuals within US politics who *claim* to be Christian. I experience such feelings myself. (I won't name names, but I don't think I really need to...the individuals in question know who they are, and so do most of the rest of us)
However...if hatred of such "Christians" extends to hatred of Christ himself, it might interest you to know that Jesus most likely would actually share your feelings towards such people. One of the things which got him killed was a habit of several times becoming furious with the religious leaders of the day, reprimanding them and calling them hypocrites, among other things.
It always interests me when I see people (justifiably, IMHO) expressing anger/hatred/frustration towards Bush and his followers, but at the same time mistakenly extending that to Christ, because they make the assumption that Jesus and Bush are ideologically/attitudinally similar. What people would find out if they took the time to do some research on the matter however is that Christ and Bush are actually diametric opposites...In fact I can hardly think of two individuals who have less in common with each other.
My motivation in pointing this out is not that I'm in any way "turn or burn" fundamentalist, but that I'm someone who in a hopefully more moderate, historical perspective sees Christ as having been a worthwhile human being...Sufficiently so that at times it grieves me somewhat that he is in any way associated with the likes of Bush. I'm not saying that I'm angry with you here...Assuming that Bush and Jesus are similar is a mistake a lot of people make, primarily due to the claims Bush makes...but it is a mistake that is based on a lack of accurate information. I don't believe anyone's going to go to hell for having the wrong idea here...but having the historical record straight in virtually any instance is a good idea.
Its not that hard really.
Big friends in high places, lets unite and make it look like someone else is doing this... takes the blame away... etc... Usual Suspects, Usual Scum.
Imagine if cars were non transfereable, used car market would be DEAD.
Technically and legally, the airlines could easily setup a system were anyone could reauthorize their ticket to anyone else, like a normal sale, and with only $3 admin fee (talking 5minutes to a $11/hr employee should not cost $25 admin fees, again same scum making false fees)
or done online. We know us slashdotters could easily do it, unless their ticket systems are so ancient and cruddily coded in COBOL or some lego systems.
Why is it easier to build a 747 with millions of parts and efficient engineering, yet the airlines billing/ticket/scheduling systems are MORE OUTDATED than your local blockbuster running DOS ordering systems.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Further, and I know this is a very cliche argument, but why do you think they want to search someone more intensively if they don't show ID? Whether it's the case or not, don't you think the prevailing notion is that they're hiding something?
No. Someone up to no good would use their regular identification (or a good forgery) and not make a scene. Anyway, identification does nothing to prevent terrorist acts in the air. All of the 9/11 guys provided identification and were still allowed on. Someone on file is not going to be the one to board the plane with proper identification - nor are they going to cause a scene when bording.
They need better security. Period. On the plane. Searching my crotch isn't going to protect anything.
They'd try to assert the law as part of their defense. The nature of the case would be extremely public not only because of John's notoriety, but because of the peculiarity of the circumstances. More over, he'd be able to fight to make the proceedings as public as possible. And eventually, even given the conservative nature of the supreme court (assuming it got that far), the ADA would likely crush such a poorly concieved law (whatever it is).
It's also worth observing his notoriety would increase greatly, and the case would provide him with a cheap powerful and very loud pulpit for some time given the media's love of a good trial.
Best of all, chances are it'd be publicity for his causes on someone else's dime on a scale he currently can only dream of. The story practically writes itself, heartless unpragmatic beaucrats in an airport no less, citing a secret law to keep self-made freedom loving epileptics from flying?! Who doesn't want to see that 4 hours a day on CNN?
You're still wrong. You're taking this tack that him being allowed to fly with no ID was in itself a mistake on the part of a counter agent. I disagree. If the ID requirement was hard and fast, they wouldn't let it slide like that. As I have said, I *agree* that there are secret security directives and guidelines from the FAA/TSA for airlines and airports. I've already stipulated to that numerous times. And these may be tantamount to "laws", as applied, as far as a passenger is concerned. After all, if you can't really challenge it and it stops you from flying, what's the difference? Yes, I get it. Jeez. But what I'm getting at is the need for HONESTY in this debate if it's to be effective. I hope Gilmore is successful! But I wish he wouldn't frame it as a need to show "identity papers", generically, for all travel, as he does in his soundbite style quotes for interviews, or say that he wasn't allowed to fly with no ID when he didn't even follow through at SFO when they told him he could.
What if I told you that I have flown, post-September 11, with no ID? ORD to MSN. I had to submit to the extensive search, but I still did it. I'd lost my wallet, so I had no choice. All I had was my ticket, my luggage, and the clothes I was wearing.
I agree with you about the No Fly lists and the broken nature of the system. And the publicity that something like Gilmore's case can bring can shed some light on things. But over-exaggerating the issues is, I believe, dishonest, disingenuous, and counterproductive. I mean, if you think you're on the righteous side on this one, why not just stick to the facts instead of making Orwellian statements and predictions? I'm not saying you, personally, are doing that, but many of Gilmore's own comments echo of Nazi Germany or Soviet states, and I simply don't think the comparison is apt.
Your point about Israel is spot on though I have reservations about armed air marshals. At that point you are putting someone with a potent weapon on the airplane. If a terrorist group infiltrates someone in to the air marshall program they can walk on to a plane with a weapon that might be able to breach the cockpit(not sure how bullet proof they are).
Infiltration is not real likely in Israel because the number of plans and marshalls are small and their religion/ethnicity autoscreens them. The Air Marshall program in the U.S. is much bigger, chaotic and incompetent.
The other risk is several terrorists could overpower the air marshall and seize his weapon or the air marshall could accidentally cause decompression with his gun shooting at terrorists.
Not a big fan of the crew having gun's either. Again you could infiltrate a terrorist on the crew as may have happened with the Egyptian air line that may have been intentionally crashed in to the sea by one of the pilots.
@de_machina
Can there technically be a secret law ?
One basic tennant of any legal system is that none may ignore the law (although I don't know how it's typically formulated in English). How are you supposed to know about a secret law ? It doesn't fit in the system.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
It seems as if this practice is common. I once forgot my State-Issued ID at home before flying. I told the screeners this, and they said that I would have to submit to a more extensive screening if I was to be let into the gates.
My luggage was taken to a MRI scanner and the checkpoint screener examined every key on my key ring, and took out each and every scrap of paper, photo and credit card in my wallet and examined it for, I assume weapons. They took the orthotic inserts out of my shoes and wanded me closely.
I was travelling with my wife, who did have an ID, and I suppose my passive submission to the procedure kept me from staying at home.
This was in May 2004, so either enforcement is somewhat arbirary or the guidelines changes between the time Gillmore attempted to fly and I mistakenly left my ID at home.
Or in the instance of Gillmore V. Ashcroft, the guards knew they had a rebellious troublemaker, and wanted to make sure their authority was unquestioned.
I wonder what would happen now if John Gillmore tried this "stunt" again?
[sarcasm] I can't wait for the next Cringely story! [/sarcasm]
Fair enough, can't have it both ways can I? Yes, since he was testing the system, he either should have tried to fly the second place or not even bothered.
Actually, reading through your post, it suddenly becomes clear to me that John didn't fly the second time because that would have weakened his case. He got me duped on that one, though I appreciate you clearing that up.
Of course, the point is no longer the "papers, please" issue, it's the "secret law" issue.
The idea that secret laws are compatible with democracy is laughable.
Gilmore's can shed some light on this issue.
All I'm calling for is:
- Honesty, and not lying about or omitting events, like being allowed to fly at SFO if he submitted to a search, albeit a more intensive one
- Not exaggerating the story with charged phrases like "identity papers" when it could just be called "ID"
His aim was to sue the government, not the airport. And he does have ID, he has a passport. And, if he didn't have ID, then he would be allowed to fly. He was disallowed because he had ID but refused to show it.
Right. Which is why we all should be thanking John Gilmore for pursuing this.
"you guys are the ones that have always clamored for more government involvement in everything."...is this a conclusion you have reached independently by inspection, or are you simply mouthing a slogan you were issued with? I consider myself a liberal, yet I am a long way from "clamoring for more government involvement in everything," and at the moment a very, very long way.
Such nonesense, however, is not the issue here. Nor is the issue whether or not an ID should be required (I suspect it might be a good idea). The issue is secret laws.
If you are in favor of secret laws, say so.
t
If you would RTFA you would see that he did submit to the more invasive search, was let through, and then was later pulled out of the line by a security guard who told him he wouldn't be allowed to fly because he didn't show ID.
Sigs are for the weak.
This country has turned into a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
More like a Kafka story or novel.
Q Why do I need to show my ID ?
A Catch 22.
Q What says I can't see the law ?
A Catch 22.
The US gov should be careful, Joseph Heller might sue.
Yes, I really do hope all this gets resolved. Though it might seem so from my posts, I SUPPORT John's mission to shed some sunshine on this whole issue. It's either a law, or it isn't, and you should either have to show ID, or not. I suspect many would be content to just know the contents of such regulations, so they could either be followed, or challenged.
But, as I've said elsewhere, I don't guess that it is a "law", per se. I think it's likely more along the lines of security "directives" from the TSA and/or FAA that operate as guidelines or recommendations for how airports and air carriers should conduct their business and their security. And yes, I'm sure they probably are secret. Frankly, I'm not sure security guidelines *shouldn't* be secret.
Where I come down on this issue is as follows: checking IDs and all the ridiculousness in airports since Sept 11 might do little to make them "more secure". What it DOES do is make the general populace believe the government is "doing something" about security. Even though it probably does little, allows people who really do want to go down the road to a police state more leeway, and terrorists would likely choose a completely different mechanism of attack in the future, since the airlines have already been used. But what it DOES do is keep people flying, which is good for a huge industry, and in turn, good for our economy and many other businesses in general. That's not necessarily a bad thing...
And eventually, even given the conservative nature of the supreme court (assuming it got that far), the ADA would likely crush such a poorly concieved law (whatever it is).
Because the heart of every conservative bleeds for the plight of the disabled. Oh, wait...
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I agree that the patriot act and all the regulations surrounding it such as the Secret ID law are grossly unconstitutional and will lead to severe violations of our civil liberties but I think its extreme to say we live in a police state. A police state would allow all of the secret things you've mentioned in every case. That just doesn't happen yet (although there is certainly potential for it to happen). We do have a fairly robust and open justice system, despite all its flaws, in cases not involving terrorism. I'm not minimizing your concerns but making a statement like you did will allow others to ridicule our concerns as hyperbole.
he was not 'held accountable'. He was refused permission to board an airplane... he wasn't arrested... he's got some valid issues here.. but it's not like he was charged with violating a law that was secret... a lot of people aren't noting this difference.. but it's important.
There are laws that state specifically and clearly that I must carry a driver's license and proof of insurance, and show them to the officer on request (if stopped while driving).
I can show you where to read those laws in my state's Revised Code.
The point here is that with what he is challenging, you can't even do that. In fact, the government is saying he can't fly, and can be arrested for trying to, but is denying the existence of the law that says so.
One, you could look at it as evidence that the United States is fascist or is heading there and that it is mostly corrput and devoid of legitimacy, and put on your proverbial tinfoil hat.
Two, you could look at it as an inevitable mistake inherent in a government run by humans, and have faith that the system will eventually correct itself.
Which seems better to you?
The law in the United States is a dynamic thing. Laws can be passed that are unconstitutional - but that doesn't mean that they're on the books forever. Most unconstitutional laws are eventually declared as such and become unenforceable. If one makes headlines rather than slipping quietly to its death the way it ideally works, that doesn't make it any more permanent.
The law relies on incidents like this in order to make sure that it's fair.
...but is it art?
change that to "DHS policy"...
The one you're talking about (and the only one he's apparently talking about) was Southwest Airlines out of Oakland. United at San Francisco was going to let him fly, but he chose not to. And if he was testing this system, he should have followed through. But he didn't.
Details here.
I don't like sharing my personal information either, however, like you said, you spent time in jail bc you didn't have ID. I guess I'd rather carry ID and skip the jail thing.
-Joejoejoejoe
Silly Rabbit: tricks are for kids.
My buddy choose not to get a license untill the age of 22.
Around the time of 21 years of age he went to buy beer and found out that he couldn't get it. So what did he do? He went to the DMV and got a IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
It has a different color top and says IDENTIFICATION CARD, not DRIVERS LICENSE.
THIS GUY IS A TOOL. HE IS WHY YOU DEMOCRATS LOOK LIKE TOOLS.
IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT GO TO CANADA
It also is worthy of note that no single measure aimed at stopping terrorism is necessarily, *by itself*, required to have a first order effect on security.
Security is applied in layers... each of which provides a small percentage of protection.. it's in adding up all these layers that you get actual security.
ID won't stop EvilDoers(tm)..
Why, then, are we doing it
Look to airline profit margins.
me, I hitch-hike.
I forget what 8 was for.
Um, no. You believe he would have been allowed to fly. Since the event never took place neither you nor I (nor John) know if he would have been allowed to fly without the ID. Therefore, your original thesis falls.
the OP was clearly trying to be funny. The mods are the ones that didn't get the joke. The last line ought to be a dead giveaway, really.
However, what about after an attack? When a plane goes down with a couple hundred people on it due to terrorism, won't it be very useful to the investigators then to have a list of who claimed to be on the plane? Remember, most of the passengers will NOT have used fake IDs, and it will be possible to quickly check them out and not waste investigative resources on them.
YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW YOUR RECEIPT TO FRY'S EMPLOYEES POST PURCHASE.
"I don't want to know the exact criteria by which passengers are selected for more intensive searches; that information could help terrorists figure out how to avoid extra scrutiny"
Security through obscurity doesn't work. It doesn't work in computer software and it doesn't work at the airport.
Keeping these procedures/rules/whatever a secret only serves to allow officials to harass people whenever they want for whatever reason they want. They'll search you because they don't like your haircut, or your skin color, or the jeans you're wearing, and there isn't shit you can do about it.
If the rules were written out clearly for everyone to see it wouldn't help terrorists any, because they have time on their side and can discover the rules with simple trial and error. What it WOULD do is prevent the citizens from being harassed from our own government.
Because of the false sense of security provided by keeping them "secret," we're actually making things worse.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Christians enjoy feeling hated & persecuted too much IMO - I don't think aside from some contempt for fighting evolution, no-one cares. Only in your 'Left Behind' books are you the center of the world.
Who hates Christians? Not even Moslems do (well in 'Crusader' form maybe). What they hate is having the US put their fingers all over their affairs and supporting Israel (Osama has said so, several times, consistently). Did you know that Muslims believe that Christians are also Believers? Jews are version 1, Christians version 2, and Muslims version 3 so to speak, when God finally ensured that his message didn't get corrupted. But they're all still Believers.
But for sure, Bush is in very little way similar to Jesus. Unfortunately I think Christians 'consume' Christianity; they use Christianity as an adjunct to their lives instead of making their lives conform to Christ. It's hard to blame them though, that's a hard thing.
Someday we'll all be negroes
To be even more clear, he was told on another occassion he could be subject to a search in lieu of ID. He consented to the warrantless search and even though he was told something that thing did not happen. Do you see the flaw in your reasoning?
Just because they said something does not mean it is true.
Sort-of. From TFA:
They reached a strange agreement for an argument about personal privacy: In lieu of showing ID, Gilmore would consent to an extra-close search, putting up with a pat-down in order to keep his personal identity to himself. He was wanded, patted down and sent along.
As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.
"He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,' " Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.' "
Maybe your assertion is valid in SFO, but at OAK it wasn't.
Sony ha
Our airlines have wanted ID for years. Profit demanded it. It took terrorism to make it a reality. Funny thing, but it isn't like it is saving the airlines now...
I forget what 8 was for.
mythbusters already busted this one. decompression simply doesn't happen. don't believe everything you see in the movies.
re: overpowering air marshals -- israel flies multiple air marshals on each plane. undercover. its quite unlikely terrorists would be able to discover them all and overpower all of them at once (which is the point).
re: cockpit doors. afaik they are completely bulletproof. (again, which is the point).
re: egyptian air lines -- the plane ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea because the terrorists were stupid and stubbornly insisted on flying the plane to a destination it couldn't possibly reach.
George Bush (son) would to pay a $0.02 licence per talk-turn because he's president.
However, it's USofA's law made by George Bush (son) & Co..
And how can a Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional if noone brings the case to it.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
"the air marshall could accidentally cause decompression with his gun shooting at terrorists."
That's an urban legend. Powerful explosives that remove a large chunk of fuselage can cause decompression, but bullets cannot.
Hmm... which one?
I was thinking "Kafka" or, perhaps, "Joseph Heller", but Vonnegut?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
You have no right to privacy on an airplane ? Why exactly is that ?
And, because you are in public, someone can request your ID for any reason because you have no privacy ?
How can a democracy have secret laws? It is absolutely unjustifiable, it goes against everything a democracy is. How can you justify the Patriot Act and this secret law? Oh, thats right, Terrorism. Great, a scapegoat! Remember what Hitler did when the Bundestag burned down? Remember what his first action was when he was elected after he rubbed it off on the jews? Now ofcourse, im not comparing united states to hitlers germany, but there is something going on that should not be. And only the people can stop it - but how can you? Arguing against the government would be defending terrorism.
"Either your with us, or against us"...
That's the internal type information that's supposed to be pertinant to a department...like instructions within the FBI on how to investigate a case. Unfortunately, the Ashcroft-ians have taken "secrecy" to an art lately. They want a paper trail when it's convinent, but want to ignore it when it makes them look bad. John was right because under the american system you can only take a federal law to court by breaking it...there's no middle ground for him to make his case.
"you guys are the ones that have always clamored for more government involvement in everything."
I'm not sure I agree. As a liberal-minded person myself I'm for the government staying out of our beliefs and traditions, but conversely I believe that that our systems must be designed to ensure that the collective rights we are guaranteed are provided-for. That includes elements of the public welfare that can be dealt with systematically rather than on an ad-hoc basis. In the past this has meant shoring up those areas of the government which were lacking, and today it means refining those areas and applying the latest developments in anthropology, sociology, and other sciences that deal with emergent phenomena in large populations.
I would not narrowly characterize Liberalism as "that which demands more government programs." Nor would I characterize Liberal-sponsored programs as merely "those which increase tortuous interference" either. My feeling is that Liberalism is concerned with all aspects of a given problem, and not merely shoring up the status-quo.
You must be aware that although Capitalism is an effective system there is nothing which requires any corporation to give back in proportion to its usury and/or damage. In other words, since ethics often stands in the way of the bottom-line, ethics is expendable. Therefore, systematic reform is necessary.
In the past I have been a champion of pure laissez-faire, but in recent years I have seen too much lip-service given to the laissez-fair concept in service of corporate hegemony to remain such an idealist. It seem to me that mixed socialist-capitalist economies offer the best of all worlds, preserving the health and welfare of the human infrastructure while providing a fertile ground for innovation and competition.
I know that the media and other corporate shills will continue to use any symbolism and hyperbole necessary to further their profiteering goals, but I hope that private problem-solving individuals will do better than to simply repeat their maxims and will look more deeply into the solutions we need in this critical time.
-- thinkyhead software and media
From the article: and arrived in rental cars that required a valid driver's license and one major credit card.
I'd argue that the rental car contract is not the same thing as flying without an ID.
A rental car company is libel when it gives a vehical away. It is required to be postively sure that the individual is fully capable and legally permitted to drive the car, or else it WILL be sued in the event of an accident, insurance be damned. Similarly, the credit card check is not to verify that the individual is what the ID says it is -- its to avoid having to do their own credit background check (minimum week or more delays and hefty increase in costs) in order to lend the car with the knowledge its going to someone likely to give it back.
they hold the credit card company responsible for dealing with that credit check and that cost, to save themselves the money and keep competitive.
both items are strictly business decisions that have no relation at all to the no flying without an ID law.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
their plan to deforest is called The Healthy Forests Initiative
I know I'm going to be modded off-topic, but I really don't care, considering how misinformed you are. You live in an urban area don't you? I grew up and still currently live in an area where over 90% of the land is either national or state forest. The current status of our national forests, at least in my state, are pathetic at best. The majority of national forest land is in desperate need of either controlled fires, which are wasteful, dangerous and tough to control, or selective logging. Not all logging is the "Slash-and-Burn-The-Rainforests" type stuff you urban hipsters would like average americans to believe. It has been proven time and time again that selective logging of trees that are dying or failing to thrive allows for greater overall tree health, greater lumber productivity, and allows for greater wildlife density when compared to areas in which proper forest management techniques are not allowed. Have you ever driven through the Squaw Valley area in Nevada and Utah? Those "Forests" are, for all practical purposes dead: they have no wildlife, all the trees are either dead or dying, and the forest isn't even aesthetically pleasing. To dismiss the public forest policy enacted by Bush and company merely because you disagree with other aspects of his policy is shortsighted and harmful to many different species of animals, not just the humans who derive a living and/or recreation from national forest land.
To quote a very wise fat child, "Stupid Hippies piss me off."
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
q. who was first?
a. xclock. xcalc.
q. whose is best?
a. gdesklets
hand
Yeah right. I suppose you've never been stopped at a road block, sobriety checkpoint, or whatever, and asked to produce your ID. Now, it may be that you don't HAVE to show your ID, but then you will be detained, possibly have your vehicle searched, etc.
Wow, was that a truly original thought, or what? If you're going to use the word "elitist" you might want to have a look at the sorts of folks who throughout history have used that word as a pejorative. I think you may find you don't necessarily like the company you're in.
I agree, we do live in a police state...in the name of freedom, of course. And yes, each of those allegations you have listed, has documented reports or hard evidence to back it up. The question is, how do we solve the problem without ending up in a civil war? That's where I see this heading. If things do not change, some one will get fed up with it, and we will be in a state of war, internally.
BDR Gear
Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
but it's not something reasonable--the expectation that you can get on a plane without ID (
First of all, it's not unreasonable. Me having an ID or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I'm a "bad guy" (terrorist, hijacker, whatever). I could have a fake ID, or even a perfectly legit ID, and no record of suspicious activity... in either case, you have NO way of telling - from my ID - whether I'm up to no good or not.
And anyway, the real issue here isn't about the ID. The airlines should be free to implement such a policy (or not) based on their own criteria... the real issue here is the notion that the United States has secret laws, that we're all expected to obey, but can't even see. That is so totally abhorrent to the idea of a "free country" that it's ridiculous. Secret laws might be OK in some fascist / totalitarian regime, but they are most certainly not OK in the USA.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
excellent. well said. thank you.
I traveled from San Jose airport (SJC) last week and was surprised that I was not required to produce ID. The gate agent even specifically said that they no longer require ID at SJC.
Hitchiking is illegal in every state where i've bothered to research the law.
Not in california. Well, sort of. If you're standing 'on the roadway' (within the white lines), it's illegal, but if you're on the shoulder it's legal. On the freeways you can only walk on them if there isn't an 'alternate' route. The ones you can't walk on are marked as not allowing peds or bicycles or 'motor drive cycles'.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Originally, it was NOT for identification, but to show that you knew what you were doing behind the wheel.
Over the past 20 years or so, the concept of a "driver's license" has changed from "proof that you are tolerably competent to operate this type of vehicle" (witness that in some states, it is still called an "operator's permit") to "ID for the benefit of any authority who thinks they've seen you doing something wrong".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.
It's not unprecedented.
epileptics can't be identified? WTF? There are many more forms of ID than just drivers licenses...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
"re: egyptian air lines -- the plane ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea because the terrorists were stupid and stubbornly insisted on flying the plane to a destination it couldn't possibly reach."
I am almost positive that is not true or you are talking about a different crash. The one I'm talking about the airplane just suddenly went in to a steep dive, and the pilot(or probably co pilot actuall) was uttering the name Allah. The plane was clearly never hijacked or least it wasn't obvious on the voice recorder. Their was also no chance it ran out of fuel.
Either the pilot intentionally crashed the plane or there was a mechanical malfunction that didn't show up on the data recorder that put it in a sudden uncontrollable dive. The Egyptians insisted it was a mechanical problem, the Americans leaned strongly towards the pilot intentionally crashing the plane.
@de_machina
A police state would allow all of the secret things you've mentioned in every case
Hardly. Even the Nazis had public trials. The knowledge that bad things _can_ happen to you if you offend someone in power is enough to stifle freedom in most cases.
How do you know he wouldn't be allowed to board the plane after being searched, just like the other time?
Shortly thereafter, look for SDO'C to step down, and then ShrubCo will have Scalia + Thomas + Thing 1 + Thing 2 to pass any agenda he wants, no matter how wacky.
Yeah, right.
I hope he doesn't carry large amounts of cash because law enforcement can seize it under forfeiture laws. You don't have to commit a crime; you just have to have the cash money in your possession. Getting it back is worse than pulling teeth.
You see, there are more important violations by "the authorities" that need the attention that this stupid ID case is hogging.
Asking for your ID is no big deal. The city taking your home and land to sell to Wal-Mart is a big deal. Seizing your hard earned cash because they can is a big deal. Drugging normal kids because the teachers can't (or won't) do their job is a big deal.
You just need to get your priorities straight.
you shouldn't be force to show id and violate your fundamentle rights aka right to privacy and the the 10 ammendments of consitution. Just to fly or to drive a car. you don't even need i a drivers license to drive an automoble (legal definition from this website) driving is a fundamentle right http://www.muckraker-report.org/id18.html/ Go do the research and find how much the goverment has been lying to and making you the slave and the goverment master. Instead of you being the master (king) and the goverment being the servant. patrick henry give me liberty or give death.
You mean this one?
The pilot wasn't a terrorist; he was suicidal. He just happened to take 216 others with him. At least, that is according to US investigators.
No amount of screening is going to fix those sorts of problems. Some people are just insane, either permanently, or temporarily (like this guy).
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Can anyone provide hard data, or a link to such data about hijackers and how many of them had valid ID on them at their time of arrest (or killing)?
More importantly, can anyone provide information regarding what percentage of people who dont' carry valid ID will go on to hijack planes?
Mr. Ashcroft?
I challenge your 'somewhat harder' part. In the off chance that the person getting on the plane were a 'known' terrorist, they'd simply borrow some id from someone who looked like them. Terrorists do all look alike, don't they?
One of the litmus tests for a security measure is, "Does it appreciably increase security, or does it address a particular security problem?" In this case, I don't see how it does. Having ID is not a problem for terrorists. In fact, the terrorist is the guy who will willingly show his ID, take off his shoes, and anything else all the other people are doing. The people he wants to blend in with.
Related- Many people I've talked to equate terrorists with illegal immigrants. There have never been any illegal immigrant terrorists. Legal immigrants (all the 9-11s e.g.) and citizens (Kazinsky, McVeigh e.g.). Terrorists try to blend in as much as possible. That means doing everything 'by the book'.
This guy is my new hero. I wish every millionaire used their money to make the world a better place in some way.
San Francisco Photographers
Ihre Papiere gefallen. was bedeuten Sie Sie haben keine Papiere? wir haben gerade den Platz für Sie Herr Gilmore.
They certainly don't teach us that in high school. Maybe I should have gone to Bill Gates's school?
I should learn to check these things.
San Francisco Photographers
Bringing this injustice to light is why he's doing this. You should be fucking thanking him for making this an issue, not considering it a 'waste of time'.
I recommend you jerk your knee into your own forehead in the future. Perhaps, in between the stars and tweety-birds you'll see why people who challenge government abuses should be supported.
You said one thing that was about 1/8th right. Civil liberties and security is a balancing act. Hiding the laws that affect either is extremist and unrealistic.
They are both correct, since they refer to two different incidents. Read the fine page you linked to, it's right there at the top:
Hell yes. You want me to abide by your rules, you have to disclose them.
Tactical military information, sure. (Only for a limited time, though...any classified information should automatically expire after a time limit.) That's about it. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy.
The TSA is not trying to secure air travel. The TSA is trying to give the appearance of trying to secure air travel, so people will continue to fly.
You want to make air travel safer? Making passengers show papers does jack. Instead, re-enforce the flight cabin doors, then give every able-bodied person on the plane a big-ass knife. Let any potential terrorists get the Flight 93 treatment, just give the passengers the tools to do the job. (Guns are problematic in cramped quarters, though the whole explosive decompression thing is a myth.)
Don't like knives? Fine, make it stunguns instead. Put 'em in the seatback pockets right next to the barf bags.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"If I have nothing to hide, then the government has no need to know. Period."
That's the most succinct summation I've ever seen of the essence of privacy.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
You're both wrong (both right?) The answer is yes, Liberals and Conservatives, when they get into power start passing stuff like this left and right, and then blame the other side. Homer put it best, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!". You guys don't seriously believe that if the other side were in power that things would be significantly different do you? Quit blaming eachother and vote Libertarian.
sorry, that link should be Libertarian
> I don't think that this is dispositive [...]
This is slashdot, keep it to a 4th grade reading level please!
-Seth
In this case, we're not talking markets, but the guy still has a point. Without some sort of structure, some rules, you do end up with chaos.
HOWEVER, and this is a point that too many people miss, rules for the sake of rules add nothing to that structure. A decorative wall-hanging is all fine and well, but it adds nothing to the strength or durability of the wall it is hanging on.
Thus, we can say that decorative rules serve no function other than to exist. Removing them does not create chaos, though if they add some aesthetic element to life, removing them may reduce the enjoyment of life. To date, I've never heard of a decorative rule that did add to the aesthetics, but I'm willing to concede that it is possible such rules exist.
Finally, neither necessary nor aesthetic rules require invisibility. A wall is no less a wall if people can see it is there. But if it can be seen, you can tell whether something is functional or not. It certainly can't be aesthetic if it can't be seen.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Nah. They never want a paper trail. Makes it too hard to rewrite the past...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
"We do have a fairly robust and open justice system, despite all its flaws, in cases not involving terrorism."
Dude! That is one whopper of a qualification. The whole point is the government in the U.S. can now unilaterally decide what is terrorism, and who is a terrorist, with no proof whatsover, without judicial oversight, and lock the person up indefinitely without access to a lawyer, or to their family, without due process and on a number of occasions have shipped them to third party countries to be tortured by proxy.
The whole crux of their strategy for wiping out our civil liberties and due process, is for them to say "we only do this to terrorists" to which the public is supposed to reply, "oh well if you only do it to terrorists thats OK". The only catch is the government never at any point has to offer any proof the person was actually a terrorist under their new rules, so they in fact can arrest anyone without charges, not just "terrorists".
If you are going to have a civilized nation with due process and the rule of law you HAVE to apply the same rules, equally, to everyone. As soon as you give your government an exemption allowing them to deny due process to one person you have set a precedent allowing them to do it to anyone and everyone, and have opened the door to totalitarianism, and its entirely at the discretion of the powers if they decide to seize the opportunity and turn your country in to a police state.
@de_machina
Because rightly or wrongly, if there were security incidents and people didn't feel like we were doing "all we can" to secure air carriers, air travel would suffer greatly and our economy would suffer as a result.
You say this as if it is already granted to be fact.
I note that fear of suicide bombings didn't destroy the demand for public transit in Israel.
If your fears become reality, you are forced to confront them and deal with them real-damn-quick. The problem with us, is that our fears never become reality, and we never confront them, and we never get over them, and we end up living our entire lives in fear.
It's really sad.
Random and weird software I've written.
You go old man... We may be on our way to a totalitarian state, but we're not quite there yet. Keep fighting, kicking and screaming... we may yet stand a chance.
Mnem
"Beware he who would deny you access to information... for in his dreams, he sees himself your master."
Not like it's ever happened before.
It's not a good thing when the state keeps secrets from its citizens, whether it forces an issue or not. If it disallows you from travelling, it is interfering with your life. There is no good reason to keep these regulations secret.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"The pilot wasn't a terrorist; he was suicidal."
How exactly did you read his mind to establish the rationale for his action. In choosing to kill 216 people that pretty much made him a terrorist be default, even if he had no ties to a terrorist organization.
If a suicide bomber kills 216 people in Israel or Iraq he is going to be labeled a terrorist first and suicidal second. Why is committing the same act using an airplane any different.
@de_machina
... the land of the free.
Where everyone has their lawyer on speed dial.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Hey I agree completely. I wasn't defending them at all. What I was saying was calling it a police state will not help us at all because it allows the conservatives in power to say "oh he's just one of the anti-government nuts."
Think of it as something like the combination of zoning and building safety laws that apply to construction in a city.
And yet there was a ruling that cities cannot keep their building codes "secret" by selling them for large sums of money only to selected contractors.
Just because its a "regulation" doesn't make keeping it secret any less despicable on behalf of our government. You say that making the regulation public would endanger security, but what happened to the security-through-obscurity mantra here (not to mention the widespread view that even now "security" is a joke nobody laughs at)? If it's "ok" to have secret laws (don't kid yourself calling them regulations... if you must obey, it's a law) about getting on airplanes, is it ok to have them about driving your car? How long before your car fails to pass inspection but they can't tell you why, only that you'll need to buy a new car (boy, I bet Ford's pouring a lot of money into their congresscritters right now)?
But hey, requiring an ID is reasonable, so there's nothing to worry about in a country of secret laws and secret searches and secret courts to try them in.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
How does having to show id make it harder to accomplish terrorist goals? Name one instance where a terrorist having to show id stopped them from doing things of terrorist like nature.
Seriously.. People like you scare me.
If a terrorist uses a fake ID, or uses someone else's ID, they can sometimes be caught doing that.
Also, to get a fake ID or borrow a real ID, you have to involve at least 1 more person. It's easier to catch one of two people than it is to catch a single individual. It's harder to keep a secret if you have to tell someone.
So it's somewhat harder to succeed as a terrorist if you have to show an ID to get on an airplane. That's how you prevent terrorism, by doing a couple of dozen things, each of which make it harder to succeed at being a terrorist.
In the process of all this driving, I've rediscovered a lot of musical favorites, learned about XM and Sirius, had a blast with GPS, goofed about with wifi in various hotels and parking lots, and generally had a whole lot of fun. And didn't spend too much money for my comfort level, but no matter what I spent, $0 of it went to the airlines, which suits me just fine. And I wrote the trips off, so less went to the government at the same time. Double win.
The government is out of control, IMHO.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, he was saying that if an epileptic weren't allowed to fly, he could sue under ADA. Which might be true, if the epileptic were denied flight because they were epileptic, but he was just being an idiot and assuming that saying "I'm an epileptic" immediately before denial of flight privilege (interestingly enough, privilege comes from 'private law' - exactly the issue we are discussing here) would be enough to get an ADA case made.
Basically, he was an idiot, but not for quite the reason you're thinking.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
It may be helpful to mention here that it is common that government agencies try to hide the way they do business. Partly that is for their own convenience. Partly the self-esteem of many government employees is somewhat dependent on the raw, unreasoned power of their agencies. Partly agency employees know the quality of their procedures is low, and don't want them challenged.
The Irony of Democracy is that few people in a democracy actually believe in democratic principles.
The 9/11 bombings gave power to some of the worst elements in the United States.
"Yor paperz! Show me ze paperz!"
> didn't the Supreme Court knock that down?
The practice of torturing and assassinating U.S. citizens under executive order has never even been brought to the attention of the court system in a substantive way. The Virginia man who is accused of conspiring to assassinate King George may soon change that, at least for torture, if not for assassination.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
You fucking dumbass tinfoil tiny-dicked paranoid bedwetting pantywearing little shit stains accomplish NOTHING with this "Oh, I'm living in a state worse than Nazi Germany" blubbering. It obfuscates the real issues, and makes you look like howling monkey with the brains of retarded bacteria. Will you please just all kill yourselves like the Heaven's Gate folks? Please?
They certainly don't teach us that in high school.
That's because history is written by the winners.
I am in the process of creating an airline, and I have never seen any regulation which requires that people have ID. I'm pretty sure the poster just pulled this out of his ass.
However, given the nature of this story, there might just be a secret law that isn't published.
Made it real hard for all the terrorist who have hijacked airplanes in the last 20 years; real hard. So hard infact, the latest round of attacks involved them training to become pilots with id.
You prevent terrorism, not by doing a couple dozen stupid things but by making security an open process.
And what Gilmore's argument truly turns on is the question of is our country still governed by the rule of law? Or, is it governed by arbitrary rules created and enforced by un-elected government employees, rules that no elected official has ever voted on nor that any citizen can read. Indeed, the incident with Sen. Kennedy is the most high-profile example of a situation where no elected representative can even write legislation to modify these SSI rules because even they are not allowed to read them.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there is information regarding our transportation system that should be secret. However, I do NOT believe that any rule or law that intrudes on a person's body, privacy, or Constitutional rights can in any way meet any conceivable needs test for secrecy. In their own way, the Bush administration has tacitly acknowledged this by founding Camp X-Ray and finding other means of keeping those whom they classify as "suspected terrorists" off of American soil and, thereby, outside of the protection of American law.
To roughly quote Benjamin Franklin, "Anyone who would exchange liberty for security deserves neither"...and, I would add, gets neither.
Gilmore thinks he's in a free country.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
In the days of the Eastern Roman Empire, the laws were required to be publically posted before they were deemed enforceable. This didn't bother Emperor Justinian, though, who hired scribes to write the laws in the smallest font possible--and then had those laws posted high up on the walls, such that they couldn't be read from the ground.
Where the hell were all of you civil libertarians during the Clinton years? That's the true hypocrisy.
High school. Care to try another tactic, or do you want to continue with the line of argument that I'm a hypocrite for daring to be born after 1975?
0 1 - just my two bits
I wonder if you really are stupid enough to believe that Mr. Coward...
Benjamin Franklin made the quote famous: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Malcolm X is also associated with that quote -- but he's a rebel, while Benjamin Franklin just, uhm, signed the Declaration of Independence and a couple of other related documents.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
In terms of effort and practicality is it more beneficial to keep the soccer moms feeling safe, or to actually confront the nucleus of the situation and solve it once and for all time?
How many forms of acceptable id do you carry with you that aren't a driver's license? I carry a driver's license because I need it while driving, and I might not even have that if I'm not driving. (Check card in a moneyclip).
In that case, with his reasonable expectations, being denied the chance to board a flight for which one has already paid does amount to being denied the right to fly (which he already bought) based on circumstances related to his epilepsi. If airlines feel the need to ID people in such a fashion they're free to, but they should do it a reasonable way such as publicizing the fact that ALL passengers will be required to present ID, and then a description of what ID is. Or in a novel twist, embed it in the boarding pass.
The idea that a person will be able to present id is based on the assumption that everyone who flies is able to drive or is required to carry a passport (or equivalent) with them at all times. It's almost always true, but because so many people fly in the US, it's also frequently false. Such as when I would fly cross country as a child. In his case, what rendered their assumption false was his disability, and thus they were discriminating against him based on that.
At some point even the conservatives agree people should be free, and cringe at the specter of eugenics. Old people who are also conservative, they're apt to be a little more sympathetic.
I am. as you hinted, as soon as you have secreat laws and policies in operation, this can become a slippery slope that often ends up in a police state.... But we'll ignore that for the moment and focus on the security implications.
Suppose there are policies that govern transportation that are secret. Now part of the security of any secure system is routine auditing. There are two fundamental methods of auditing: internal audits (performed by an agency itself) and external audits (performed by an outside body). If the rules cannot be shared outside the agency in question, external auditing is not possible.
Further, the role of independent observation outside the context of a formal audit should not be underestimated. With traditional security policies, one of the most frequent mechanisms in which serious security flaws are found is the independent discovery by individuals not affiliated with the agency in question. Whether this is a member of the media doing a sting operation or someone going through the line at an airport reporting incompetence by an airport screener, this makes up a sizable chunk of the security of the system as a whole.
For that reason, the security of our air travel---nay, of our country---fundamentally depends on ALL laws, policies, and directives being available to the general public. A policy of security through obscurity has no place as a first line of defense.
There are reasons for freedom of information laws, and they go far beyond avoiding a police state. They are there, in part, to ensure that if the government starts screwing up in ways that endanger the security of the nation or its people, the public will have a means find out and can apply pressure to fix the problems. This seems like a perfect example....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
too bad I don't have any mod points.
As you hinted, as soon as you have secreat laws and policies in operation, this can become a slippery slope that often ends up in a police state.... But we'll ignore that for the moment and focus on the security implications.
My bad.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I carry a driver's license. However, *every* friend of mine who doesn't possess a driver's license (for varying reasons, ranging from medical reasons to no desire to have one - being that I live in a city with usable public transit, that's not that uncommon) has valid state ID or a passport. An epileptic is likely to have one or the other; how many circumstances can you think of that require ID that don't involve driving? I can think of quite a few, ranging from purchasing cigarettes/alcohol to, in some places, using a credit card.
His disability has nothing to do with him having, or not having ID, and your assertion does not make it so - an epileptic is *not* excused from having to identify himself, and as such there is no valid ADA claim. If the requirement was for a "driver's license", the epileptic would have a legitimate beef, but an epileptic has no significant difficulty in obtaining ID as compared to a non-epileptic; go down to the Sec. State with adequate documentation, request a state ID, and you're set.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
If it werent for pirates I wouldn't have this machete and this green macaw parrot resting on my shoulder keeping me awake at night saying "arrrRRRr!".. damn pirates.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
Theft raises prices of CDs, that's why they cost $18. If it weren't for all you pirates, they'd be only $5 and we'd have much more music avaliable!
Have CDs prices changed that much in the last few years, when there was a worldwide boom of CD writers and CD copying, which was soon magnified by a boom on on-line illegal music trading?
I would like to know if anyone has any numbers to answer this; before, say, 10 years ago (probably even later) neither PC-based cd copying nor, much less, on-line music trading occur in anything more than a really negligible rate.
With such a huge spike in overall $0 music consumption, have CD prices gone up a lot, quickly? Or have they always been close to the present level? Anyone has an answer? How about in different parts of the world?
tmegapscm
the country is in the grip of the most oppressive, fascist, jingoistic, hysteria and racism driven administration it has ever endured? secret laws are unamerican. requiring people to show their papers is unamerican. locking up people on the basis of their ethic origins is unamerican. the 9/11 terrorists had valid id. we do not inspect shipping containers. our freedoms are slipping quickly away. thanks again, bush voters. you asshats. and yes, go ahead and moderate me down. but i speak the truth, no matter how unpleasant you find it. good luck, John, you're going to need it.
1. IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER -
A. ALL PASSENGERS WHO APPEAR TO BE 18 YEARS OF AGE WILL PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID, OR TWO OTHER FORMS OF ID, AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.
B. THE AGENT MUST RECONCILE THE NAME ON THE ID AND THE NAME ON THE TICKET -- EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW.
C. IF THE PASSENGER CANNOT PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION, OR IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED TO MATCH THE TICKET, THE PASSENGER BECOMES A "SELECTEE." CLEAR ALL OF THEIR LUGGAGE AS NOTED IN SECTION 6, BELOW.
6. CLEAR SELECTEE'S CHECKED AND CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPICIOUS ARTICLES DISCOVERED BY THE QUESTIONS ASKED;
A. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON A FLIGHT WITHIN THE 48 CONTINENTAL US STATES, OR TO MEXICO, OR TO CANADA, ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED BY EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:
1. EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY A QUALIFIED SCREENER, OR;
2. BAG-MATCH -- ENSURE THE BAG IS NOT TRANSPORTED ON THE AIRCRAFT IF THE PASSENGER DOES NOT BOARD.
B. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT -- CHECKED LUGGAGE, CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPECT ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED ONLY BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD; EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY QUALIFIED SCREENERS.
*.sig
> Private laws
Why fight it? The Bush Crime Family has pushed for 100% corporate control of the government and media for decades. They want companies to be allowed to write or change the law at their whims. We now have it. We're now no longer allowed to travel. Tomorrow we might not be allowed to eat. Already my two children are not allowed to be educated by the state schools because of a federal law that requires they have a Repuke-brand from the SSA. It's just going to get worse. Canada is looking better and better. When Bush doesn't allow your children to attend school, it's time to leave.
Why do so many people complain about others posting on here with Anonymous Coward and then talk about how we shouldn't be monitored or tracked. It is of utmost importance not to let the "man" know who you are.
But I am also all for living a long life. I understand the point that people think that it is an invasion of privacy which at best is not too effective in preventing terrorists. Maybe purely asking for id is not the best policy and there might be better things to pursue. This being true, I know I personally don't like flying much and have nothing to hide from the government. Anything that is somewhat constuctive is making flying safer I am all for. Instead of bitching about Big Brother, maybe people should try to come up with better policies. I know all of you slashdotters live crazy exciting lives that need to be hidden from the government, but I would like to think that most others are fine with at least some small sanity checks to protect your safety when you take a flight (if not stripping everyone naked, with full cavity checks, but hey, once again, I have nothing to hide).
Have you ever realized that you don't have to show your ID at the gate, where you get on the airplane? You only have to show it at the security checkpoint..where they don't scan your boarding pass! How hard is it to print up a boarding pass at home, alter it slightly to fit the name of the ID you have? Then just show the other, valid boarding pass at the gate where they scan it. Some security!
Religion is not a visible quality, and Israel is a fairly multi-ethnic society. There isn't really auto-screening.
It probably does help that each and every one of those air marshals was a member of the Israeli armed forces, though; I don't believe there's a similar requirement here in the US.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Finally, not knowing the content of the law, you cannot have any knowledge of whether it is followed or not. The actions of state actors based on unknown laws do not tell you what is in those laws. It only tells you how those state actors acted. You are (stupidly) assuming they followed the law.
It's even more complicated than that. Since he and several posters on this board have cited radically different treatments on different occasions, one can safely assume that either not all of those state actors were following the law all the time or the law itself is very vague. If, on some occasions, the actors behaviour was illegal, how would you know? One poster cites an occasion where he was allowed to board without any ID or search. I think that the DHS would interpret that as a serious incident which endangered thousands of people both in the plane and on the ground. The rule that should have protected them failed because nobody but the person breaking it even knew about it.
Spoken like a true lawyer. . .
In that I would find it impossible to believe that one could travel by air and NOT be aware of the requirement for ID. You get asked for it ALL the time. It doesn't at all seem strange to me, considering that it's the same way when you travel to a foriegn country. Basically, if I'm traveling anywhere be plane, I have my driver license and passport on me, because I know I'm going to get asked. How much and where vaires, like some airports in the US want ID at the gate, some (like DIA) don't.
I'm certianly not a fan of secret laws, but in this case, I can't help but wonder if that's really what is going on. Is it really a federal law that is kept secret, or are the TSA employees (who are not generally the sharpest quills on the porcupine) just mistaken? Seems to me it could be some FAA administrative ruling that's not required to be written down. You have to remember that many rules governing government agencies aren't laws passed by congress, but administrative rules passed by whatever regulatory body. They also don't always have to be written, though they generally are. Perhaps this is a case of that, I dunno.
Either way, they are certianly not passing a law that they are keeping hidden and bustin gpeople with at random. Rather they are checking for ID all over the place and making a very big deal of it and, at worst, refusing you access to the plane if you won't show them ID. That's quite different.
> If persons with authority start telling people what to do on the grounds
> that the law says they can, and then it turns out that they don't know what
> they are talking about, indeed for all appearances might just be making it
> up, then there are no limits to what citizens can and will be forced to do.
> If that's not a grave threat to civil rights, I don't know what is. It no
> longer matters what the law does and does not allow, the law doesn't make any
> difference any more if anyone with a badge can claim, "It's the law" and then
> without any further explanation demand anything they want.
The problem is that people in the position of authority have power, and power corrupts.
If there was a law stating that every complaint of abuse of authority will be thoroughly investigated by an independent body and, if found to be justified, the culprits shall be sodomized with jackhammers, then I will have no problem with showing IDs or trusting the authorities, because I will know that people with power would not even dream of abusing it.
However, as things stand now, policemen (and other people in a position of authority) can get away with crimes that a normal person would rot in jail for. Often they get "reprimanded" or are subject to "administrative measures" or, at worst, greatly reduced sentences because, after all, they are policemen...
WTF?
If you are given means to limit the rights and freedoms of other people (and often take their lives), you should be bloody made accountable! Any crime that also involved abuse of authority (whether as a parent, police officer, elected official, etc.) should be treated as crime against society and automatically warrant twice the maximum penalty set by law. Penalties for corruption should hurt so much as to make it not worth the risk.
Secret laws, laws that criminalize a large portion of the population, selective enforcement, etc. invariably lead to corruption and must be eliminated.
back to one of the older forms. Don't ask me why it's ok to /be/ a Christian but not, for a Muslim to convert to one, but that's how it is. It's very bad for them to convert. Too much more detail I couldn't give you, this is all just from a couple conversations with a (peaceful-style) Muslim officemate.
Someday we'll all be negroes
Privacy is for people who want to mind their own business, and for other people to do the same.
Look behind you...
I had a pacemaker installed in November, 2004 because I was born with third degree heart block (translation: valves don't open and close in sync, and a low heartbeat). I am 22, so I get funny looks from almost everyone when they find out I have a pacemaker. In January, 2005 I flew from OAK to ONT (for Macworld 05 in San Francisco). When it was my turn to go through the security screening, I presented to the TSA agent my pacemaker identification card. and told him that I could not go through metal detectors. I was escorted around the row of metal detectors, and was patted down by another agent, who ran my shoes and my lunch through the X-ray machine. The experience was not too bad, it took longer than just going through detectors, but it was bearable.
On my return flight from ONT to OAK, my experience was much different. The security line was very long (everyone seems to be flying back home at the same time) so I thought I'd use my impairment to my advantage. I walked up to the front of the line, told the TSA agent my story, and presented my medical device ID. She instructed me to go to the exit (where arriving passengers come out) and speak to the agent there. I walked around to the exit, and explained my situation to the oh so bored-looking TSA agent. Without so much as a blink of an eye he told me I couldn't go in this way, and I had to go through the metal detectors like everyone else. I tried explaining the whole metal-detectors-stop-pacemakers problem, but he would have none of it. I walked back to the security check entrance to speak with the first TSA agent, who by now was gabbing away on her cell phone. I told her what the other agent said, and expected her to tell me the same. She ended her conversation (how nice of her) and escorted me to the exit. She told the second agent my story, and showed him my medical ID. They argued for a few minutes, before a supervisor heard them, and came over to see what the ruckus was about. After several minutes I was allowed to go around the metal detectors, and get felt up and have my stuff X-rayed, by then the time I would have saved bypassing the long lines was long gone.
Usually it's the "hitching" part that's illegal, not the "hiking" part.
Thats why I always carry my Multi-pass!
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
And yet there was a ruling that cities cannot keep their building codes "secret" by selling them for large sums of money only to selected contractors.
...but what happened to the security-through-obscurity mantra here
And yet building codes aren't security procedures that benefit from being kept secret from those trying to bypass them.
Just because its a "regulation" doesn't make keeping it secret any less despicable on behalf of our government.
No... because it is outlining security procedures is what makes keeping it secret less despicable on behalf of our government.
If it's "ok" to have secret laws (don't kid yourself calling them regulations... if you must obey, it's a law)
YOU have no obligation to obey these regulations. They are laws for Airlines. YOU are not REQUIRED to do ANYTHING by this law. You can get in no trouble, you can suffer no penalties. There is nothing YOU can do to violate this law. That said there is admittedly one aspect of these regulations that does have an effect on you: The Airline is required as part of their own security policy to ask for your photo ID... As a private concern the airline is also free to ask you to stand on your head and whistle dixie as a condition of boarding.
(don't kid yourself calling them regulations... if you must obey, it's a law)
Don't worry I'm not kidding myself... I was clearing up the parent posters real or pretended ignorance talking about legislative acts when he (should) know full well that agencies (enabled by legislation) promulgate regulations with the power of law.
I never bought that mantra... it is a simplistic bumper sticker sentiment. Obscurity is often a valid *component* of security. Obscurity is a contributing but not sufficient component of security. Telling someone who is attempting to subvert your security exactly what procedures you have in place to prevent them from doing so is simple stupidity. Only someone who has elevated a simplistic slogan from an unrelated debate into an article of religious faith equally valid in every sphere would fail to see that. Gilmore is a "true believer" his faith is immune to logic or reason. His ideology driven obsession with one threat (from government) utterly blinds him to other threats (from terrorists).
Government encroachment of our rights is a legitimate danger. But paranoia fueled shrillness about reasonable precautions makes Gilmore a useless guardian of our liberties. Nobody listens to car alarms anymore because they go off for no real reason. Activists like John Gilmore are the same thing.
They want a paper trail for YOU...not them... get it!
This only works until everyone realizes what's really going on. I remember being hassled for an ID at Best Buy to make a $30 purchase with my debit card. I told her I didn't have my ID with me because I had left it in another jacket. The cashier then informed me that I couldn't make the purchase without it. So, I took my debit card out of her hand, said "that's fine." and left. The really, really stupid thing about this whole mess is that it's NOT hard to get a fake ID, and I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. It's all a psychological game.
As has already been said in this thread though, people like yourself don't seem to get it.
Firstly she called it a law, when it clearly isn't because the stupid bimbo doesn't understand the difference between law and airport regulations, secondly the guy has since been banned from travelling...i mean wtf ? And thirdly in a post 9/11 world there has been a heavy handed dogma imposed on people (not just in the US but everywhere) that if you are not automatically 'down' with laws, regulations, big business policy and feel you must in some way challenge them then you are not someone worth doing business with.
This has now become quite damaging, and who knows could be the new social dividing line, where before it was poverty, race etc, the new thing is:
Are you happy to act like a sheep to big business and governments in a post 9/11 world and do anything they ask of you automatically ?
once again, I have nothing to hide
This is the mantra of the ignorant. We are actually at a very critical point in history. You either support the notion of governments and big business abusing your rights under the flimsy excuse of security/war on terrorism. Or you don't. There's no middle ground.
It's 'your nothing' which you have been given since birth to do what you like with and fill it how you please throughout your lifetime. Please don't sully it by submitting it to any semi - official looking person who wants to take it from you, because you might just find it's very hard to take back.
Are you thinking about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? If so, no, that's when, according to tradition, the Jews split from the Arabs. But /Islam/ sprang up in, what, the AD 600s sometime (from memory, I didn't look this up).
Someday we'll all be negroes
I agree with your premise; unfortunately, your supporting argument is a strawman.
- The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -
Ah.
Perhaps I should RTFA.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
You may perhaps have heard the old saw that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", a concept which implies that it is the duty of all citizens to know all the laws, or at least, understand what kind of behavior is in violation. You would find it hard to plead with a judge that you didn't know that it was illegal to steal a car or beat somebody up, just because you didn't read the laws prohibiting such actions.
Secret laws remove any possibility of knowing what is illegal, and will lead to a situation where every citizen can be charged for criminal acts, if the authorities find it convenient to do so. This is known as a "police state", examples of which can be found in Communist Russia, and the military juntas of the 70's in South America. This is what is the really big deal- the possibility that members of the government may have you arrested for breaking laws of which you know nothing. Let's not get into the possibilty that they might enforce laws which don't exist. We all know that our government's belief in the habeas corpus is shaky and we're already talking about just how hard it is to challenge "secret laws" which might exist, as that's the gist of the report to which this article refers.
This is fundamental change in the balance of power in the government, and potentially, a fundamental change in the form of our government. I am very glad that there are some citizens and organizations which realize this and are fighting to prevent such changes. I submit to you that showing an ID to board an airplane is exactly, exactly, the state of affairs that we were warned against by Benjamin Franklin when said "Those who would trade liberty for security, deserve neither."
If you believe that concerns about abuse of power are strawmen arguements, let me provide a few links for your perusal: Air Marshall Abuse and Public Indigity . These are the tip of the iceberg, as these events are not directed with purpose or malice, but a simple outgrowth of conditions. I have no wish to experience the horror the Argentinian people did when they were subject to secret laws.
The Internet has no garbage collection
George Bush is dead! Long live George Bush!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I can attest to the how effective challenging is. In SoCal (southern california) they have a 'law' in wich you 'must' get your thumbs printed. So I asked the clerc to point show me where it says to in writing, no dice. repeat for up to the pinky, and cleared then they asked for a palm print ( by this time the undercover cops were bord and restless.) I objected based on philosophical and religous differences. They let me go with out a print. Did something simillar to a prof. That wanted 'vaulenteer' time told in essence I said no i'm not free labour, and that I am willing to do something comperable where I'll actually learn. He was at first PISSED then shocked. Spearking of didja knows: Did you know if a traffic cop does the please-pull-over dance. Keep going untill YOUR ready to pull over. Interesting note: No where does it say you MUST pull over right then and there. Unless your speading do they have the right to 'compell' you to stop. Also interesting to note your no law has ever been broken by taking the cops litterly. Did this to. They wanted me to stop so I pulled my e-brake....He was then SO pissed at almost ramming into me he let me go.
This is just poor journalism. This law doesn't exist. From the TSA website:
At most airports, a boarding pass and ID are now required to pass through the security checkpoint. TSA is consolidating passenger screening to the passenger security checkpoints in an on-going commitment to enhance security and improve customer service. Tickets and ticket confirmations (such as a travel agent or airline itineraries) will no longer be accepted at these checkpoints.
Proper Identification
If you have a paper ticket for a domestic flight, passengers age 18 and over must present one form of photo identification issued by a local state or federal government agency (e.g.: passport/drivers license/military ID), or two forms of non-photo identification, one of which must have been issued by a state or federal agency (e.g.: U.S. social security card). For an international flight, you will need to present a valid passport, visa, or any other required documentation. Passengers without proper ID may be denied boarding.
Note: Persons with parental, official, medical business or similar reasons may be able to access the checkpoint, but should check with their airline for required documentation.
All your Sybase are belong to us.
You have to show ID to get on a plane. This is to make it somewhat harder for terrorists to succeed in accomplishing their terrorist goals. It doesn't make it impossible, just somewhat harder.
:-p) and keep them hidden after they've even been revealed? Doesn't make much sense to me. Any informed terrorist will of course know about this "secret" law, making it pretty much toothless. If it would even be about terrorists, which I can see no signs of. It could just as well be to try to check up on basically anything else about you, probably controversial, since it's secret.
In which way? They just pick a guy not convicted to any particular crime before and he pass? That doesn't sound like a law useful enough to be a law to me. Many terrorists just do one crime in their lives, and that's when they die.
Terrorism is a national security matter. Matters of national security correctly fall under the duties and jurisdictions of the Federal Government.
Of course.
Having to show ID is not out-of-line. If terrorism didn't exist, then the situation would be different. Then there would be no need for a law or a rule that you must show ID. But terrorism does exist, unfortunately.
So, why is the law secret then? And still secret. Hide laws from the public to stop terrorists (wow, what a clever way to combat terrorists
And this kind of thing tends to discredit the otherwise good work of organizations like the EFF.
??? Why? More like the opposite to me. It feels good to me to have an organization with resources to follow up on these things to actually do it. Would you rather just want to live in your bubble or what?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
See, a long time ago we had this all figured out. Government OF the people (meaning, the people formed it.) Government BY the people (meaning, the people executed it.) Government FOR the people (meaning, its sole purpose was to serve the people.)
100 years ago, if a hijacker tried to steal something like a plane (well, let's imagine a train instead) they had to do so with enough men and guns and ammo to fight off the people on the train. If they screwed up, they would be shot by the passengers on the train, or even the engineer himself. That's government BY the people.
When gangs formed up that were strong enough to bully people around, the people responded by making an even bigger gang (called a posse) to hunt them down and kill them. If things got out of hand, the military was called in to serve the people and kick the crap out of the perpetrators.
Today. things are a lot different. If I saw a bank robbery in progress, and subdued the robber with my handguns (which I'd be proudly carrying around my hips, 2nd amendment folks), I'd be thrown in jail. If the robber tried to shoot me and I shot back and laid him flat on his back six-feet under, then I would be facing life in prison.
If the hijackers took a plan and I whipped out my 45 and gave them all a new hole, I'd be charged with endangering the life of the crew, murder, or worse.
That's why life sucks around here. Restore our basic freedoms, and we won't need security checks at the airports. We won't need no Homeland Security department (we got all the security right here, in the barrel of my guns.) Heck, we wouldn't even need a national military. If Bush wants to invade a country, he'd have to convince a whole lotta us to follow him into battle. Otherwise, he'd be going it alone.
We'd have a lot fewer trial lawyers as well. We wouldn't need as many prisons either. And we wouldn't have a problem with wayward politicians, because we'd be the FBI investigating them.
Folks, that's government BY the people. If Mao said that government comes by the barrell of a gun, then we have a whole lot more barrels than the military does. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then we can fight with far more pens than any government can hope to muster.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
There goes America. You're no better than them stinker commies. Should've voted for the dems, dude.
Why is this guy angry? This airline is a business, and as such can have conditions of service. If you refuse to comply, they can refuse you service. As long as they told him prior to purchase that he would require ID then he cannot complain, all he can do is choose another service. but IANAL...
Is this real? This feels too much like Kafka's The Trial - http://www.fragmentsweb.org/stuff/10kafka.html to be true. I guess that life really does imitate art.......
The thing I find interesting is that everyone seems to be equating traveling on commercial aircraft with traveling. This is not the case. He can go anywhere in the US, except Hawaii, without boarding a plane.
Just because he refuses to provide ID to fly does not mean he is trapped anywhere or under "regional arrest". He is perfectly free to drive, ride a bus, ride a horse, walk, take a boat, and probably take a train, or a combination thereof. All it takes is time and/or money, which he has in abundance.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
He didn't say hatred of Christ, just of Christians. I take Ghandi's view - Christ was a good man, and if Christians were like him I would respect them. But the fact is the average Christian behaves less "Christainly" than the average man in the street. I have a dislike of Christians that has no basis in my disagreement with their faith - it's based entirely on the way they act. Yes, there are exceptions, but on the whole Christians are not nice people.
I am trolling
I could be mistaken but they may be basing their policy on interpreting a recent Supreme Court decision involving a traffic stop in Nevada. I couldn't find the NY Times article I was looking for, but here is a CNN article that refers to the same case; Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554.
According to the article some twenty states have laws that can require a person to provide ID under similar circumstances. Most states regard operation of a motor vehicle to be a privelege under which there are certain requirements; 1st & foremost, that an operator must be licensed & be able to provide positive ID. One could argue that travel by commercial airline is also a privelege & that providing ID prior to boarding is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
Something is going have to be decided one way or the other about that smirking "well we don't torture people" policy of allowing allied or even convenient hostile nations to torture for us. In this case, especially considering how secretive and evasive the Bush whitehouse is, it will be very difficult to get actual documentation that an an American citizen was tortured by executive order.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Remember, though...that was a civil war. An entirely different set of circumstances.
If we were at civil war now, then would you doubt that Bush would extend his "patriot act" to normal citizens that were up in arms against him?
Wouldn't ANY president in history take drastic action in the face of civil war?
I made a purchase at Frys once, using my credit card, and they asked me for photo ID.
I discovered that the phrase "I'm English: we don't carry photo ID because Britain is a free country" works just fine.
At the apex of it's swing towards tyrrany comes the case that illustrates the far right and the Supreme Court is forced to find this practice unconstitutional. A government of obscurity will lead to a Kafkaesque nightmare which the Supreme Court was designed to prevent.
.......
One hopes
I am the Barber of Seville.
I want to put out a call for action by slashdotters that might be able to help john in his case.
A letter to your senator of congresscritter something like this:
"Can you please send me a copy of the regulation or law which requires airlines to obtain from passengers a valid driver's license? Is there such a law?" (you don't need to copy my bad grammar, just a letter to that general effect.)
If you get an answer, please send it to John via EFF or via his lawyers, or send it to me. Thanks.
This would be useful to the case, but also puts pressure on the agency. If the law is so secret they won't tell a senator, that escalates the issue a bit. If they do tell the senator, and the senator send it to us, we can file that in court, and post it on slashdot.
It's one thing to 'define' that I 'know' the law, but it's a different ball game if they want to 'define' that I 'know' a law that I'm not allowed to see.
(It's not really, they just make another law that says I know the law I can't see even though I can't see it, and it's all my fault, again.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
For the sake of kids & college road trips everywher in this country, I sure hope the oklahoma city bomb guy didn't screw up that one with his rental truck.
Wolves think about the damage done to the their privacy and their freedom.
Can you get a tin-foil hat with cut-outs for wolf ears? Seems like it would be pretty uncomfortable otherwise.
paintball
Come on people - think a bit harder WHY this law exists? The law is designed to improve airline profitability, by streamlining pax movements.
The airlines are going broke - because check-in is too time consuming - many stopped flying on just that reason alone, mostly profitable business travellers.
This is a tit for tat law, so that the American public, long term,learn by carrot and stick, to be like a Singaporean - and flow through the checkin gates like greased lightening by flashing 20 ids before being asked. Time is money.
The little old lady, the chump with no id, or handluggage overloaded plus types are a disaster. Time wasted on them means less elsewhere. No id means govt. can't profile as easilly or cheaply.
So a cozy deal. We pass an ID law that means 2nd hand ticket trading is stopped, and encourages faster sheep/pax processing, and say, you obey as we instruct, and heavy non American pie sorts.
And if one thinks, you can see why the secondary ticket market needs to be killed off, and a pseudo security law enables it. Troublemakers who slow down the lines- must be punished.
Despite the best efforts of our "elected" representatives! Saying that, it is changing - the introduction of the photo driving license a few years ago started a ball rolling. I've still got my old paper one but the address is wrong (my parents place) but I'm not planning on getting it corrected despite the possible fine because the replacement _has_ to be a photo one.
from a shop in cambridge calling itself the "army and navy", i purchased some police-issue handcuffs.
i put them on my bike around the handlebars and the frame because when going along the road, they dinged against the frame and told people i was coming [when travelling at 20-30mph along streets in cambridge, people tend to step out unless there's sound warning them...]
policemen in cambridge tended to find this amusing.
then i went to the US, and took my handcuffs with me. and a pair of dress making scissors, in my small rucksack.
"do you have anything in your possession that could be used as a weapon?"
[the handcuffs were strapped to the bike, cost $75 in oversize shipping].
"i have some dress-making scissors..."
"could you show them to me?"
eeeuw, yukkk... i hadn't looked in that compartment since the washing up liquid had leaked, two years ago. out they came - into the box with the bicycle, never to be seen again...
anyway - off i went to seek my fortune in atlanta.
the handcuffs came off the bike, and i attached them, this being america, to my laptop bag. i thought it would be funny to look like my bag was important enough to need to be secured to my wrist.
i had begun travelling regularly around the states, and gotten into the habit of taking only carry-on luggage. when i had to return to the UK, i was able to go straight to the checkin desk.
the mentality of international flights is presumed that you will have lots of luggage - i had my computer and the aforementioned rucksack, the one filled with washing up liquid.
only when i got to the boarding gate did i think, hm, nobody's asked me any security questions, so i pointed this out, and was asked to step aside for a minute.
a very nice man came up to me and started going through the security questions.
"did you pack those bags yourself [yes], have they been with you at all times [no, my friends kept them in the car boot when we went for a coffee], are you carring anything that could be used as a weapon?"
now, i deliberately answer these questions honestly - the reason being that it is a criminal offense to lie to a government-appointed official. so i answered this, like all other questions, truthfully.
"well, i _do_ have a pair of handcuffs attached to my computer bag..." which i had forgotten about, to be absolutely honest.
well, they even went to the lengths of asking the pilot if he minded if my bag was kept separate from the rest of the passengers, and in the end my pathetic-sized rucksack (35 litre) after being thoroughly searched ended up in the hold, with the handcuffs in it.
_that_ would cause some merriment going through the x-rays.
i think the reason they let me on the plane is because i had been honest. the point of the security questions is to _get_ people to think, "are you bringing or could you have, without your knowledge, been given anything on board that someone _else_ could use to compromise the security of the plane?"
both the scissors and the handcuffs disappeared
because Gilmore is a tosser who has nothing better to do than cause problems for himself and others, and then occupy himself with a lengthy process of publicising exactly why he thinks he should whine about them. ...any sane person would just pull out a photo ID and be on their way.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Why choose white shoes?
I rode in a rented RV to Vegas for a bachelor party only to find I did not bring my drivers license with me, since I had it in my travel kit, which I use to fly. This was problematic with bars and such, but in the end with as much money as I was spending, I was able to get in with the bachelor party pretty much everywhere. (I'm 30, so I don't really look like a teenager trying to sneak in).
My plan was to ride in the RV to Vegas, and fly home in order to hop on a plane again and fly out of town for work on Monday. I called southwest to discuss my dillema. I did for some reason have my boarding pass printed and with me. They told me to have my wife fax my birth certificate and drivers license, so I had her fax it to my hotel. At security, I explained my situation, and showed them my faxed birth certificate and license, and they let me through.
Now, this isn't entirely without ID, but faxed copies of those documents are a heck of a lot easier to forge than a CA drivers license. In fact, the security guard didn't even unfold the paper, so it could have been anything that I handed to her. No extra searches, they just let me through.
This whole subject is interesting though - Which is more important, the ability to travel to petition your government, or the ability to identify each and every passenger? Since a few states have easily forgeable drivers licenses, and many countries have easily forgeable passports, the ability to identify passengers is pretty weak in and of itself. So knowing that does your answer change? Hmm...
I feel a lot safer since 911. It has nothing to do with security. In fact, I think security is as bad or worse than ever. It has to do with the mindset of my fellow passengers. You want to hijack my plane? I don't think so. Me and most of the passengers will kick the living turd out of anyone who wants to take over the plane now.
Moral or not, i'm glad that security yanked his ass off the flight. I don't care who you are, you rock the boat, you get to swim home. If you don't act like a typical "sheep", don't expect to become part of the herd. It's the way the airlines run now, like it or not. Checks and balances and all that.
Is this idea of 'secret law' possible in the US ?
In my country we have an "Official Monitor", which is a paper issued by the government each week, I think. It includes all laws and other directives given by the guvernment or president and there is a law which states that any law comes into effect when it's published.
So, in my country there cannot be a secret law of regulation as everything is published. Isn't there a similar system everywhere ?
If there someone who knows how the things work in US, please explain.
It goes on to describe other abuses. Prohibition, jailing of anti-war protestors during WWI, institution of a draft in various wars (involuntary indentured servitude), FDR's New Deal policies, including the Social Security Act, forcing Japanese-Americans and German-Americans into concentration camps during WWII, the War on Drugs (mandatory minimum sentences, mandatory drug testing in schools, almost no necessary cause for searches, et cetera).
I think the point is that all the people complaining about George W. Bush and the Patriot Act are a bunch of silly whiners. They think that our "freedoms are being eroded", when they've actually been gone a long time.
My other first post is car post.
But if a person does not know that they need ID, why will they carry it?
If he wants to see the regulations, he should buy a plane and declare himself an airline. Then the government would HAVE to let him see the regulations, or at least not expect him to follow them.
Nipok Nek
Why choose white shoes?
If a law is secret, how can you be prosecuted if you break it? OK, I agree that this is moot here as you simply cannot get on the plane, but if you did and were later arrested how can they prosecute as this makes a mockery of the concept that 'ignorance is no excuse'. The idea of 'ignorance is no excuse' is that it is your responsibility to know the law but as this law is secret you cannot know. If secret laws are legal then the concept of 'ignorance is no excuse' must die. Sorry officer, I did not know that cannabis was illegal, I stopped reading when I found that some laws are secret so we cannot know what is legal and what is not....
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Yep, there's Christians, and then there's "christians." Just like Free Software vs. "free" software, and Hackers vs "hackers" (crackers), the latter unfortunately co-opts the name of the former.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That sounds reasonable, and I'm sure plenty of nice, law-abiding German and Russian citizens have said the same thing long before you...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I made a purchase at Frys once, using my credit card, and they asked me for photo ID.
I discovered that the phrase "I'm English: we don't carry photo ID because Britain is a free country" works just fine.
Of the things I don't object to is being carded for card purchaces. I like the idea that if I lose my wallet there is someone willing to ask for photoID. I don't see the privacy issue because you are already handing them a card with your name on it. If I want to retain my privacy I pay cash esp. for places like Best Buy who seem to be far too obsessed with knowing who you are.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
after getting the super duper patdown and passing through the security gate, another security guard stopped him and told him hes not getting on that plane. Why, because he had ID and refused to show it. When John responded with "so I would be let on if I had just forgotten my ID?", he didn't get a response.
.... are the ideal ecosystem where police states develop and flourish.
If that is what you want, bon voyage, I hope when your safe boat arrives where it is going (without any more rocking) your wish does not become your nightmare.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Unless your legislate to apply the law only to people that look funny at you, you should not have no need to humor goverment officials in order to be treated like anybody else.
No wonder your country is losing its freedoms to the religious fanatics in power.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I remember a very good quote that sums up the nature of libertarians:
"... they have taken a personality defect and turned it into a political philosophy..."
This is just typical boorish, persnickety behavior from a geeky libertarian who doesn't want be reasonable because he holds some absurdly rigid interpretation of "constitutional" rights.
Give me a break, its not a burden to be asked to show ID when boarding an airplane.
They accept so much for IDs that anyone with access to a badge making machine could create a fake one for a gov't agency and probably get through. Not a good idea since if caught you'd be arrested, but I doubt someone intent on havoc would worry about that.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I tried that in a Candian Casino once and it din't work (i didnt even think of taking my passport) - great thing is they let 5 canucks i was with in under fake id's - i was the only one over 21.
Even worse was in LA when I couldnt buy alcohol at 20 even though i been legally drinking in bars at home for 2 years (not an ID thinkg or evfen related, just annoyed me is all)
bah!*@%!
Of course, don't check it out of the library because your library activity is fodder for DHS. You'd better pay cash if you buy it in a store.
... errrr laws ..., then the laws are whatever someone in authority claims they are.
Seriously, or not, I always come back to this exchange in "Guys and Dolls".
These dice ain't got no spots on 'em, there blank!
Oh I had the spots removed for luck, but I remember where the spots formerly were.
Very seriously, if nobody gets to see the spots
Not good.
I agree. Asking photo ID when a credit card is presented protects against identity theft.
Then again, wasn't that the whole point of "Card not valid unless signed"?
Thing is, everyone talks about rights, but there are a lot of people not prepared to live up to their obligations. In this case the obligation to help ensure that your fellow travellers are safe. Rights bring obligations. When people talk up their rights and walk away from their obligations, that's decadence. I don't care how much money he gives to worthy causes, he's decadent. Sounds to me like they are mostly about 'hey don't stop me doing stuff.' ACLU for the dot com age? Bull. Dot commers are not made to ride in the back of the bus, not lynched or raped for being dot commers, not disenfranchised. I'm a liberal. I believe in rights and obligations but not this.
Any imbecile in the US can tell you they've tightened up security in airports worldwide. If you have a problem with showing an ID to the gate-wench, then maybe you should be hitchhiking. Don't waste my time and everyone elses standing at the gate trying to make your point. All your going to do is get yourself zip-tied or tasered, and heat up everyone else.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
CD prices have been approx $20 for as long as I can remember.
CD Burners have not been affordable for that long.
CD prices recently lowered as a result of the RIAA realizing that suing people who had actually bought CDs was STUPID.
I used to be a screener at DFW airport and there are procedures in place, even now, that allow people to fly without ID. In short it means "you get checked and it ain't random." In my opinion, I think that's "good enough" for now. But as so many point out, the 9-11 hijackers had perfectly valid ID as will the next... should there be any I imagine.
My experience is that the typical CD price has gone up significantly, but not if you know how/where to buy.
10 years ago, I remember buying CDs for right about $12-15 at Camelot Music (I think it's now FYE). Average price there now is about $18-20, plus tax (this is in a city with ~50K people, and at least 20 miles from a bigger city).
However, Best Buy still has most CDs for $14-16. The same ones that are $20 at the mall.
Seems to simply be that retailers charge what people will pay (and most people that shop at malls are dumb enough to spend lots of money, then bitch about the cost).
Why would you have to prove that? If the customer showed his ID and it was valid, the insurance company doesn't need proof that it's a valid license.
Synergy is your friend
BRILLIANT! Can you use it for a coaster?
Well, actually there is a connection: If you hand in a suitcase, and don't enter the plane in person, then this increases the probablity that there's a bomb in the suitcase and you just don't want to be blown up. In that case, the suitcase should better not be transported (besides the fact that if you really failed to reach the plane after having handed in your suitcase, you'll probably prefer if your suitcase is not at some other airport than you are).
Now I don't work at an airport (and also never yet missed a plain), so I don't know how this case would be handled in reality. However in principle it could be done this way, and that would for sure have a positive effect on security.
Yes, terrorists may find a way around that (and the islamistic ones would enter the plain anyway), but then, you also don't give up password authorization just because someone may find another way to get into a machine, or might use social engineering to get someones password.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
You want to make air travel safer? Making passengers show papers does jack. Instead, re-enforce the flight cabin doors
That costs money though. Try again, how can we be SAFER but without spending MORE MONEY? That money is earmarked for nation building.
This is indicative to all the other things we are "required" to do, and sheep that we are, continue to do. Not to skew the topic, but, how many times have you had to produce your social security number? To get a phone number, a mortgage or rent, electrical service, credit, a job! The list goes on. Where's the law that says I have to give out my SSN or other personal information to get basic goods and services? Try doing it without. This just leads to the whole identity theft problem, too. We contribute to the problem, we are part of the problem if we continue to be sheep.
He should have just said that the law clearly exempts "John Gilmore". If no-one could produce the law, then no-one could argue with him. Ah - on second thought, the problem is that they might have asked him to prove that he _was_ John Gilmore.....
***You learn something Every day. And then you die.***
Niemoeller said it best:
"When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
"When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
"When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
"When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
"When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest."
Wake up. Freedom is indivisible.
I guess Lincoln didn't win in Massachusetts, then, because we most definitely did cover his abuses (and those of Prohibition, and the War on Drugs) in High School.
To bring suit you generally need some form of standing, which you can unsually get only by being harmed. Gilmore almost cerainly knew in advance that they would want ID and wanted to test if he really had to give it. It may be a little troublesome to the screeners, but he had to do it to bring the suit.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
you pinko commie bastards, learning about that undermines our society and will lead to anarchy.
Parent makes a valid point and should have been modded down for it.
Do your jobs properly mods.
That's all. My point was simply that it should be up to the USER what personal information someone has...it should be a matter of choice. What happens instead is that corporations and the government just demand things and we give it up without asking why and how. Personal control.
I'm afraid you gave up personal control when you consented (or not, see Thoreau : ) to live under a government. The argument of course is how much control you have, and yes to an extent it would be nice to control how much information the corporations/govt hold on you. However I think presenting ID at an airport is really the least of your worries if your government decides they want to track you. There are many easier ways.
A citizen should be allowed to do anything legal without being tracked, at THEIR option, not a corporation's or government's option.
While this sounds nice, in practice it's impossible. You can't drive without a licence and a licence plate (for tracking purposes). You can't be paid (legally) without a SS number for tracking reasons. Etc etc etc. Would you like to make those controls optional? The government is there to control you and protect others from you (and vice versa), and while I agree with you that an ID at an airport will do nothing for security, this issue is *insignificant* when compared to other erosions of freedom going on in the name of 'the war on terror'. It just happens to inconvenience Gilmore more than the others right now.
Personal control of your information does nothing for you if the government decides to lock you up without trial, indefinitely. They can do that right now in your country (and in the UK to a lesser extent), does that worry you?
There are far more important freedoms being eroded right now in the US than the obligation to present an ID when travelling internally. The climate of eternal war encouraged by this administration is far more worrying to me.
From: http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00105/ 009525/title/Subject/topic/Constitutional%20Law_Tr avel/filename/constitutionallaw_1_355
Aviation Law Alert: Court Recently HoldsThat Identification and Search Requirements at Airports Are Constitutional
April 2004
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, regulations and statutes have been implemented to ensure the safety of the public, both in the air and on the ground. Many of these newly enacted laws are facing challenges in the court system. One such challenge to the requirement that airline travelers identify themselves and allow themselves to be searched was recently decided in favor of the enforcing organizations.
On July 4, 2002, the plaintiff, John Gilmore, purchased a commercial airline ticket for travel from Oakland, California, to Baltimore, Maryland, in order to "petition the government for redress of grievances and to associate with others for that purpose." At the airline check-in counter, the plaintiff refused to voluntarily produce a government-issued identification, but was offered the option of consenting to a search at the screening checkpoint, which he did.
Once at the boarding gate, the plaintiff was again asked and again refused to provide a government-issued identification. This time he was not permitted to board his flight.
The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against a number of private and federal government entities, including the TSA and the FAA, arguing that the requirements to produce a governmentissued identification and to consent to search as a condition of commercial air travel were unconstitutional. The plaintiff also alluded to arguments that the government was exceeding its authority to examine passenger names and identifying information against "no-fly watch lists" through the Consumer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System ("CAPPS").
The plaintiff brought the following constitutional causes of action in his lawsuit styled John Gilmore v. John Ashcroft, et al., No. C02-No. C02-3444 SI (N.D. Cal.):
1. Fifth Amendment: violation of his due process rights as an unconstitutionally vague government policy or directive;
2. Fourth Amendment: violation of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures where he faced the "penalty" of being denied permission to fly if he refused to comply with either;
3. Right to Travel: violation of his fundamental right to domestic travel as the requirements were unreasonable government burdens and restrictions on his movement;
4. Freedom of Association: violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights to freely associate with others who also sought to travel to Washington, DC, for political purposes;
5. Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances: violation of his fundamental right to petition government by unduly burdening his exercise of travel to where the seat of government is located.
The named defendants subsequently moved the district court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 23, 2004, the district court issued an order dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims, finding that the identification and search requirements
1. were not necessarily vague as they were permissible means of providing screening of all passenger and property aboard a passenger aircraft (49 U.S.C. section 44901) and the airline was within its right to deny transport to passengers who refused consent to search (49 U.S.C. section 44902)--since the plaintiff's claim squarely attacked the orders or regulations issued by the TSA and/or the FAA with respect to airport security, the district court was without jurisdiction to hear the challenge and, without the unpublished regulations or statutes before it, th
I think the biggest danger that this thread brings up is the dangerous uniformity of opinion and fear that the state is out to get you...
I thank God every day of my life that I live in a free society, where I am protected from arbitrary arrest, where I am subject only to laws created by a democratically elected legislature.
I thank God every day of my life that I do not live in the United States.
The problem with monarchies and removing them is: they theoretically own the assets that form the basis for the State to work (their salaries/alimonies/allowances are, therefore, kind of a "rent" payment that the people pays to use that which belong to the Crown). :-)
When you rattle this cage too hard, you rattle the foundations to the real estate market, too: the right to own a State is very close to the (also hereditary) right to own a house. It's not simple to do without a very radical institutional breakage.
And, to make it worse, there are cases where the Crown helps the democratic process (Spain is a good example), and estabilizes the government.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
"Theft raises merchanise cost"
No, it simply represents loss of income to the store.
Lets say 100G hard drives costs $100.
Lets say people are stealing 1 out of every 2.
Can the retailler simply raise his price to $200?
No.
Why?
The market determines price, not the cost of production or distribution. That goes against everything your mommy and daddy told you, but its true.
I'm not advocating stealing, but lets put aside the idea that "we all pay for shoplifting". We don't. It costs the store money. Period.
"He was employee No. 5 at Sun Microsystems, which made Unix, the free software of the Web, the world standard."
WHA? O_o
Problems:
1) Sun invented Unix
2) Unix = Free Software of the Web
3) WTF!?
If you read 9/11 report, all the hijackers on such lists were pocessed according to the rules for their respective lists. The measures included: separating from one's luggage, etc.
The system failed because:
no one envisioned a massive suicide attack
there were no system in place to pinpoint to someone the sudden spike in alegged terrorists going thru the same checkpoint.
Supposingly, both problems are corrected now
I am amused Nobody has looked into John Gilmore's background or credibility and asked, "Do we really want this person as a representative?"
Nobody seems to remember John is someone who 'brings the ball', but takes it away, when Somebody doesn't want to play 'by HIS rules'.
Shouldn't background research be a priority for this discussion? A search for "cyberpunks" might provide insight.
On the #5 position at Sun, John was ready to work for Billy, in Redmond, but a friend of his convinced him Sun was a better choice and this is how John ended up as Sun's #5 employee. If you need source, ask the other John, Sun's #3 employee.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
There are a couple of VERY IMPORTANT qualifying words there. I'll let you figure out which ones they are.
I just think it was unimaginitive/untrained agents. IANAL but as far as I'm concerned, the airline would have been entirely within it's rights as a business to say that nobody flies on their planes without ID.
Simple. Their planes, their rules. In this case, a set of rules that would have complied with the government's desires or "secret law", but their choice nonetheless.
Tell you what - you start your own airline, and you state that NO ID IS REQUIRED for travel, merely proof-of-ticket-purchase, and let the FREE MARKET decide. I'll still be flying on the old-fashioned airlines, but I'm sure you'll have planeloads of troublemakers, no-goodniks, and libertarian asshats to keep you in business.
-Styopa
I would think people would resoundly reject having to show a passport every time the cross a state line, but that's exactly what we're doing by bolstering a driver's license to become a mandatory ID check before any form of modern travel is allowed.
YOU have no obligation to obey these regulations. They are laws for Airlines. YOU are not REQUIRED to do ANYTHING by this law.
Hmm, I wonder if the same regulations tell "the airlines" what you are and are not allowed to bring with you. Hope you weren't too attached to that laptop, according to "the regulations" I'm going to have to take it from you. But that doesn't affect you at all.
So many people think because they have a notepad, a whistle or a hat that they can push people around.
It is unfortunate that he couldn't break the law so this issue could have ended up in court, in public, where his defense lawyer could of demanded to see a copy of the law.
Maybe there is no law and the airlines thought they could make people do whatever, just because they are the airlines.
cf. the Boy Scouts, and the Supreme Court has given them the thumbs up on this, can kick out and ban members that do not take a religious oath or are homosexual.
I think this is just short-sightedness on the part of the department of homeland security. They weren't thinking "let's have secret laws so we can begin to undermine democracy! Muahaha!" They were probably thinking "We need to make these laws secret so the terrorists can't plan ahead." They failed to realize (or care) that this kind of thing goes against the principals of a country governed by the people. They didn't realize that it causes more problems in the long and short term than it fixes. They didn't think about the possible long term consequences of accepting the "sacrifice freedom for protection" train of thought.
Down here (Brasil), they make you drive on the city streets in the rush hour, stop near the curb, make a 30-m reverse, parallel parking, and automatic cars are prohibited during the exam.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
In point of fact, you always have a choice, you can elect to keep your restricted item and go home, or surrender your restricted item and fly. OR you can elect to keep your restricted item, go to the fedex/western union terminal which can be found in almost any airport( I know, my local airport has 6 gates and a western union and a fedex) and send the item to your destination. then board the aircraft
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
A decorative wall-hanging is all fine and well, but it adds nothing to the strength or durability of the wall it is hanging on.
Bart: Ah, I wouldn't take it down if I were you. It's a load-bearing poster. (Script.)
You say that you think that Christ was a "good man," but do you think he was an honest man?
"'Travelling' in general is a right. Travelling by plane (and using this specific airlines) is not a right."
I'm sorry, are you implying there is a law somewhere that says travelling is a right, exept when you want to take an airplane? With that definite exclusion? As a law?
I don't think so.
The poster that replied to you might have been a bit undiplomatic, but he's right in essence.
It is not "exactly the same thing" as a mortgage; you have no law saying you have the inherent right on a morgage. You DO have a law (at least in my country) which say you are free to go as you please. And even if there is such a law, it's completely nuts to say it is secret and can't be viewed by the public. Especially when the citizens are supposed to know the laws of the country.
It is true, one always has a choice (in this case, to go or not to go), but the question rather is, if this choice does not contradict the rights of freedom you DO have, as a citizen. That's what John Gilmore is going to find out, and I'm glad that he has the time and resources to do it. Myself, I must confess, would act like the myriads of other sheep, with the difference I would do it out of blind obiedience, but simply because, in a pragmatic view, I can't spare the energy to fight this, especially when I really *have* to be flown there at a certain time. Not everyone can afford the luxery of (costly legal) fighting for our rights, but I'm sure glad as hell *some* can.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
...he would have been banged up in prison (sorry - "under house arrest") for being a threat to national security.
Every month or so I stumble on a gem like this.. almost brings a tear to my eye -- because this poster is religious, but represents a minority viewpoint amongst the religious, ideological, and righteous interests in power today.
In Norman Spinrad's book "Agent Of Chaos", the police state has progressed to the point where there is a list of "Permitted Acts" and anything else is, by definition, illegal. The punishment for every illegal act is the same, instant death.
Sometimes this seems like a logical extrapolation, based on the changes that have happened over the last few years. Spinrad's only mistake might be that he projected this to happen hundreds of years into the future, maybe decades would be more accurate.
I hope this book makes a comeback, maybe it would wake some people up. It could also make a pretty good movie.
By the perception of illusion, we experience reality
A Joseph Heller Novel
Aren't all new laws required to be published in the Federal Register?
Chip H.
If he never showed them an ID, how do they know it was him? How could they legaly ban him?
Ah well. I think it would be nicer not to have to show ID at the airport, but it isn't that bad. On the other hand all laws should be public, obviously.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Instead of "local Sam's Club" I meant "local Wal-Mart".
You sign a contract with Sam's Club which probably lets them demand to search you upon exiting.
I MEANT Wal-Mart. No contract there that they can enforce, and they are pretty much the only store left in a lot of the U.S.
You were? Didn't catch that at all...
Interesting article, although given the same facts, I would have drawn a different conclusion than the author. The author's conclusion (if I interpret it correctly) is that the U.S. has always been a police state, at least since the Civil War, and therefore the abuses of our people go much deeper than the current administration.
My take on it is that while there have indeed been periods of American history in which civil rights have been reduced or suspended, those periods have always been temporary, and normality has been restored after the crisis passed (although admittedly, the War on Drugs continues, so it's impossible to say how that one turned out).
Some people believe that those who accept loss of freedoms in the U.S. are stupid or blind sheep, willing to sacrifice the very core of what makes us free. I believe that those people aren't stupid, they just have faith in the U.S. system of government and the knowledge that these sacrifices will be temporary and will serve a greater good in the meantime.
I can't tell the future, so I can't say if our rights will ever be fully restored. I also think that it is appropriate to monitor our rights closely and to fight to maintain them. However, I don't interpret these restrictions as some malicious act of a controlling government. I interpret them as the good intentions of a government attempting to keep things running without everything falling apart. They may make the wrong decisions, and that's why we must be vigilant, but they aren't just evil people who want to crush us under the heel of oppression.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
If you can't see laws you can't challenge them. If there can be 'secret laws' then the people in the executive branch can lie about their existance because there is no way to check up on them. If they don't want you to do something they can stop you. If you ask what justification they have, they can say 'It's the law'. Whatever they tell you to do is then 'the law' because, without due process ( which requires all laws to be public ) the guys with the guns ARE the law.
Hitchhiking is illegal in many places as a public safety issue, but being a pedestrian across state lines is no-where illegal(in the US). In fact, many individuals(either for personal amusement or masochism) have walked rt 1(Florida to Maine) and rt 90(CA to florida).
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Don't forget FISA with its 'secret court'
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/
If it were an airline regulation, then he would have no cause to gripe - it's the airline's planes and if they don't want to let people on without ID, then they shouldn't be expected to.
But it's not an airline regulation - it's ostensibly a government one ( if it even exists - how could we know the regulation exists without taking the security people's word for it? )
My Grandfather flew last week without photo ID. He had no problem getting through security (Manchester, NH to Philly). He does have a drivers license, but once you are over 70, the State of Maine does not require you to have a photo id on it.
Does that make you feel safer? Meanwhile, the last time my wife flew, she used her BJ's card to identify herself b/c her license still had her maddien name on it. No one had a problem with that.
If ever there was a case for a post to be modded above 5, this is it.
We do live in 1984.
Speak for yourself, buddy. I still enjoy some of the music from time to time, but I cut off my mullet years ago.
Kramer is Cosmo Kramer, from Seinfeld a popular sit-com from the 1990s.
Jim Kramer is the slimy Wall Street shill who: (a)loses money for people stupid enough to listem to him, or (b)makes a shitload of money for people who use him as a contrary indicator.
Nice troll, though. Good work. My problem isn't with you, but with the asswipe moderators.
I agree that protesting the showing of ID at a membership club is not a good idea. That said, the fact that protesting makes the line back up is not a valid excuse for telling him not to protest. If that were the case, any protest for anything at all could be shorted via the "invconvenience to others" method, and that margnializes the protester. "Don't rock the boat" isn't in itself a valid reason not to protest.
Virg
perhaps this law is copyrighted, so noone can't show it without paying the governement royalties first....
But you can't honestly say all this ID bullshit makes any sense. People point to "Oh, what about the 9/11 hijackers!" - but they HAD valid government-issued IDs. How do you think they got on the planes? And now, after it's been pretty roundly proven that that did absolutely jack, we're going to say "well, that didn't work before, but now we're going to be even bigger assholes about it! That'll fix 'em!"... and what will that achieve? Just what it did before - that's right, _nothing_. Obviously this is not the solution to the problem. There are more than a few opinions about what the real solution is (I have a few myself), but making secret laws requiring stupid, useless policies to be enforced, and not letting the average citizen (who's supposed to be able to participate in government!) read the laws and understand them isn't solving anything.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Do you think that he gives the rental car place trouble too (well...he probably doesn't rent)? Somehow I doubt it. He's sniffing around for some imaginary government conspiracy. I bet that if the airline said that the mandatory ID rule was a company policy he'd be more than happy to use the government to file a lawsuit against the airline.
I hate it when idiots like this guy crusade on my behalf. I also hate these lazy ****'s that love to point out similarities to some book they read in junior college (very frequently 1984). Speaking as a libertarian asshat, we should be keeping our eye on the ball and deal with real issues.
I know, 'the price of liberty etc etc...' but 2 years is alot of time to spend on this.
Aren't laws "secret" by their sheer number? While most are techically open, I'd wager, that one could spend a lifetime reading nothing but (US) laws and still not know them all, nevermind abide by such laws.
"A society with too many laws for an individual to oversee and know is by definition unjust."
It isn't that important - the key thing is the secrecy of the law.
Not everyone who violates a law is charged or arrested. Maybe the power of arrest, summary conviction, detention without trial, whatever, is in this law. We don't know. Next time he turns up and tries the same thing maybe they will arest him, because they always had the power but they just weren't too bothered first time around ("hey first offence, banning him from flying is punishment enough"; "oh, trying it again is he, didn't get the message the first time, right this time we throw the book at him").
Maybe the law even has specific repeated-offence provisions ("attempting to board an aircraft without showing ID more than once in any given two year period is a repeat offence punishable by minimum of 2yrs in state penetentiary" or similar). You can guarantee to John that the law doesn't say this ?
Saying that secret laws are ok just because they haven't arrested anyone _yet_ ought to be obviously silly if you think about it.
> You did commit a crime: trespassing. You were granted permission to enter the property under condition of following certain rules and guidelines thereof. Permission was not granted to do what you did.
You're very wrong. If he was a Costco member, then he could not possibly be charged for trespassing. However, the rule he did violate, non-lawyer-being-person, is violation of contract, for which they can revoke his membership.
If he returns after being asked to retire from the premises (and having his membership revoked), then he can be charged with trespassing, but there's no legal standing to charge a current member with trespassing. You lose.
Virg
Legal but not acceptable...I have quit shopping at several companies that insist on checking every receipt. I have never stolen from them, and for the company to assume that I have, until they prove that I have not, is just not acceptable.
What I have done to offset this is to deal with small local companies. Sometimes I pay a little more, but there is the satisfaction of supporting the small business, getting to know the owners, keeping a larger part of my hard earned money in the community, and of knowing that I am not supporting companies that continually abuse both thier employees and their customers!
Maybe I should have RTFM, but he's still an idiot albeit a resolute one.
I carry it because I *might* need ID. And because if some fucking insane Chicago driver hits me, at least they'll be able to figure out who the dead carcass used to belong to. I carry it for convenience; if I want to buy a bottle of beer for when I get home, if I want to use my credit card (all mine say CHECKID - not everyone does, but some do), etc. I carry it on the if-come. If I *knew* I wouldn't need it, I might decide not to carry it, but given that it's half the size of an index card, I usually carry it just in case.
That said, the problem is *not* requiring ID; the problem is that the law/regulation requiring ID is secret. Were the law/regulation out in the open, I wouldn't *like* it, but there would not be fundamental problems. The problem is the secretiveness of the law.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
we thank god every day that you don't live here.
Um, Dave? Like SHUT THE FUCK UP (!!!!!) already, you are very boring, redundant, and don't seem to have anything intelligent to say in the first place.
;) I am sick of listening to you argue against a point that you apparently didn't fully understand in the first place, so each one of your posts we are reading with the same "Oh, this dummy blabbering shit again" thought followed by "when will this guy STFU already?"
Continuously you are restating your tenuous "counter-argument" about something to do with how the guy may or may not have been able to get on a plane at a different airport, but stealing away from the ACTUAL TOPIC of "Just why are they asking for ID at nearly all airports, and by the way, how come we cannot take a look at this law requiring showing of ID?"
Find something better to do, sleep, masturbate, smoke pot, anything. Just get off this topic already, you are way past the point of being extremely rude in terms of netiquette.
And even worse
Does the freedom to speak also include the freedom to constantly speak with nothing intelligent to say? Like a gibbering retard standing on a wooden box downtown with a megaphone.
The government cannot create copyrighted information or works; only contractors to the government can. All works "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" are public domain at creation.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
> I'm not advocating stealing, but lets put aside the idea that "we all pay for shoplifting". We don't. It costs the store money. Period.
If the drive's being stolen at that rate, the store may choose not to carry it at all. They'll never offer a rebate on it, they'll never put it on sale for less than US$100, and they'll put up a big hassle if someone tries to return one. There are a thousand ways to pass on the cost of a high-theft item, from determining pricing to reducing sales. High volumes of theft can (and do, in the real world) affect pricing.
Remember, just because the before price is $100 doesn't mean you can get it anywhere for that price. If Fry's can sell it for $100 and the other stores can't afford to sell for less than $120, then Fry's can mark it up to $119 and still get most of the sales.
Mommy and Daddy aren't always as dumb as you make it out.
Virg
To those of you just getting ready to view this thread for the first time, prepare yourself for an insane amount of posts from this daveschroeder guy basically stating the same thing over and over to the point of intense boredom to us curse to read it over and over.
;) I am sick of listening to you argue against a point that you apparently didn't fully understand in the first place, so each one of your posts we are reading with the same "Oh, this dummy blabbering shit again" thought followed by "when will this guy STFU already?"
The funniest part is where he starts posting anonymously because the Slashcode itself basically tells him to stop it by saying he's exceeded his allowed number of posts already.
Just thought I'd prepare you, and repost a post I made later on in this topic that asks him in a rather pleasant manner to please STFU...
-snip-
Um, Dave? Like SHUT THE FUCK UP (!!!!!) already, you are very boring, redundant, and don't seem to have anything intelligent to say in the first place.
Continuously you are restating your tenuous "counter-argument" about something to do with how the guy may or may not have been able to get on a plane at a different airport, but stealing away from the ACTUAL TOPIC of "Just why are they asking for ID at nearly all airports, and by the way, how come we cannot take a look at this law requiring showing of ID?"
Find something better to do, sleep, masturbate, smoke pot, anything. Just get off this topic already, you are way past the point of being extremely rude in terms of netiquette.
And even worse
Does the freedom to speak also include the freedom to constantly speak with nothing intelligent to say? Like a gibbering retard standing on a wooden box downtown with a megaphone.
Exactlty, so what happends when Democrats become enemy combatants? Our president has already stated that he doesnt believe those dirty liberal Democrats are Americans. Whats next deporting Democrats? And after that, anyone who doesnt agree with the "Party"? And then what, everyone who makes less than $250,000/year? When and where will it stop?
I agree that people should be allowed to know what a law really is what what it says before they should be expected to follow it. And without desiring to subract from this important point I have one observation to make.
What it the motivation for keeping the law (or regulation) secret? I am sure there is one. A reason that is. Obviously it should probably be a reason tied to the practice itself. Something related to what showing an ID proves or disproves. That you can drive a car? Not all IDs are drivers licenses. That you have a mailing address? Maybe. That you are photogenic? Hmm, there may be more to this than one might think.
Consider the case where you have an ID that does not have, for all appearances , is not an accurate depiction of yourself. They tend to reject it or at least scrutinize it closely.
I can think of only one reason why this photo ID before boarding requirement should be instantiated and yet kept secret.
Its the non-photogenics. The FAA does not wish non-photogenics to board passenger aircraft for obvious reasons. And I for one, cannot blaim them.
If its for any other reason, I would say the requirement is useless and the only thing it effectuates is an invasion of privacy. Therefor, it has to be vampires, specifically, that they wish to prevent boarding the aircraft. Nothing else makes much sense.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
You don't just need a tinfoil hat, you need a full suit, buddy. Of course, that will help protect you from the aliens from Omicron 6 that are performing secret sexual experiments on people brought in by the Trilateral Comissions black helicopters.
There's a principle in logic that those attempting to be rational should always apply: generally, the simplest explanation is true (Occam's razor). The simplest explaination here is that some terrorists crashed jets into buildings in New York. No need to posit strange involvement by Isreal, the CIA, or the John Birch Society.
Did you read the linked article? Shutting down newspapers Sending the Army to arrest congressmen who denounced him on the floor? Eliminating habeas corpus even when the state in question what hundreds of miles from what you could construe as the "front lines" by any stretch of the imagination.
if you think you live in a police state... why don't you move to a real one and see what it's actually like and tell me why it's no better in the US.
please me, have no regrets.
Conservatives and liberals both want to control our lives. They merely tend to want to control different aspects of our lives. The Conservative movement used to not be quite this bad. This is what has driven me to the Libertarian party.
Airlines are "common carriers" under the (published) law. So, no, they cannot require whatever the hell they want.
Using your logic for a moment, why would asking for your social security somehow be not allowed?
I logged out to post this, because I am an Anonymous Coward.
The Federal Aviation Administration does have a policy against traveling without ID. But it is not a secret law. It is not even a federal law. It is just a policy based on a memo by someone at the FAA. The 3 branches of government do not feel the need to correct the FAA, because so few people complain. CFRs are trumped-up administrative rules. Only USCs are laws, and there are no USCs requiring passengers to have photo IDs for domestic flights.
I know a little about governments and IDs.
The FAA policy reminds me of Florida Fish And Wildlife posting (everywhere) that it is illegal to carry a concealed gun in state parks. But the state attorney states that Fish And Wildlife has no statutory authority over guns and anyone with a conceal carry permit may carry in state parks.
I've had a similar problem with Walmart sporting goods managers telling me that it is against county law to sell ammo after 9 PM. It is not. It is just their store policy, but they want to use the excuse that it is a law.
The problem is not with the Federal government. The problem is with the general public. We need to have more people like John Gilmore. At a basic level, we're imposing this dictatorship on ourselves.
Perhaps we should start a petition to have the movie 1984 played on a TV network. Might wake up the sleeping public. Another step would be to have the Constitution and, at least, the first 10 Amendments printed on the back of our paper currency, not mystic, cryptic Masonic symbols.
But the US is hardly becoming a dictatorship. I consider this graphic as evidence of the health of our freedoms.
Got to love a government that trusts you to take a gun into a bank.
http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/all+united+ states
The reason that I voted for Bush/Republicans in 2004 is because Bush agrees the Second Amendment protects our individual right to own and carry guns.
http://www.nraila.org/images/Ashcroft.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
I fail to see how an administration that supports the right to own weapons that can overthrow a government is the bogeyman of tyranny. For those that don't think that civilians with their "puny" guns could take down a hypothetical American dictatorship, consider that there are more than 240 million guns owned by 85 million civilians in the US.
The 2nd Amendment is the most liberal and radical law in history. http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/radical.htm
To really understand the tone of the 1st and 2nd, one should read the preamble to the 10 amendments. (Usually not taught in government schools, so most have never heard of it) "The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The first phrase of the 2nd is a declarative. It was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700's to include a preamble. The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters. The phrase "well regulated" means well-trained and well-equipped, in proper working order. Ex: "a well regulated clock." "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Interestingly, the Militia Act of 1792 was law until 1903 (updated by 10 USC). The Militia Act of 1792 stated "That each and every free able-bodied white ma
Aren't secret laws something that the SS used in Nazi Germany?
While I understand in an abstract way that showing ID when getting on an airplane is a sort of security measure, my experience is that it is not really being used that way. They take your ID several times as you go through the check-in process yet from what I have seen, they don't do much besides look at it and verify that the name is the same as the name on the ticket.
How is this positive identification? There are thirteen people in the phone book with the same name and middle initial as me in my home town. My tickets are purchased on a corporate account that isn't associated with me directly.
So, what I am saying is that this system is not really designed to be foolproof or failsafe. This tells me that it is a system designed more to mollify the traveling public than anything else. Most people think that security has really gotten much better but the truth of it is that real security has only marginally improved. The show just makes us all feel better (until we think about it).
This reminds me. Ever try to write a check at Fry's?
We just had a new store open here in the metreo Atlanta area a few months back. During one particular visit, I had enough items to justify writing a check so I wouldn't completely obliterate the contents of my wallet. When I presented the check, the Fry's clerk said that it would take about 10 minutes to get through all their "check approval" policies, which I was told was a one time deal. I'm thinking they're going to call the bank, verify my ID, credit history and that I had enough cash to cover the purchase.
What they did, however, was take my driver's license back to a photocopier, and Xerox it and the copy of the check. Right off the bat, I'm upset, because with copies of just these two items alone, you could start a very healthy career as an identity thief (Georgia is still one of the states that uses your SSN as your driver's license number unless you specifically ask them not to). When I mention this to the clerk and a bystanding supervisor, they said it's standard practice at Fry's to keep this info on file (I'm imagining a large, unlocked filing cabinet in a minimum wage employee's office), and without it, I wouldn't be able to write checks at Fry's - ever. I took back my check, my ID, demanded the photocopies and left the store.
My questions are, does Fry's do this at every store? And is this something I can expect to see from other merchants in the future?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
To add:
Having known several people who worked at (staples/kmart) Electronics in (connecticut/rhode island) I can tell you that the biggest problem with inventory loss at (staples/kmart) is from employees.
Have you ever dealt with an insurance agency? Do you know how difficult it is to get them to pay? You don't want to leave even the slightest technicality open for them to take advantage of.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Why of course, you're right! Silly me, I always have a choice!
I guess I'll choose to just hide under my bed and hope that there's no secret health code "regulation" against that (theres enough dust under there for there to be one).
If a law cannot be examined, interpreted, or challenged then it is not a law. That only applies to laws that affect you personally (or have the ability to).
Also, how can people be expected to obey a law that they cannot examine? The old adage, "ignorance of the law is not a defense" comes to mind. In this case, I would have to assume that it is.
Most folks I spoke with thought the issue was not wanting to show identification, but that is not the case. I think it's about being subject to a "secret law" and seeing Red Amerika looming in the distance.
I don't fucking get it. I can make my own fucking ID card with any PC and a little work. So need an ID for someone that's not restricted. NO Problem. I'll just idenity theft someone and wipe you up a whole set of papers. DL, Passport, CC you name it. So you can board the plane and let the Gov track the guy who I thefted. There pleny of opportunity, 145,000 choice point customer, Bank of america customers, not to mention the serveral thousand companies whos employee's names from that payroll company and don't forget the google opportunity for info.
Oh and I forget the 7 or so states that offer illegal immigrant drivers licenses with no ID so that can track them. Yea Right!
Thank a million for the opportunity, I need so work!
Way to go Mr. Gilmore!! Gotta love him.
As far as the above goes, this adequately summarizes it fairly well:
"I love God, it's his fanclub I can't stand"
People, in pursuit of an ideal, often enough confused the ideal to the point where their actions are completely contrary to the initial concept.
Anyone with a computer, scanner and inkjet printer (or go to the libray or Kinko - can re-produce anyone's standard photo I.D. Anyone with an hand held anti-tank rocket launcher can take down an airliner (likely done in New York post 9-11.) There are a million or more ways to do nasty things. What's the point of this ID bull? Fear and control which is what the BOYS are really all about.
Here's a rather grotesque example:
The Democratic party, by virtue of its long stated opposition to the ideals and goals of the ruling Republican party is hereby declared an enemy of the state. All members of the Democratic party are hereby ordered to surrender their persons to the Federal Government for criminal prosecution.
Extreme, I know, but entirely plausible when just the right amount of lunacy is coupled with just the right amount of fear. One need only look at human history too see how easy it is to use public paranoia as a justification to sieze power.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I'm guessing you haven't stopped since...
it's funny... laugh
Considering the Airplane is a PRIVATE business, they can pretty much ditctate anything they want as long as it doenst get into something racial..
Doent mean they will have much business if all passengers must fly nude and have blue hair.. but they can demand it..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think in BC the legal age to enter a casino is 19.
Ontario is also 19 - so if those 5 canucks looked quite younger, that could be the reason.
I know when we turned 19 it was almost tradition to go to the casino.
aye, gotta avoid too high blood content in my alcohol stream
bah!*@%!
I have been contemplating posting this, but after reading some of your posts, I feel compelled.
..., if you comply with...., oh, by the way..."
I traveled at Christmas from North Pole Alaska, all the way to Detroit with my wife, and three kids under three. We purchased three tickets, as two of our kids are under two, and can sit on our laps. Our daughter had her own seat.
It started off ok, but that was just getting in the door of the airport. We arrived 3 hours early because I knew we would take a long long long long time to get through the x-ray vision machines. (Airplane movie comes to mind)
We literally took 25 minutes to get the kids shoes off, take the kid leashes off, remove my 5 mo old's shoes, with integrated nuclear detonators, unstrap him from his mothers chest via a kid cradle, then finally convince my 1.5 year old to walk through the white uprights while nearly 50 people wait for us. (Fairbanks is a small airport, only 6 TSA agents at the screening, one with crossed eyes!)
I used 12 of those bins at every screening process. We attempted to keep it at a minimum.
What's my complaint you ask? Seeing how I haven't mentioned the whole ID part? Well, I don't mind showing my ID, it's the whole misleading rules/regulations that have somehow become LAW.
You know the sign at some airports that say "Private screening rooms available upon request?" I inquired about this for the benifit of the fliers behind us who have to stand there patiently, in fear of loosing their first born, and right testicle/breast. The TSA freak said that we can only request it AFTER we go through the initial screening, and ONLY if the metal detector goes off. What a crock! If I've spent 10 minutes stripping my kids and make it through the detector, what the halibut am I going to ask for a "private" screening room for, just to do it all again?
I told him he needs to take the sign down, cause it's like false advertising.
I actually told my wife the next time we fly, we'll charter a plane. They don't require massive screenings, and your bags go from trunk to plane, in less than 20 feet! I've also done some research, and the price is comparative to first class tickets. Of course, that's if you buy 6 or more.
"You are free to move about the country, if you have
Later
Even worse was in LA when I couldnt buy alcohol at 20 even though i been legally drinking in bars at home for 2 years (not an ID thinkg or evfen related, just annoyed me is all)
I can top that. I joined the Army when I was 18, spent a year enjoying fine Baverian beer in Germany, while maintaining tactical nuclear weapons, got out at 20 and could no longer drink until my 21st birthday.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
"...because they make the assumption that Jesus and Bush are ideologically/attitudinally similar. What people would find out if they took the time to do some research on the matter however is that Christ and Bush are actually diametric opposites."
That is your opinion; others, including many Xians where I live (Alabama) would disagree with you.
And is it really important? Xians are not really told to be like Christ, but to follow his rules, right?
Anyway, the problem with saying 'They aren't really Christians, I am' is that they can say the same thing. Your claim to be a 'real' Christian is no more valid than theirs.
Remember,democracy never lasts long.It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. John Adams (1814)
Administrative Acts of Congress require implementing regulations in order to have "general effect" or to allow them to "affect substantive rights;" see the Adminstrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act.
The Federal Register Act requires that regulations must be published in their entirety in the Federal Register so that the people can be given notice of the manner in which the laws are to be administered to them. This Act also requires that the complete text of a regulation be published so that there are no "secret" regulations. The airlines will not show to you Federal Aviation Administration Security Directive 108-01-10 (issued Sept. 28, 2001), which they will say authorizes them to limit your substantive right to liberty and to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. This constitutes a secret regulation, which is not allowed by the laws of the United States or by the Constitution.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then how can I be expected to comply with law that is not publicized?
There is no mandate from CONgress that government issued identification is to be required in order to fly domestically. The regulations were transferred from 14 CFR part 107/108 to 49 CFR parts 1540 &seq on 22 Feb 2002 - 67 FR 8377.
If you look thru Title 49 United States Code in Chapters 401 thru 501, the only hit on "identification" will be identification numbers of aircraft. If you look thru Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1540 &seq, you will find no mention of the word "identification" except with relationship to aircraft -- not passengers.
The requirement for identification is in the contract of carriage with the airline. You buy the ticket, you are bound by the contract. The contract states that they can refuse boarding to those who refuse to show "positive identification." That is why Gilmore's suit will ultimately fail.
I do not have any state issued identification. I cannot get any without a social security number and I do not have one. only aliens applying for permanent residency are required to make application; see 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). For all others (citizens) it is contigent upon receiving direct benefits payable in federal funds; see sub paragraph (II). I am in neither catagory.
I use my Sam's club card. Have never been refused boarding.
The "secret" security directive says that the AIRLINES, not the Air Gestapo, are to check ID. If the person does not have ID (is unable, rather than unwilling to show ID), then they are to do "positive bag matching," which means my bags do not get on the plane until I do. This suits me fine, as my bags are invariably the first ones off the plane and on the carousel.
If you do not know what the law says, then you cannot enforce it. If they do not tell you what the law says, then you are not obliged to obey it.
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
You obviously missed the whole point of his fight. He has no problem going though extra security checks. He does have a problem with invisible laws. RTFA next time before you rant and make yourself look silly and accuse him of something that is totally irrelevant.
Anyone bother to notice he is the EFF. This was not an issue over ID cards or the SECRET law or policy that they have. The issue at hand is getting focus back on the EFF and the issues that they are focusing on currently. They have been fighting National ID cards since 9/11 And in regards to ID cards. All online airline ticket services make it WELL known that you will have to have an ID card on you at check-in and to board the plane with an e-ticket. I know for a fact that the EFF uses one of those services and there are several notices regarding IDs and what qualifies as an acceptable ID. In addition, I was able to travel to several key cities on an expired drivers licence. I was able to do so with a 5 min search before entering into the boarding area. Anyone that thinks this is about a serious issue regarding your freedom is mistaken. This is an issue over creating more publicity. You do not have to have a valid ID card to fly. You will just be marked for additional searches.
as Amtrak require ID too.
Simply put J.C. was a long haired liberal hippie and we all know how much respect Bush has for libereal hippies.
Main Entry: police state
Function: noun
: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures
This Amicus Brief from August (From the EFF site) explains in excruciating legal detail why the Government is not permitted, by the Fourth Amendment and many obvious precedents, to demand ID "coercively" at airports. Nor even to pass a new law doing so. It's quite clear.
It also explains why any chance the government has of claiming that their law is constitutional (if it indeed exists) is nullified if they make it secret.
Enjoy, and many many thanks John Gilmore for doing what you do!
Amicus Brief Aug 2004
Crap...I meant RTFA. I'm creating a new /. account:(
How are you supposed to know about a secret law ? It doesn't fit in the system
The previous poster has the answer: it's not a secret law, rather it is a secret administrative order.
You'd hope the built-in system of checks and balances in the U.S. government would help to prevent an administrative order from, say, infringing upon constitutionally-guaranteed protections (4th, in this case) for very long.
OTOH, the wheels of justice grind slowly, while the executive and legislative branches of government are controlled by the same party, making it less likely for the legislative branch to challenge administrative orders. It will have to be the courts, so it will take years for the challenges to be made, cases brought and the rulings to occur.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
And how could your lawyer defend you against a law that the government claims exists, but doesn't make available anywhere?
More importantly, how do you even know if you are breaking a law? Ignorance of a law is not a valid reason in court for why you broke said law. This makes sense to me, because people should be at least passingly familiar with the laws of their country, and it keeps people from claiming ignorance to protect themselves from being convicted for crimes like murder, for example. But if you have "secret" laws, how do you know if you're breaking them?
How then do you keep law-abiding citizens (except in the case of the "secret law", obviously) from cluttering up the jails because they can't prove their innocence because they can't examine the law, while at the same time lifelong criminals with good lawyers are getting off scott free?
For an even earlier precedent read about His Rotundity John Adams and the Alien and Sedition acts. People were arrested for sedition if they voiced opposition to Adams and his party!
But, what if you purchase the ticket with cash....??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As a Canadian who travels frequently to, and within, the U.S. I thought it would be good to know what my rights are and what rules I'm subject to. Nowhere can I find this information.
The goverment of the United States is doing all the things that I remember (I'm 47) that we North Americans used to chide the USSR about: restricted travel between regions, constant requests for ID... that sort of thing. And now, here we are in a society that is completely obsessed with security and ID checks.
Believe you me, you Americans, for all your goverment's talk of freedom, have given up more than anyone else on the planet. I'm going to point blame too. The blame goes to the huge number of people who abrogated their duty and did not vote in the last election. Maybe this will be a lesson to you all: get involved, become informed, turn off all the mind-numbing reality TV shows and start to fight!! Your freedoms are under the most serious attack since Pearl Harbour - and from within your nation to boot!
It's not all about freedom either - it's about the huge cost of the infrastructure bloat and the very, very expensive time that everyone wastes to travel (I make it 2 hrs per flight x all the flights taken per year x average wage per hour). Do the math, folks. This is costing you - big time.
I took my driving test in 2000. And by "driving test" I mean "written test," because if you take your licensing test after going through drivers education classes as a teenager, you don't have to take a physical driving test, only a written test on laws and signs.
Nice trick, you want someone else to prove that something doesn't exist. It is near impossible. The burden of proving something does exist lies on you. The only suspect party that the article even mentions is SouthWest Airlines who isn't producing the copy of the law. Is it their responsibility to provide copies or obey the law? If lawsuits weren't such a problem, Hotels, Car Rental agencies and the rest wouldn't be forced to require identification. The problem lies in the moral decline of the people, not the policies of government. The article isn't clear whether Mr. Gilmore has sought an attorney to provide him with the law itself. I don't get the impression that Mr. Gilmore is working hard at it. If I were the airline I'd probably blow this political activist off as well. Its not their responsibility to provide him the law; rather, they are responsible for obeying it.
The last statement you make, We do live in 1984.
Here's your chance, present your evidence. You make a bunch of claims here with nothing to back them up. Your only proof that a secret law exists is that an airline can't produce a copy of the law, which only proves that the airline can't produce a copy of the law. It is not evidence that indicates any wrongdoing or secrecy from the government. The article makes no mention that any attempt has been made to any other agency to produce the law. It's as if Mr. Gilmore is arguing that someone is negligent when the only indication of negligence I see is his own. How irresponsible of him.
The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no.
Again, which facts? And for goodness sake, are you saying you want our constitution to protect a non-citizen? If so, who supports a police state here? What a ridiculous claim to make that the President doesn't support the constitution....
You are arguing with a world of people and asking for their trust, yet you don't present any evidence that supports your point. I ask that you be intellectually honest with the Slashdot readership.
Failing the wanding will of course require even further searches in the back room, as we found out on one of the trips.
> You keep saying diabetes like it's something that impairs driving. I don't think you actually know what it is. It's a disease where your body cannot create glucose effectively. One takes insulin every day, and is normal. Driving is more likely impaired by having a common cold than it is by having diabetes.
A point of note is that diabetics can have an insulin imbalance in the course of a normal day and suffer from insulin shock, which can cause blackouts. One cannot get a pilot's license when one is diabetic because of this. So, driving is more likely to be impaired in a severe way by diabetes than by a cold.
Virg
Really? You've now given someone your full address, a photo of yourself, a valid credit card WITH the "security code" and your signature on both documents. Keep in mind, when forging signatures, it is important to not make every one identical, so two from you is a big help. And they've now got two numbers they can use to search for further information.
Checking ID may protect you from credit card theft, but it HELPS identity theft.
Calling in a lost or stolen credit card promptly is much more useful. But make sure you always keep credit cards where you'll notice their loss.
I think all credit card companies require phone-in "activiation" before you can use the card, so lifting a brand-new card out of a mailbox should be a thing of the past. (And the ones I deal with no longer use Caller ID to quickly activate your card if you call from home--someone can easily pop the cover off the phone junction box and use my phone line with just a pair of test clips on a regular desk phone.)
That doesn't matter to me. FWIW I think he was honest, though incorrect in some matters.
I am trolling
> Employees aren't paid well,
:)
well, duh.
Think of your last visit to Frys.
Think of your interactions with the employees.
Sure, there are a handfull who know what they're doing, or wehere they are, or what they stock . . . but would *you* pay most of them $5/hour?
With the decline of Tower Records, the McDonald's rejects need *somewhere* to go
hawk
Could it be? Is John Gilmore "The Man who Japed"? ;P If you "get this" you are cool.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This country has turned into a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
Sure you're not thinking of Joseph Heller?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
The parent should be modded up. While I agree with the article on a lot of points. I also read it seeing that these were periods of abuse were followed by some cleanup. Those periods do leave a ripple however, and no clean up may be able to get it all.
Optimistically, one hopes it is possible to clean up W's plans. 'Course, the future proposed by the article is just as likely. Not all people are good, even with the best of intentions.
While not really historically acurate in all its parts, Gangs of New York is pretty interesting take on the New York riots.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Photo ID Required: Amtrak customers 18 years of age and older must produce valid photo identification when purchasing tickets (whether in stations or on board trains), and when checking baggage. Unaccompanied children 15 and older must also produce valid photo ID when purchasing tickets.
Random Ticket/ID Checks: Following federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) guidelines, we regularly conduct random ticket verification checks on board trains to ensure that passengers are properly ticketed. Please be prepared to show a member of the onboard crew valid photo identification.
What is a Valid ID? To be valid, your identification must be current and in-force. We accept the following forms of identification:
State or provincial driver's license Passport
Official government-issued identification (federal, state or county government or legitimate foreign government)
Canadian provincial health card ID card with photo
Military photo ID
Student identification (university, college or high school photo ID)
Job Corps photo ID
If you can present none of the above IDs, we will generally accept two other valid and current forms of identification, at least one of which is issued by a legitimate government authority.
Eight years or so ago, I thought the same thing, and walked past the "check receipt" clerk saying "no thank you I'm in a hurry" (I was).
Well he grabbed my shirt and wrestled with me until I stopped just outside the door. The Manager inside yelled "Call 911!" and 6 clerks surrounded me shoulder-to-shoulder preventing my further departure (in a well rehearsed move).
They demanded to inspect my receipt and to search me. I politely said no and it was clear their intent was to argue with me until the police arrived. I asked if I was under Citizen's arrest and they said "No, but I still cant leave the store". I pointed out that I was 5 feet outside the door and they had no good answer. They said there was an anti-shoplifting law that granted them this right to search me. I knew that pushing them aside would constitute assault on my part.
Not wanting to deal with the police (I don't have the independent wealth or free time necessary to afford a legal defense in this situation) I eventually allowed them to see the receipt and look in my Fry's bag (they had so SURE I was shoplifting). They were incredibly shocked to find out I was not in fact shoplifting, and let me depart.
I checked with the police the next day and they told me that Fry's can and does do this commonly and that its supported by law somehow and if I wanted to know more, I could contact a lawyer.
I was forced to sue or let the matter drop. I wish had the funds/time to sue them, for I think, given my understanding of the law, I would have won on several grounds, including false imprisonment and assault.
Alas with my later day job as a Whitehat security consultant, had I let myself be arrested (even if not charged or later acquitted) I would have not been hired and would have failed several different background checks. So, for me, I guess I made the right choice given the realities of the screwed up world.
To this day, I wish I could have afforded being a privacy rights crusader, but alas twas not to be.
As an aside, at the time I worked as national IT manager of a major Silicon valley based corporation and I justified and pushed through a "No Fry's" policy that cost them probably a couple of hundred thousand in lost sales.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
Not to mention that CallerID isn't any more secure than the from line of an email address. Sure it takes a little more knowledge and more epensive access (or certain VoIP), but there is no verification.
Here's a link to wikipedia on how Muslims view Jews & Christians BTW.
Someday we'll all be negroes
give every able-bodied person on the plane a big-ass knife. Let any potential terrorists get the Flight 93 treatment, just give the passengers the tools to do the job.
Need I remind you that everybody on that flight died? Surely there's a better solution that doesn't result in the death of every single person the plane. Flight 93 was not a success. It was merely the least of 4 tragic horrors.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
In the US you used to be able to fly very long distances without ID.
Not all non americans know that (me included when I was 18)
- UK resident
A blog I run for the wealth
No, you don't need to remind me. Point is, even unarmed, they were willing and able to foil (though sadly not stop) the terrorists.
Post-9/11, no aircrew in the world is going to surrender control of the plane to hostage-takers; and passengers are willing to fight. Those changes in procedure and attitude contribute to our safety; making me show ID to get on the plane doesn't.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Why do they do a lot of things they shouldnt?
Just beacuse it is, doesnt make it right.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Next time you go a store who has a clerk who wishes to blame a higher authority, just take a cam corder. When he asks you to stop filming in the store tell him that your insurance policy requires that you film all altercations with store staff. The clerk will immediately call his manager, who will call his manager, who will call the regional manager, who will call whoever. They can't throw you out, cause that would just give you something to film. If they try to call you on your bluff you can just get your "manager" on the phone to explain to their manager that yes, you are required to film the argument about their store policy. Eventually someone will be called that you can actually ask about the issue it is you wanted to ask them about. And you'll get a reply that isn't coming from a clerk defering to a higher authority.
How we know is more important than what we know.
b) the eye "witnesses" said they had red banadanas, when Al Qaidas colour is green.
Green represents Islam. Red represents Arabs. They're Pan-Arabic colors, seen on most of the flags of the middle east.
Just letting you know.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If there is a law involved, it would be the one stating that airlines and pilots can choose to not allow any passenger or cargo they don't want to carry.
It just sounds more impressive saying "It's the law" than "It's policy".
227-3517
Part of your quote got chopped, and I'm curious as to what it said.
Y'know, they could have just turned the loudspeakers at him and been all, YOU WILL COOPERATE WITH THE STATE FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE AND YOUR OWN SURVIVAL. (Anyone remember that? Anyone?)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's not unprecedented.
Aye, but it's still wrong.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
That's Gilmore's point exactly - he's not complaining about the regulation that says he has to show his ID - he's complaining that he said "Where's it say that?" and he was told "We can't tell you, it's a secret".
I'm assuming that the Department of Justice is convinced there's such a law - one of the briefs they've filed in the case requests that they be allowed to explain why the regulation must be kept secret 'in camera'. In other words, Gilmore and his lawyer do not get a chance to see and contest the government's explanation.
And hey guys, we're not talking Q-clearance DOE nuclear stuff, where even the regulations of who can see it are secret. We're talking about riding on a frikking airplane - and the rules for what's permitted are secret.
From there, it's a very short step to the cops pulling you over when you're driving, and arresting you under some "secret" law you've violated, but aren't allowed to see.
And that is why Gilmore is raising a fuss.
One small blow from freedom and sanity was struck today when a Federal judge ordered Jose Padilla to be either charged or released in 45 days. Padilla is the case study in abuse of power by the Bush administration, a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. and detained for 2 years without charges, in a military brig in South Carolina, with no charges filed, and most of the time with no access to a lawyer.
Of course the DOJ can appeal this decision until they find a friendly court. Last time his case reached the Supreme Court they punted it on a technicality and left him in purgatory.
Padilla may be a low life scum bag and a legitimate terrorist but unless the DOJ can prove it in a court of law they have zero right to hold him. The fact that they have for two years pretty much shredded our constitution, due process and the rule of law.
In the last decade or so there was a lot of soul searching about how the U.S. treated Japanese Americans in World War II, mostly siezing all their property and indefinite internment without charges. We even paid the survivors reparations a few years ago. Then we turn around and do exactly the same thing to Muslims and Arabs.
Some quotes from the judge, ironicly appointed by George W. in 2003:
"The court finds that the president has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold Petitioner as an enemy combatant," Floyd ruled in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
"Floyd said the case was a law enforcement matter, not a military one, and that unless Padilla is charged with a crime, he should be freed."
"If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," said Floyd, who was appointed to the federal bench by Bush in 2003."
@de_machina
You should have waited for the police to show up after you showed your receipt and had the officer charge the employees with assault and battery. They had no right to detain you if you were not doing anything illegal, and that they chose to skate that line and hold you anyway puts them with the burden of proof. That you did not strike any of them is good, but you have more restraint than I would have.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
But when I was in the Antilles, 50-70% of all cars I saw were automatic.
In Europe (I lived for a year in Spain) 30%.
Here in Brasil, less than 1% of the cars are automatic.
There is no special habilitation "automatic cars only" class.
If you can only drive an auto car, a manual gear is very difficult to handle.
So, people cannot make the exam in automatic cars.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The fact is that, historically, the position earned as "representatives" (head) of State by the Crown is derived from the fact that they owned (as in they were proprietors) all the country at some point in time.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Right. I was sleep deprived when I wrote that. I meant credit card theft. Which is money theft.
Anyway, it doesn't really help identity theft unless the clerk who checks it swipes it through a machine, or has an idetic memory.
were willing and able to foil (though sadly not stop) the terrorists.
We don't know what happened in the last moments of that flight, but I don't think the passengers all made a conscious decision to trade their lives to save others. I'm pretty sure they were all hoping to survive.
no aircrew in the world is going to surrender control of the plane to hostage-takers; and passengers are willing to fight.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If anything, I think Flight 93 may have made it easier for the terrorists, and made passengers less likely to fight back. They'll all remember that everyone on Flight 93 died, and will instead hope that the new super-safe security measures, like the reinforced cockpit door, and the superhero air marshall will save them.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Yes, but only on Jews. Or Muslims. Oh, hell, anybody with a better than average tan.
Because I have a secret ID that I can't show anyway. And the authorization to carry it is secret, too.
OK... we'll compromise. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
The theory may be good, but remember that the implementation is by goons who didn't get much beyond the third or fourth grade developmentally. Working the McDonald's behind the checkpoint pays better... and provides more training.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
Jury nullification is implied in the Constitution
(for criminal cases).
The State, of course, doesn't want you to know about it.
http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=27
The jury's role "as a check on official power" is in fact "its intended function." Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 86-87 n.8 (1986)
http://www.fija.org/fijafacts.htm
http://freedomlaw.com/Amicus.htm
Tell a friend or two.
It appears that the june 21, 2004 ruling only
l ?c ourt=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-5554
applies to verbally identifying yourself.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.p
the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS 171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) ("The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists"). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document.
My favorite airline security idea, courtesy of the Cryptogram newsletter:
From: Ric Woodson
Subject: Arming Pilots
In response to the guns in cockpits debate, I would like to suggest an alternative to which I have not yet had anyone come up with a better solution. Mount along the full length of each side wall of the passenger area, a tube within a tube. Each tube has openings down its length approximately 1/3 of its diameter. The outer tube is stationary, the inner tube rotates to an open position only at the command of the cockpit.
Inside the inner tube, are 1/2 size baseball bats laid end to end. Once the tubes are open, the window passenger has access to the bats in the tube. These can be used offensively or defensively. Each row of seats would then have something like two bats per row. More than enough to use for re-acquisition of control of the craft. There would be too many bats to be collected and managed by the "terrorists" (did you ever try to pick up more than four bats at a time?). No chance for a misfire. Nothing to take the pilots away from their jobs. Too small to be used to bash in security doors. Easy for authorities to inventory and reclaim after the landing.
Cheap and relatively easy to install. After all, who has more experience with a Louisville slugger than an American passenger? How about giving the passengers a chance if a revolt is necessary. Send the marshals home and save the money. Forget the high-tech solutions, this is not a high tech problem. I know it sounds radical at first but think about it a while.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
this is a crystal clear example of why people who are concerned with freedom and liberty (the real values, not the window dressing now practised in america) should avoid fascist third world police states like the USA- you can be arrested and held without charge, forever, in secret, for violating laws you are not allowed to know about - Orwell must be rolling in his grave at the actions of the Bush regime
Land of Lies, Home of Hypocrisy
Incidentally, I heard an ad to be a TSA screener on the radio a few months ago. No high school diploma required.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent