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."
Or use your own - like the 9/11 hijackers did.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are missing the larger picture here. Whether or not there is a law is the ONLY relevant aspect of this. Because if there is a law, and us lowly citizens are expected to follow it but are not allowed to SEE it, then something is horribly wrong.
It turns out there is a law basically saying "the TSA can set regulations for air travel and those regulations are effectively law". The problem is that the TSA keeps these regulations secret for security purposes (which is funny because so little they do actually has anything to do with security), so viola, we have secret laws. They can change them at will, we are not allowed to know, but we can be detained, arrested, etc for now following them.
How long before we start seeing other laws delegated to "agency regulations" which carry the same weight but are put into place by bureaucrats (circumventing congress) and kept secret for our own good? Would we even know if they already started this? Like pretty much all our existing legit laws they could be selectively enforced.
Finkployd
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.
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.'"
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
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.