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 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?
Fair enough, but if a highway patrol officer stops you, it's assumed that you've done "something wrong". This is more like asking to see your ID and proof of insurence before they let you step into your car, or pull onto the road.
No, the man is not concerned because nobody has taken the time to produce a copy of the law. It is my understanding that he is concerned because the law is being withheld from inspection.
Sure, the law is in print somewhere (ostensibly), but no layperson knows precisely what it says. In essence, we are being held accountable to rules that we cannot know.
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?
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.
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!
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.
They are claiming that the law requires they do this while at the same time refusing to point out what law does.
One can not have a Democracy if the laws are hidden from the people.
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
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.
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.)
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
So you are perfectly ok with living under laws that you are not allowed to read or know about?
And if you think showing ID does one bit of good regarding airline security, I would love to join you in that dream world. Are you under the impression that IDs are hard to get? Do you believe that the 9/11 guys did not have valid IDs?
Finkployd
Wait a minute. Person with a uniform and a role of auhtority says to a citizen, "Show me your ID." Citizen asks, "Why?" Person with authority says, "Because it's the law." Citizen asks, "What law?", and the person with authority doesn't have an answer.
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.
It's never wrong to question authority. Authority can be expected to have an answer.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
It's one thing to say "do you have a license? and can I see if it's valid?" it's another thing to say "I will now log your driver's license into our database".
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
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.
risk-averse cultures
That's a helluva way to spell "gibbering cowards."
If I'm getting on an airplane, I feel better that everyone has to show an ID.
True! You do feel better! Unfortunately, you are no safer, but everyone has less privacy. Is the loss of their privacy worth happy feelings on your part? Perhaps you should take happy pills instead? That way, you'll still be happy, and other people will still have their privacy.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
any sane person would just pull out a photo ID and be on their way.
No, any sheep would pull out a photo ID. I, for one am glad that Gilmore has the time, money and motivation to follow through on this.
I bet you show your receipt at the door at Fry's too...
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
What is it with the USA? The cold war is long over but we see the former USSR steadily getting more democratic and the USA steadily adopting more totalitarian tactics.
National security should never be used as an excuse when "I just want to do whatever I want" is the real reason.
The case of this guy is trivial. The case of not disclosing the information and saying "Because I said so" is not - many non-democratic third world countries can't even get away with and at least have flimsy pretexts based on published laws when they do things injustly. Think of what sort of injustice you can get up to when you don't have to rely on published laws and superiors are not expecting you to be responsible for your actions until the press find out.
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 think the point being made is that laws which citizens are expected to obey should be public. How can you enforce a law that doesn't (for all intents and purposes) exist? And for that matter, how far can that go? If they can enforce an Stasi-like "may I see your papers please?" law without providing any evidence that such law exists, then what else could they theoretically do? And how could your lawyer defend you against a law that the government claims exists, but doesn't make available anywhere?
it's not about airline security policies being secret.
it's about secret government laws.
how is it possible to be a law-abiding citizen when the government passes laws you aren't even allowed to know about? "just use common sense" is not justification, because there are thousands of laws which are not sensible at all.
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
If you break the law in a rental car, like running a red light or hitting a pedestrian, the police must to be able to match up the driver (and their licence) to the perpetrator. For this reason, and for the specific case of renting a car, I don't have a problem with handing over my driver's licence details.
OTOH, I would not want to have to show photo ID before I could use a taxi.
John Gilmour's main point, though, is that secret law is an abomination. With this, I agree wholeheartedly.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The gate agent should've just told him it was an airline policy (which it probably is). Nothing wrong with that.
Though I should tell you, I really don't give a fuck if the guy trying to hijack the plane I'm flying on has an ID or not.
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.
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.
This country has turned into a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
More like a Kafka story or novel.
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).
Rights are not just for nice guys. Rights are for everyone. The government shouldn't give random people jobs to harrass people and only let the nice ones travel.
They just searched her. And at BWI, we were so late for the plane, they didn't even search her.
So, if you're nice, no one even bothers to look twice at you. That's amazing high-quality security. Is the whole point of this is to randomly harass not-nice people, or protect people?
All of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID.
Officer: Excuse me sir, you've broken the secret law. You will now be tried in a secret court.
Me: Ok, I'll hire a lawyer.
Officer: Don't bother, your lawyer will be appointed by the court. We can't have any old lawyers around, they might hear the secret laws.
Me: I want to see the judge! I want to face my accusers!
Judge: I'm afraid we can't have that. If you face your accusers, you may find out what law you've broken. We can't let out what law was broken.
Me: At least I get my day in court.
Judge: You will be tried outside your presence, because we can't have you hearing the sec...
Me: Yeah yeah, how do I know this law even exists?
Judge: Trust us.
Won't inconvenience you? That's why you're a sheep...you can only see the next two seconds in front of your face instead of the long term ramifications.
How valuable is that two seconds if every piece of information about you is tracked in some database? Forever?
How valuable is that two seconds if you no longer control your own personal information, such as where you go, when you go there, who you see, what you buy, and how long you stayed?
How valuable is that two seconds if you travel to someplace for personal reasons, but while you're there, there's a massive political protest in the same city, and the government automatically assumes that's why you went there, and logs it into some database somewhere?
How valuable is that two seconds if you just want to check out, off the grid, for awhile, recharge, meditate, whatever, but someone files a missing persons report on you, and you get tracked because of your ID? Or your cell phone?
How valuable is that two seconds if some event that happened in your past comes back to haunt you in the future, and keeps you from doing something you need or really want to do?
Sheep think about the two seconds. Wolves think about the damage done to the their privacy and their freedom.
New definition: Sheep are nature's efficient, sane food.
Well, then, Anonymous Brave Guy, allow me to rebut a few specific points. Apologies if I have misconstrued or misquoted any.
1) People who enforce laws shouldn't be required to have all of them memorized.
Well, I'm going to agree that the average street cop doesn't need to know tax law. But I assert that someone who enforces one very small specific subset of laws, e.g. TSA law enforcement, should in fact have a VERY thorough understanding of what is and is not illegal within the purview of those laws. That IS their job. Otherwise, that person may enforce personal preference or prejudice rather than the laws, or allow illegal activity to continue and thus endanger the lives of passengers. I'll go further and suggest that there should be on duty at all times some TSA enforcement person who has a written copy of such laws available for public perusal and for agent reference. This is my opinion, of course, not fact. I'd like to go on record as vigorously disagreeing with both your opinion and the factual basis underlying it.
2. Common sense suggests that a law requiring ID to board a commercial airliner exists and is reasonable.
Common sense is neither.
More specifically, I would assert that common sense suggests that if there is a law requiring you to show said ID, it can be found without having to break it first. That wasn't the case. The author might have tried to find such a law (the fine article doesn't say), perhaps in reaction to a previous TSA enforcer's actions*, or out of a desire not to have to tell every random stranger in a uniform that he was an epileptic, and couldn't.
(*Having flown several times in the last year, I can relate from experience that TSA people can often be rude, unpleasant, and leave one with a sense that one's privacy and dignity has been invaded unnecessarily. )
Common sense suggests that if one searches diligently to find a law prohibiting or requiring some pattern of behavior, and can't, then that law doesn't exist. That wasn't the case.
3. Making the scene that he did was unnecessary.
How else do you find out about secret laws, other than breaking them? Clearly we can't trust our lawmakers to be open about what's illegal. Applying common sense, as we've seen above, won't do either.
As mentioned previously, he may have had perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to show his papers - excuse me, for not wanting to show or have a TSA-approved photo ID.
Turning this around, common sense suggests that hiring a lawyer to file a court case to ask the government whether a specific law exists is unnecessary. However, this is what you said was "the correct answer." I'm thinking that perhaps common sense means something else when you say it. Maybe that's why we have laws instead of asking everyone to rely on their common sense...?
4. The TSA enforcement people reacted appropriately to this incident, as they would to a threat against the President.
I didn't really understand this - I'm hoping this was you being unclear in your phrasing, rather than as simple-minded as it appeared. Joking about assassinating the President is not a particularly parallel case. It's explicitly illegal, a Federal crime, and the law is readily available for citizens to read. Moreover, the foreigner who jokingly makes such a threat will quickly meet some nice Treasury Agents, probably members of the Secret Service, each of whom is perfectly capable of telling him exactly which laws he has broken. They will be polite, knowledgeable, and very serious.
TSA agents pulling a man out of line without being able to cite the relevant law is not reasonable or appropriate. This is NOT a personal fiefdom for agents to throw around personal power; this is a sensitive position in which agents are tasked with enforcing laws to protect "transportation"**. The agent's responses, FTFA, suggested that he pulled Gilmour at least in part because he
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
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.
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.
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
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)
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"
said Dr. Ferris.
"We want them broken....There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well,
when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many
things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without
breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there
in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be
observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a
nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's
the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it,
you'll be much easier to deal with."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, "White Blackmail"
http://melbournephilosophy.com/
"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
I think the idea behind keeping the law secret is that it would prevent a terrorist organization from analyzing it to figure out a weakness and exploit it. It's analogous to source code in that a law is essentially a script followed by civic employees. There's a reason why the word 'code' is used in both cases.
/. estimation of 'security through obscurity', I doubt many people here do either. But I think that's the theory behind the administration's stance on this.
I don't agree with it, and judging by the general
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Actually, it's an FAA regulation. It is, however, a secret FAA regulation. And this is the crux of the matter. There should not be secret laws in a democracy. And that is a far more important matter than whether or not you have to produce ID to board a plane (which itself is important).
Keith
And so is your point since overstaying a visa is hardly compelling evidence for terrorist activity.
It is silly to think these rules happen in a vacuum. The terrorists are quite well aware of them and if they had a rule which stopped people who had overstayed their visas the terrorists would have known this and only used agents who hadn't overstayed their visa.
The point is there is yet to be a compelling argument that these ID restrictions really give us much security. The burden of proof should be on those who want to impose such measures not on us to show that such measures aren't useful.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I'm inclined to agree with you on the reason- the problem is that it requires the rule/law to actually DO something productive towards prevention of a problem even before you can consider security through obscurity. Not to mention the fact that just because it's obscured to the public, doesn't mean that the people that ARE obscured couldn't be subborned to reveal the law and any apparent weaknesses. In the case of the "must show ID" regulation (it's NOT a law, mind...) the possession of an ID that maps to the alleged identity for the tickets and boarding passes does NOT mean in any way, shape, or form that the ID is even valid. Bam, there goes the reason for the regulation right there- it doesn't do anything useful against even the least determined attacker. It'd not have prevented or deterred 9/11. It won't prevent or deter another similar attack. So, why in the hell have it in the first place?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
If you give a minute's thought, the "we-can-kick-you-out" rule will render a protestor unable to show at the local Sam's Club -- which now may be the only store in most rural/small towns of the United States. You can protest, and then shop at the 7-11 or gas station for the rest of your life. Until they decide you need to register for a card to shop in their stores. Face FORWARD: turn to the LEFT: place your fingertips in the ink pad, please....
Point hammered: if we let businesses require anything they like to shop at their stores, we are under a tyranny. Businesses are not feudal keeps, subject only to the King. They are corporations which hold a license to exist granted by US through our representatives. A. License. To. Exist. Not a right. They have no rights. If they want to operate stores, they can follow OUR rules. This is the basic failure of American imagination in the 21st century. We don't think we are in charge of anything personally, or think we have civil rights or even a basic right to privacy. BUT we think businesses can do anything they like. Corporations are not only legal citizens with civil rights -- they are the ONLY CITIZENS WITH ANY RIGHTS.
This insane belief has to be rooted out of the national mind and exposed to sunlight.
George Bush is dead! Long live George Bush!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If that were actually the case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. But the reason the airlines have these policies is to (supposedly) comply with Federal Law. I say suposedly because we can't see the law. And the Government requiring it's citizens to show ID before traveling is what people are upset about.
Nipok Nek
Why choose white shoes?
Boarding an airline is a service provided to you by a company. There is no inherent "right" to be able to fly.
Then maybe we should also be talking about how the airlines have no right to taxpayer subsidies. The airline industry willingly solicits and accepts "bail out" money and has a major portion of their security provided by the feds. You want to play free market purist, fine. Let's do it. Stop stealing my hard-earned money and handing it to the airlines. Then we can talk about whether they've got a "right" to deny me service. OK?
Is the whole point of this is to randomly harass not-nice people, or protect people?
Neither. If you think, even for a moment, that the "regulations" in place come close to protecting people, then I have I bridge to sell you.
Its my firm belief that the TSA is the product of a knee-jerk reaction to 9-11. Utilizing politician speak (say something enough times and it becomes true) and wide-scale cognitive dissonance, every one is lulled into a false sense of security; nudge nudge, wink wink.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.