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.
No, the man is not concerned because nobody has taken the time to produce a copy of the law. It is my understanding that he is concerned because the law is being withheld from inspection.
Sure, the law is in print somewhere (ostensibly), but no layperson knows precisely what it says. In essence, we are being held accountable to rules that we cannot know.
If I was driving down the freeway one day, following all the rules, going the speed limit, and a police officer pulls me over for "a traffic violation", but is not willing to tell me what this "traffic violation is", wouldn't I have reason to question why?
Next thing you know, you'll want to be innocent until proven guilty and question witnesses.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
I mean, the reason people go to law school and the reason pay lawyers so much money is because the law is something that needs to be done BY THE LETTER. It sounds like the airlines want us just to abide by the spirit of the law.
And while I personally wish society were at point where we COULD just go by the spirit of things, we are not there yet, and so in order to protect OUR rights, and OUR safety, we need to be able to view these laws and make certain we're not getting screwed over.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
It reminds me of when my town's high school started making kids wear their sudent ID's around their necks in response to Columbine, with the stated purpose of trying to prevent such a situation in our town by discouraging unauthorized people from entering the school.
Only problem is, there has not been a school shooting I know if that was not perpetrated by a student who is authorized to be at that school.
Same thing with airplanes. "Ha ha, you dumb terrorists! Now you have to prove you bought the ticket to get on the airplane!" I'm sure this inconveniences them much more than it inconveniences me when getting on an airplane. In fact, I bet it inconveniences them so much that they would scrub years or decades of planning. Sure, I get on an airplane once every couple months, and it hasn't made life too much harder for me, but somehow it's magically different for terrorists.
There are some people who are smart enough to be bothered by the whole concept of having a bunch of government bureaucrats enforcing secret and unwritten laws on an unknowing populace and then there are stupid bastards such yourself who aren't much higher on the intellectual food chain than say a retarded steer, or perhaps a particularly bright carp.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
You would be correct, except:
TSA agents, who are *government* employees, are telling him he has to show ID because it's the law.
Airline officials are *not* saying that this is company policy; they are saying it is US law.
He is asking to see said law. No one will show it to him. Private laws are *not* something we should be saying "Oh, well that's okay then" towards; they lead in exactly the wrong direction.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
First, he doesn't have a driver's license. Second, he doesn't have a problem with the law that says you have to show ID to get on a plane. He just wants someone to show him a copy of it and the government claims that the details of the law cannot be divulged to the public. Liberal or conservative you shouldn't like the idea that the government can hold you accountable to rules that they won't divulge.
-- Ecks
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.
(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?
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.
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
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...
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!
"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/
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.
And so is your point since overstaying a visa is hardly compelling evidence for terrorist activity.
It is silly to think these rules happen in a vacuum. The terrorists are quite well aware of them and if they had a rule which stopped people who had overstayed their visas the terrorists would have known this and only used agents who hadn't overstayed their visa.
The point is there is yet to be a compelling argument that these ID restrictions really give us much security. The burden of proof should be on those who want to impose such measures not on us to show that such measures aren't useful.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
If 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".
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