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?
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.
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
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.
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...
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?
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!
"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/
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:
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.
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?