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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
This case brings up other and more frightening comparisons to the old USSR and other totalitarian governments. The USSR, for example, had a constitution that supposedly guaranteed many of the same rights the US constitution grants; in practice, however, these rights were non-existent due to various secret "exceptions". If your government is enforcing laws that the public doesn't have access to, democracy is impossible. It is essential that the people have the right to inspect and critique the laws they are subject to.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Sometimes they don't even accept their own listed ID requirements, as happened in my attempt to get an Idaho license. Check out my journal if you want the entire story on what can happen in my state.
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.
(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?
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
No problem. They'll want to verify your ID before charging the card though, so show them some other photo ID other than a DL. Most clerks are pretty lazy about verifying that the cardholder is legit, but in my experience, not in the rental car/hotel/travel game.
I've done this before on a business trip. The guy I was travelling with had his license suspended the day before we flew out, and he was in charge of renting the car that time out. So he paid, I drove. No big deal.
Just so long as someone gets fucked over if I decide to take the car to Mexico and never come back - they don't care who.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
If you enjoy the thought of that and want to read something that contains similar concepts, try reading some Kafka. It is a lot bleaker, a lot darker. I've only read "The Castle" (which is unfinished) and "The Trial", so I can't comment on any of his other work. I'd reccommend "The Trial. Very appropriate for current US society.
I'd say The Trial is in fact more interesting than Catch 22 in this context. Catch 22 is easier to read though.
meh
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.
Yeah, you ARE aware that, since Fry's is private property, they CAN ask to see your receipt, right? Same at Costco. I asked my father and uncle, both lawyers, to investigate this, and it is PERFECTLY legal for companies to ask you for your receipt and to inspect your bag. Their property, their rules - they are not agents of the state and you are therefore NOT protected from search and seizure. You are neither hard nor protecting your rights when you refuse to show them your receipt.
I worked at Sam's club last summer as a cashier. The door checkers are instructed to look through the cart and match up everything in the cart to something on the receipt.
This serves three purposes:
a) to make sure cashiers don't mess up like the grandparent mentioned
b) to make sure people aren't shoplifting
c) to provide a visible deterrant for shoplifters
I was never explicitily told the true purpose of the door checkers, but I'd bet its a little bit of both.
Now all theory aside, in practice the vast majority of people who would work at the doors would hardly check at all. If they did, a huge line would build up of people waiting to leave. Of course some people were real careful, but most of us simply didn't care. Whenever they put me on the door, I would pretend like I was checking everything, look up and down at the receipt a couple times, and then after 10 seconds or so let them go on. I really only checked for very expensive items.
Even if no one actually checked if people were stealing, it still provided a deterrant for people who might be thinking about shoplifting. The average shoplifter doesn't know that most things aren't checked, so seeing someone at the door checking things might persuade them into not stealing.
There was one funny instance where a kid that had just started was working the door, checking receipts, and I was helping this guy who had just bought a huge flat-screen TV. I helped get it from inventory, rang it up at my register, and then helped him put it in his car. On the way out the door, the new kid asked to see the man's receipt, and the man said, "Oh no, I just won this TV" and kept on walking with the TV. He had already paid for it of course, but we had a good laugh as I was helping him get it into his car.
That may be true. However, I can't think of any administration in the past 100 years that wasn't an equally "wretched hive of scum and villainy". Anyone who thinks there is ultimately any difference at all between the GOP and the Dems has been fooled. The focus of both parties is to remove rights from ordinary citizens.
What we need is for everyone to be aware of Jury Nullification. The job of a jury is not limited to determining the facts. The real job is to ensure justice is done. This is especially needed to combat the War on Drugs. All we need is one person on each jury who will refuse to convict for drug offences and "Prohibition II" would be over. The same tactic can be used to fight other thefts of rights from the States and the People.
Please RTFA before making stupid comments like this.
FROM THE ARTICLE...
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."
I don't think it can get much clearer than that.
Why choose white shoes?
The hijackers were Saudis - we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's only part of the story. If you look at Sept. 11 it was conceived in Afghanistan, it was planned in Germany, it was funded in Dubai, it was executed in America and they used Saudis.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and of those, 10 were persona non-grata in the Kingdom.
Say whatever you want about whatever else, but you make it sound like the hijackers were working on orders from the Saudi kingdom. They were following orders from an expelled citizen. They were largely already known to be criminals in the kingdom, and had all expatriated.
Thanks to activist judges (to put it in the most ironic modern vernacular) corporations got rights in 1886. (For reference, women didn't get the right to vote in the US until 1920.)
Please find more information on the topic:
click here
Grandparent is talking about Cosmo Kramer from Seinfeld, not Jim Kramer
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
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