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?"
My favorite quote from the article is the following:
country after showing a boarding pass and one form of government-issued photo ID and arrived in rental cars that required a valid driver's license and one major credit card.
Everything else I agree with, but if somebody does not have a license, they should not be entitled to drive.
The license is a test of worthyness, I don't care WHO they are, just that they have proven experience handling a deadly weapon.
liqbase
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 cop did that to me while I was in New York a while back visiting family. And he wouldn't tell me. I was doing the speed limit, signaling when I changed lanes etc. etc.
One thing to note, my car at the time was equiped with a video recorder next to the odometer. Sound and all. When the cop refused to identify why I was being pulled over and asked for I.D. and proof of insurnace (after 5 minutes).. I simply pulled away and called my lawyer, who promptly met me at the next exit.
Video and all, I was exonerated from any charge and the police department was spared a harassment charge and any "financial damage" by me - however it made the news for a few days in my local area. And a formal apology to boot. I tell you, sticking it to "the man" is one thing... but making sure abuse doesn't happen and not tolerating any bullying sure left a warm spot in my heart. Not to mention "fan" mail I actually did recieve.
Cops don't pull me over in NY anymore unless I do something wrong.
-z
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?
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.)
I used to show my receipt at Fry's, until folks like John Gilmore woke me up, so to speak; I haven't shown the receipt since then. My reasoning goes like this: the store is open to the public, they have "loss prevention agents" all over the store, and the path from the cash registers to the exit is segregated from the rest of the merchandise. You may see my receipt only after I am arrested (falsely) for shoplifting. And then you may see my lawyer's card.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
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
Does it even matter what the law says? Can't the airline just say "No ID, no Fly. That's our policy and if you don't like it, don't fly with us."?
The whole thing reeks. And the response of those in charge on the day is inconstistent with every standard operating proceedure in place.
Sounds way too much like Operation Northwinds to me, where the US intended justify an unprovoked war against Cuba, in order to "protect itself from terrorism".
Drug laws are certainly laws that should be looked at in this category.
Alcohol is legal, weed isn't.
When was the last time you saw a bunch of stoners breaking up a bar and having a fight?
Happens with the drinkers every weekend in my City.
Ecstacy is another drug that should be allowed. The youth of today have never been asked if it should be illegal, it was merely declared so because the older generation heard the word "drug" and lashed out.
If there were quasi-legal outlets for weed and ecstacy there wouldn't be such drama between rival dealers, the quality (and therefore quantifiability) of doses would rise, and safety would follow. This would also help a little (obviously not 100%) with the "gateway" idea of these substances. Dealers would be selling legitimate products and would not have to stock the harder drugs. Flood the market with legal sales and illegal ones would be harder to find.
Many people believe that the only reason "drugs" are illegal is because the
If a (n ab)user requires the means to pay, they need to work to buy their dope, so the problem would not escalate, but there would still be people outside the system, as there are alcoholics/winos with alcohol.
The majority of times police in the UK are called to drug fuelled raves is because the gathering is illegal, or the noise is causing a problem.
These two problems would disappear if more places were open for kids to go, take a few pills, dance for 4 hours, then go have a joint to cool down and chill out.
Mix this with a responsible safe-drive policy and you have a much better weekend out than is currently available with alcohol. No fighting, nobody being glassed, a lot less ass-groping and dancefloor molestation because ecstacy makes physical contact a desirable thing, rather than something to be shunned because the person is too drunk to be polite or comes on too strong and won't take no for an answer.
One MAJOR effect of making weed and estacy legal would be to reduce the crime rate by hundreds of thousands every year. People break these laws every weekend and this makes them laugh off other laws too.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger