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
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.
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.
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.
No, the man is not concerned because nobody has taken the time to produce a copy of the law. It is my understanding that he is concerned because the law is being withheld from inspection.
Sure, the law is in print somewhere (ostensibly), but no layperson knows precisely what it says. In essence, we are being held accountable to rules that we cannot know.
If I was driving down the freeway one day, following all the rules, going the speed limit, and a police officer pulls me over for "a traffic violation", but is not willing to tell me what this "traffic violation is", wouldn't I have reason to question why?
Here is a law, furthermore, that was not passed in accordance with the constitution. We have faceless individuals deciding on controls on everyday movement and almost no questioning of their right to do so.
I am actually surprised Mr Gilmore has not asked for a court injunction asking either for proof that such a law exists (and its text) or for the regulation to be lifted.
Next thing you know, you'll want to be innocent until proven guilty and question witnesses.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
I mean, the reason people go to law school and the reason pay lawyers so much money is because the law is something that needs to be done BY THE LETTER. It sounds like the airlines want us just to abide by the spirit of the law.
And while I personally wish society were at point where we COULD just go by the spirit of things, we are not there yet, and so in order to protect OUR rights, and OUR safety, we need to be able to view these laws and make certain we're not getting screwed over.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
It reminds me of when my town's high school started making kids wear their sudent ID's around their necks in response to Columbine, with the stated purpose of trying to prevent such a situation in our town by discouraging unauthorized people from entering the school.
Only problem is, there has not been a school shooting I know if that was not perpetrated by a student who is authorized to be at that school.
Same thing with airplanes. "Ha ha, you dumb terrorists! Now you have to prove you bought the ticket to get on the airplane!" I'm sure this inconveniences them much more than it inconveniences me when getting on an airplane. In fact, I bet it inconveniences them so much that they would scrub years or decades of planning. Sure, I get on an airplane once every couple months, and it hasn't made life too much harder for me, but somehow it's magically different for terrorists.
They are claiming that the law requires they do this while at the same time refusing to point out what law does.
One can not have a Democracy if the laws are hidden from the people.
No, he can't - the federal government mandates that all airlines require identification. As I stated in another post, IF the airline were TRULY a private business imposing certain requirements on potential customers, THEN this would be acceptable. As it stands, however, the airline is a de facto corporation of the federal government.
Since you consider yourself a liberal, I'll take this opportunity to say "thank you" - you guys are the ones that have always clamored for more government involvement in everything.
RW
There are some people who are smart enough to be bothered by the whole concept of having a bunch of government bureaucrats enforcing secret and unwritten laws on an unknowing populace and then there are stupid bastards such yourself who aren't much higher on the intellectual food chain than say a retarded steer, or perhaps a particularly bright carp.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
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.)
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.
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
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
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.
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.
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
(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?
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 one thing to say "do you have a license? and can I see if it's valid?" it's another thing to say "I will now log your driver's license into our database".
It's about laws you're not entitled to know about but you are bound with.
This one is mostly harmless. But it's just a step away...
Imagine such a law: Any visitor to an anti-government website is considered traitor of the country, subject to arrest and lawsuit, without right to a lawyer, with methods of interrogation like tortures allowed, bound with secret about everything they see or hear, including this law.
Now this law comes into effect, except it's not being published anywhere. Just the same as the "ID check" - you don't get a chance to know it exists possibly until after you've violated it. The agents are free to drag you out of your house and keep you imprisoned for months, then eventually kill you and nobody can do anything about it, they can't even know what happened to you. And it's all fine in the eyes of law - and nobody can protest because nobody knows, and those who know, by knowing are bound by secret, or they violate the law and are subject of prosecution.
That's the method of rule of totalitarian government. Laws you don't know about until it's too late. And of course laws made up on the spot, just as binding because nobody can verify they were made up on the spot...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
is so that you can't fly on someone else's ticket.
If you have a ticket you can't use, you can't sell it in the paper (or on eBay). There used to be all kinds of classified ads for airplane tickets for sale. No more. It's economics, not security.
risk-averse cultures
That's a helluva way to spell "gibbering cowards."
If I'm getting on an airplane, I feel better that everyone has to show an ID.
True! You do feel better! Unfortunately, you are no safer, but everyone has less privacy. Is the loss of their privacy worth happy feelings on your part? Perhaps you should take happy pills instead? That way, you'll still be happy, and other people will still have their privacy.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
What is it with the USA? The cold war is long over but we see the former USSR steadily getting more democratic and the USA steadily adopting more totalitarian tactics.
National security should never be used as an excuse when "I just want to do whatever I want" is the real reason.
The case of this guy is trivial. The case of not disclosing the information and saying "Because I said so" is not - many non-democratic third world countries can't even get away with and at least have flimsy pretexts based on published laws when they do things injustly. Think of what sort of injustice you can get up to when you don't have to rely on published laws and superiors are not expecting you to be responsible for your actions until the press find out.
I will now log your driver's license into our database for insurance purposes.
You have to be able to prove to your insurance person that you actually did see a driver's liscense.
I 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?
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?
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.
How can we be bound by a law we can't read? Courts have ruled again and again that ignorance of the law is no excuse... How can we accept that we're bound by laws, which we must know, which we can't know?
This country has turned into a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
The ______ Agenda
If you break the law in a rental car, like running a red light or hitting a pedestrian, the police must to be able to match up the driver (and their licence) to the perpetrator. For this reason, and for the specific case of renting a car, I don't have a problem with handing over my driver's licence details.
OTOH, I would not want to have to show photo ID before I could use a taxi.
John Gilmour's main point, though, is that secret law is an abomination. With this, I agree wholeheartedly.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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.
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.)
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.
Well, then, Anonymous Brave Guy, allow me to rebut a few specific points. Apologies if I have misconstrued or misquoted any.
1) People who enforce laws shouldn't be required to have all of them memorized.
Well, I'm going to agree that the average street cop doesn't need to know tax law. But I assert that someone who enforces one very small specific subset of laws, e.g. TSA law enforcement, should in fact have a VERY thorough understanding of what is and is not illegal within the purview of those laws. That IS their job. Otherwise, that person may enforce personal preference or prejudice rather than the laws, or allow illegal activity to continue and thus endanger the lives of passengers. I'll go further and suggest that there should be on duty at all times some TSA enforcement person who has a written copy of such laws available for public perusal and for agent reference. This is my opinion, of course, not fact. I'd like to go on record as vigorously disagreeing with both your opinion and the factual basis underlying it.
2. Common sense suggests that a law requiring ID to board a commercial airliner exists and is reasonable.
Common sense is neither.
More specifically, I would assert that common sense suggests that if there is a law requiring you to show said ID, it can be found without having to break it first. That wasn't the case. The author might have tried to find such a law (the fine article doesn't say), perhaps in reaction to a previous TSA enforcer's actions*, or out of a desire not to have to tell every random stranger in a uniform that he was an epileptic, and couldn't.
(*Having flown several times in the last year, I can relate from experience that TSA people can often be rude, unpleasant, and leave one with a sense that one's privacy and dignity has been invaded unnecessarily. )
Common sense suggests that if one searches diligently to find a law prohibiting or requiring some pattern of behavior, and can't, then that law doesn't exist. That wasn't the case.
3. Making the scene that he did was unnecessary.
How else do you find out about secret laws, other than breaking them? Clearly we can't trust our lawmakers to be open about what's illegal. Applying common sense, as we've seen above, won't do either.
As mentioned previously, he may have had perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to show his papers - excuse me, for not wanting to show or have a TSA-approved photo ID.
Turning this around, common sense suggests that hiring a lawyer to file a court case to ask the government whether a specific law exists is unnecessary. However, this is what you said was "the correct answer." I'm thinking that perhaps common sense means something else when you say it. Maybe that's why we have laws instead of asking everyone to rely on their common sense...?
4. The TSA enforcement people reacted appropriately to this incident, as they would to a threat against the President.
I didn't really understand this - I'm hoping this was you being unclear in your phrasing, rather than as simple-minded as it appeared. Joking about assassinating the President is not a particularly parallel case. It's explicitly illegal, a Federal crime, and the law is readily available for citizens to read. Moreover, the foreigner who jokingly makes such a threat will quickly meet some nice Treasury Agents, probably members of the Secret Service, each of whom is perfectly capable of telling him exactly which laws he has broken. They will be polite, knowledgeable, and very serious.
TSA agents pulling a man out of line without being able to cite the relevant law is not reasonable or appropriate. This is NOT a personal fiefdom for agents to throw around personal power; this is a sensitive position in which agents are tasked with enforcing laws to protect "transportation"**. The agent's responses, FTFA, suggested that he pulled Gilmour at least in part because he
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.
It's not unprecedented.
A police state would allow all of the secret things you've mentioned in every case
Hardly. Even the Nazis had public trials. The knowledge that bad things _can_ happen to you if you offend someone in power is enough to stifle freedom in most cases.
They are both correct, since they refer to two different incidents. Read the fine page you linked to, it's right there at the top:
Hell yes. You want me to abide by your rules, you have to disclose them.
Tactical military information, sure. (Only for a limited time, though...any classified information should automatically expire after a time limit.) That's about it. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy.
The TSA is not trying to secure air travel. The TSA is trying to give the appearance of trying to secure air travel, so people will continue to fly.
You want to make air travel safer? Making passengers show papers does jack. Instead, re-enforce the flight cabin doors, then give every able-bodied person on the plane a big-ass knife. Let any potential terrorists get the Flight 93 treatment, just give the passengers the tools to do the job. (Guns are problematic in cramped quarters, though the whole explosive decompression thing is a myth.)
Don't like knives? Fine, make it stunguns instead. Put 'em in the seatback pockets right next to the barf bags.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In this case, we're not talking markets, but the guy still has a point. Without some sort of structure, some rules, you do end up with chaos.
HOWEVER, and this is a point that too many people miss, rules for the sake of rules add nothing to that structure. A decorative wall-hanging is all fine and well, but it adds nothing to the strength or durability of the wall it is hanging on.
Thus, we can say that decorative rules serve no function other than to exist. Removing them does not create chaos, though if they add some aesthetic element to life, removing them may reduce the enjoyment of life. To date, I've never heard of a decorative rule that did add to the aesthetics, but I'm willing to concede that it is possible such rules exist.
Finally, neither necessary nor aesthetic rules require invisibility. A wall is no less a wall if people can see it is there. But if it can be seen, you can tell whether something is functional or not. It certainly can't be aesthetic if it can't be seen.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"
said Dr. Ferris.
"We want them broken....There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well,
when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many
things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without
breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there
in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be
observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a
nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's
the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it,
you'll be much easier to deal with."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, "White Blackmail"
http://melbournephilosophy.com/
"We do have a fairly robust and open justice system, despite all its flaws, in cases not involving terrorism."
Dude! That is one whopper of a qualification. The whole point is the government in the U.S. can now unilaterally decide what is terrorism, and who is a terrorist, with no proof whatsover, without judicial oversight, and lock the person up indefinitely without access to a lawyer, or to their family, without due process and on a number of occasions have shipped them to third party countries to be tortured by proxy.
The whole crux of their strategy for wiping out our civil liberties and due process, is for them to say "we only do this to terrorists" to which the public is supposed to reply, "oh well if you only do it to terrorists thats OK". The only catch is the government never at any point has to offer any proof the person was actually a terrorist under their new rules, so they in fact can arrest anyone without charges, not just "terrorists".
If you are going to have a civilized nation with due process and the rule of law you HAVE to apply the same rules, equally, to everyone. As soon as you give your government an exemption allowing them to deny due process to one person you have set a precedent allowing them to do it to anyone and everyone, and have opened the door to totalitarianism, and its entirely at the discretion of the powers if they decide to seize the opportunity and turn your country in to a police state.
@de_machina
I 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
That may be true. However, I can't think of any administration in the past 100 years that wasn't an equally "wretched hive of scum and villainy". Anyone who thinks there is ultimately any difference at all between the GOP and the Dems has been fooled. The focus of both parties is to remove rights from ordinary citizens.
What we need is for everyone to be aware of Jury Nullification. The job of a jury is not limited to determining the facts. The real job is to ensure justice is done. This is especially needed to combat the War on Drugs. All we need is one person on each jury who will refuse to convict for drug offences and "Prohibition II" would be over. The same tactic can be used to fight other thefts of rights from the States and the People.
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."?
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:
George Bush is dead! Long live George Bush!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If that were actually the case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. But the reason the airlines have these policies is to (supposedly) comply with Federal Law. I say suposedly because we can't see the law. And the Government requiring it's citizens to show ID before traveling is what people are upset about.
Nipok Nek
Why choose white shoes?
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?
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?
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.
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
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