Slashdot Mirror
Gilmore Loses Airport ID Case
smooth wombat writes "In the final conclusion to John Gilmore's fight to be able to fly on an airplane without providing identification, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, let stand an appeals court ruling which said that Gilmore's rights are not violated by being required to show proof of identity. Gilmore had argued that without being able to see the law which says one must provide identification before being allowed to board a plane, there is no way to know if the regulations call for impermissible searches."
You can fly without ID. You could when Gilmore's case started, and you still can now. In fact, here's how. In fact, Gilmore's own site tells you how, in the form of the court decision specifically authorizing it.
The exact wording:
The identification policy requires airline passengers to present identification to airline personnel before boarding or be subjected to a search that is more exacting than the routine search that passengers who present identification encounter.
The very page describing the case 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.
First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).
Claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.
But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.
There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time: they are guidelines and directives for the handling of security issues, some routine and some special or time-specific, within airport and airline processes. That's the TSA's job. And didn't some call for the federalization of airport security?
I'm glad he's asking these questions, but I wish he'd be less sensationalistic and tinfoil-hat about it - especially since his primary claim is that he can't travel anonymously, which is not only tremendously wrong considering there are so many other public and private means to travel with no ID, but also because he would indeed have been able to fly with no ID.
Yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
But, in any event, he already found he could travel by plane, without ID.
"So sorry. We can't show you that piece of legislation. It's a matter of national security."
at first i thought you were talking about david gilmore. thank god it was just a false alarm.
So is there even any proof that requiring ID makes us "safe" from terrorism?
It stands to reason that anyone doing anything like that would just get a fake ID.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Like it or not, it IS an invasion of privacy.
It is more about preventing people from re-selling their "special discount" non-refundable, non-transferable tickets.
Now the airlines can restrict the use of those tickets to the person who purchased them and enforce that with the ID requirement.
As has been stated, requiring ID does NOTHING for security because the hijackers all had ID.
This is about making more money for the airlines, not making your trip any more secure.
They should allow him, and him alone, to fly without ID.
He'll just have to prove that he is him, so that they know that he is the one that doesn't need id.
Have you read my journal today?
Private companies are allowed to d*ck the public around like this all they want. I go into office buildings all over Los Angeles for my job, and none of them will let you in without at least looking at a Driver's License. Sometimes they hold it (unsecurely) if you are from an outside delivery or repair service. I asked LAPD and they said there is nothing to prevent private companies from doing this and they, as law enforcement, will do nothing to intercede. In the end, there is no law about this either way, but you can be prevented from access to private property (and an airplane likely qualifies) if the owner wants to see or hold your ID.
The airlines love this "security measure" because it solves a business problem for them. Prior to this it was common to be able to buy tickets for cheap on the secondary market. Now that market does not exist.
Lasers Controlled Games!
IS there such a thing as a non-final conclusion?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Prior to this it was common to be able to buy tickets for cheap on the secondary market.
As a matter of fact airlines started using ID checks years prior to 9/11 in order to prevent people flying on cheap tickets purchased by others. It's asinine that this is now being called a "security measure" when it started out as a way for corporations to maximize profits. And now the government has ruled that these corporate rules can stand as basis for vague laws tracking behavior.
Security theater indeed.
For all those who keep asking the question, "What is wrong with having to show an ID?", you need to keep in mind that once the government starts saying we cannot show you the law because it is national security and all that, they can also say, you are subject to "intensive search" at every 500 ft (for example) for not showing an ID or any other number of rules like that....So, where does it end?
This case was a challenge to the government to disclose secret laws.
Of course it's not in the interest of any government to disclose secret laws.
Any government. Any secret law.
With secret laws, and non-disclosure/denial of legal representation, the goal is to foster and achieve an environment of terror for the citizenry.
The best system is one that works randomly (or in the least fosters that impression) in the perception of the subjects.
Every Government is a "Skinner Box" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_box), where the rats behave the way they're supposed to more often with a minimal amount of enforcement and other controls.
The Democracy "Skinner box" is just as rotten as every other form of government "Skinner box". They're all assembled with the same corrupt intentions.
Cheers.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Actually you're wrong. When you travel in a car you are very easily trackable. The British perfected the art of tracking suspected Republican terrorists in Northern Ireland by recognition of license plate numbers on cars. When travelling on Amtrak I have been asked for photo ID for tickets which were pre-booked and paid for with a credit-card in advance. It is now illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. NYC) to have your face covered in certain situations. All of these remove the ability to travel anonymously.
Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).And similarly, if you want to get free money from a bank you can do so providing you serve a jail sentence afterwards ;) Being searched is unpleasant, intrusive and effectively a punishment deterring anyone normal from not taking the easy route and trading their ID-less anonymity for an escape from close body contact with security personnel.
Claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.The claim is that ID is worthless in preventing terrorist attacks and that the only possible excuse for massive infringements on our liberties is the avoidance of the greater infringement of terrorist nutbags taking away our lives.
Yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident,God, who gives a shit? Despite all the 9-11 conspiracy morons it was clear and is very clear who did what because THEY WANTED US TO KNOW. Terrorists don't make a habit of not telling you excatly what it is they want and who they are. The flight rules are intrusive crap that no one puts up with except for the reason that they think it's going to protect them. And most of them fail, and can only fail to do that. They are a closing of the open society and victory for terrorists.
That is known as "Security Theatre". It is useless. It wastes money. That money could better be spent on improving the security.
The changes that have been made have NOT improved the security. It's all theatrics. You are as vulnerable today to a bomb going off on a plane as you were in 2000.
You might want to look up "straw man" because I am not saying that "nothing" should be done.
I'm saying that we should be focusing on actual security improvements rather than the "Security Theatre" that you're supporting.
I'm saying that wasting money/time on theatrics is a NEGATIVE because that means there is less money/time to spend on REAL security improvements.
I'm saying that every false positive is a FAILURE of the system and a DETRIMENT because it makes it that much more likely that a future true positive will be mistaken in the sea of false positives.
If they actually wanted to solve this problem, they should have:
No hijacking can succeed in such a situation. You can't get at the pilots, and the pilots have no way of knowing what is going on in the cabin behind them, so you can't directly control the aircraft; you can't threaten the entire set of passengers at once, and consequently, someone will pop you before you can say in'shallah.
This also has the additional benefit of demonstrating the inherent value of the 2nd amendment. Because this would actually work, it would relieve the feds of the apparent need they have created to screw with legitimate citizens going about their normal activities. No fly lists; searches; long lines and delays; etc.
This doesn't solve straight up bombings, or at least, probably not most of them, but neither does anything else. Any intelligent and technical person could get a bomb onto an aircraft; it's just that intelligent and technical people generally won't pursue such stupidities. Anyway, exploding a bomb on an aircraft isn't something you can leverage into causing the kind of damage you can by using the aircraft itself as an aimed kinetic energy weapon.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I would have bought some stock in foil-making companies, given all the tin-foil-hat wearing, BusHitler-foaming, loopy moonbats this topic is bound to arouse.
> He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device
> himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by
> bus or train, entirely anonymously.
I'm white and nerdy, and apparently, really suspicious-looking. Because I have been stopped by police and asked for ID while walking (you match someone's description), bicycling, and while driving a car. I have also been obliged to show ID before I could buy bus, train, and boat tickets.
But, of course, I live in the USA.
Airlines are commercial enterprises and they can set whatever policies they want. Yes I know the analogy isn't perfect because the Airline industry is federally regulated, but it's still the same thing. It's a business policy to present valid ID before boarding a pressurized aluminum tube carrying a ton of highly volatile fuel, and that's that.
No rights are being violated because there are no expressed rights to purchase fare on an airplane. That's a privilege and a luxury. Travel on foot next time if you're so worried about your papers.
Note: It is my opinion that presenting IDs actually makes security worse. If having a valid ID automatically clears the bearer into a lower level of suspicion the system is already broken. "... He was white AND had a drivers license. How were we supposed to know he was a terrorist!"
...I hate the stupid luggage bullshit you have to go through. TSA puts your luggage through x-ray machines yet they feel the necessity to have the ability to go through it by hand. I took a three week trip all over China a little over a year ago and had no trouble with the locks on my suitcases on the numerous flights I took. When I got back in the States nearly all my locks mysteriously disappeared despite the fact that they were TSA approved locks. I don't trust TSA wage slaves with my personal belongings and I trust baggage handlers even less yet I'm now forced to risk loss of personal property on the whims of a high school drop out.
Clearly another spectacular failure related to Microsoft! Ahh, if only we all were APPLE-ish!
Whether or not there is a law is irrelevant. It's still airport and/or airline policy to require proof of identity. Policies and rules don't require law to back them up unless they are in directly conflict with existing law.
The court is correct that requiring proof of identity does not violate any law or civil right. There is no civil right that allows a person to travel on an airplane flying under FAA regulations without providing identification.
Now, if only we could get the same ruling on voting.
Who keeps modding this GP yahoo up? Spending tax dollars to make the idiots of the world FEEL safer while no real security is added and the terrorists just keep on terrorizing? And he calls himself a Slashdotter.
Air travel is a private business. Now, it might be possible to create a law that would require them to let you fly without identification, but by default, a private business should be able to make showing identification part of the process of boarding a plane.
Identity is no proof of intent.
The "fire in a crowded area" bit is a lame piece of sophistry. The right to bear arms is not the right to shoot people. The right to freedom of expression is not the right to ignore the consequence of your words.
Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from responsibility.
we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant
Why not? "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death your right to say it."
we shouldn't have compassion for the truly heinous and vile
Are we any better than them then?
you don't have the right to fly in an airplane you share with other people without some sort of id
What good does the identity document do? What does it prevent from happening?
you are a clueless naive idealist
I would suggest taking a good long look in the metaphysical mirror.
Note that the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari - fancy talk for "they decided not to hear the case". Their rules state that if any four (out of nine) justices vote in favor of granting the writ, the court will hear the case.
What this means is that the court decided by a vote of at least 6-3 not to hear the case. In many cases, though, this has less to do with the factual merits of the case than it does the fact that there is no conflict among lower federal courts on the issue.
You're not really that stupid, are you?
I find it interesting how several people have commented, and continue to do so, that flying is their right. Believe it or not you do NOT have a right to ride from point A to point B in an aircraft.
The aircraft is private property run by a private company, and as such can refuse business to any individual they wish for any reason they wish.
It's similar to someone claiming that they have the right to eat in a restaurant when they're causing a ruckus. You don't have the right to eat there, you're always welcome to go home and cook.
If you have a problem w/ the service then you are allowed to file a complaint. There's regulations & legislations regarding minimum standards of service for the safety of the general public.
Want to drive a car w/o ID? you're more than welcome to make the attempt. However driving a motor vehicle is not a right and there's rather clear legislation that states that your license must be shown on the request of a peace officer.
I know that /. is the place to turn to for legal advice, so I'll shoot.
Can someone sign a contract which says that the signatory party forfeits the right of knowing the terms which under some terms of another contract applies to him? Even if the government wants you to sign?
Because, as far as I see, this is the Gilmore case about. I know that traveling by air is generally not thought of as a contract, but it is one, called providing a service. Normally, when you want to use a private company's service, you get to know the terms. "You get this phone now for free, but only if you sign up for 2 years with our company" or "buy two and save 30%!". The fact is, Gilmore only wanted to know the terms: "so I'm only allowed to fly if I show my id? Then point me to the AUP" - paraphrased. Then the private company sends Gilmore to hell and throws him out of the building.
They are entirely within their rights to do that, they are a private business after all under no obligation to serve a customer or tell him anything, but as every private company knows, they make money from customers, so they don't generally do this.
The problem is that the private company didn't say this, but that they were following secret rules issued by the Transportation Security Administration, which is a government entity. The problem with this is, that when a private company makes rules, its called terms of employment, company policy or such, but when the goverment makes rules, it's called law or regulation. There is a tricky thing with laws, that ignorance of them does not nullify their force. It works the other way around though too: it is not a law which you can't know. A regulation is basically the same, it doesn't apply to you when you can't know about it. A job at a company works the same way, you get to know the terms of employment and for example they can't fire you for arbitary made up reasons, because that would be a breach of contract if the terms of employment doesn't include that. As far as I know, no private company or government has the power to add arbritary sections to a contract.
So, if a private company does things, you can just never use them again. When the government makes rules, you cannot escape them, you are bound by them - only if you know about them.
I'd add that it doesn't matter what the given regulation is. The regulation could have been that you have to look into a camera or raise your left arm or anything. It doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the case. The case is about whether you need to comply with rules, regulations, laws, call them whatever to wish, whose existence is only indicated by taking someone's word for it and reading the actually law/regulation is forbidden. I believe that is in violation of your country's constitution.
I think there is a loophole which might be an argument to get around my chain of reasoning. "But this regulation is only a routing order, it only tells the airline employee, who clearly can know about the regulation, what to do with the guy. If he doesn't have an ID, the employee directs the passenger towards the longer security check". The problem with that argument is that then the passenger shouldn't even know about this internal requirement, instead of a public notice that the government mandates the ID check and that you can't fly without it. Secondly, which is more serious, if the passanger asks about the different treatment and the rationale behind it, the answer that it is an internal governmental regulation that forces the employee to perform a more thorough security check is only grounds for just that, the employee performing a more thorough check, not grounds for denying the passenger a chance to fly altogether, because that would be the government making a secret regulation which a passenger would need to adhere to in order to fly. If the government wants ID checks, fine. Make a law or public regulation about it. Until then, the government restricts their citizens illegally from performing the legal activity of flight by air, which public usage conditions they satisfied.
So I'll ask once again. Do you think that the government is free to break the rules layed down by the constitution or law?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Airlines are privately held companies. They are heavily regulated by the government due to the nature of airplanes and the damage they can do. Regardless, they are a private industry. As a private industry they are in the business of making money (or at least trying).
By requiring ID they are forcing final sales of airline tickets. If tickets were transferable or resalable the airlines would lose money because of the ability to buy tickets second hand.
There does not have to be a law requiring ID's for flight. It is a policy of the Airline just as so many stores have a policy of requiring ID for a return. Do you "have" to present ID, no. You will not be arrested for failing to produce ID for a flight. Will you be allowed on the flight, no. They don't have to let you on the flight for failing to comply with the airlines policy.
If you don't like it don't fly. This is not akin to presenting ID randomly at any time while driving or walking. We are talking about purchasing a service from a private company.
My only gripe with this is the misinformation they are trying to diseminate. The airlines feel that their requirement for ID is lent authority by claiming it is a law or policy of the TSA. Call it what it is, a money making policy. Don't try to legitimize yourself in the publics eyes by blaming some one else.
...capitalization, punctuation, and complete sentences also have limits. Your post obviously crossed them.
>They are a closing of the open society and
>victory for terrorists.
This claim has always puzzled me.
Not that terrorists are all that articulate about
their goals or anything, but when did they say they
wanted to strengthen our existing government's security
services and annoy us while flying (oh noes!), while
leaving our hated strip clubs and foreign occupations
and breweries intact?
Presentation of ID is another point at which you can exhibit nervous behavior, if you have a bogus ID and are at a stage where you are wondering if it will be accepted. That has some value to people looking for odd behavior on the part of travelers.
The valid ID thing as noted is a guideline anyway - I forgot to renew a drivers license that expired while I was out on a trip, but I didn't have any problems flying back (though they did notice it had expired recently).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
ID is absolutely required for train and bus travel. You cannot purchase a train ticket on Amtrak without showing identification, whether you pay with cash or not.
Police may request you show ID if you are traveling by foot (or bicycle, etc)
I am not aware that you can legally drive a motor vehicle without ID. You may be stopped and required to show this ID at any time.
You might be able to travel on foot or by car without showing ID, but you cannot count on it and failure to show ID upon request of law enforcement will halt your travel plans very suddenly.
I actually have experienced how easy it is to fly without ID. Not on purpose, but as a result of poor planning. My girlfriend and I were planning a flight from BWI (Baltimore,) which is a bit over an hour from my apartment, to CLE (Cleveland.) When we arrived at the airport she realized that she didn't have her ID with her. At the time I knew about this case and said we should see if we can get on the plane, rather than driving back to pick up ID and miss the plane for sure.
Unsurprisingly, it didn't work out. Somewhat surprisingly the problem wasn't with TSA, it was with Continental. Basically since I purchased the tickets originally and we didn't have any checked luggage I checked in at one of the kiosks, and got both of our tickets. We went to security, and I asked a very nice TSA supervisor if my girlfriend could pass through security as a "selectee" without showing ID, he said she could, but that the airline would have to reissue the ticket for her to show up as a selectee (still not sure why that is though), the supervisor even walked us back to the Continental ticket counter and explained the situation. The lady working the counter was an idiot. Now, I know that people working with customers have shitty jobs and constantly have to deal with irate people, believe me when I say we were being as polite and reasonable as possible. The lady was an idiot. When she eventually understood what we needed done, and after the TSA guy explained about six times that it was possible she decided she needed a supervisor. A supervisor was unfortunately unavailable - for 45 minutes... By the time it looked like we might be getting things sorted out the flight had left (and on time to boot.)
It was important that my girlfriend get to CLE, so she ended up buying a last minute one way ticket from Southwest (I think) for some exorbitant amount of money. She told them up front she didn't have ID on her and there were no problems what so ever, aside to having to submit to the reasonable pat-down search. Getting Continental to leave the return leg of her itinerary open was also an experience, I had to convince the same idiot woman at continental that whether or not my girlfriend has ID in three days and half way across the country wasn't really her problem, and that I had already paid for the return trip, and that it must be possible to fly after all without ID since she was through security while we were talking.
Anyhow, when she did end up returning (on continental) the people and the CLE ticket counter knew what to do, and once again she got on a plane only having to submit to the pat-down search.
I wrote Continental and (eventually) got a call back from someone in corporate relations or something, and talked the woman into issuing me a $200 credit. It didn't cover my costs, but in the end it was partially our fault for not being prepared, and for arriving a bit too close to departure time for comfort.
That's one issue. It's hardly the only issue.
Can you tell me how checking ID actually improves security? Because they're not even scanning our IDs, they just compare the picture to your head and the name to your ticket and give it back to you. Thus they are doing absolutely zero checking that you are who you say you are; they're checking to see that your ID says you are who you say you are, which is not only something completely different, but is also completely fucking useless for maintaining security. As others have pointed out, the only thing this accomplishes is preventing the resale of tickets, which prevents the airline from boning people out of their ticket price when they for some reason can't make a trip.
And if you can't wrap your mind around why this is so, you are an ignorant slashbot.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Schneier's blog, which you cite, has a link to a fellow who tried to fly without ID and failed. It was impossible to do what you describe, because the security people simply refused to believe him.
Obviously this isn't as easy or possible as you let on.
I should add: when I first heard of Dan Gilmore's attempt to do this I was astonished, and I can imagine lots of people thinking, "is he serious?" But just 10-20 years ago there would be nothing unusual about what Mr. Gilmore is trying to do. I think this shows how far we've gone as a society in accepting the security measures as normal.
--X
np
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
No, the best system is one that focuses on Muslims.
A system that randomly selects middle-aged bald Chinese guys from Peoria, or Grandma's from Honolulu is braindead.
Being asked to show ID in most instances is a fairly mundane act.
Gilmore sounds like a total assclown for taking a case to the Supreme Court over this. He knows you either show ID or get the body cavity search to fly. Why would this even be an issue. Freedom to be foolish rulz
Through all the discussions of terrorists, guns and whether or not showing ID accomplishes anything, everyone has missed the most important issue here.
Throughout this case, Gilmore has repeatedly said "Show me the law that says ID is required". And the government has refused, on the grounds of "security". This is beyond absurd. Secret laws have no place in a free society.
I tend to find the thought (or, more typically, the lack of it) behind the majority Slashdot comments on these sorts of threads rather asinine... So here I am returning the favor.
Lately, living in the U.S. I am more and more often reminded of passages from Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. This search law that we're not allowed to see reminds me of the list of rights Soviet citizens had under Stalin. Solzhenitsyn explained that, while imprisoned, he had certain rights; he just weren't allowed to find out what those rights were! This made defending oneself against charges like sedition quite impossible.
In the 5+ years since 2001 we have had internal passports proposed; we're told that only terrorists and criminals would oppose greatly increasing police and spy agency powers; and we have secret laws we life-long citizens are not allowed to see. I am old enough to remember when people used exactly those points to mock the Soviet Union. I find it painfully ironic, and really wonder what path we think we're on.
#DeleteChrome
my definition of intolerance implies action, not just talk. you will fight for some a**hole's "right" not to rent to black people?
yes, i am absolutely 100% better than pol pot. and i have no compassion for someone who engages in truly evil activity way, way, way over the line of any reasonable ability to empathize. the pedophile who rapes and then kills a little girl so she won't rat on him: do you honeslty have compassion for such a person?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My understanding is that these are actual requirements that have been standard procedure in France for decades. They used to do it with a card that you filled out when you registered at the hotel desk and the local prefecture of police picked up the cards every night to check against lists of fugitives. Now I think they do it by computer.
So do Frenchmen or Europeans feel that infringes on their freedom or makes France a police state? Any Frenchmen care to answer?
Airlines are privately held companies.
So you seem to take the typical, capitalistic stance in favor of the private ownership property. Airlines can choose who they sell tickets to, what types of planes they buy, where those planes fly to, who they allow to board their planes, and so forth.
If tickets were transferable or resalable the airlines would lose money because of the ability to buy tickets second hand.
Oh, but wait! Here you take a stance against the private ownership of property. If an airline sells somebody a ticket, that person should be able to do whatever they want with that ticket. They should be able to use it. They should be able to tear it up. They should be able to sell it. It doesn't matter at all whether or not the airlines will make or lose money. Once they have sold a ticket, it should no longer be their property. Thus they should have no say over what the purchaser eventually does with it.
Why should airlines be able to do what they want with their private property (planes), but a customer who has bought private property from the airline (a ticket) is not allowed to do so?
Oh-ho, this one will be very difficult.
I'm Brazilian and we're not allowed absolute freedom of expression. I can think this or that race is inferior, but I cannot say it aloud. This is because:
a) the premise the Constitution starts from, namely, that all men are equal and
b) the prohibition to spread prejudicial speech, offensive to any person or minority.
For that and other reasons, we have Id's in Brazil. It's a document (with a number) you use as frequently as US people use their Social security numbers and Driving Licences. Whenever the Police requires such Id, you'd better have it or you may get yourself in trouble. Personal search is just the start.
Granted, I like to post here anonymously. This is allowed because US laws are more permissive about that; also, I tend to value other anonymous posters. Slashdot mimicks society in that fools with absolutely nothing to say get respect (the automatic +1 score) while a few of the Anonymous Cowards really bring enlightening pearls which go unread and get no respect (0 starting score).
And, as others already pointed out, it is sometimes better to have a glimpse about what others think, even if troublesome, than to live in ignorance. This is a complex debate.
Now, on to what I really wanted to say:
> First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?
> The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Ok, let me ask then: as a Brazilian, am I free to travel in the US without Id?
Because I'm having a hard time thinking about how on your patriotic US ground would anyone know I'm not an American? (trust me, looks can be deceiving)
Who travels from FL to AK or WA to ME by foot, bike, or boat? Even bus, car, or motorcycle aren't particularly realistic. Train? Maybe. Remember that we are Americans, and as such, are not allowed to take extended vacations; very few of us can swing a boat trip to HI.
Making the distinction between "laws" and "directives" is just semantics. In practice, these are invisible requirements people are forced to comply with, without the benefit of knowing what to expect, or how to prepare, before they get to the airport. How do we know that the rules we are told to obey are even real?
Assuming a punitive search (and make no mistake, this is a punitive search) is an acceptable alternative to ID is terribly optimistic. People abuse power.
This is the most justified period in history to be paranoid ("tinfoil-hat"). Innocent people are getting "disappeared" into secret CIA prisons, spies and whistleblowers are identified because they have questioned authority, federal programs are combing through vast data repositories looking for potential enemies, foreign nuclear scientists are being identified using Google (with a margin of error around ±100%), and the government claims it can hold and torture people without even saying why.
Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bastards.
Andy Out!
that a link to the goat man was appropriate. Some people might not mind the "standard" search, but that's not a good reason to force it on everyone.
It reminds me of the disturbingly common bank advert. Imagine the greasy barbarian sitting at the airport rudely asking, "What's in your ass?"
Fab man, just fab. Surrender your right to be secure in your private papers and person or take the bus. Fine, they get better fuel economy than planes, though not as good as four people in my car.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
In order to make this argument, you have to define what exactly is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege." In legal dictionaries, they are considered synonymous, and "X is a privilege, whereas Y is a right" is not considered a legal concept. (I asked the head legal counsel for the Maryland MVA what does "driving is a privilege" mean (it's on the first page of the Maryland Driver's Handbook. He replied that the term is "meaningless." Indeed, in my research when Ohio passed its first law requiring a driver's license, Ohio statutes were full of language referring to "driving rights." Like "driving rights shall be given only to individuals of 14 and above..." This language has disappeared with time. Undoubtedly, driving is truly a right. Everyone has the right to a driver's license, and the state cannot deny that right except for well founded reasons which do not overly burden it.
;-) trounces the airline carriers right to fly whomever, because that right is severely diminished by the laws controlling their operating environment.)
In reality, it would be best to say that courts and legislatures look at everything as a right, all of which can be regulated in some way. The burden of the regulation is taken into account and balanced against the negative effects of preventing someone from having that right. Rights are highly contextually dependent--for instance, freedom of speech is one of the least infringed rights on the micro (individual) level, but is several times more heavily regulated at the macro level (cigarette companies can't advertise, campaign finance laws, etc.)
So in evaluating the statement...The aircraft is private property run by a private company, and as such can refuse business to any individual they wish for any reason they wish several things pop up. First, there is clearly a right to fly (operate) an airplane. Over time, this has become an enormously regulated right, particularly for airline carriers. Can an airline refuse to do business with a particular race or gender of people? Well, in the 1960's United had male only flights between Chicago and LA. In today's legal world, I suspect that even the small burden of requiring women to take a later flight would be considered infringing on their rights, and I don't think that this would be acceptable to modern courts with the legal frameworks we have. The micro level right to fly and be dealt with a business equally as all other clients (a right established by the government, who has..uhh...the right to do that sorta thing
First off, look at the issues LOGICALLY. What are the threats? How are they carried out?
#1. Threat - Airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles.
Solution - Stronger flightdeck doors. They should be strong enough to defeat a hijacker for at least 15 minutes so that the pilot can notify the authorities and land somewhere. There, you will no longer have the threat of airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles. A whole class of threats are removed with one change.
#2. Threat - Airplanes being hijacked and flown to other countries.
Solution - More undercover security on the planes.
#3. Threat - Airplanes being blown up with bombs.
Solution - Improve bomb detection at the entrances (including overwatch of baggage handlers).
Spend some time reading "Attack trees" by Bruce Schneier.
I did not say that it was not important.
What I said was that the current practices do NOT make it any more difficult to smuggle weapons or bombs onto a plane now than in 2000.
And a lot of it was. But because it was then does not excuse it being so now.
You are wrong. People die on the roads every day and yet most of us still have no problem driving.
No. The problem is how the media hype the statistically minuscule threats BECAUSE THEY ARE STATISTICALLY MINUSCULE.
They are news because they are NEWS. Someone dying in a car wreck MAY make the local news. But that's it. It's common. It happens. Just about everyone knows of someone who died that way. It is not NEWS.
To be news there has to be an element of uniqueness to it.
And what the fuck does THAT have to do with this discussion?
I'm talking about security and what does and does not improve security. And how wasting money on practices that cause false positives is a NEGATIVE for security.
You've gone off on some tangent about what some people "understand".
You seem to be advocating Security Theatre because it makes people feel "good" even if it makes them less safe.
The subject field is not for typing your post.
This is true, the law went into effect recently (a year maybe?). I don't know why the parent is modded down, it's relevant to the topic at hand.
I've had a couple of scares as a result. Once I lost my wallet and didn't realize it until after I was driving. Another time I just forgot my wallet (which happens occasionally when I break my routine of storing keys and wallet together).
Ah, there's nothing like that extra nervous feeling you get when you see a cop and know that he could arrest you if he doesn't like your bumper stickers. My ID is now a liferaft. I can't wait until they insert the chip/barcode tatoo/biometric database and then I'll finally be safe to leave the house without fear.
While the TSA is a government agency - last I checked Delta, Continental, AirTran, et al were private companies.
It's not their rule. Even if it was, it's a violation because they run public places and have government granted franchises that limit competition. Government protection comes with obligations that most private businesses don't have.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Yes, two generations of mindless sheep.
Couldn't be a truer statement this century.
Now listen to them wail as they go blindly (by choice) off to the slaughter.
I knew two Nazi death camp survivors, they both warned me that the U.S. took in Nazi war criminals, and that the same nasty things that happened in Germany will happen here.
Thankfully, they both didn't live to see it going full blown, like it is now.
So thanks a lot for helping make their observations come true here in the U.S. through your complacency, you fucking sheeple.
Another argument which defeats this kind of radical interpretation of the individual right to privacy is that the flightpaths over our cities and towns present a safety risk to residents on the ground, and so shouldn't each community be allowed to vote whether their town will allow an airline which does not check the ID of its passengers to fly through its airspace? Seems fair to me, except all the radical civil libertarians probably wouldn't like the fact that I highly doubt if even 1% of the cities and towns in the country would vote to allow overflights by airlines with such lax security.
The mistaken belief that airlines and aircraft are somehow private companies is a laughable facade which only the most naive laisse faire devotee could believe. Get real.
Jumbo jet aircraft (the ones most pertinent to this discussion) are multi million dollar pieces of engineering and no private company in the world could ever manufacture them at a reasonable price and still make a profit. Both Boeing and Airbus, the world's primary manufacturers of large aircraft, recieve massive government subsidies in the form of contracts, tax exemptions, and in some cases outright handouts. Practically every transatlantic airliners owes its existance to taxpayers money.
Don't bother stopping at the aircraft. Air traffic control is a monsterous international affair which no private company could ever be relied upon to manage or control. Radar, communications, instructions, flight plans. All government planned, managed, supervised. Planes fly because the governemnt says they can. Company does not comply, planes do not fly.
Airports?! Don't even try to pass off those paper cost cutters running them as evidence of private ownership. Security, regulation, customs, passport supervision. Everything is government mandated. Airport management is a glorified private cleaners outfit. Government calls all the shots.
Major airlines are semi-state companies. Every one. When a small carrier gets big enough, it too enters the fold. They might not be shareholders anymore, but make no mistake that government representatives still make and break board decisions.
May the Maths Be with you!
Funny I had thought that this was really about the secret regulations that Gilmore (and others) were repeated told that exist but cannot see. Its not relevant if you can fly without showing ID. If the Govt says there is a law it is our right to know them. The very fact that you can fly without showing ID leads to very few conclusions :
1) there is no law and they are all lying (for some reason) or
2) there is a law and its so inflammatory that 'they' would rather make exceptions instead of telling the public.
I'm leaning toward lying. If a law/regulation existed but was tired to something so sensitive that it cant be released (which is basically BS) then just move the mandate to another public part of the law.
These are the actions of the govt 'they' elected (I'd vote for satan before I'd vote for these people). Liars or Fascists thats your choice, and its a damned bleak one.
They didn't because those planes had been modified to be flown via remote control. The hijacking was a remote hijacking. They were guided into those buildings to push forward a pretty good plan, an agenda, which suceeded. We don't know how many people fought back or not, we don't really know much of anything besides what the criminals tell us, and the point is moot when there was no human pilot driving. None of those alleged arab pilots were good enough to fly a relatively simple single engine plane without supervision, and then quite badly at that, and that is admited to. There is no way they flew those jetliners, it didn't happen.
9-11 was an inside a job, a stealth coup. Admit reality, the evidence is overwhelming.
Before anyone protests, please cite your source, with a valid good quality link, where any of the alleged hijacker pilots was even close to being competent enough to fly those planes that day. Go ahead, try-it doesn't exist, but you can try.
And a second point, please cite your source where "osama bin laden" had enough political power and influence inside the US government to change long standing policy taking shoot down orders away from Norad, a very short time before the hijackings, and where he had enough power to "coincidently" order and execute a simultaneous "planes being hijacked and flown into buildings" wargames exercise that was being run by the DOD that day. Again, valid URL.
You see, those two points are real. And it is obvious "osama" couldn't have done those things. now, where does that leave the government whacko tin foil hat conspiracy theory?
who profits? Who profits from turning the US into a police state? What is it really worth to ownzoroz the US? Many trillions, ultimate power over humans? That isn't enough of a motive? Who really profits from expanded wars in the middle east, who profits from iraq being destroyed and soon iran? Who profits from huge oil run-ups that resulted from taking most of Iraqs oil off the market for years? Who profits from huge defense contracts and rebuilding what was just destroyed on purpose contracts? Who wrote the Patriot act and why was it passed shortly after it hit the floor,with no debate of note and well before ANYONE could have read the over thousand pages? HOW could it even have been written so swiftly, if not in advance? Who profited from sending US army made anthrax through the mail to senators and news people right before the critical vote?
There are hundreds more of those "who profits?" questions. Go google, find them, go down the list, think about it.
9-11=reichstagg fire
patriot act=enabling act.
This is beyond occam's razor, this is occam's full service barber shop.
it is possible to not have empathy for someone truly vile, and at the same time not want to cut his throat
i disavowed my compassion for the truly heinous, that's all i did. it is your assumption that there had to be some sort of revenge oriented behavior under that attitude
nope, no such thing here
so now stop deflecting, and answer: do you show compassion to someone who rapes a little girl then kills her so he can get away with it?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
he would indeed have been able to fly with no ID.
True, my problem with this is how long will it be before id is required. Some will say something about a strawman, but it doesn't make it anyless likely than either showing id or being more physically searched will lead to an id requirement. I was born, raised, and served in the armed forces of a country that was supposed to be the land of the free not the land of a police state.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It was written and animated and shown PRIOR to the WTC attack in 2001. Pay particular attention to who is mentioned at the end.
Security is the process of evaluating threats and reducing their effectiveness.
I would say that it is neither. It is a process. If you stop working at it, you are no longer secure.
Why? I'm not talking about making anything "impossible". I'm talking about identifying the potential threats and taking steps to reduce their effectiveness.
If something does not reduce their effectiveness, it does not improve the security.
No matter what anyone "feels" about it.
Again, I'm talking about whether a specific requirement improves the security or does not. Requiring ID in this instance does not.
No. If that were so then we could hand out "magic security rocks" and skip things like baggage inspection. People would "feel" secure
This is not about how someone "feels". This is about whether a requirement reduces a threat. Requiring ID's in this situation does not reduce the threat.
The exact wording: "The identification policy requires airline passengers to present identification to airline personnel before boarding or be subjected to a search that is more exacting than the routine search that passengers who present identification encounter."
The very page describing the case 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.
Bullshit. I tried this (this past summer), and wasn't allowed past the security gate. The security droids made it quite clear that I couldn't get past without showing ID. I cited the court case, asked to be extensively searched instead, and was told quite clearly "no ID, no pass".
The people they have manning the security gates aren't the types to read court rulings. As Frank Herbert noted, "Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery". I've seen this in action: it doesn't matter what rulings the courts make, if they aren't upheld by the executive branch.
Further, it's already been determined several times over the course of this that you can fly without ID if you submit to the standard "intensive" search that anyone pulled out of line gets.
Would you care to tell me how? Because I've tried, and despite being an intelligent (I'm told), educated, calm, positive person, I couldn't do it.
The approach I tried was:
- politely refuse to provide ID when asked
- when pressed, cite the court ruling that allows me to submit to more extensive searches instead of providing ID
- volunteer for any extra searches they requested
I was told flat out that without showing ID, I could not pass the security gate.
What are the magic words you use to fly without showing ID? Because the ones I tried did not work, and I would like to know how to do it.
Or perhaps the trick is that no magic words are required, as long as you're a well-dressed white upper-middle-class male with a stereotypical average haircut. (*insert Orwell Animal Farm quote here*)
The question is not whether one can travel without ID, the question is: show me the law that says an ID check is required. The US government says that the law is not available for review by the public and, unfortunately the USSC agreed.
guns? On a PLANE? Great - blow some holes in the fuselage flying 940 kmph at 35,000 feet and see how long people live. Even assuming the bullets don't happen to sever anything important to the basic airworthiness of the plane (which they very easily could), the decompression itself would fuck up the plane big time and kill a bunch of people, if not bring the plane itself down. And as the terrists (at least the ones who didn't get sucked through the holes out into the stratosphere, or didn't pass out from lack of oxygen) would be storming the cockpit, what are you going to do? Shoot at the cockpit and kill the pilot? Brilliant! Good move, ACE.
Then how did bombers survive with, forget bullet holes, holes from ack ack (anti aircraft) guns riddled in the fuselage during WWII?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Are those the new rules that involve getting shot down by the Air Force?
Not in the United States. But it could happen in some countries if you are a missionary peacefully flying with your family.
Especially Colombia!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Still trolling after all these years?
Print out your E-ticket, the edit the HTML and print out another ticket in the flyer's name. When the flyer is approached by security, show them the forged ticket. Then throw it away because it won't be needed anymore. Once the flyer approaches the gate, give them the "real" ticket, that is not in the flyer's name. It works! I've done this before when I didn't want to go through the hassle of asking the airline to change the name of the person the ticket was assigned to.
Hello,
9 515892401
7 7175242198
I don't blog and my voice is only my own; however, I have recently found that, much to my surprise, there is worthwhile information on the likes of Google Video.
As it is related to this topic, please see:
"Orwell Rolls In His Grave"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=192511476
"Freedom To Fascism":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-43127302
Do you seriously think that the prime motive of the current TSA directives, insofar as they are any good for security at all, is protect aircraft? Do you think that the hundreds of people that fly mean less to that branch of the government than the airplanes?
You could be right, of course. It's possible, even likely, that every single TSA directive involving airplanes has secret details, so we'll never know for sure. But I find the thought somewhat depressing...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
the sad thing is (for those of us who live in countries where we are not free, have to carry papers around and have no rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) that the land of the free is going down the road to fascism.
it is interesting (as in the chinese saying "may you live in interesting times") that this seems to be a vicious circle. a very small group of people attack you , because they have been attacked by you, and so you attack them back. you also decide to attack anyone remotely connected or similar. this causes a very large number of people to conclude that the usa is THE ENEMY.
the point being that security technolgy and papers and searches will not make any of us safer. you have to accept that ALL people want freedom (and life liberty pursuit of happiness). you have to accept that ALL PEOPLE do not like being bombed or ruled by thieving bastards.
so chile, sudan, nicaragua, somalia this week. not nice guys. someone where WILL decide to hit back.
especially do not understand somalia. wtf is that?
bunch of asshole warlords messing up a country. islamic fundos take over and provide some semblance of order. us of a helps put warlords back in business. just like the in afghanistan. planning for the next 6 months, blowback in 5 years time.
It used to be that ignorance of the law was no excuse for not following the law. Now it is.
This man is an idiot.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Given the assault the constitution has been under over the last couple of years this doesn't exactly come as a surprise, disappointing as it may be.
I think it's again time to ask that eternal question:
What is worse: lying about a blowjob or lying about evidence that has falsely led a country into war before it could form decent international support to do so?
Yeah. Now you know where your problem started..
If I understood the problem well, point of conflict between citizens and security is that someone can use information that you are at the certain place at certain time for purposes other then security or specific investigation which hopefully would not be needed. This includes various agencies, police and private investigators or criminal organizations or some guy's wife's family. What privacy-concerned would like is that security is not used as excuse to track their non-criminal (or furthermore specifically non-security endangering) conduct.
Although I believe that playing with open cards is the best way to live (if everybody would do the same, of course... otherwise it is foolish) and that some problems which are represented as problems of privacy are actually deeper and elsewhere generated problems which should be cured at their true origin (i.e. imagine if your race would have been a concealed feature... racism would be viewed as problem of privacy, which it clearly isn't!), let's pretend for a moment that privacy by itself is a treasured value that should be preserved without questions asked. There is a way to satisfy both apparently opposite requirements (if they are both sincere):
If post-havoc record of passenger ID's is all that is needed, then regulation can be set in such way that ID is scanned and matched with passenger and passenger's biometric features (without any personnel seeing it) into a sealed temporary storage system, which is erased after nothing happened but retrieved and read if investigation ensues.
Finally, some actual data rather than vague threats to 'blow some f***ing Arab's head off'.
And it's interesting to note how much advantage agression gives you. These experiments were using police who were aware of the situation - if they were completely surprised (as soft guy would be!) it would be a lot worse for them.
I should think most Americans should understand the benefits of unexpected agression against a non-threatening neighbour - it now forms the basis for all of their foreign policy, and once the neighbour is a hole in the ground it's easy to pretend he was a threat.
Of course, the rest of us see it as vicious, cowardly fascism.
The ticket shows that the bearer has purchased a contract allowing travel by that carriers' airline. If I lose the ticket, despite still having paid, I need a new ticket.
Also, if the ticket is only an agreement, then you get 28 days to refuse. Not the 0 days (for the US, IIRC) that a non-contract purchase entails.
i said refuse such monsters compassion, empathy, tolerance. you hear "torture them until dead." why do hear what i never said? and why do ascribe to me a nationalistic or religious veneer where there is none? why are you ethnocentric and prejudiced in your thinking?
so much for an impartial superior way of thinking about people eh? you need to examine your large and ovious faults in the way you perceive your world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is not having to show ID at an airport essential to my liberty? No, not remotely, in my own view. Is the safety gained from airport and airline security changes "temporary"? Again, no.
Two points: first, the safety gained by these changes, as others have noted, may not be so much a question of "temporary" versus "permanent" as "percieved" versus "substantial". Second and far more important, however, is that the most substantive underlying objection in Gilmore's case was not merely that he was required to show ID to travel, but that he was not allowed to see the regulation to see if it actually said this . Being able to examine the applicable law is indeed an essential liberty, especially when common law has held for centuries that Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Secret law, like secret courts, is inherently poisionous to the tree of liberty.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I've shoveled my way through a lot of garbage on Slashdot over the years, and I must say congratulations on posting the most intelligent, insightful comment I have ever seen posted here - by a LONG shot. Great follow-ups too. Glad to see someone who's not drinking the privacy nuts' Kool-aid and thinks about the subject with a clear and logical head.
They require ID so you can't resell tickets. Used to happen, no longer easy to do.
Airlines didn't like that people made profit off of their product. So they stopped it.
No secret here.
How exactly does showing identity papers protect anyone? Brain cells, anyone? Bad guys have fake id's.
This guy is an asshat. Do you have to show some kind of ID to take money out of your bank account? How about to check in to a motel? Now some security restrictions can certainly be over-the-top when it comes to the airlines, but showing ID before boarding a flight? What the hell is wrong with that? They already have all of your information, so what's the problem with verifying that you are in fact not impersonating somebody else? Oh my gawd, big brother is everywhere!? Geez.
nothing
Sure, the airlines use government funded air terminals, requiring them to adhere to government policies. They are private companies though, if they wanted they could make you fly wearing a pink tutu and a necktie around your arm. There are private buildings all over the country that require visitors to sign a log book or present ID to gain access, you don't see people up in arms about that. Put an airplane in the mix and asking for ID is too much?
I've flown twice in the past 2 months carrying no ID (my license was suspended for missing a court appearance, was unable to aquire a state ID in enough time), and it was TO MY BENEFIT.
:)
I alerted the ticket agent, they marked my ticket with a special code. When I handed it to the line-keeper, they ushered me to a restricted area away roped off from other passengers. Someone assisted me right away and explained the procedure, while I was ushered to the front of the line. He then put my carryon through the X-ray in front of the 50+ other people in line, I went through the body x-ray (once again, everyone waited for me) and went into the next phase. Full search of carryon and person. This was a simple pat down while they opened my bag and verified the contents.
I was then on my way.
Time it took from ticket agent to walking into the terminal: 4 minutes.
When have you EVER gotten through ANY airport security checkpoint in less time?
This was at PHL and RDU, same procedure at both airports.
I'll never fly with ID again
If that's true, then when they fail to take credit/blame for their policies, by saying it's a matter of law rather than their own private policy, then it borders on fraud or at least shady market manipulation.
When they say it's law, that implies that going to a competitor won't help -- all airlines must necessarily have that policy because the law applies to them all. In other words, they are lying about their competitors. If someone sold carcinogenic food and then "explained" it by telling customers, "Oh, all food is required by law to have carginogens; you can't get away from this by buying our competitors' product," then the lie interferes with the free market. Should it be tolerated? I don't know; I guess it depends on how well information gets around. In 1906 (i.e. pre-Internet) I would want to outlaw it; in 2006 maybe not (markets can theoretically work around information pollution now, though in practice we're still amazingly stupid).
But I'm not sure about your premise that it's merely a matter of a private company refusing business. There's definitely some government involvement going on here.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I used to fly a lot, before the 911 hysteria made it impossible to do so while retaining my dignity. Nobody ever told me anything like that, they just told me where the exit doors were. If anybody tried to hijack my plane, I'd take 'em down or die trying, believe it. I've done stupider things for less reason!
That's provably not true. Several people thought of it, and informed the highest authorities, who did nothing. And hell, my high school buddies thought of it in the 1970s while playing Traveller. And don't forget "The Kzinti Lesson" for that matter.
No, the difference was that at least a few of the passengers were humans, and not sheep, and chose to die like human beings. That difference is honor and pride and people who have those things aren't welcome in modern airports, because they won't submit to the TSA's rituals of passenger humiliation. I take the train now, but soon I will be driving, because the goon squads are already starting to take over the rail system too.
Our current chief justice is complaining that his salary of $212,100 and "Congressional inaction in the face of this situation is grievously unfair". You see, $212,100/year, plus all kind of perks and benefits (including 5 hour workdays and 4 months of vacation a year) is woefully inadequate - especially since, as Roberts puts it, cabbies have done much better. Since Congress has to provide a wage hike and since GW.Bush has to sign the legislation there is a clear incentive for the Supreme Court to give the government what they want.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"