Slashdot Mirror
Airport ID Checks Constitutional
chill wrote to mention the decision handed down from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals in the case of Gilmore vs. Gonzales. The court found in the government's favour, saying "We hold that neither the identification policy nor its application to Gilmore violated Gilmore's constitutional rights, and therefore we deny the petition ... The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
Is there currently any form of travel where you don't have to submit to a "Papers Please" check? You have to have a driver's license to drive. We know about airplanes. If busses and trains also require ID, then how can you travel anonymously? I suppose that most taxi drivers won't check your id, but they'll sure want to check your checkbook before driving you cross-country.
If you can't travel anonymously, then you in fact do not have an independent right to petition your government.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with your rights online:
I personally have no problem with this. Given even the small chance of someone attempting to do something on a plane when i'm flying, i don't see a problem with them checking my or anyone elses ID and denying someone that flight based on a suspision. Of course one can never say "this is what i would do" until they are in that situation.
IMHO: This is a relatively minor issue anyway in the big scheme of "rights." That's just me maybe...
This was a no brainer. The airline industry is a private corporation, not a federally run operation. (Yes, they are regulated by the FAA, a governmental agency). He didn't have to travel by air. It is like driving a car. It is not a right but a privledge. Travel by airline is not federal transportation, it's just more convienent.
What is more disturbing is the trend that if you walk down the street and are required to present identification by police. That is closer to the "let me see your papers" problem as there is a right to freely walk without problems.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
FC Closer
"The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
Time to get out the horse and buggy, with that federal logic...
From the Website: "A decision is expected within the next few months. At stake is nothing less than the right of Americans to travel anonymously in their own countr"
I'm sorry, but case after case has shown that Anonymity is not constitutionally protected. If you can get someone to front for you (e.g. a newspaper), then they may choose to withhold your identity; possibly facing legal pentalities when they are court ordered to provide it. People seem to have this idea in their heads that Freedom of Speech == Freedom of Anonymity. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...so if they want to check your id before they let you onboard, its their right.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation
Well, does the constitution guarantee the right to be allowed on the front of a bus? Or on a bus it all? Does it guarantee the right to visit a grocery store?
Maybe, just maybe, the DEFAULT should be that everything is allowed (isn't that called freedom?), except for those specific things that harm society in general.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
From the article:
"He asked to see the law demanding he show his 'papers' and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn't be allowed to read it."
The constitution may no guarantee that a person be allowed to travel in any particular manner but I'm pretty sure "secret laws" are not constitutional and that is the real issue here.
US Gestapo: "Sir you are under arrest."
Victim: "What for?"
US Gestapo: "You broke the law Sir"
Victim: "What law?"
US Gestapo: "The secret law that we won't tell you about."
Victim: "I didn't know we even had secret laws!"
US Gestapo: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse Sir. Come with us."
Victim: "I want my lawyer!"
US Gestapo: "We aren't charging you Sir and you don't get to talk to your lawyer. Come with us."
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
You're ignoring the real issue. Let's suppose I hand a ticket agent $200 in cash for a ticket on the next flight. It doesn't need to have my name on it at all to prevent theft (consider bearer bonds, tickets to a concert, or good old cash - those don't have your name on them either) but a secret rule forces not just the airlines but also the now government-employed screeners to check your identity. Why? If it were really about verifying the identity of e-ticket holders, the airlines would have justification, and they'd be the ones making the rules. Since they don't, and they're not, this is a legitimate legal problem. A private airline can impose whatever conditions it wants when offering me its services; the government doesn't have that right. That's the price it must pay for its monopoly on power.
There is no constitutional protection for your momma' to not be slapped around be me and then taken from behind. That doesn't mean that it's legal, it just means that it is left up to the states to regulate such criminal activity.
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution specifically because the Constitution did not provide explicit protections from an overeager government. Fotunately, important individual protections such as women's sufferage were also later added.
The Consitution is not meant to either explicitly enumerate all of the rights we have or don't have. It lays out the structure of government, its responsibilities; and, in those cases where either government screws up or anticipated to screw up, amendents can be added to protect the individual.
You want a constitutional right to anonymity? Petition your Congressional representatives and governor to encourage a constitutional amendment. Other than that, you're pretty much at the mercy of NSA/TSA/et al.
Actually the question is "What federal law guarantees you the right to travel by other than your own means, that is, your own feet?"
The simple answer is none, because it is a NATURAL RIGHT. E.G. people are born with the right to travel freely and should not need permission to do so. This is one of those rights which clearly should fall under the 9th and 10th amendments. Remember the constitution DOES NOT grant rights. It merely lists a few of them that the framers thought were important, and which might not be self-evident.
Sadly it seems many of these rights are not self evident to the asshats in all three branches, and to many modern americans.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
But having secret laws is totally, categorically unacceptable. There should be a Constitutional amendment against these sort of regulations. This isn't similar to a police state tactic, it is a police state tactic. There is no slippery slope; there is a motherfucking cliff that is being jumped off blindly in the hopes that there will be water instead of rocks at the bottom so we might only injure ourselves instead of dying.
English is easier said than done.
If you can't travel anonymously, then you in fact do not have an independent right to petition your government.
Can you please:
1) Explain how my inability to travel anonymously prevents my petitioning the goverment for the redressing of grievances
2) Point to where in the constitution they said you were guaranteed anonymity
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
You're missing Gilmore's point, which was not that the government had no right to ask for ID, but rather that a free people should not be subject to secret laws. He asked to see the statute that allowed them to check for IDs, and they refused to show it to him. If they can do this, than they can claim ANYTHING they want is authorized by the secret law. For instance, airport security could claim that attractive women are required to give screeners oral sex to prove they are not terrorists, or else they will not be allowed to board the plane. This is very different from a traffic citation, wherein the officer will state the specific statute violated on the ticket, which can then be looked up in any library.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"Left up to the states.... at the mercy of the NSA/TSA/etc..."
Let me be the first to note that those are Federal agencies. You just admitted that they have not Constitutional basis for this action. If it were state laws that required ID, then we can nix the Constitutional discussions. It's not.
The court apparently ruled that the ID requirement is not unconstitutional because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of tranportation. This is entirely irrelevant. The Constitution is a limit on the powers of government, not a grant of rights to the people. None of the powers of government enumerated in the Constitution or Amendments give the government the power to restrict US citizens from traveling within the United States by any means they desire. In particular, the government cannot require a passport for domestic travel, yet that is what this requirement does.
Furthermore, the Constitution does not give the government the power to enact and enforce secret laws or regulations. The very concept is anathema to the Rule of Law. If the government did any legitimate power to compel domestic travellers to present identification, it could only exercise that power by publishing laws or regulations that are subject to public scrutiny and judicial oversight.
I very much hope that Mr. Gilmore will appeal this ruling.
I'm betting the agent was just blowing him off. Her job says to check for ID, not get into a debate over policy, and she's probably had enough angry customers to deal with earlier in the day.
This ID check is not unreasonable nor troublesome to any passenger.
So they check your ID and what good does it do?
Are they checking to make sure your ID isn't stamped "terrorist" or "manic-depressive?"
Just because some action is not particularly troublesome for most people does not make it at all reasonable.
A strip-/cavity-search would be where I would draw the line.
Funny that -- at least such a search will guarantee that you are not carrying anything dangerous to your fellow passengers, unlike an ID check.
Your reasoning is just rationalization for behaving like a lemming instead of thinking about actual security.
So let's stop pretending that if only Americans knew exactly what the government was doing that they would demand change, much less accountability. The Right has won by demonizing anyone who is skeptical of government power as anti-American, liberal, terrorist-sympathizing, and so on. By the time that whitebread, middle-class Americans are pissed off by the "show me your papers or go to jail for an indefinite length of time, and no we don't have to charge you with anything" state that America is moving towards, that apparatus will be too entrenched by precedent and public apathy and it will be too late to undo it completely. There may be a symbolic backlash a few years from now, but the recovery of civil rights will be less than the loss, and the progression will be ever downward.
Freedom requires a skepticism of government power. Every law, every prerogative of the police, every restriction, has to be greeted with a raised eyebrow and "why do you need that power?" for freedom to survive in society. That spirit is hard to find in Americans, and you can't kindle it in someone who doesn't have it.
One of my first jobs was with an electronics company that made circuit boards for cameras that went in police cars. If the flashing lights were on, then the camera was on. My second week on the job I remember the boss saying that the police departments had requested a modification--they wanted a way to turn off the camera while the flashing lights were still on. The first thing that popped into my mind was "why would they want to turn off the camera?" My entire political philosophy is built up from that question, but if your instincts are more trusting and credulous when it comes to government, then the question would never occur to you. Freedom requires skepticism of government motives. People have to understand and believe that, like Lord Acton said, power does corrupt. Not might or could, but does.
1> George Bush will be called a wanna be dictator who will take away your rights
Well isn't he?? Saying that he is above the law and can execute wiretaps as he chooses on any american?? And if you disagree you are either "unpatriotic" or "a terrorist"??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
And, worse (bold is again mine):
Let's quickly recap what this all means in handy bullet-point format:
This court case tells us there are secret laws on the books, and we as citizens covered under them are not privy to them. This is bad, bad news.
The point is that certainty is missing, that secret law governs what happens, and that there is no recourse. Unlike any other transport service, I can't count on being allowed to fly, even with a contract for that service in place. Calling the airlines private at this point is silly - they are all but nationalized - bailouts whenever needed, security all but outsourced, and plenty of congresscritters to buy them the legislation they want.
And that's before I bitch about the specific requirements and creeping TOA/BB/SS/Whatever you want to call it.
For them wot care, take a look at a different view of how airline regulation, secret law, and the airline cartel's cozy relationship with government is working out.
Truly, we are approaching a situation in which certainty of contract and basic privacy is reserved for those wealthy enough to use blinds, have a share of a plane, the money to create a trust for private finance, etc. And the cost is going up.
If you feel protected, you're deluding yourself.
I forget what 8 was for.
I have always thought of the right to travel as one of the Big Three, along with bearing arms and speaking. After all, if you have those three the others tend to follow.
A guard at the border is the first thing a tyrant wants.
They didn't put "the right of a citizen to move freely among the several states, and to leave and return to the United States" in the Constitution explicitly because it underpins, and is implied by, the others. They should have, and we should do it now.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
From the Gilmore website:
This is mostly right. Travel and assembly are related. Travel and free association are related. The last argument, however, is totally specious. No one told Gilmore he couldn't go to Maryland, they only said he couldn't do it (1) by airplane (2) without showing ID. This is not unreasonable given the current so-called state of war, and in any event it's certainly not unconstitutional. Denial of a particular mode of travel is not the same as denial of travel. This is substantially what TFA said. This one is trickier. The Fourth Amendment only applies to government actors. I can decide to not let you into my birthday party until you show me ID. That's fine, and it's not unconstitutional, because I'm not the government. The first answer to Gilmore's statement is that airlines are private companies, hence not government actors. However, there's an agency argument to be made, that the airlines are acting on behalf of the government, when they comply with federal regulations. Assuming the airlines are government actors, the Fourth Amendment applies only to unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonability of the search itself turns on whether there is a socially reasonable, legitimate, or justifiable expectation of privacy. Read United States v. Knotts . Does society at large think it unreasonable, illegitimate, or unjustifiable to have to show ID to board airplanes? The very fact that Gilmore's case is news seems to indicate the answer is 'no'. The core issue that the right to travel isn't at stake here has been obscured by rhetoric. Travel by airplane isn't a right, it's a convenience, and the constitution doesn't deal in conveniences. This is right on the money. Secret law is the purview of tyrants and dictators. If the federal government wants to regulate the airline industry by passing a law requiring ID checks, it is entirely within their power to do so.IMHO: Judges are smart, and they can see through rhetoric. This isn't an issue of freedom to travel, it's an issue of secret regulations and star chambers. The Bush administration will be remembered for two things: the so-called 'war on terror', and the vast and secret power grabs by the executive branch in order to fight that war. Maybe if Gilmore had focused his primary attack on the secret law angle, he might have had better success. Instead, he treated it as a "side issue".
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
1. Secret law? There's so many conflicts right there alone, this should have been the first thing in the courts, not the actual ID bit.
2. US Airport security is nothing more than a joke. It's designed to make people "feel" safer, not actually "be" safer. Big difference.
Anyone who has been to any airport knows how weak it is.
The 9/11 Terrorists realized to get past security they needed 1 thing. And they could buy it at walmart: A razor blade. As long as they shaved, they weren't suspicious.
No matter what the US does, until they thoroughly check every passenger, it's just a matter of time. The only reason we haven't had another attack, is nobody has been in the mood to attack. Nothing more. There's no possible way to dispute that. There are as many chances to attack as their are flights in the US.
No matter what the technique to security is, unless it covers everyone, and everything, they will succeed.
I love the racial profiling idea... how stupid that is. Remember this guy? Any idea what they were planning to do with him? Yea... get past security. And the State Dept. said at the time there were dozens of Americans "missing" in similar situations in that area.
Until you have 360 degrees of security, your still easily attacked. It just involves your enemy taking the extra step of walking around you first and finding that hole.
THIS is why I can't stand American politics... it's all designed to "FEEL GOOD". Nobody gets anything done.
It's political masturbation.
"the Constitution guarantees no right..."
Of course it doesn't, rights are not given or guaranteed by the Constitution, rights exist by themselves completely independent of any legal document. The Constitution merely affirms those rights, and in addition affirms those rights which aren't specifically listed (see the 9th Amendment).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Airlines didn't like people being able to sell their non-refundable tickets. ID on airlines isn't about preventing terrorism, it's about preserving a business model based on price discrimination.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
"Wild, unfounded and paranoid speculation."
Really? You could have said the same thing ten years ago about American citizens being held indefinitely without being charged and without being allowed legal representation. It's happening now. The Bush administration justifies this action by telling us that they're only doing this to "terrorists." Yeah, great. If you're ACCUSED of being a terrorists they can make you disappear.
Twenty-five years ago it would have been laughable to suggest that the government could take away your private property without due process. Now they simply "arrest your assets" thus taking your property without giving you due process.
"Glad to see that you want to give away all of our classified information to our enemies. You *definitely* need information on how to infiltrate the NSA headquarters. Yeah. That's totally a constitutional right. And giving that information out will be so helpful."
If you read my post carefully you would have noticed that I said "any regulation that effects me." I don't care to know the floor plans to the NSA headquarters. I do have a right to know about any thing that effects me.
"It's still laughable, as it's never happened."
As I said above, people being made to disappear hadn't happened before either. American citizens are not suppose to be spied on without a court order but King Bush doesn't think the constitution is anything but a "God damn piece of paper." as he put it.
Yes, that's right. When an aid told the President that: "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
Bush replied: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
So go ahead and mock all you want but this Administration has our civil liberties in its cross hairs!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If you go to a store and attempt to purchase alcohol, or cigarettes, or a firearm, and they request your ID, you can refuse to provide it, and walk away unharmed. If you go to the DMV and attempt to obtain a drivers' license, and they request your ID, you can refuse to provide it, and walk away unharmed.
If you spend $600 booking an airline ticket, and they don't ask you for ID (they don't, trust me), then you show up at the airport and they do ask you for ID, then you ask under what authority they're acting, and they refuse to tell you, stating that it's "the law," but that they can't provide you with a copy of that law, and that no, they aren't going to refund your $600, you can walk away, but you have been harmed. You're out $600, you aren't going to make your destination, and you can't get a reasonable explanation as to why. The airline blames the government, but they can't provide a copy of the law; the government blames the airline, and they won't provide a copy of the law, either.
That's what John Gilmore is pissed about, and it's incredibly unfortunate that he's been ruled against.
Next thing you know, there will be a secret law that forbids "posting to an internet discussion forum using anything but your real name." After all, the Constitution doesn't spell out your right to post to Slashdot using a pseudonym, so you wouldn't mind such a secret law, right, c6gunner?
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.