No. That was the first attempt. And since that was the time he was denied altogether (Southwest at Oakland), it's not surprising that he is using that in his court case.
But United at SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID if he, again, submitted to an intensive search. This time, he declined, and was not allowed to fly.
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
Actually, it turns our you're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
He obviously chose to enumerate in his court case (wisely, I might add) the instance he wasn't allowed to fly with no ID (Southwest at Oakland) and ignores the instance he WAS allowed to fly with no ID, and chose not to (United at SFO, because that time, he did NOT submit to the search).
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
Since those two accounts vary greatly, which one is correct? Which one is the truth?
You need to RTFA at the Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been the primary source of publicity about this case:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
Since those two accounts vary greatly, which one is correct? Which one is the truth?
Judging from your post, I know you'll be happy to overlook this glaring incongruity - and seeming change of story - to fuel your belief that we live in a police state.
Additionally, I said I had no problem believing there were secret TSA security directives for airport and airline operations. Do you think all of them should be public? Do you think that the government should set a precedent and begin revealing secret security procedures, even for something simple? Or do you believe that it is always inappropriate for information to be secret or classified under ANY circumstances? If not, when is it okay for something to be secret? If so, then we have a fundamental philosophical difference, as I believe that some security procedures that deal with millions of people or large venues/sites shouldn't be completely public.
I mean, on one hand, we have people flipping out that our power grid is wide open, and then we have people flipping out that the TSA is trying to secure airports and air travel, since it's critical to our economy for many reasons. And then we have a guy framing it as if he can't travel *at all* without "identity papers", by any means, and people like you who think we live in 1984.
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
So either he's now changing his story (a wise move, considering the first one was very contradictory), or one of the accounts is wrong. If the Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, one of the primary sources of publicity for this case, was wrong, you'd think it would be corrected, yes?
Yes, but you're not required to present it to anyone unless you're violating an applicable traffic law and are stopped by a law enforcement officer with appropriate jurisdiction and authority. It is only when you don't obey applicable laws that you may be stopped and required to present ID by a governmental entity.
And before anyone brings up the Nevada case, Nevada has a public law on the books that requires a person to identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested. This case was a test to see if the law was constitutional (currently, the court decided that it is). Yes, he was a "pedestrian"; but police don't just randomly ask people for ID. In this case, there was a 911 call from a nearby resident who reported seeing a man and a woman arguing in a pickup truck, and seeing the man hit the woman (his daughter actually hit him). The 911 operator dispatched police. The responding officer came upon the scene to find skidmarks and disturbed gravel on the side of the road, indicating the vehicle had been stopped in an aggressive manner. Coupled with the domestic violence call, the officer felt it necessary to ask the man to identify himself, as he was (and is) allowed to do under Nevada law. When he refused some 11 times, the man was arrested. So that case has nothing to do with driving or anything, and not really anything to do with the Gilmore case, since Gilmore already found he could fly without ID if he submitted to a search, and he chose not to.
First, I don't fundamentally have a problem with security measures and processes relating to US carriers being secret. This includes security directives that airlines and airports might use in their own internal processes.
Secondly, yes, he has framed the issue as being about traveling without having to present "identity papers". He himself has already shown that is not the case. His continued insistence that it's about traveling without having to show "papers", when there are several other means of travel that require no routine identification - and he makes no distinction himself - and that there must be a secret "law" to show ID when SFO would let him fly without ID, hurts his otherwise worthwhile cause.
As to the issue of sensitive information, who decides, indeed? Unless you're the type of person who fundamentally believes there should never be any secrets (e.g. classified material), I trust you can think of instances where information is appropriately secured. As for oversight, yes, the chain of accountability may be unclear. And the attention John brings to the issue is valuable. I just wish he wouldn't overdramatize it, for example by invoking the whole "Achtung! Papers please!" attitude as if it applies to all travel in the US.
Your discussion of types of search is not only irrelevant but so ridicilous that it makes me think you are deliberately trying to mud the waters so people will not see the point.
LOL! Discussion about types of search in a post ABOUT types of search is "irrelevant" and "ridiculous"? Oh man. I don't even know how to respond to that one.
Bottom line was that he was allowed to fly if he submitted to a search. It is unreasonable to believe that this search is beyond anything that is routinely given by the TSA to e.g., random passengers picked for more intensive searches, even if it is different from the "standard" search.
You're the one muddying the waters by ignoring that he was indeed allowed to fly with no ID, intensive search or not.
And quoting in writing requires quotation marks. The site says that he was allowed to fly if he submitted to a search. "A far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint" (that's a quote, by the way) is still a search.
Well your lengthy rant is pretty much completely wrong.
Interesting, then, that our posts are in almost complete agreement.
First, you say that there likely isn't a "law", per se. I agree. And I said as much in my post when I said I was perfectly willing to consider that there are more than likely secret TSA "directives" to airlines and airports that have certain provisions, and are secret for ostensibly good reasons. Note I am not making any specific judgment on whether or not security processes at airports should remain secret and good arguments can be made either way.
Second, you make the claim that just because one airline worker would have let him fly proves nothing, as they themselves might have been inappropriately violating a directive of some sort. Indeed. Conversely, the same applies: just because an airline worker says there IS a law proves nothing.
Thirdly, you again agree, as I said in my post, that there is likely no law, but that it's a TSA/DHS "directive" of some sort. I have already said in other posts that if that's the case, then airlines and airports shouldn't make it seem that it is a "law", proper, that must be obeyed in order to fly. It should be clear, if anything, that if it is not a law, there is no reason a passenger should be compelled to show ID. Currently, I will be more than willing to admit that it is not clear.
Lastly, the system may be inept. But what real security measures should be taken at airports, then? And if ID checking is as worthless as its opponents claim, what purpose does it serve? Try to keep police state arguments out of a possible response.
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
I didn't quote at all. It wasn't in quotes. I said he would be allowed to fly out of SFO if he submitted to a search. They say a "far more intrusive search". Than what every passenger goes through? What about the ones that are picked for a more intensive search? How many kinds of routine searches do you think the TSA has? The "far more intrusive search" is likely the same general random, intensive searches that could happen to anyone flying. This type of search is likely what is requested if someone insists on flying with no ID. Like it or not "not being able to fly with no ID unless you submit to an intensive search" != "not being allowed to fly with no ID". It's dishonest and disingenuous - and likely counterproductive to his otherwise worthwhile cause - to say otherwise.
Perhaps you missed the numerous parts of my post where I said he was indeed allowed to travel by air with no ID, and that he just chose not to, by his own admission in his own account.
Since SFO would allow him to fly with no ID, that in itself proves there is no such legal requirement for him to show ID. I'm not saying it's not good he's asking these questions, or that airlines should be telling people there's a "law" if there isn't. He and everyone else should just be more honest about it. It undermines the larger idea that people - airlines/airports and customers alike - should simply be aware that there is no law requiring passengers to show ID to fly.
Think about it: the people checking in and working at the counters and as phone agents probably don't know if there's a law or not. They may have, in fact, been incorrectly told that there IS a law. And in the end, if the entire system is saying "there's a law", even if there isn't, that's all that matters. I "get" it. But that still doesn't mean there's some secret law. That means it's a broken issue that needs fixing. And yes, Gilmore's story can fix it. But not by dishonestly claiming he wasn't allowed to fly without ID and that there must be a secret law because someone at United Airlines said so.
Since he would have been allowed to fly out of SFO with no ID if he submitted to a search, as his own account says, that alone destroys his claims that there is a secret law compelling all air travelers to show ID, as allowing him to travel with no ID would be in violation with that law (and no, they weren't allowing him to travel because they knew he had a larger agenda).
His **entire claim** that a secret law exists rests on an unnamed United Airlines employee saying that it was a "law". Well, guess what? Some Charter Communications agents said that they removed the 30-second skip feature on their DVRs because there is a law that requires them to do so. There isn't. But just because Charter - or United - says there is a law, does that make it so?
Finally, remember that SFO was going to allow him to fly without ID. He chose not to because he did not want to submit to a search. In short, the only source that there is a "law" requiring people to show ID is lowly employees within airline and airport organizations. Granted, if there is no such law, airlines and airports shouldn't be telling people it's a "law" to compel them to present ID.
But has it occurred to anyone that the reason that the law hasn't turned up is because there is no such law, especially since SFO *was going to allow him to fly without ID*?
This very page 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. More here.
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).
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Further, 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.
Gilmore's whole assertion rests on the claim that there is, in fact, a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
He already proved to himself that this was false, as he says in his own description of events that SFO would have allowed him to fly with no ID if he submitted to a search. He chose not to. If there WERE a "secret law" requiring ID, San Francisco International Airport would not have allowed him to fly without ID, as they were going to let him do.
Ridiculously, his whole claim about this "secret law" is because some random, unnamed United Airlines employee told him there was. Huh? So all of the ticket agents and working slobs within the airlines are just amazingly informed on these topics? I think not.
There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, I have no problem believing that the 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 we call for the federalization of airport security?
However, I've seen nothing that indicates there is ANY such "secret law", and the fact that SFO - the second airport he tried - would indeed allow him to fly with no ID devastates his claim.
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, to repeat, 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), iss
Just how is it wrong to codify specific conflict of interest behaviors that impugn the legitmacy of our democracy as 'wrong'?
It's not. That's why such actions are already illegal (i.e., voter fraud and intimidation). Because they're so, you know, widespread and commonplace. *Cough*.
And besides, I thought the slashdot crowd was pro-enforcing-the-laws-we-already-have, instead of making new ones?
This is pandering, plain and simple. The actions they purport to attack are already illegal.
I believe the question should be: "Why do Republicans hate democracy?"
On the contrary. I believe the question is "Why are Clinton, Kerry, and Boxer, the supposed shining stars of the Democratic party, introducing a new bill with vitriolic rhetoric and echoes of conspiracy theories tacked on, splintering and dividing support for bills that ALREADY EXIST that would address the primary concern, i.e., adding a voter-verified permanent paper trail to every e-vote cast?"
I wonder why Clinton, Boxer, and Kerry aren't supporting the bills that already exist?
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year appended) on February 9, 2005.
Why not support these important bills that resolve the main concern, namely, that of a permanent, voter-verified paper trail (which renders concern about things like an e-voting vendors' reliability moot, since the outcome can always be 100% manually verified), instead of introducing another bill that splinters support, and features vitriolic, partisan rhetoric that plays into emotional conspiracy theories, and gives both sets of bills collectively LESS of a chance of passing?
...then why aren't Clinton, Boxer, and Kerry supporting bills that would do just that?
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, that would specifically add a permanent, voter-verified paper trail to every vote case, introduced under the same title (with a new year appended) on February 9, 2005. The House version already had 102 cosponsors; the Senate version, 9.
Why not support these important bills that resolve the main concern, namely, that of a permanent, voter-verified paper trail (which renders concern about things like open source and an e-voting vendors' reliability or scruples moot, since the outcome can always be 100% manually verified), instead of introducing another bill that splinters support, and features vitriolic, partisan rhetoric that plays into emotional conspiracy theories, and gives both sets of bills collectively LESS of a chance of passing?
This is new. It addresses Diebold's famous conflict of interest.
No, it addresses a fantasy by conspiracy theorists that an e-voting vendor can rig an election - and apparently talk publicly about it! - even though it has no connection to the equipment once deployed in the counties.
Another widely-reported concern.
Hardly. You, and apparently Clinton, Kerry, and Boxer, would like people to THINK it's widespread. Sorry, but it's not. And voting fruad is already illegal, so this is just partisan pandering.
The Republican majority will never let this pass.
If that's true, then why load it down with all of this partisan hackery? And why not support the other two bills that already exist?
S.330 [loc.gov] and H.R.704 [loc.gov]/H.R.550 [loc.gov] are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year appended) on February 9, 2005.
Why not support these important bills that resolve the main concern, namely, that of a permanent, voter-verified paper trail (which renders concern about things like an e-voting vendors' reliability moot, since the outcome can always be 100% manually verified), instead of introducing another bill that splinters support, and features vitriolic, partisan rhetoric that plays into emotional conspiracy theories, and gives both sets of bills collectively LESS of a chance of passing?
Slashdot Mirror
No. That was the first attempt. And since that was the time he was denied altogether (Southwest at Oakland), it's not surprising that he is using that in his court case.
But United at SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID if he, again, submitted to an intensive search. This time, he declined, and was not allowed to fly.
See http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html for details.
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
He obviously chose to enumerate in his court case (wisely, I might add) the instance he wasn't allowed to fly with no ID (Southwest at Oakland) and ignores the instance he WAS allowed to fly with no ID, and chose not to (United at SFO, because that time, he did NOT submit to the search).
Therefore, my original thesis stands.
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
Sorry, that was for a Southwest flight from Oakland to Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
SFO WOULD let him fly with no ID (United).
Sounds like he's downplaying SFO.
The Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been the primary source of publicity about this case:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
Since those two accounts vary greatly, which one is correct? Which one is the truth?
You need to RTFA at the Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been the primary source of publicity about this case:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
Since those two accounts vary greatly, which one is correct? Which one is the truth?
Judging from your post, I know you'll be happy to overlook this glaring incongruity - and seeming change of story - to fuel your belief that we live in a police state.
Additionally, I said I had no problem believing there were secret TSA security directives for airport and airline operations. Do you think all of them should be public? Do you think that the government should set a precedent and begin revealing secret security procedures, even for something simple? Or do you believe that it is always inappropriate for information to be secret or classified under ANY circumstances? If not, when is it okay for something to be secret? If so, then we have a fundamental philosophical difference, as I believe that some security procedures that deal with millions of people or large venues/sites shouldn't be completely public.
I mean, on one hand, we have people flipping out that our power grid is wide open, and then we have people flipping out that the TSA is trying to secure airports and air travel, since it's critical to our economy for many reasons. And then we have a guy framing it as if he can't travel *at all* without "identity papers", by any means, and people like you who think we live in 1984.
I guess you can't win.
No. His own account, on the primary Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been up in this state since the beginning of his case, says:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
So either he's now changing his story (a wise move, considering the first one was very contradictory), or one of the accounts is wrong. If the Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, one of the primary sources of publicity for this case, was wrong, you'd think it would be corrected, yes?
Yes, but you're not required to present it to anyone unless you're violating an applicable traffic law and are stopped by a law enforcement officer with appropriate jurisdiction and authority. It is only when you don't obey applicable laws that you may be stopped and required to present ID by a governmental entity.
And before anyone brings up the Nevada case, Nevada has a public law on the books that requires a person to identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested. This case was a test to see if the law was constitutional (currently, the court decided that it is). Yes, he was a "pedestrian"; but police don't just randomly ask people for ID. In this case, there was a 911 call from a nearby resident who reported seeing a man and a woman arguing in a pickup truck, and seeing the man hit the woman (his daughter actually hit him). The 911 operator dispatched police. The responding officer came upon the scene to find skidmarks and disturbed gravel on the side of the road, indicating the vehicle had been stopped in an aggressive manner. Coupled with the domestic violence call, the officer felt it necessary to ask the man to identify himself, as he was (and is) allowed to do under Nevada law. When he refused some 11 times, the man was arrested. So that case has nothing to do with driving or anything, and not really anything to do with the Gilmore case, since Gilmore already found he could fly without ID if he submitted to a search, and he chose not to.
No. I've read all of these accounts, thanks.
First, I don't fundamentally have a problem with security measures and processes relating to US carriers being secret. This includes security directives that airlines and airports might use in their own internal processes.
Secondly, yes, he has framed the issue as being about traveling without having to present "identity papers". He himself has already shown that is not the case. His continued insistence that it's about traveling without having to show "papers", when there are several other means of travel that require no routine identification - and he makes no distinction himself - and that there must be a secret "law" to show ID when SFO would let him fly without ID, hurts his otherwise worthwhile cause.
As to the issue of sensitive information, who decides, indeed? Unless you're the type of person who fundamentally believes there should never be any secrets (e.g. classified material), I trust you can think of instances where information is appropriately secured. As for oversight, yes, the chain of accountability may be unclear. And the attention John brings to the issue is valuable. I just wish he wouldn't overdramatize it, for example by invoking the whole "Achtung! Papers please!" attitude as if it applies to all travel in the US.
Your discussion of types of search is not only irrelevant but so ridicilous that it makes me think you are deliberately trying to mud the waters so people will not see the point.
LOL! Discussion about types of search in a post ABOUT types of search is "irrelevant" and "ridiculous"? Oh man. I don't even know how to respond to that one.
Bottom line was that he was allowed to fly if he submitted to a search. It is unreasonable to believe that this search is beyond anything that is routinely given by the TSA to e.g., random passengers picked for more intensive searches, even if it is different from the "standard" search.
You're the one muddying the waters by ignoring that he was indeed allowed to fly with no ID, intensive search or not.
And quoting in writing requires quotation marks. The site says that he was allowed to fly if he submitted to a search. "A far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint" (that's a quote, by the way) is still a search.
I only posted it once, dumbass. You can see that from my user page. Every other response is unique. But thanks for your concern.
Well your lengthy rant is pretty much completely wrong.
Interesting, then, that our posts are in almost complete agreement.
First, you say that there likely isn't a "law", per se. I agree. And I said as much in my post when I said I was perfectly willing to consider that there are more than likely secret TSA "directives" to airlines and airports that have certain provisions, and are secret for ostensibly good reasons. Note I am not making any specific judgment on whether or not security processes at airports should remain secret and good arguments can be made either way.
Second, you make the claim that just because one airline worker would have let him fly proves nothing, as they themselves might have been inappropriately violating a directive of some sort. Indeed. Conversely, the same applies: just because an airline worker says there IS a law proves nothing.
Thirdly, you again agree, as I said in my post, that there is likely no law, but that it's a TSA/DHS "directive" of some sort. I have already said in other posts that if that's the case, then airlines and airports shouldn't make it seem that it is a "law", proper, that must be obeyed in order to fly. It should be clear, if anything, that if it is not a law, there is no reason a passenger should be compelled to show ID. Currently, I will be more than willing to admit that it is not clear.
Lastly, the system may be inept. But what real security measures should be taken at airports, then? And if ID checking is as worthless as its opponents claim, what purpose does it serve? Try to keep police state arguments out of a possible response.
Well, his account here (Gilmore v Ashcroft home page) says this:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
Wrong. The story says:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
I didn't quote at all. It wasn't in quotes. I said he would be allowed to fly out of SFO if he submitted to a search. They say a "far more intrusive search". Than what every passenger goes through? What about the ones that are picked for a more intensive search? How many kinds of routine searches do you think the TSA has? The "far more intrusive search" is likely the same general random, intensive searches that could happen to anyone flying. This type of search is likely what is requested if someone insists on flying with no ID. Like it or not "not being able to fly with no ID unless you submit to an intensive search" != "not being allowed to fly with no ID". It's dishonest and disingenuous - and likely counterproductive to his otherwise worthwhile cause - to say otherwise.
Perhaps you missed the numerous parts of my post where I said he was indeed allowed to travel by air with no ID, and that he just chose not to, by his own admission in his own account.
Since SFO would allow him to fly with no ID, that in itself proves there is no such legal requirement for him to show ID. I'm not saying it's not good he's asking these questions, or that airlines should be telling people there's a "law" if there isn't. He and everyone else should just be more honest about it. It undermines the larger idea that people - airlines/airports and customers alike - should simply be aware that there is no law requiring passengers to show ID to fly.
Think about it: the people checking in and working at the counters and as phone agents probably don't know if there's a law or not. They may have, in fact, been incorrectly told that there IS a law. And in the end, if the entire system is saying "there's a law", even if there isn't, that's all that matters. I "get" it. But that still doesn't mean there's some secret law. That means it's a broken issue that needs fixing. And yes, Gilmore's story can fix it. But not by dishonestly claiming he wasn't allowed to fly without ID and that there must be a secret law because someone at United Airlines said so.
Since he would have been allowed to fly out of SFO with no ID if he submitted to a search, as his own account says, that alone destroys his claims that there is a secret law compelling all air travelers to show ID, as allowing him to travel with no ID would be in violation with that law (and no, they weren't allowing him to travel because they knew he had a larger agenda).
His **entire claim** that a secret law exists rests on an unnamed United Airlines employee saying that it was a "law". Well, guess what? Some Charter Communications agents said that they removed the 30-second skip feature on their DVRs because there is a law that requires them to do so. There isn't. But just because Charter - or United - says there is a law, does that make it so?
Finally, remember that SFO was going to allow him to fly without ID. He chose not to because he did not want to submit to a search. In short, the only source that there is a "law" requiring people to show ID is lowly employees within airline and airport organizations. Granted, if there is no such law, airlines and airports shouldn't be telling people it's a "law" to compel them to present ID.
But has it occurred to anyone that the reason that the law hasn't turned up is because there is no such law, especially since SFO *was going to allow him to fly without ID*?
More here in my earlier post.
This very page 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. More here.
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).
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Further, 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.
Gilmore's whole assertion rests on the claim that there is, in fact, a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
He already proved to himself that this was false, as he says in his own description of events that SFO would have allowed him to fly with no ID if he submitted to a search. He chose not to. If there WERE a "secret law" requiring ID, San Francisco International Airport would not have allowed him to fly without ID, as they were going to let him do.
Ridiculously, his whole claim about this "secret law" is because some random, unnamed United Airlines employee told him there was. Huh? So all of the ticket agents and working slobs within the airlines are just amazingly informed on these topics? I think not.
There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, I have no problem believing that the 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 we call for the federalization of airport security?
However, I've seen nothing that indicates there is ANY such "secret law", and the fact that SFO - the second airport he tried - would indeed allow him to fly with no ID devastates his claim.
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, to repeat, 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), iss
Just how is it wrong to codify specific conflict of interest behaviors that impugn the legitmacy of our democracy as 'wrong'?
It's not. That's why such actions are already illegal (i.e., voter fraud and intimidation). Because they're so, you know, widespread and commonplace. *Cough*.
And besides, I thought the slashdot crowd was pro-enforcing-the-laws-we-already-have, instead of making new ones?
This is pandering, plain and simple. The actions they purport to attack are already illegal.
I believe the question should be: "Why do Republicans hate democracy?"
On the contrary. I believe the question is "Why are Clinton, Kerry, and Boxer, the supposed shining stars of the Democratic party, introducing a new bill with vitriolic rhetoric and echoes of conspiracy theories tacked on, splintering and dividing support for bills that ALREADY EXIST that would address the primary concern, i.e., adding a voter-verified permanent paper trail to every e-vote cast?"
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year appended) on February 9, 2005.
Why not support these important bills that resolve the main concern, namely, that of a permanent, voter-verified paper trail (which renders concern about things like an e-voting vendors' reliability moot, since the outcome can always be 100% manually verified), instead of introducing another bill that splinters support, and features vitriolic, partisan rhetoric that plays into emotional conspiracy theories, and gives both sets of bills collectively LESS of a chance of passing?
...then why aren't Clinton, Boxer, and Kerry supporting bills that would do just that?
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, that would specifically add a permanent, voter-verified paper trail to every vote case, introduced under the same title (with a new year appended) on February 9, 2005. The House version already had 102 cosponsors; the Senate version, 9.
Why not support these important bills that resolve the main concern, namely, that of a permanent, voter-verified paper trail (which renders concern about things like open source and an e-voting vendors' reliability or scruples moot, since the outcome can always be 100% manually verified), instead of introducing another bill that splinters support, and features vitriolic, partisan rhetoric that plays into emotional conspiracy theories, and gives both sets of bills collectively LESS of a chance of passing?
This is new. It addresses Diebold's famous conflict of interest.
No, it addresses a fantasy by conspiracy theorists that an e-voting vendor can rig an election - and apparently talk publicly about it! - even though it has no connection to the equipment once deployed in the counties.
Another widely-reported concern.
Hardly. You, and apparently Clinton, Kerry, and Boxer, would like people to THINK it's widespread. Sorry, but it's not. And voting fruad is already illegal, so this is just partisan pandering.
The Republican majority will never let this pass.
If that's true, then why load it down with all of this partisan hackery? And why not support the other two bills that already exist?
S.330 [loc.gov] and H.R.704 [loc.gov]/H.R.550 [loc.gov] are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year appended) on February 9, 2005.
Why not support these important bills that resolve the main concern, namely, that of a permanent, voter-verified paper trail (which renders concern about things like an e-voting vendors' reliability moot, since the outcome can always be 100% manually verified), instead of introducing another bill that splinters support, and features vitriolic, partisan rhetoric that plays into emotional conspiracy theories, and gives both sets of bills collectively LESS of a chance of passing?