August 17, 2004

At stake is nothing less than the right of Americans to travel anonymously in their own country -- and the exposure of 'secret law' for what it is: an abomination.

Something about "secret laws" makes my Spidey-sense tingle. Apologies for two posts in quick succession, but my last topic was less than meaty. Uh... let me rephrase.

posted by mecurious 19 years ago
  • As of now they're on Double SECRET Probation! /Dean Wormer
  • Oh, jeebus, here we go again...another "papers please" frivolous lawsuit. I think that the US Supreme Court will knock this one down, just like Hiilbel (sp?) was. It's simple: the ticket says "John Doe." Isn't it reasonable to ascertain if the person boarding the plane is, in fact, JOHN DOE? And yes, it's remotely possible that "John Doe" has a fake ID, but not bloody likely. There's a common-sense aspect to this that Gilmore is deliberately trying to ignore.
  • Technology is a big factor here, I think, since nobody was using e-tickets back in 1996. Convenience versus privacy? How much of both can we have?
  • 49 CFR Section 1544.201: (c) Refusal to transport. Each aircraft operator must deny entry into a sterile area and must refuse to transport— (1) Any individual who does not consent to a search or inspection of his or her person in accordance with the system prescribed in this part; and (2) Any property of any individual or other person who does not consent to a search or inspection of that property in accordance with the system prescribed by this part. United offered to fly him if he'd submit to a search, which he refused. The TSA grants airlines the discretion to refuse to transport a person if they do not conform to guidelines stated in TSA regs. I'm not sure what leg he's standing on. At any rate, Americans can still travel anonymously...just drive a car.
  • ...frivolous lawsuit... I don't think that challenging this "law" is frivolous. American's have given up their rights to privacy when entering certain public transportation systems without receiving any increase in their safety. You may not know this, but if you walk onto the property that surrounds a dock that is used by public transport boats, even ones that only travel within the Great Lakes, you and your property have consented to a search. Law enforcement doesn't have to have a reasonable suspicion to search you simply because you are on property where your civil liberties don't apply, even if you have no intention of boarding the boat. Knowing the identity of a traveler on a plane who has already been searched does not increase anyone’s safety. What it does do facilitate the monitoring of citizens in a way that violates their civil liberties. I don't understand why someone should have to show Identification in order to travel on a plane. I also don't understand why the regulations that dictate this aren't made public. The Hiibel suit and this suit are not frivolous.
  • I think that most people would agree that showing one's ID is not a huge problem. The huge problem is "secret laws". The I.D. part seems to simply be the vehicle to bring it out in the open. Are we purposely being obtuse in ignoring that part or does no one have a problem with the concept of secret laws? I mean, even the new Russian Constitution bans them. Secret laws, secret charges, secret trials, secret executions.
  • There's a common-sense aspect to this that Gilmore is deliberately trying to ignore. Oh. Really. What common sense *is* that? What exactly about asking for ID is making me safer when I travel? Why SHOULDN'T I be able to buy a ticket, without my name on it? You know, like we do with trains, boats, buses, everything else? Every 9-11 terrorist had valid ID, etc., blah blah blah. The problem with the common sense, is that it's not very good or well thought out. That's why we have security measures that don't actually make people more secure, but make them feel safer. Sort of.
  • I think the guy's making a mountain out of a minor inconvenience. I've been asked to provide identification in airports since the early 1990s, especially at US east coast airports after the attempted bombing of the WTC. All I had to do was show my passport or driver's license. Took a couple of seconds. Much less annoying than to have to fill out forms when travelling to outside-US destinations. Gimme a break here and tell me why this is such a big deal. And, on preview, do you think maybe the "secret law" thingie came up because maybe the agent who was responding didn't have a clue as to what the laws were, but had gotten orders that everyone had to show identification and was trying to meet that requirement? Having been a drone or two who had to justify seemingly silly requirements by management with no training given on the particulars, I might have come up with a similar explanation. And, exactly what is the threat to "privacy?" Why in the world would you even think of that if you were't trying to stir the shit, or drive a plane into a big building. Your choice. Look, I'm as liberal as the next person, but I try to use common sense when meeting up with this sort of thing.
  • Path, did you read the linked site, for the facts of the matter? And, exactly what is the threat to "privacy?" Why in the world would you even think of that if you were't trying to stir the shit, or drive a plane into a big building. Yes indeed, why would you possibly care about any of this, if you're not doing anything wrong? In fact, we should stop putting our letters in envelopes. Postcards only, from now on. After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?
  • At any rate, Americans can still travel anonymously...just drive a car. Just don't use your EZ Pass. Yes indeed, why would you possibly care about any of this, if you're not doing anything wrong? In fact, we should stop putting our letters in envelopes. Postcards only, from now on. After all, you've got nothing to hide, right? Dude, there's a world of difference between writing on postcards and getting on a passenger plane without identifying yourself, and you know this. I would be upset if the screeners didn't ask for ID from boarding passengers. This is just common sense. I definitely agree with everyone who has qualms with the so-called "secret" law. But it sounds to me like abnoxious low-level government employee antics, not a reflection on the overall system. Go to your local police station and request copies of blotter entries, or ask for records at your town hall -- odds are you'll experience the same ignorant, make-the-rules-up on the fly idiocy.
  • It burns me up when people sell out my rights because they don't see why it should matter.. Here's a guy who believes strongly in something, and unlike almost all of us, is willing to give up his time and money to fight for it. Not just for himself, but on behalf of the American people, including those who dismiss his efforts as just "another frivolous lawsuit". It's not about how little (or how greatly) wrongheaded policies inconvenience me personally. That doesn't matter. Legality matters. Constitutionality matters. Having your travel restricted, being required to carry traveling papers to move about within the borders of your own country, being accountable to laws that you can't even view--that's un-American, and hopefully, will become explicitly illegal due to Gilmore's efforts. I would be upset if the screeners didn't ask for ID from boarding passengers. This is just common sense. UGH! There's that idea again, "common sense." OK fine, explain to me in detail how asking for ID makes us safer?
  • Daniel - yes, I did read the site. That's why I responded as I did. Can you provide with a valid agrument as to why this guy is credible?
  • Yeah, I'd like to hear that too.
  • That was in respose to Daniel.
  • Can you provide with a valid agrument as to why this guy is credible? It's all there. He was asked for ID, he declined and asked to see the laws stating that he had to show one to fly. The refused. He didn't fly. Simple. You may say, he should've just shown his ID and gotten on the plane. Yeah, that's what I would've done too. But instead, he questioned the legality of being subject to laws you aren't allowed to know about.
  • I'm still waiting to hear how checking ID makes me safer when flying.
  • Again, Daniel, what is illegal about asking for identification before boarding a plane? - if you can find a reference to pre-existing, or even current laws that said you didn't have to you might be persuasive, but I don't think there were any. Maybe self incrimination? Unless you were going to something really bad, why would you care? In my experience, the people who ask to see your id don't enter any info into a computer. Maybe they would if it seemed suspect, but that hasn't happened to me. So, tell me what we're really losing here. I truly don't understand.
  • First off...someone name me a piece of ID you are Federally, legally required to have? Is having no ID a crime? Bumagi, pozhaluista. I think that most people would agree that showing one's ID is not a huge problem. The huge problem is "secret laws". The I.D. part seems to simply be the vehicle to bring it out in the open. Exactly. This is not a frivolous action, but a necessary part of avoid the slippery slope. Today it's ID's to ride planes, tomorrow all public transportation. Who knows, at some future point you may need one to cross State lines. These little "secret", Constitution bending laws are exactly the ones we have to be wary of, however innocuous. Read the quote present in the footer of every page of the article. "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me." --Neimoller
  • Just realized that is confusing...the Neimoller quote on the end of my comment isn't the one in the footer I mentioned. Just a little bonus for perspective.
  • The point is, there is NO FAA regulation, or federal law that requires ANYONE to have ID when travelling by air. In fact, the FAA has been explict in the opposite--no American citizen can be barred from a domestic flight for not providing ID. Or at least it was, prior to Gilmore's experience, where he was told that there is a law that requires ID, but you can't see it.
  • In my experience, the people who ask to see your id don't enter any info into a computer. Maybe they would if it seemed suspect, but that hasn't happened to me. So, tell me what we're really losing here. I truly don't understand. That's precisely right. My view of it is that it doesn't make us any safer, not even a little bit, but it encroaches on our privacy. And is possibly, illegal and unconstitutional. But my visceral reaction to all this is something that you might understand if you've ever been a "no-good kid". We would hang around, not bother anyone, and definitely not breaking any laws, and some cop would come up to us and demand to see our IDs. And you know what he'd do then? Look at it for exactly 1 second, and then give it back to us and told us to "move along." What was he checking for? Nothing. He didn't even really look. The only purpose of that exchange was for the cop to assert his authority over us. As someone else wrote, "to put us in our place." What is worse is that I'm an adult and still being subjected to the same kind of bullying--and not as a matter of some federal conspiracy, but by low-rent TSA people who (and this is true of anyone, when given the slightest bit of authority) will make sure you KNOW they've got power over you. Our laws were meant to protect us from abuse of power. Checks and balances. Except, of course, when it's a matter of national security, or when anyone mentions the word "terrorist."
  • If you ask, "why do you care if you don't have anything to hide?" I respond that, although it may seem like commonsense and may seem to be in your best interest, it is in fact bad for all of us. I think a good analogy to this is cholesterol. Why cholesterol? Well, cholesterol builds up slowly, over time, like a crust in your system. It clogs your arteries and makes them harden. It makes it harder for blood to flow through your veins and increases your blood pressure, forcing your heart to work harder. If there is a blood clot in your system, it can get trapped in a clogged artery and cut off your blood supply completely, causing a heart attack. The principal behind America's freedoms is not just philosophical, its practical. The founders of this country didn't make it a free country because they felt all warm and fuzzy about it. They gave us our freedoms and attempted to PROTECT those freedoms because all of society benefits when our freedoms are increased, not restricted. Every time someone checks your ID, that is a piece of freedom cholesterol. That one little piece of cholesterol might not seem like much to you, but it builds up in the system, restricting the free flow of people and even ideas. This weakness can be exploited, just like other weaknesses the terrorists exploited. If we think we're safer because of IDs, then we will only make ourselves more likely to be victimized by the terrorists who can falsify their identification.
  • Daniel, I still don't understand how it' "bullying' or what one has lost by showing ID. How is this abuse of power? They don't just ask "no good kids" for id, all they want to do is to confirm, in, really, the most unabtrusive way, that the people boarding a plane aren't bad guys. You buy a ticket under a name and they want to check to be sure that's your name. How does that harm you? It may not be really affective, but I can't see what rights it violates. Give me some backup to our ability to travel anonymously. I don't think it's in the constitution. And, you know what, I've flown in and out of about 20 airports in the last 10 years, and never felt inconvienced, or that I had lost any rights by having to show id. What I find more inconvenient is having to take my shoes off to be xrayed, but I can understand why they do that after that clown tried to light his shoes to give a little explosive surprise. So, I do it without complaining. So, is the problem that you don't have id? You know, you can get some from state agencies, even if you don't drive. Or, you can get a passport with very little hassle. If you do have id, what's the purpose if you don't show it under certain circumstances?
  • So how will you feel about that ID policy if a major depression has hit, you're out of work, the bankruptcy laws have been tightened to exclude you, and Experian and Equifax have you tagged in a national database as an illegal debtor? I admire your faith... I wish I could be one of the sheep and not worry about trends like this.
  • Man, do you guys listen to the rhetoric you put out? An abomination? Hey, guess what, these aren't government planes that you're flying on- they're private companies. If they don't want to let you fly without ID, well, whoopty-fuckin'-do, bucko. Try renting a car without ID. Try cashing a check without ID. Does any of that make me safer? Not really, but it prevents the company from losing money through theft and fraud. And this God-given right to travel isn't the same as a God-given right to fly on a commercial airliner. C'mon, what's next, railing against the Nazis in the DMV for taking away my God-given right to drive without an operator's permit? Or hell, those bastards at Ford who require me to pay for a vehicle? Talk about a thread Godwinized before it was even posted. And if this guy is such a fucking civil libertarian, he'd put his money into something like defeating the Patriot act or making sure that Gitmo detainees got full Constitutional protection. Instead it's another goddamn dilletante bitching that he can't use private services without soem inconsequential check. Feh. This is bullshit.
  • path: When someone requests your id at a ticket counter they are performing a search of your person without provocation. They have no reason to suspect you of doing anything wrong and no justification in requesting to see your ID. They are violating your right to privacy and not increasing your safety in doing so. CAPPS II is the ultimate in unjustified searches. It stops people who are flagged by from flying on planes. There is no way for you to access the data in CAPPS II or dispute the accuracy of that data. The government needs no justification for flagging you in the CAPPS II system and stopping you from flying, they can do anything they want with it. BestBuy searches customers of some stores after they purchase certain goods, where will it happen next? Every time you are asked to show ID it is a violation of your right to privacy. The fact that you don't see this as something bad shows that you have become conditioned to it. Please explain how showing an ID at a ticket counter keeps me safer than not doing so ,considering that I can go to Canada and get a really good fake one for $19.99 USD and so can anyone else? These are not the kind of liberties you want to give up easily because anyone you give them to will always use them against given enough time and almost never give them back. Civil liberties are very valuable things when you don’t have them. They are not to be given up for some vague possibility of an eventual threat. Think of the people in this country whose civil liberties have been revoked, the only difference between you and a prisoner is the protection afforded to you by your civil liberties.
  • js: I'm not arguing about corporate policy- if they want to violate your right to privacy apparently they can, and still make a profit-, I'm arguing about the legal regulations that have dictated them.
  • THANK YOU, js, for saying what I was thinking.
  • Try renting a car without ID. Try cashing a check without ID. These are fundamentally different things from traveling on a public transport. In renting a car or cashing a check I am asking for something of value in exchange for my word. In traveling on a plane I am not requesting anything of value that has not already been paid for. Showing ID for rental cars and check cashing is much more similar to the services of credit bureau in that they demonstrate a clear benefit to the consumer -reducing the cost of the financial exchanges by limiting fraud- in exchange for the violation of their privacy. Showing an ID to get on a plane does not provide any benefit in exchange for the violation and has great potential to be abused.
  • While I certainly believe that there are tricky 1st Amendment issues involved in being forced to produce I.D. in order to travel, I think that the debate in this thread has gotten away from the more easily contested point. From a Wired article: Although a traveling tips page on the Transportation Security Administration website advises travelers to "keep available your airline boarding pass and government-issued photo ID for each adult traveler until you exit the security checkpoint," government lawyers refused to tell the judge in the original case whether or not the requirement existed. Government lawyers argued the government does not require passengers to show identification to fly and that "the challenged requests for identification are of central importance to achieving the government's objective of preventing air piracy." But the government acknowledged that if the requirement did exist, it would be in a secret security directive that had to be challenged in an appeals court Secret laws that regularly affect ordinary citizens are wrong, and extremely bad for any country built around the very concept of freedom and due process. Worse, the Justice Department seems to want it both ways - there may be a secret law, but we're not telling you, even if you're a judge, so don't even think about asking what the law actually says...but we want you to uphold that law, that doesn't exist, but may exist. It's practically a comedy sketch.
  • Yes, secret laws are bad. Ok. Gotcha. Testy Cod- Tickets become currency. If I have my ticket stolen, I'd like to have someone have to show their ID to board with that ticket. There we go, just described how that makes me safer. Can we shut up about this now? And c'mon, I am a goddamned liberal. I've just got better things to do with my time. You remind me of the folks at the city council meeting tonight who think that a strong resolution condemning US military aid to Israel from a mid-sized college town in the midwest will do any practical good. It won't, and there are other issues that are more important. So unless you have unlimited energy to be up in arms about everything, let this drop. And if you do have unlimited energy to be up in arms about everything, accept that you're on the lunatic fringe and start lobbying the government to recognize you for cubing time.
  • (And remember- if Best Buy searches you after you buy items there, don't fucking shop there. Amen, the end.)
  • Tickets become currency. If I have my ticket stolen, I'd like to have someone have to show their ID to board with that ticket. I don't even know how to began to respond to that logic, so I won't.
  • What, because it's the same logic as the reason ID is required for checks? You can get a cash refund for tickets, and you can board with someone else's ticket if you don't have to show ID. Why is it in my best interest, the guy who bought the ticket, not to discourage that? Why is it not in the airline's best interest not to discourage that?
  • Although, I could do it with an "I".
  • Fine if you don't want to let this drop... The ticket does not become currency. The ticket can only be exchanged for a specific thing (one coach seat on flight CFN 443 from Dallas) at a specific time (8.03pm est). If it becomes anything, it becomes a legal contract between you and the Airline (it actually is one if you read the back). I suppose that you could consider it a coupon but not currency. Currency can be exchanged for anything. Because your ticket is already paid for the airline has no reason to verify your identity to protect itself from fraud like it would if you were borrowing the money from it to pay for the ticket (like cashing a check and getting cash in hand) or renting the plane without putting the entire value of the plane down as a security deposit (like renting a car). As for the fact that you would like them to verify a passenger's ID only to verify that the ticket had not been stolen, that’s just not any different than the police setting up a road block and asking to see the registrations of the cars and IDs of the drivers that pass through in order to make sure they are not stolen. Which isn't much different from being randomly searched and asked to verify that everything in your pockets is yours. I’m sure if ID was always requested for anything just to confirm that it was not stolen the economy would grind to a halt. Asking to see ID to confirm that something is not stolen isn’t a valid request without reasonable suspicion.
  • So, js... your position is that secret laws are bad but we don't have unlimited energy so you're saving your energy for secret laws that DO affect you? Or you just have bigger fish to fry than secret laws in general? What part of the I.D. issue as the vehicle to get the secret laws brought up in court don't you get? How much more energy would it take you not to poo-poo this issue? Because you seem to have plenty of energy on the keyboard for blowing smoke all over this one.
  • My argument comes down to this: There is a tremendous potential for abuse of this regulation and no benefit to us from it. So why should we accept it?
  • Not any different than the police setting up a road block? Are you retarded? No, seriously. Are you? Because here's the key difference between the airline and the police: The airlines are private. If an airline wants to stipulate that they get to touch the unclothed ass of every passenger, they can. It's their right to go bankrupt. Christ, can you not understand the difference between public and private? I mean, I would guess not, seeing as you earlier refered to airlines as public transit. If they want to declare that every passenger has to wear a blue hat to board they can— WITHOUT ABRIDGING MY RIGHTS! And hey, say you're right about the ticket being a contract, a coupon, instead of currency. That gives the airline the right to stipulate that ID must be shown to consumate said contract, and it's your right not to enter into that contract should you find it unconscionable. Take trains or boats, man. Have a little bit of personal responsibility, and don't just assume that it's your God-given right to be catered to by the giant teats of corporate America. And as for saving my energy- Yeah, what's wrong with looking out for secret laws that do affect people? This guy's still been flying without his ID. If a law is so secret that it's not enforced, is that such a big deal? I don't bother trying to be the ACLU test-case against the Michigan law that says that I can't be shoeless in the same room as a member of the opposite sex, or the law against consorting with unlicensed Egyptians (both of which are still on the books here). Why? Because stupid as they may be, I'd rather worry about the things that actually cause harm (like again, the Patriot act's restrictions on libraries, or the lack of civil rights for "enemy combatants"), instead of trying to get some obnoxious nutter onto the plane next to me, explaining his victories over the oppressive FAA Nazis for the next six hours. Tremendous potential for abuse? No, not in simply showing ID, which is a seperate issue from restricting certain names from flights or violations of reasonable search and seizure. (And, for Nal's benefit, that's the 4th, not the 1st).
  • Calm down, folks! We have disgreements here, but we can do that on a more rational level. Ok, I don't think we have any real evidence that there are any "secret laws" out there, apart from some blogger who decided to try to make a self-serving issue out of taking a trip. Give me some evidence that these are laws instead of airline regulations, independent of this guy. I'm a little disappointed that aome of you fell for his screed. And, give me some evidence that we have a right to travel without revealing who we are. If I rent a car, I have to provide identification. Is that so different from renting a seat in a plane? And, the necessity of providing info to fly is not new. It's been there for more than 10 years, but I haven't seen any protests until that guy decided to make a stand. Some of you may think of him as a hero, but I think otherwise. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at least most of the protesters haven't done much flying. If you had the funds to take a trip to the paradise of your choice, and had to show a piece of identification to get on the plane, would you decide not to go? Or, if your work required you to travel, would you refuse to provide identification? And, no one has really told me in concrete terms how providing id is harmful. Exactly how does it threaten you? Give me citations that show me that providing id is violating my privacy. The purpose of id is to identify one's self, otherwise we wouldn't need it. I don't mind showing mine since it's the only reason I have it - to identify myself. But, I think the most important question is "how does this threaten you?" It seems to me that you're all milling around, getting angry over a non-issue, which you'd never considered before, because some nerd decided to make make a silly stand. So, come on, give me hard facts. Tell me how this has at least inconvenienced you, or will do in the future. Really, tell me in concrete terms why this is such a big problem.
  • Are you retarded? If that's the level of discussion you want I have no desire to continue talking with you. If you can’t argue your point without insulting me you should grow up or stop posting here.
  • Yeah, what's wrong with looking out for secret laws that do affect people? Hey, JC, good luck with that! I mean it.
  • js, are you intentionally missing the point that it's not the airlines carding us, it is the FAA, Homeland Security, et al? If the airlines were to Say "it is company policy that we ask for ID and you must wear a blue hat" I would imagine many of the people here (myself for sure) would have less of a problem with it. If we didn't like that policy we could chose another airline. It is most definitely not airline policy. The bigger point here is that while simply showing ID is seemingly innoccuos enough, it is the beginning of path I would rather the US didn't head down. You say you would rather worry about other restrictions of the Patriot Act, and good on you for that. I would say, though, the ID mandate, tracking of airline passengers, CAPPS II, TSA stooges, and no fly lists were the beginning and possibly the impetus to let them get away with the Patriot Act and the DHS at all. If the Patriot Act bothers you, this has to bother you too. Civil liberties aren't taken away in one fell swoop, they are slowly eroded over time. Large events like September 11th tend to speed it up a bit. KGB stood for Committee for State Security...the similarity in names (and functions?) always struck me. Just saying... On Preview: path, This has nothing to do with being inconvenienced by producing ID, it's a principle. The threat is the subtle encroachment on essential freedoms. If this is about a nerd making a silly stand to you, then I guess we won't change your mind. That said, by the time you have the concrete proof you are looking for, it would be too late. Just bear in mind, as Americans, we live in a country whose foundation and relatively short history has been shaped by many such "silly stands".
  • Path: give me some evidence that we have a right to travel without revealing who we are. If I rent a car, I have to provide identification. Is that so different from renting a seat in a plane? Renting a car is very different from purchasing a seat on a plane because he car rental agency is giving you possestion of an car that has a much larger value than the fee you have paid to use it. The ID is being show to provide proof of identity so that the company can have recourse in the event that you steal the or damage the car and they have to collect money from you. When you ride in a plane you are not coming into posession of something that has a greater value than what you have already paid the owners of business to use it. There is a much smaller cahnce that you are going to steal the plane or damage it in a way that would require the owners to collect money from you in the future. If you still can't see the difference between renting a car(taking posesion of it) and purchasing a seat on a plane (taking posession of seat but not possesion or control over the plane). I don't know how else I can explain it. I don't have a problem with showing ID for a car rental because it is abviously being requested to protect the company from fraud. It lowers the cost of the transaction by reducing fraud and directly benifits the consumer. Showing your ID to get on a plane doesn't protect the comapny from a fraud that would cost them money that they would pass on to the consumer -increasing transaction cost- and does not benfit the consumer. That's why it bothers me. give me some evidence that we have a right to travel without revealing who we are
  • IGNORE PREVIOUS POST PLEASE
  • The secretive Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System and why it isn't going to make you any safer - and maybe LESS so.
  • I don't remember bringing up specific amendments at all. Personally, I haven't reached any firm conclusion on the issue of requiring I.D. to travel by plane, because I can think of persuasive arguments for both sides of the debate, even if the airlines were a government monopoly (which js has gone to great length to remind us they are not). As to how this threatens anything, I think the 'real evidence' that the government apparently refused in a court of law to confirm or deny the existence of said rule suggests exactly what sort of threat secret laws embody. 'You critically discussing TSA rules online, sir? Oh, we made that illegal last week. Don't worry though, we'll have you declared an enemy combatant, shipped off to Gitmo, put through a special military tribunal, and cast into the pit by this time next week. And don't worry - your family won't find out a thing, sir.' Secret laws are simply the next link in the chain. The only thing left after that is hauling people off in the middle of the night without the need of any pesky laws at all. Of course, if there is no secret rule/law that the government lawyers refused to confirm or deny, then they're simply threateningly incompetent.
  • Path: give me some evidence that we have a right to travel without revealing who we are. If I rent a car, I have to provide identification. Is that so different from renting a seat in a plane? Renting a car is very different from purchasing a seat on a plane because he car rental agency is giving you possestion of an car that has a much larger value than the fee you have paid to use it. The ID is being show to provide proof of identity so that the company can have recourse in the event that you steal the or damage the car and they have to collect money from you. When you ride in a plane you are not coming into posession of something that has a greater value than what you have already paid the owners of business to use it. There is a much smaller cahnce that you are going to steal the plane or damage it in a way that would require the owners to collect money from you in the future. If you still can't see the difference between renting a car(taking posesion of it) and purchasing a seat on a plane (taking posession of seat but not possesion or control over the plane). I don't know how else I can explain it. I don't have a problem with showing ID for a car rental because it is abviously being requested to protect the company from fraud. It lowers the cost of the transaction by reducing fraud and directly benifits the consumer. Showing your ID to get on a plane doesn't protect the comapny from a fraud that would cost them money that they would pass on to the consumer -increasing transaction cost- and does not benfit the consumer. That's why it bothers me. Any office knows that before you can conduct a search of a person, you have to have a reasonable suspicion that, that person committed a crime. An officer that conducts a search without having reasonable suspicion has violated the suspect civil rights an any results of that search cannot be used in court. Requesting ID is an unlawful search unless the officer is investigating a crime and has reason to believe that requesting your ID would aid in his investigation. He cannot stop you on the street for no reason and request to see you ID. here give me some evidence that we have a right to travel without revealing who we are Amendment IV 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. And This Now it's your turn. Give me some evidence that says it is constitutional to require citizens of the United States to show ID before boarding a plane.
  • Again, Codpiece, that protects citizens from the government's intrusion. Otherwise drug testing would have been ruled unconstitutional. And remember that word "unreasonable." Since there are no criminal penalties for non-compliance, this "search" is incredibly reasonable. And since the "secret law" (again) seems not to be enforced, well, then that would make it a policy of a private entity. Demanding evidence of constitutionality for ID checks in boarding a plane shows that you have little understanding of law or the Constitution. Pivo: Except it's not the government carding us. It's folks at the check-in counter. They're airline employees, not TSA agents. Mecurious: What do you want? It was a crap thread from a single unreliable source, loaded with hyperbole. And c'mon, have any of you been out of the country? I realize this is tu quoque, but look at the level of restriction in other countries, on the trains or in airports. This is the civil liberty equivalent of zoning laws (where it's actually easier to argue that they restrict your right to free expression).
  • Testy Cod, I think it comes down to an interpretation of what is an "unreasonable search". The courts have made it less than clear: "While the Supreme Court has never held that the Fourth Amendment protects a zone of privacy generally, it has made clear in a long line of cases that one of the central purposes of the Fourth Amendment is to protect a zone of privacy within the home from unwarranted and unreasonable government intrusion." I agree with some of the posters that the I.D. issue (in this case) is reasonable. If you are going to say that it should be OK for citizens to fly without showing I.D. in their own country (but not for foreigners) then how are you going to determine which is which? Only allow foreigners to show I.D.? How do you determine that - by their clothes or accents? Now you are profiling. Take their word for it? Foolish. The only FAIR thing is to treat everyone the same. And that is part of Gilmore's argument: hearing transcript in which the judge agreed to hear the case. The whole I.D. issue makes us only marginally safer (at best). Certainly fake I.D.s are at the heart of every lawbreaking act including the purchase of alcohol by minors. It certainly isn't going to be much of a speed bump for terrorists. I think we have to recognize that part of the process at airports is to make any perpetrator NERVOUS. It's like Customs agents. While they are going through your stuff they are watching YOU more than your stuff. If you act nervous they are going to spend a little more time with you. Same thing in attempting to root out potential terrorists. Maybe we should say that when a U.S. citizen returns to the U.S. he shouldn't be subjected to having his luggage searched by Customs agents, based on the 4th Amendment. I think there are times when the government can and does exercise this right in a reasonable way. But the "secret law" thing should get everyone's attention and all of those things are tied to the I.D. requirement, which is why it must be the "focus" of the court case. That hearing transcript is facinating stuff if you are into legal arguments.
  • I travelled to Edinburgh from London by plane last week. I had to show ID. This requirement was made quite clear to me, repeatedly, when the flights were booked. There is no way in which I could have flown to Edinburgh without showing photo ID. If I didn't want to show photo ID, I should have taken the train*. No big deal. If there is a "secret law" involved in this, that's absurd and disgusting. But the requirement itself is not. I'm an opponent of compulsory ID cards, I'm an opponent of any restriction of freedom of movement within one's own country** - but showing proof of identity when boarding a plane is an important element of the security measures which were introduced in Britain, and across most of Europe, in the wake of the Lockerbie bombing. It's unfortunate that in America, such necessary and sensible security measures were finally introduced in some supremely ashatty ways, and mingled in with such a large amount of asshatty law. But that doesn't mean that the regulations are all dumb, because they're not. *As it was, our flight was so badly delayed we should have taken the train anyway. Also, I prefer trains. Trains are great. **Or, indeed, in any country in which one is legally present and acting in accordance with the local law.
  • On the subject of the 4th amendment, this is interesting: The Story Of The Rise And Fall Of Fourth Amendment Protections
  • Tell me how this has at least inconvenienced you, or will do in the future. Really, tell me in concrete terms why this is such a big problem. (CNN) -- A federal government list designed to keep terrorism suspects off commercial airline flights has subjected "hundreds, if not thousands" of innocent passengers to repeated interrogation, detention and stigmatization, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday. link The airport counter: This is as far as Rebecca Gordon and Janet Adams say they are allowed to go at San Francisco International Airport. The last time they checked in for a flight to Boston to visit Gordon's 80-year-old father, an airline employee called the police. "She came back and said you turned up on the FBI no-fly list. We have called the San Francisco police. We were shocked, really shocked,” recalled Adams. link and... The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced plans to implement CAPPS II, a controversial passenger profiling and surveillance system that would require you to give your birth date, home phone number, and home address before you can board a U.S. flight. Under CAPPS II, travel authorities would check these and other personal details against the information collected in government and commercial databases, then "tag" you with a color-coded score indicating the level of security risk that you appear to pose. Based on your assigned color/score, you could be detained, interrogated or made subject to additional searches. If you are tagged with the wrong color/score, you could be prohibited from flying. link Why is this such a big deal? Well aside from the whole secret law thing, which is as big a deal in a democracy as it is possible to have, being forced to present ID makes things like the "no-fly list" and CAPPS II possible. There is good evidence that the "no-fly list" has been extensively used to harrasss peace activists, and the original form of CAPS II was going to flag people with bad credit. (I don't know if the current provisions for CAPS II still include this criteria.) How could this personally "inconvenience" me? Well, I have bad credit, but am otherwise a law abiding citizen, with absolutely no history of violence whatsoever. If CAPS II is implemented with the credit provision intact, I will not fly. I don't like being harrassed by law enforcement. More importantly, provisions such as these chill free speech and free association. And they are dependent on the ability of the government to demand ID. As to the argument that this is private conduct by the airlines; I don't believe anyone has claimed such conduct would be a problem if it was taken independently by the airlines. The suit, you may notice, is against John Ashcroft, i.e. the government. Private actors are allowed to do lots of things that the government is not.
  • However, despite my belief that the alleged secret law is unconstitutional (if it exists), I must say, I believe that were the ID issue ever to get to the Supreme Court, they would reach a different conclusion than I have, given the current political climate.
  • Ok, I don't think we have any real evidence that there are any "secret laws" out there, apart from some blogger who decided to try to make a self-serving issue out of taking a trip. Are you fucking kidding me? No, really, are you fucking kidding me. I have to now PROVE things to you, that you willfully ignore? I'm supposed to expend effort when you're too lazy to track things down on your own? Do you have any idea who John Gilmore is? Or what the EFF is? Some blogger, serving himself indeed... There's a PDF of his legal brief on the site linked to by this FPP, which if you read, would detail exactly which US Codes (49 U.S.C. 40119(b), among others) allow the FAA to prescribe secret regulations. There's a long but very good FAQ here, that addresses many of the arguments presented here, including "do people really have the right to travel," and "Why is anonymity so important to the right to travel?" You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at least most of the protesters haven't done much flying. If you had the funds to take a trip to the paradise of your choice, and had to show a piece of identification to get on the plane, would you decide not to go? Ok. You're wrong. See point about "who is John Gilmore." Because he's the only "protester" we've been talking about, and yes, I believe he does have the funds to take an airplane trip now and again. Or were you referring to us? Yeah, I fly. Do I have to have flown a certain amount before my opinions on privacy and constitutional rights have merit? At least as much as you, I gather? Tell me how this has at least inconvenienced you There is such a thing as having principles. Being personally inconvenienced is probably the very shallowest reason one can have for protesting something.
  • Tell me how this has at least inconvenienced you From the FAQ Daniel links to, here is how ID checks mandated by secret law most seriously inconvience me: ...it makes me feel UNsafe whenever a government bureaucrat asks me for my ID, whenever guards search me, when I see government-sponsored teenagers in camouflage holding automatic weapons. I don't feel like I live in a free country. It makes me think I live in a totalitarian state, where I will soon need the permission of the government to think, to write, to speak, to move from place to place. Where I can be searched whenever some petty functionary wants to search me. Or worse, where a small entry in some secret database will restrict my movements or my other rights, without anyone I meet being able to do anything about it. Think this is no big deal? Its the biggest deal. Safety from government intrusion in our political beliefs, our speech and association, and our physical persons is the only fundimental safety liberal democracies offer that totalitarian states do not. It is the reason people are proud to call America their home. As Gilmore rightly points out at length in his FAQ, the (alleged) secret ID check law threatens this most fundimental aspect of our system of government.
  • You know, no matter how many times I see it, it still boggles my mind that Americans not only lay down for this sort of thing but earnestly justify it. "It's necessary to make us do these things we've never had to do before because we're in an eternal war against the Bad People!" It saddens me to think that more and more people have forgotten, or never knew, why the USA was founded and what distinguishes it from your garden-variety kowtow-to-the-powers-that-be Old World country. (No offense to Old Worlders here, but you historically have been much more willing to assume that the authorities know best.) Ever see those news stories about some troublemaker who stands on a street corner trying to get people to sign a petition consisting of the Bill of Rights? More and more people think it's some kind of anarchist plot. O tempora, o mores...
  • Dang! Nice posts to (apparently) end this thread. I'm pretty impressed with the overall quality of this thread. Nice work, monkeys - all!
  • If an airline wants to stipulate that they get to touch the unclothed ass of every passenger, they can. Ah, no they can't. At the least this would be a pretty open and shut sexual harrasment suit. In a similiar vein they couldn't require you to be white or be male to travel. They are also required to make reasonable accomidations to travelers with disabilities under the ADA. If they want to declare that every passenger has to wear a blue hat to board they can WITHOUT ABRIDGING MY RIGHTS! This they could do. Note however that it isn't the airlines requiring ID but the TSA/FAA ('cause the regs are secret and verbal it hard to pin down which) And therefor the constitunally of the requirements comes into play. Note also that until the mid 90s anyone could come up to an airline desk at any time, pony up the posted rate for a ticket in cash and get on a plane. Flying used to be exactly like taking a bus. And this "papers please" mentality is starting to trickle down to "lesser" forms of travel. Case in point is the recent "I'm going to confiscate you book before you can get on this ferry" kerflufle. It's getting hard to even travel by car across Canada and the US. Accomadations almost all require ID unless your paying by the hour. Police can pull you over practically at will and require your ID unless you can afford some one to drive for you. Hitch hiking is illegal on most controlled highways. If your carrying more than a good meal in cash cops assume your doing something illegal with it and in many states can seize it without due process. It just goes on and on. More people need to talk with immigrants from countries with secret police. I spent a week talking with a former officer in the Stasi (East German Secret Police). The stories of abuses of power were unbeliveable. Secret laws and enforcement are baaaaad! I can't believe Americans of all people put up with it.
  • Interview with John Gilmore (you know, that self-serving blogger) at GrepLaw, wherein he talks about terrorism, security, spam blocking, censorship and secret laws, with this amazing quote: "[i]t even worked at the District Court; our judge decided that if she couldn’t see the law then it must by definition be constitutional (she ruled that I had no possible way to show it is unconstitutional)."