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."
So sorry. We can't show you that piece of legislation. It's a matter of national security.
That's because there is no "legislation" that says you must show ID. The legislation, in effect, is "the TSA can set guidelines for security in airports." The TSA, in turn, has security directives, some of which are secret because they pertain to security procedures and processes which they don't want people who would intend to circumvent them knowing about. 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. I fully realize some people will still think that's unacceptable, but the point is that you can fly without ID with the standard "intensive" search.
I disagree that investigators must have ID to start with for an investigation. Let them start with nothing other than the facts of the crime. The core of the matter is that we're allowing our government to assume we are criminals, which is evil and the basis of a police state. By default, the government does NOT need to know who I am or what I am doing. However, we've raised two generations of SHEEP who submit to whatever the government says without question, and who do not know what freedom is.
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.
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.
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
Until I ask them what's to stop someone from standing in line with a large rucksack filled with explosives during say, the day before Thanksgiving? How about three people. One in the front of the line, one in the middle and one further back?
I love the look of fear and horror on peoples faces when I pose that question.
But we're safe because they ask for ID and run you through a metal detector, they tell me.
But only after you've been standing in line, I reply.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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
Until I ask them what's to stop someone from standing in line with a large rucksack filled with explosives during say, the day before Thanksgiving? How about three people. One in the front of the line, one in the middle and one further back?
I love the look of fear and horror on peoples faces when I pose that question.
Anyone who hasn't though of that is a moron.
So do you have an idea of how many of those people we're dealing with?
Hint: it's the same number of people who feel much safer because of all the additional "security precautions."
So, should we educate them all and say, hey, you're far more likely to die falling off a ladder putting up Christmas lights than you would from a terrorist attack? Should we explain to them that we wouldn't be any fundamentally less secure if we had basically zero security at airports? (By the way, we do need to prevent things like guns and explosives from getting on the planes themselves - of course, that's another problem entirely and isn't related to ID.)
I guess my question is, how do you tell people that it would have been acceptable to DO NOTHING with regard to air security after 9/11, and actually have them believe you?
The problem is that someone falling off a ladder putting up lights is a tragedy. But no one (except friends and loved ones) cares. But when 20 or 200 or 2000 or 20000 people die at once, and when they die because someone who doesn't even know you HATES you with such fervent passion that they're still willing to kill you even after living in your own society for months or years, that bothers people. I don't think many people realistically, personally fear being killed by a "terrorist". They just want society at large to be protected from them.
But we're safe because they ask for ID and run you through a metal detector, they tell me.
But only after you've been standing in line, I reply.
Yes, the sterile area is a big thing. But there's nothing stopping someone from doing exactly what you've suggested against any number of soft targets, like, say, the Mall of America or numerous other locations. The point with airline security is still really keeping the PLANES secure, for better or worse, and that doesn't just include the cockpit only or preventing planes from being used as missiles.
The passengers had 2 false assumptions:
1) The hijackers could have had explosives as well
2) Hijackers usually land the plane