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?"
"You've got to have rules, Jerry. Without rules there's chaos." - Kramer.
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
Good. 10 points for confounding the airport security. But, if you pulled the same thing with a highway patrol officer, I think you'd end up with handcuffs, not a copy of the law.
Sure, eventually someone would produce the law, but was it worth it?
I agree, this sounds suspicious, though. I wish I had the money to test such systems.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Maybe the memory is still lingering?
But seriously, is $30 million enough for such lawsuit? Didn't we just read that a session of 'Trek costs $32 million??
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Airlines are private companies...can't they require whatever the hell they want? A company doesn't need a law to back showing IDs. They can't ask you for your social security #, but ID is fine as far as I know.
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?
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.
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?
I have a friend who is doing 26 years in federal prison for drugs. He and his associates drew the attention of federal authorities in part because of air travel habits.
Forcing people to show ID will help the feds make cases. It's not going to stop terrorists. They can get fake IDs.
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!
He was employee No. 5 at Sun Microsystems, which made Unix, the free software of the Web, the world standard.
WTF? I guess it is too much to ask for journalists to get a clue....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"He was employee No. 5 at Sun Microsystems, which made Unix, the free software of the Web, the world standard. "
Who made Unix? I thought it was SCO?
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.
Ticket Agent: May I see your ID?
Me: I'm sorry, I lost my wallet somewhere. All I have is some cash until I get everything replaced. You have no idea just how difficult this has been.
Ticket agent: Okay, you'll have to go thru some extra screening, though. [Meaning a guaranteed wanding, remove shoes, etc.]
Me: Okay.
Been there, done that. It works.
Of course, I actually DID lose my wallet on that trip, but the principle is the same.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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
I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to drive without ID in most if not every state.
The FAA requires that you carry positive ID along with your Airman's Certificate (their gender-charged language, not mine) whenever operating an aircraft
Walking is an impractical method of moving around the country at this point in history, requiring people who don't want to show ID to walk would preclude them from many types of job.
Hitchiking is illegal in every state where i've bothered to research the law.
If he starts a private airline company then he will be subject to the rules of the FAA or TSA and have to impose the same requirements.
He actually has a pretty good point.
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 are exactly right.
But exactly wrong too!
Perhaps there should be a law so that you have to prove who you are to board an airplane. I'm not sure about that.
But if that is the case, then a law should be passed. If its really that important, congress should simply pass a law. They could do it in one day if it was important.
But they haven't passed such a law. Isn't that interesting?
Isn't it even more interesting that the government claims there is such a law, but that its too secret to tell you about? Doesn't that make you *the least bit interesting* in what the hell is going on?
Where do you draw the line? If the police asked you for papers when you crossed from one state to the other, but couldn't tell you under what authority, would you simply brush it off? Seriously, where will you draw the line?
In other news, congress is trying to get bigger fines on broadcasters in case they say "anal sex" on the air.
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.
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.)
There is a law, the TSA acknowledged that there was a law. Did you read the article?
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
From TFA:
"He was employee No. 5 at Sun Microsystems, which made Unix, the free software of the Web, the world standard."
Waitaminute. They're actually saying that:
Three complete falsehoods in one sentence! Is this country great or what?
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
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.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Why does the government need to know where you are travelling?
For the same reason that dogs lick their balls.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?I
Republican President Bush backs a big-government national ID card. The "conservative voice" condemns this action as un-American as does the ACLU. Is it just me or are these labels sort of stupid? Perhaps destroying the checks and balances of the three-branch system?
Oh well, maybe it's just me.
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.
Like most such regulations, it's there to keep the soccer moms happy through the feeling of security. Realistically, it's meaningless. A criminal will either be sure to not have a prior record or use a fake.
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
look, if you want to be able to drive your low gas mileage car, eat tacos and watch the super bowel (without breasts) then you bloody well better co-operate. the war on terror is the single most important war that has ever been fought in the world, ever, this is because they killed 3000 innocent people and that means we have to kill absolutely every last terrorist and their families and everyone who has ever known them, and anyone who ever becomes a terrorist in the future. as you can imagine this requires quite a few 'tools' - for example, the president needs to be able to declare war on anything at any time, such a war needs to be able to continue for as long as is needed and in order to find the enemy (they don't wear uniforms you know) you need to be able to search anyone. if your not a terrorist you have absolutely nothing to hide simply because the war on terror is so important that anything else that anyone might do will be ignored unless its terrorism - if your gay for example fear not, the war on homosexuality is totally on hold for the moment! even if your ISP did forward your gay web-browsing history and emails to the FBI they wouldn't want to know! in fact banning gay marriage has dropped right off the current administrations to-do list because there are so many more important things to do - president bush has actually said that he won't even go to sleep until terrorism is stopped, let alone waste time on less important things like that. now people seem to think that the bill of rights is some set in stone thing that cant be changed - wrong, the bill of rights is just a bit of paper and if it turns out that the terrorists are using free speech and all our crazy prisoner rights against us then we have to drop them from the law! remember politicians can be trusted because we all elect them - when has a politician ever lied or done something dishonest? maybe about once a century!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
(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?
As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day. "He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,'" Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.'"
So, actually he wasn't allowed on the plane. There is a "Secret ID" law--so secret the government at first wouldn't even awknolge if it did or did not exist. Even today, the government won't cite the secret rule that allegedly requires people to show ID, saying that it is secret and can't be revealed without harming security.
It's official. 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. It sounds too bad to be true, but each allegation I've listed is documented and verifiable.
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.
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.
however, if there isn't a law and the airlines are making shit up the need to be called on it. Likewise if there really is some 'secret law' on the books it needs to be exposed as the very idea of 'secret laws' is totally against the basic ideal of having a free society.
This is a battle worth fighting.
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
You are not required to carry ID with you at all when you drive. You are only required to furnish proof of a licence to drive within an applicable time period or you get a fine. They can still look you up by name and address. At least in the state of NY and most New England states, they can pull up your picture as well. Having an licence with your picture simply makes it easier for them.
Most cops I have met are really nice guys and are pretty lenient about a lot of things. Including not having I.D. when you drive. I don't carry any ID with me when I drive/fly/whatever. It's not that I'm a raving zealot about being free, it's simply something I never have done, nor was ever inclined to do.
It's natural to pay for things in cash, or over the internet, drive and fly without ID. It's not hard. You simply can't be clueless about it and even ask for help in situations where it'll be a hassle when someone does ask for ID (such as in airports).
You should never expect to have someone request ID unless you've done something wrong as in illegal, against the law etc.
I've spent a couple of days in jail since I didn't produce my ID for something I wasn't even involved in. I gave them my first name and called my lawyer. Nuff said. Since I didn't do anything wrong, they had no business knowing who I was.
Look, I'm not a privacy anal retentive person - but when people try and snoop into your business, people who don't know you or especially a government agent or agency when I have done nothing wrong - a "suspicion" based on profiling or my personality or any thing else they deem as "unnormal" is simply wrong and goes against principles of freedom the founding fathers wanted to ensure we had.
Not to mention I'm a white, upper middle class american. It's not like I'm an easy target to racial profiling (my apologies, but racial targeting and profiling is a sickening problem and I really can't stand it).
People don't have a head on their shoulders these days or excercise common sense. It's truely pitiful.
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 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?
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
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.
And you've never questioned any of that?
Why should you need to show a credit card to buy something not on the credit card? I tried to report a car running a red light and almost hitting me on my bike. The police wanted to see my drivers license. Um- I wasn't driving. As a cyclist, I'm not required to have a drivers license. So, why ask for it?
Just because things are ubiquitious in our society doesn't make them right. Most of the time you are 'required' to flash a card, it's for the convenience of the other party.
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
we are being held accountable to rules that we cannot know.
If we were around women more, we'd be used to it...
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
Interesting, isn't it? Conservatives always claim they don't want stuff like this... Yet the instant they get into power, they start passing it left, right, and center, and blame the "Liberals".
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 can definitely understand having strong, rather passionate negative feelings towards certain individuals within US politics who *claim* to be Christian. I experience such feelings myself. (I won't name names, but I don't think I really need to...the individuals in question know who they are, and so do most of the rest of us)
However...if hatred of such "Christians" extends to hatred of Christ himself, it might interest you to know that Jesus most likely would actually share your feelings towards such people. One of the things which got him killed was a habit of several times becoming furious with the religious leaders of the day, reprimanding them and calling them hypocrites, among other things.
It always interests me when I see people (justifiably, IMHO) expressing anger/hatred/frustration towards Bush and his followers, but at the same time mistakenly extending that to Christ, because they make the assumption that Jesus and Bush are ideologically/attitudinally similar. What people would find out if they took the time to do some research on the matter however is that Christ and Bush are actually diametric opposites...In fact I can hardly think of two individuals who have less in common with each other.
My motivation in pointing this out is not that I'm in any way "turn or burn" fundamentalist, but that I'm someone who in a hopefully more moderate, historical perspective sees Christ as having been a worthwhile human being...Sufficiently so that at times it grieves me somewhat that he is in any way associated with the likes of Bush. I'm not saying that I'm angry with you here...Assuming that Bush and Jesus are similar is a mistake a lot of people make, primarily due to the claims Bush makes...but it is a mistake that is based on a lack of accurate information. I don't believe anyone's going to go to hell for having the wrong idea here...but having the historical record straight in virtually any instance is a good idea.
You answered your own question -
If I have nothing to hide, then the government has no need to know. Period.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
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?
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
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.
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.
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)
"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 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.
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
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."?
If it werent for pirates I wouldn't have this machete and this green macaw parrot resting on my shoulder keeping me awake at night saying "arrrRRRr!".. damn pirates.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
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:
1. IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER -
A. ALL PASSENGERS WHO APPEAR TO BE 18 YEARS OF AGE WILL PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID, OR TWO OTHER FORMS OF ID, AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.
B. THE AGENT MUST RECONCILE THE NAME ON THE ID AND THE NAME ON THE TICKET -- EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW.
C. IF THE PASSENGER CANNOT PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION, OR IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED TO MATCH THE TICKET, THE PASSENGER BECOMES A "SELECTEE." CLEAR ALL OF THEIR LUGGAGE AS NOTED IN SECTION 6, BELOW.
6. CLEAR SELECTEE'S CHECKED AND CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPICIOUS ARTICLES DISCOVERED BY THE QUESTIONS ASKED;
A. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON A FLIGHT WITHIN THE 48 CONTINENTAL US STATES, OR TO MEXICO, OR TO CANADA, ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED BY EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:
1. EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY A QUALIFIED SCREENER, OR;
2. BAG-MATCH -- ENSURE THE BAG IS NOT TRANSPORTED ON THE AIRCRAFT IF THE PASSENGER DOES NOT BOARD.
B. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT -- CHECKED LUGGAGE, CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPECT ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED ONLY BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD; EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY QUALIFIED SCREENERS.
*.sig
George Bush is dead! Long live George Bush!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
From time to time in Canada Parliament sends a proposed bill to the Supreme Court to rule if it's constitutional before they vote on it.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Well, they didn't, did they?
The hijackers were Saudis - we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even though, I would note, they found a pristine hijacker passport sitting in the rubble of the World Trade Center.
Wow! What a coincidence!
Almost as likely as the Oklahoma City cop who believed the Federal Building bombing was a set-up - who then "committed suicide" (while being followed by FBI agents) by slashing his arms repeatedly, cutting his throat TWICE, then crawling 8,000 feet to shoot himself in the head with a gun - which could not be found by dozens of fellow officers searching for it - until five minutes after the FBI SAIC showed up - who promptly "found" it (although it has yet to be identified as to exactly what gun it is.)
Wow! What a coincidence!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Yeah, but you guys are, like, sane and shit.
In the US, politics is all about seeing what you can get away with.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I want to put out a call for action by slashdotters that might be able to help john in his case.
A letter to your senator of congresscritter something like this:
"Can you please send me a copy of the regulation or law which requires airlines to obtain from passengers a valid driver's license? Is there such a law?" (you don't need to copy my bad grammar, just a letter to that general effect.)
If you get an answer, please send it to John via EFF or via his lawyers, or send it to me. Thanks.
This would be useful to the case, but also puts pressure on the agency. If the law is so secret they won't tell a senator, that escalates the issue a bit. If they do tell the senator, and the senator send it to us, we can file that in court, and post it on slashdot.
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?
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?
Free Men do not follow POLICIES. They follow their own good judgement.
ompany in question doesn't want a LICENSE from The State to conduct COMMERCE, then they may expect to ignore the RIGHTS OF FREE MEN.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
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.
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?
That's all. My point was simply that it should be up to the USER what personal information someone has...it should be a matter of choice. What happens instead is that corporations and the government just demand things and we give it up without asking why and how. Personal control.
I'm afraid you gave up personal control when you consented (or not, see Thoreau : ) to live under a government. The argument of course is how much control you have, and yes to an extent it would be nice to control how much information the corporations/govt hold on you. However I think presenting ID at an airport is really the least of your worries if your government decides they want to track you. There are many easier ways.
A citizen should be allowed to do anything legal without being tracked, at THEIR option, not a corporation's or government's option.
While this sounds nice, in practice it's impossible. You can't drive without a licence and a licence plate (for tracking purposes). You can't be paid (legally) without a SS number for tracking reasons. Etc etc etc. Would you like to make those controls optional? The government is there to control you and protect others from you (and vice versa), and while I agree with you that an ID at an airport will do nothing for security, this issue is *insignificant* when compared to other erosions of freedom going on in the name of 'the war on terror'. It just happens to inconvenience Gilmore more than the others right now.
Personal control of your information does nothing for you if the government decides to lock you up without trial, indefinitely. They can do that right now in your country (and in the UK to a lesser extent), does that worry you?
There are far more important freedoms being eroded right now in the US than the obligation to present an ID when travelling internally. The climate of eternal war encouraged by this administration is far more worrying to me.
The problem with monarchies and removing them is: they theoretically own the assets that form the basis for the State to work (their salaries/alimonies/allowances are, therefore, kind of a "rent" payment that the people pays to use that which belong to the Crown). :-)
When you rattle this cage too hard, you rattle the foundations to the real estate market, too: the right to own a State is very close to the (also hereditary) right to own a house. It's not simple to do without a very radical institutional breakage.
And, to make it worse, there are cases where the Crown helps the democratic process (Spain is a good example), and estabilizes the government.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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".
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.
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
I have been contemplating posting this, but after reading some of your posts, I feel compelled.
..., if you comply with...., oh, by the way..."
I traveled at Christmas from North Pole Alaska, all the way to Detroit with my wife, and three kids under three. We purchased three tickets, as two of our kids are under two, and can sit on our laps. Our daughter had her own seat.
It started off ok, but that was just getting in the door of the airport. We arrived 3 hours early because I knew we would take a long long long long time to get through the x-ray vision machines. (Airplane movie comes to mind)
We literally took 25 minutes to get the kids shoes off, take the kid leashes off, remove my 5 mo old's shoes, with integrated nuclear detonators, unstrap him from his mothers chest via a kid cradle, then finally convince my 1.5 year old to walk through the white uprights while nearly 50 people wait for us. (Fairbanks is a small airport, only 6 TSA agents at the screening, one with crossed eyes!)
I used 12 of those bins at every screening process. We attempted to keep it at a minimum.
What's my complaint you ask? Seeing how I haven't mentioned the whole ID part? Well, I don't mind showing my ID, it's the whole misleading rules/regulations that have somehow become LAW.
You know the sign at some airports that say "Private screening rooms available upon request?" I inquired about this for the benifit of the fliers behind us who have to stand there patiently, in fear of loosing their first born, and right testicle/breast. The TSA freak said that we can only request it AFTER we go through the initial screening, and ONLY if the metal detector goes off. What a crock! If I've spent 10 minutes stripping my kids and make it through the detector, what the halibut am I going to ask for a "private" screening room for, just to do it all again?
I told him he needs to take the sign down, cause it's like false advertising.
I actually told my wife the next time we fly, we'll charter a plane. They don't require massive screenings, and your bags go from trunk to plane, in less than 20 feet! I've also done some research, and the price is comparative to first class tickets. Of course, that's if you buy 6 or more.
"You are free to move about the country, if you have
Later