No, but as a corporation they own property, just like a citizen does. As a property owner, they have the right to stipulate the conditions of its use.
You have the right to refuse entry to your house to everyone except for those who fit certain conditions, one of which might be showing proper identification.
A corporation can require you to do the same thing in order to use their property. A ticket purchase is a contract, isn't it? By paying now, the airline corporation prolmises to provide transport services to me at some later time. So the terms for the purchase of a ticket might include the requirement to identify yourself.
If you didn't agree with the terms, you just wouldn't use their service.
Agreed. The Constitution is vague. IMHO, deliberately so, but that doesn't change it. The point is that case law over the decades serves to further define the Constitution by setting precedents.
Right now the precedents are leaning towards eroding privacy and giving the government more power over the individual citizen. Some folks, like Gilmore, want to push that pendulum back the other way, to varying degrees.
Because proper ID is meaningless. The 9/11 terrorists all had valid (or apparently valid as far as any airline employee was concerned) ID. So what does checking ID do or prove? Absolutely nothing. It doesn't help security at all...its only purpose is monitoring. And monitoring without cause is unreasonable search and thereby prohibited. "Search" meaning "seek information about someone", not "look in someone's pockets". Whether someone allows themselves to be subjected to an unreasonable search or not is irrelevant...its prohibited by the Constitution.
Am I going to pick a fight with some ticket agent over showing ID? Hell no...I have a life to live and a job to do, I need to get on that flight. I don't have Gilmore's money...I can't afford to just bounce around inside the legal machine for 3-5 years waiting for a decision. That doesn't change the fact that I agree with what he wants to do, and agree that the government (nor the airlines) shouldn't be monitoring my travel habits.
That's the rub...American culture is a culture of sheep. Indebted, scared, consumer sheep. That's the way the government wants us, and that's the way most of us are. Some of us are fighting our way out, some of us never became that way in the first place, and some of us will continue to be sheep till they die. That doesn't change the Constitution, and the foundations of our society, no matter how badly the government has tried to warp and twist those foundations over the years.
Over the years, this has come to mean "the government can't track you legally without probably cause". By "track" that means anything, including but not limited to travel.
A search is a quest for information not limited to physical property. What do you think keeps the government from tapping your phone?
In other words, a citizen has a right to privacy: a right to keep his or her activities anonymous, without government intervention or monitoring, unless there is probably cause.
As I said earlier, an airline asking for ID is an issue if 1) the government is requiring them to do so, and/or 2) the airline is furnishing that information (along with what flight you took, how you paid, what you ate, etc) to the government.
If you think the Fourth Amendment merely keeps the government from "entering your home" or "going through your pockets" and that's it, you're incorrect.
I agree with your point about an airline being a corporation. I think the issue is two-fold:
1) the government is requiring airlines to require ID. The government, according to Gilmore's complaint, does not have this right, and I tend to agree with Gilmore.
2) the airline, whether the government is requiring them to require ID or not, is furnishing the travel data to the government (CAPPS, CAPPS II). So even if the government is not requiring an airline to ask for ID, they are using the airline's data (which, granted, the airline has a right to ask for at THEIR discretion (not the government's) as a stipulation for using their service) to monitor the travel of citizens. The government in the United States does not have the right to monitor the travel of citizens.
Incorrect. You are arrested and booked as "John Doe". The police can arrest anyone they like, any time, with ID or without. If they're wrong, the arrest is voided by a judge (that's why they have arraignments before going to trial) and you're free to go. Then you sue for wrongful arrest.
Homeless people without ID are arrested for vagrancy all the time. They're not arrested for not having ID.
I agree that there seems to be a need for a hassle-free airline (as well as other services). There are some companies like this already, such as e-gold.
I think "privilege" is a little strong. I would say "service". You're right, you don't have to do anything. However, drivers aren't required to show ID before driving...only if they break a law while driving (that's the probable cause for the search). It would be different if you were required to swipe an ID card in your car door before it would open. That's my problem with those "e-z passes" on tolls. They identify you via credit card while you travel, which is a hit on your privacy.
Sounds to me like the real issue is that the airlines are reporting the travel data to the government, not that they are requiring ID to use their service.
It will be interesting to see how Gilmore's case plays out.
Right, I followed the case closely. My point was that you don't have to identify yourself...you can always refuse. That doesn't mean you won't be arrested or hassled, it means you will be arrested and hassled anonymously.
It would be interesting to research any cases where the defendant was anonymous throughout the entire proceeding. If any exist, that is.
That would be the Fourth Constitutional Amendment. To wit:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AFAIK, being required to identify yourself is considered a "search".
Each citizen has a right to tell the government (and anyone else) to "step off". The citizen is assumed to be 100% innocent, legitimate, approved, etc. unless otherwise noted using appropriate means, such as a warrant.
I don't have to show you anything, papers or not. Period. Only a judge can say otherwise, or a law enforcement official with probable cause that a crime has been committed (and even then I am not required to identify myself....I would be booked as "John Doe").
I support Gilmore, but it looks like a gray area to me (IANAL). An airline is a corporation, not a government.
That dense math library you're talking about will be used by other people. The first person to say "hey, our weapons are off!" and determine why they're off will be the alert to everyone else using the library. Including us. Not to mention that any general approving the use of a system that hasn't been extensively tested for accuracy should be court-martialed. These systems don't just get put into use the day the P.O. is signed.
Then an update gets posted, the original coder is bitchslapped if the "bug" is determined to be intentional, and you download the update. Done.
Contrast to proprietary (closed) source. Only one vendor. You have to take what they say at face value: "gee, its not the fault of our code. Trust us". Plus, if you're under a deadline or other contract, you might be forced to stick with the closed source solution even knowing its defective in order to meet other obligations, legal or otherwise. That equals compromise, and consistent compromise equals lower quality over time.
I'd much rather use a math library vetted by hundreds or thousands of other people in a variety of uses for my weapons than I would use a math library cooked up by someone with a pork barrel lock on a defense contract and no incentive to provide high quality work.
At some point, most things become commoditized anyway. The knowledge required to write that math library is not secret. Anyone who thinks that we can prevent knowledge from being shared, or that other countries or organizations don't have the resources to compete with an American corporation is ignorant. And racist, because it automatically assumes that any one other than an American can't compete intellectually with an American, and we all know that is completely false.
There are many, many cases of clean room implementations of knowledge meant to be kept restricted or secret...you can't prevent people from learning and experimenting unless you intend to take over the world. At some point, to use your example, the math library we use will be the same in all respects to the one used by our enemies. Math is math.
So, if we're all using similar bullets, I'd much rather support a system where our bullets cost less to make, purchase, and maintain than the other guys' bullets.
Then, with the money we save on defense spending, we could spend more on less important things like teaching people to read, getting everyone enough to eat, and making sure everyone has a place to call home.
The point was that if raw materials are cheaper and widely available, then just about anyone can compete with you. Get it? Low cost of entry to the market equals greater competition. What's the first thing that happens to a commodity product with lots of competition? Prices GO DOWN.
Your argument about the commerical success of hemp in Europe is flawed. It takes more than growing a plant to use it effectively. You need processing facilities, infrastructure, distribution, marketing (how will people know to use it unless you tell them why it is better?) and more to change a consumer's perception and choice. So while merely growing the plant is not indicative of its positives (though the research and materials available to document these same positives is overwhelming if you choose to open your eyes and your mind), the lack of any commercial infrastructure to use the plant commercially is also not an indicator that doing so would fail.
Thanks for the article about the kidney surgury. Also if you actually read it you will see that the surgury WAS NOT done remotely, there was just a doctor on the other end of the line talking someone else through the proceedure. AT&T's commercials showed a doctor wearing computerized gloves guiding the motions of robotic hands holding the scalpal.
Lose the picture. Especially if you are applying for a position in the north, midwest, or CA. South might be OK, but I've never hired/fired there, so I can't say.
Lose the objective, unless you are prepared to be unemployed until you not only find the job that matches your objective, but also happen to get your resumé read by a HR person who agrees with you about where they work.
Move experience above education. In IT, experience is EVERYTHING. The education stuff just helps you get past the "must have bachelor degree" or "must have masters degree" benchmarks. After that, nobody cares.
Lose ALL education entries except university. Nobody cares about high school and elementary school. Remember that some people will be angry/jealous when seeing your resumé. Don't give them any ammunition...what if the person reading your resumé tried to get into that Boychoir school and couldn't because they weren't good enough or didn't have the money for a rich school? People are people, and everyone is biased. Don't give them ammunition to discard or ignore your resumé.
Put your technical skills at the top, in a section called "skills summary" or something similar. Don't make people decipher your experience and education paragraphs to figure out what you can and can't do, and what you know or don't know. Put it at the top so they see it right away.
The discrimination thing is real. Maybe not in Sea/Tac, but definitely elsewhere in the country. Picture a HR person looking at your resumé and thinking that you look just like the guy who just cheated on her. Do you think your resumé will make it past her?
The instruction to "put all certs on CV" isn't going to help you in the states.
In the US, you want to target your resume to the job. Don't lie, but also don't give them ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER that isn't pertient to the job.
Don't include an "objective"...it is meaningless, and could easily demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. For example, an objective that says something like "a job in a challenging environment where I learn new things all the time" might actually get your application discarded, because (surprise!) there are lots of IT jobs out there that pay well but simply aren't that exciting, aren't in a challenging environment, and don't let you learn new things every day. But, they are jobs, they pay well, and if you can stick it out there for a year or more (preferably 2 or more) you can look for something else external or internal.
Remember that your application is being seen by someone who KNOWS NOTHING about IT. If it is even a real person...often it is an automated scanning program. The first person to see most apps is a HR person who doesn't know anything but how to match terms in a job description with terms on a resume. If your resume has more terms than the job description, you come off as "over qualified". If you don't have the same terms as the job description, you aren't qualified.
The advice above is good advice. In the states, especially in the north and in CA, you want to lose EVERYTHING that is even remotely personal except for name, address, city, state, zip, phone, and email. No pictures, no entries about hobbies, no titles like "Mr" or "Mrs".
You want your application and resume to cause every person to see it to think "this person is perfect for the job!". If they think anything else when they see your resume (such as "guns! I hate guns!" or "My sister's horse kicked her and broke 3 ribs") then you've missed your opportunity.
My rule of thumb: Take your name off your resume, and everything personal but address, city, state, zip, email, and phone. What's left should cause the person seeing your application to say "this resume (not this person) is exactly what we need for job XYZ!". Then put your name back on it. Then send it in. Anything extra on your resume is asking for disappointment.
Slashdot Mirror
You have the right to refuse entry to your house to everyone except for those who fit certain conditions, one of which might be showing proper identification.
A corporation can require you to do the same thing in order to use their property. A ticket purchase is a contract, isn't it? By paying now, the airline corporation prolmises to provide transport services to me at some later time. So the terms for the purchase of a ticket might include the requirement to identify yourself.
If you didn't agree with the terms, you just wouldn't use their service.
Right now the precedents are leaning towards eroding privacy and giving the government more power over the individual citizen. Some folks, like Gilmore, want to push that pendulum back the other way, to varying degrees.
Am I going to pick a fight with some ticket agent over showing ID? Hell no...I have a life to live and a job to do, I need to get on that flight. I don't have Gilmore's money...I can't afford to just bounce around inside the legal machine for 3-5 years waiting for a decision. That doesn't change the fact that I agree with what he wants to do, and agree that the government (nor the airlines) shouldn't be monitoring my travel habits.
That's the rub...American culture is a culture of sheep. Indebted, scared, consumer sheep. That's the way the government wants us, and that's the way most of us are. Some of us are fighting our way out, some of us never became that way in the first place, and some of us will continue to be sheep till they die. That doesn't change the Constitution, and the foundations of our society, no matter how badly the government has tried to warp and twist those foundations over the years.
Over the years, this has come to mean "the government can't track you legally without probably cause". By "track" that means anything, including but not limited to travel.
A search is a quest for information not limited to physical property. What do you think keeps the government from tapping your phone?
In other words, a citizen has a right to privacy: a right to keep his or her activities anonymous, without government intervention or monitoring, unless there is probably cause.
As I said earlier, an airline asking for ID is an issue if 1) the government is requiring them to do so, and/or 2) the airline is furnishing that information (along with what flight you took, how you paid, what you ate, etc) to the government.
If you think the Fourth Amendment merely keeps the government from "entering your home" or "going through your pockets" and that's it, you're incorrect.
1) the government is requiring airlines to require ID. The government, according to Gilmore's complaint, does not have this right, and I tend to agree with Gilmore.
2) the airline, whether the government is requiring them to require ID or not, is furnishing the travel data to the government (CAPPS, CAPPS II). So even if the government is not requiring an airline to ask for ID, they are using the airline's data (which, granted, the airline has a right to ask for at THEIR discretion (not the government's) as a stipulation for using their service) to monitor the travel of citizens. The government in the United States does not have the right to monitor the travel of citizens.
That's the point.
Homeless people without ID are arrested for vagrancy all the time. They're not arrested for not having ID.
I agree that there seems to be a need for a hassle-free airline (as well as other services). There are some companies like this already, such as e-gold.
Sounds to me like the real issue is that the airlines are reporting the travel data to the government, not that they are requiring ID to use their service.
It will be interesting to see how Gilmore's case plays out.
Right, I followed the case closely. My point was that you don't have to identify yourself...you can always refuse. That doesn't mean you won't be arrested or hassled, it means you will be arrested and hassled anonymously. It would be interesting to research any cases where the defendant was anonymous throughout the entire proceeding. If any exist, that is.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AFAIK, being required to identify yourself is considered a "search".
Each citizen has a right to tell the government (and anyone else) to "step off". The citizen is assumed to be 100% innocent, legitimate, approved, etc. unless otherwise noted using appropriate means, such as a warrant.
I don't have to show you anything, papers or not. Period. Only a judge can say otherwise, or a law enforcement official with probable cause that a crime has been committed (and even then I am not required to identify myself....I would be booked as "John Doe").
I support Gilmore, but it looks like a gray area to me (IANAL). An airline is a corporation, not a government.
That dense math library you're talking about will be used by other people. The first person to say "hey, our weapons are off!" and determine why they're off will be the alert to everyone else using the library. Including us. Not to mention that any general approving the use of a system that hasn't been extensively tested for accuracy should be court-martialed. These systems don't just get put into use the day the P.O. is signed.
Then an update gets posted, the original coder is bitchslapped if the "bug" is determined to be intentional, and you download the update. Done.
Contrast to proprietary (closed) source. Only one vendor. You have to take what they say at face value: "gee, its not the fault of our code. Trust us". Plus, if you're under a deadline or other contract, you might be forced to stick with the closed source solution even knowing its defective in order to meet other obligations, legal or otherwise. That equals compromise, and consistent compromise equals lower quality over time.
I'd much rather use a math library vetted by hundreds or thousands of other people in a variety of uses for my weapons than I would use a math library cooked up by someone with a pork barrel lock on a defense contract and no incentive to provide high quality work.
At some point, most things become commoditized anyway. The knowledge required to write that math library is not secret. Anyone who thinks that we can prevent knowledge from being shared, or that other countries or organizations don't have the resources to compete with an American corporation is ignorant. And racist, because it automatically assumes that any one other than an American can't compete intellectually with an American, and we all know that is completely false.
There are many, many cases of clean room implementations of knowledge meant to be kept restricted or secret...you can't prevent people from learning and experimenting unless you intend to take over the world. At some point, to use your example, the math library we use will be the same in all respects to the one used by our enemies. Math is math.
So, if we're all using similar bullets, I'd much rather support a system where our bullets cost less to make, purchase, and maintain than the other guys' bullets.
Then, with the money we save on defense spending, we could spend more on less important things like teaching people to read, getting everyone enough to eat, and making sure everyone has a place to call home.
Sounds good...but imagine the rocket exploding 30 seconds after launch.
The point was that if raw materials are cheaper and widely available, then just about anyone can compete with you. Get it? Low cost of entry to the market equals greater competition. What's the first thing that happens to a commodity product with lots of competition? Prices GO DOWN.
Your argument about the commerical success of hemp in Europe is flawed. It takes more than growing a plant to use it effectively. You need processing facilities, infrastructure, distribution, marketing (how will people know to use it unless you tell them why it is better?) and more to change a consumer's perception and choice. So while merely growing the plant is not indicative of its positives (though the research and materials available to document these same positives is overwhelming if you choose to open your eyes and your mind), the lack of any commercial infrastructure to use the plant commercially is also not an indicator that doing so would fail.
This is pretty close:
http://www.compukiss.com/populartopics/healthhtm/a rticle999.htm
I think "right" is a stretch. Maybe "more accurate".
Lose the picture. Especially if you are applying for a position in the north, midwest, or CA. South might be OK, but I've never hired/fired there, so I can't say.
Lose the objective, unless you are prepared to be unemployed until you not only find the job that matches your objective, but also happen to get your resumé read by a HR person who agrees with you about where they work.
Move experience above education. In IT, experience is EVERYTHING. The education stuff just helps you get past the "must have bachelor degree" or "must have masters degree" benchmarks. After that, nobody cares.
Lose ALL education entries except university. Nobody cares about high school and elementary school. Remember that some people will be angry/jealous when seeing your resumé. Don't give them any ammunition...what if the person reading your resumé tried to get into that Boychoir school and couldn't because they weren't good enough or didn't have the money for a rich school? People are people, and everyone is biased. Don't give them ammunition to discard or ignore your resumé.
Put your technical skills at the top, in a section called "skills summary" or something similar. Don't make people decipher your experience and education paragraphs to figure out what you can and can't do, and what you know or don't know. Put it at the top so they see it right away.
The discrimination thing is real. Maybe not in Sea/Tac, but definitely elsewhere in the country. Picture a HR person looking at your resumé and thinking that you look just like the guy who just cheated on her. Do you think your resumé will make it past her?
The instruction to "put all certs on CV" isn't going to help you in the states. In the US, you want to target your resume to the job. Don't lie, but also don't give them ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER that isn't pertient to the job. Don't include an "objective"...it is meaningless, and could easily demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. For example, an objective that says something like "a job in a challenging environment where I learn new things all the time" might actually get your application discarded, because (surprise!) there are lots of IT jobs out there that pay well but simply aren't that exciting, aren't in a challenging environment, and don't let you learn new things every day. But, they are jobs, they pay well, and if you can stick it out there for a year or more (preferably 2 or more) you can look for something else external or internal. Remember that your application is being seen by someone who KNOWS NOTHING about IT. If it is even a real person...often it is an automated scanning program. The first person to see most apps is a HR person who doesn't know anything but how to match terms in a job description with terms on a resume. If your resume has more terms than the job description, you come off as "over qualified". If you don't have the same terms as the job description, you aren't qualified. The advice above is good advice. In the states, especially in the north and in CA, you want to lose EVERYTHING that is even remotely personal except for name, address, city, state, zip, phone, and email. No pictures, no entries about hobbies, no titles like "Mr" or "Mrs". You want your application and resume to cause every person to see it to think "this person is perfect for the job!". If they think anything else when they see your resume (such as "guns! I hate guns!" or "My sister's horse kicked her and broke 3 ribs") then you've missed your opportunity. My rule of thumb: Take your name off your resume, and everything personal but address, city, state, zip, email, and phone. What's left should cause the person seeing your application to say "this resume (not this person) is exactly what we need for job XYZ!". Then put your name back on it. Then send it in. Anything extra on your resume is asking for disappointment.