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?"
Upon buying a ticket, we should be able to assume that you have the right to use that ticket to board your flight and reach your destination with a minimum of fuss, muss, and lost luggage. If we can't assume as much (or cannot be refunded for the ticket), we're operating under some very suspicious economic principles reminiscent of China and communist states.
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
What is wrong with letting the government know where one goes if one has nothing to hide? Is it the fear that the government will suddenly start restricting movement or require permission to go somewhere ahead of time? This sounds like a lot of paranoia to me. Some rich guy with too much time on his hands can decide he wants to fight it, but I'd rather choose my battles more carefully.
The one you're talking about (and the only one he's apparently talking about) was Southwest Airlines out of Oakland. United at San Francisco was going to let him fly, but he chose not to. And if he was testing this system, he should have followed through. But he didn't.
Details here.
But yet, you still buy things there. So they get your money, your repeat business, they know exactly who you are(or do you only pay cash...doubtful)...you've fully endorsed everything they do.
Here's how I look at it, I WANT them to check receipts. Why? Because it keeps people honost. Theft raises merchanise cost and I don't enjoy paying extra so some dork can steal the same stuff that I'm paying for.
Gilmore thinks he's in a free country.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
the country is in the grip of the most oppressive, fascist, jingoistic, hysteria and racism driven administration it has ever endured? secret laws are unamerican. requiring people to show their papers is unamerican. locking up people on the basis of their ethic origins is unamerican. the 9/11 terrorists had valid id. we do not inspect shipping containers. our freedoms are slipping quickly away. thanks again, bush voters. you asshats. and yes, go ahead and moderate me down. but i speak the truth, no matter how unpleasant you find it. good luck, John, you're going to need it.
"Same thing as when an officer pulls you over and asks if it's OK to search your vehicle. A nice respectful "sorry, but I refuse to surrender my 4th ammendment rights under the Constitution of the United States." is all you need to say." :(
I'm sorry, but the Renquist Supreme Court disagreed with you this year in the matter of impromptu car searches, in this case by drug-sniffing dogs. The usual rightist judges ruled that not only can police pull you over "just because", but that they can sic the drug-sniffers on your person and vehicle. It's important to win the War on Drugs, you see. A metaphor growing with interpretation, it seems.
You've no constitutional protection if you do not consent to idle searches, according to our beloved SCOTUS. Which is soon going to lose its soft and fuzzy interpretation of civil rights such as they demonstrated in that case, when Bush puts, oh say, ASHCROFT on the bench. Chief Justice Scalia, the Judge of God, Clarence Thomas, the Judge Who Doesn't Ask Questions, and Ashcroft... then Gonzalez, the Bush pal who wrote the new rules stating that torture is okay if the President thinks so, AND that the President is not subject to the laws of the U.S. or the oversight of Congress.
A true fascism is coming. Dogs in your car while you are getting your retinas scanned will be the least of it.
a drivers license isn't mandatory. you can choose not to have a drivers license.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I remember a very good quote that sums up the nature of libertarians:
"... they have taken a personality defect and turned it into a political philosophy..."
This is just typical boorish, persnickety behavior from a geeky libertarian who doesn't want be reasonable because he holds some absurdly rigid interpretation of "constitutional" rights.
Give me a break, its not a burden to be asked to show ID when boarding an airplane.
My point wasn't that Saudi Arabia organized the event. It was that it was pointless where they came from, so a valid ID would be pointless - unless one wants an excuse to invade somebody else altogether, which is what the US did.
Of course, the neocons have Saudi Arabia in their sights as well. But clearly Israel was more interested in taking out Iraq, and now Syria and Iran. And Bush is Sharon's poodle, just as Blair is Bush's.
As for who conceived 9/11, I believe it was conceived by Mossad, introduced to Al Qaeda through double agents, planned in Tel Aviv and Dick Cheney's offices, assisted by Mossad agents who were known to be following the Al Qaeda personnel for months before the attack, and allowed to happen by "coincidental" phoney "exercises" which diverted US aircraft and confused FAA operators until the operation was successful - all run by Dick Cheney personally while Bush was "out of the loop" (like Reagan and the Contra scam that was run by George Bush Senior - and about as likely).
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!