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?"
i trully hope you're nine.
HAD
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.
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.
It would be hard for any administration to say that with a straight face. Every president in the last 70 years, and probably every president overall, has been involved in at least one war or major military combat operation. The US is a warlike nation.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Yes, aren't you glad how your goverment let terrorisms control their actions...
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.
I've very glad you feel better. You're still just as dead when the plane blows up, but at least now you can feel good about it.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am