Airport ID Checks Constitutional 807
chill wrote to mention the decision handed down from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals in the case of Gilmore vs. Gonzales. The court found in the government's favour, saying "We hold that neither the identification policy nor its application to Gilmore violated Gilmore's constitutional rights, and therefore we deny the petition ... The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
No particular, but any? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't travel anonymously, then you in fact do not have an independent right to petition your government.
-russ
Well, maybe so... (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally have no problem with this. Given even the small chance of someone attempting to do something on a plane when i'm flying, i don't see a problem with them checking my or anyone elses ID and denying someone that flight based on a suspision. Of course one can never say "this is what i would do" until they are in that situation.
IMHO: This is a relatively minor issue anyway in the big scheme of "rights." That's just me maybe...
Makes Total Sense (Score:2, Insightful)
What is more disturbing is the trend that if you walk down the street and are required to present identification by police. That is closer to the "let me see your papers" problem as there is a right to freely walk without problems.
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to get out the horse and buggy, with that federal logic...
Anonymity? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but case after case has shown that Anonymity is not constitutionally protected. If you can get someone to front for you (e.g. a newspaper), then they may choose to withhold your identity; possibly facing legal pentalities when they are court ordered to provide it. People seem to have this idea in their heads that Freedom of Speech == Freedom of Anonymity. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is NOTHING in the constitution that guarantess you can "travel anonymously". It isn't even implied. Your statement has not basis in fact or reality.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Insightful)
What in the world has the ability to travel anonymously have to do with your right to petition the governent? There's nothing in the Constitution about the first, one way or the other but the second is guarenteed.
It's the airline's property.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, maybe so... (Score:5, Insightful)
-russ
guarantee the "right"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, does the constitution guarantee the right to be allowed on the front of a bus? Or on a bus it all? Does it guarantee the right to visit a grocery store?
Maybe, just maybe, the DEFAULT should be that everything is allowed (isn't that called freedom?), except for those specific things that harm society in general.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
who says you have the right to travel by horse and buggy, either? What's to stop them from requiring an ID for every form of transportation? No individual form is guaranteed, so therefore there's no guarantee that any form is.
Re:Anonymity? (Score:1, Insightful)
I am troubled because Gilmore was told the law requiring him to present an ID was secret. While not explicitly stated, to my knowledge, in the Consistution, one would expect that one of the unwritten rights granted to the people is the right to know what the law is. After all, aren't the people one of the checks and balances in the Constitution? And how can they serve in that role if they're not allowed to know what the laws are?
Re:Well, maybe so... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is "even a small chance" you are talking to a terrorist then we should all have our phone calls monitored.
If there is "even a small chance" of terrorism then we should all be forced to carry identification papers.
If there is "even a small chance" you may have searched for porn then we all should have our Google searches stored and analyzed.
You may want to ignore the minor issues, but eventually they will become major issues and then it will be too late.
My thought: we should start working on an Amendment to Constitution that makes a "Right to Privacy" explicit instead of depending on the judicial branch's interpretation of the 4th Amendment. At least it would be a worthwile campaign unlike the never ending battle to create an amendment to ban flag burning at gay marriage ceremonies. This is not my idea, by the way, this was proposed by Dan Savage in a NYT editorial last year (I think).
Re:Makes Total Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If your only mode of travel is to walk from California to the District of Columbia in order to petition your government, then you are *effectively* denied your right to petition. If you have to persuade or pay someone to drive you, you don't have a right to travel to petition the government; you are relying on someone else's right to travel. If I only have a right because someone else has a right, then I don't have that right.
-russ
Re:It's the airline's property.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If a company accepts payment for a service (such as transportation from point A to point B), then either they must provide that service or refund the payment in full.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:5, Insightful)
Man o man... (Score:5, Insightful)
"He asked to see the law demanding he show his 'papers' and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn't be allowed to read it."
The constitution may no guarantee that a person be allowed to travel in any particular manner but I'm pretty sure "secret laws" are not constitutional and that is the real issue here.
US Gestapo: "Sir you are under arrest."
Victim: "What for?"
US Gestapo: "You broke the law Sir"
Victim: "What law?"
US Gestapo: "The secret law that we won't tell you about."
Victim: "I didn't know we even had secret laws!"
US Gestapo: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse Sir. Come with us."
Victim: "I want my lawyer!"
US Gestapo: "We aren't charging you Sir and you don't get to talk to your lawyer. Come with us."
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:5, Insightful)
There also is nothing in the Constitution about the right to use the bathroom without the supervision of a Government agent. You don't value that, now do you? Would you be upset if that ability were taken away?
How about the ability to travel more than 15 miles away from your home with applying for special permission in front of a Federal Review Board?
The Constitution isn't just remarkable for the rights it guarantees for citizens, but also that it (supposedly) restricts the rights of the government to what is specifically stated in the Constitution. Ideally, if the Constitution does not say that the government can regulate something, then they cannot regulate that thing.
In other words, your argument "has not basis in fact or reality"
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution does not say "these are the things people get to do." It says "These are the things that the Government is not allowed to do."
Re:Constitutional Right to Hide in a Corner (Score:4, Insightful)
You're ignoring the real issue. Let's suppose I hand a ticket agent $200 in cash for a ticket on the next flight. It doesn't need to have my name on it at all to prevent theft (consider bearer bonds, tickets to a concert, or good old cash - those don't have your name on them either) but a secret rule forces not just the airlines but also the now government-employed screeners to check your identity. Why? If it were really about verifying the identity of e-ticket holders, the airlines would have justification, and they'd be the ones making the rules. Since they don't, and they're not, this is a legitimate legal problem. A private airline can impose whatever conditions it wants when offering me its services; the government doesn't have that right. That's the price it must pay for its monopoly on power.
Re:Makes Total Sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Constitutional Right to Hide in a Corner (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no constitutional protection for your momma' to not be slapped around be me and then taken from behind. That doesn't mean that it's legal, it just means that it is left up to the states to regulate such criminal activity.
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution specifically because the Constitution did not provide explicit protections from an overeager government. Fotunately, important individual protections such as women's sufferage were also later added.
The Consitution is not meant to either explicitly enumerate all of the rights we have or don't have. It lays out the structure of government, its responsibilities; and, in those cases where either government screws up or anticipated to screw up, amendents can be added to protect the individual.
You want a constitutional right to anonymity? Petition your Congressional representatives and governor to encourage a constitutional amendment. Other than that, you're pretty much at the mercy of NSA/TSA/et al.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple answer, (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple answer is none, because it is a NATURAL RIGHT. E.G. people are born with the right to travel freely and should not need permission to do so. This is one of those rights which clearly should fall under the 9th and 10th amendments. Remember the constitution DOES NOT grant rights. It merely lists a few of them that the framers thought were important, and which might not be self-evident.
Sadly it seems many of these rights are not self evident to the asshats in all three branches, and to many modern americans.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
You could, however, make a reasonably strong case that your right to liberty extended to using your own energy to move yourself around the country - in other words, riding a bicycle (potentially problematic) or running. You'd be surprised how far you can get on your own two feet - a friend of mine recently completed a 725 mile race across France which, while difficult, was achieved by all sorts of people in 18 calendar days. It can be done. Sure, the US is larger - but that just means there's more scenery to explore.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Paez is an appeals court judge. He doesn't make the law and he doesn't decide what the Constitution means. He is only interested in upholding existing law and existing Constitutional interpretation (such as it is). If a case does not seem to fall within these limits (i.e. the issue is not "Constitutional"), he is obliged to only consider whether the trial was properly conducted. These are the checks an appeal court handles in the system.
The Constitution is not meant to include *all* our rights. That was by design. Just because a right is not in the Constitution does not mean it doesn't exist or can't exist. It's sloppy interpretation to say any given right that we "should" have is somewhere in the Constitution if only we can extrapolate it. Not all the rights we want/need/deserve are there.
The fact that the Federal system may not be working right, that Congress may have no interest in individual rights, etc. does not change the job of an appeals court.
wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
But having secret laws is totally, categorically unacceptable. There should be a Constitutional amendment against these sort of regulations. This isn't similar to a police state tactic, it is a police state tactic. There is no slippery slope; there is a motherfucking cliff that is being jumped off blindly in the hopes that there will be water instead of rocks at the bottom so we might only injure ourselves instead of dying.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you please:
1) Explain how my inability to travel anonymously prevents my petitioning the goverment for the redressing of grievances
2) Point to where in the constitution they said you were guaranteed anonymity
Re:Just one little comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:guarantee the "right"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Man o man... (Score:4, Insightful)
More like
US Gestapo: Since we're detaining you under a secret law, you don't get a lawyer.
Victim: But I'm a citizen.
US Gestapo: I'm sorry sir, but the law you're charged under strips you of your rights as a citizen, but we can't tell you any more than that.
Under the 'new' laws, there have been US citizens who have been held with neither trial, lawyer, nor charge under suspicion of being an "enemy combatant". Despite the Constitution saying you can't actually do that.
Sadly, the current political climate has allowed them to completely bypass what would have otherwise been de jure rights. It's quite troubling actually.
Re:Constitutional Right to Hide in a Corner (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me be the first to note that those are Federal agencies. You just admitted that they have not Constitutional basis for this action. If it were state laws that required ID, then we can nix the Constitutional discussions. It's not.
Re:Well, maybe so... (Score:3, Insightful)
psssst: The US Constitution already does this:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Re:Well, maybe so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your papers are not in order! (Score:5, Insightful)
The court apparently ruled that the ID requirement is not unconstitutional because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of tranportation. This is entirely irrelevant. The Constitution is a limit on the powers of government, not a grant of rights to the people. None of the powers of government enumerated in the Constitution or Amendments give the government the power to restrict US citizens from traveling within the United States by any means they desire. In particular, the government cannot require a passport for domestic travel, yet that is what this requirement does.
Furthermore, the Constitution does not give the government the power to enact and enforce secret laws or regulations. The very concept is anathema to the Rule of Law. If the government did any legitimate power to compel domestic travellers to present identification, it could only exercise that power by publishing laws or regulations that are subject to public scrutiny and judicial oversight.
I very much hope that Mr. Gilmore will appeal this ruling.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a sad state of affairs when hand-picked Supreme Court justices reduce the Constitution to little more than historical triviality. We might as well live in a despotic empire with token popular elections for feel-good purposes.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Insightful)
Articles IX and X basically give rights not in the constitution and not reserved to the government and state to the people.
Article IX:
The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
Article X:
The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People.
This basically means that the government shouldn't just take rights away like that just because they aren't specifically granted by the constitution!
In fact, it CAN even be implied by also considering article 4.
Article 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.
Re:This was NOT an airline requirement... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ID checks vs. detectors vs. strip-searches... (Score:5, Insightful)
So they check your ID and what good does it do?
Are they checking to make sure your ID isn't stamped "terrorist" or "manic-depressive?"
Just because some action is not particularly troublesome for most people does not make it at all reasonable.
A strip-/cavity-search would be where I would draw the line.
Funny that -- at least such a search will guarantee that you are not carrying anything dangerous to your fellow passengers, unlike an ID check.
Your reasoning is just rationalization for behaving like a lemming instead of thinking about actual security.
let's simplify (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's stop pretending that if only Americans knew exactly what the government was doing that they would demand change, much less accountability. The Right has won by demonizing anyone who is skeptical of government power as anti-American, liberal, terrorist-sympathizing, and so on. By the time that whitebread, middle-class Americans are pissed off by the "show me your papers or go to jail for an indefinite length of time, and no we don't have to charge you with anything" state that America is moving towards, that apparatus will be too entrenched by precedent and public apathy and it will be too late to undo it completely. There may be a symbolic backlash a few years from now, but the recovery of civil rights will be less than the loss, and the progression will be ever downward.
Freedom requires a skepticism of government power. Every law, every prerogative of the police, every restriction, has to be greeted with a raised eyebrow and "why do you need that power?" for freedom to survive in society. That spirit is hard to find in Americans, and you can't kindle it in someone who doesn't have it.
One of my first jobs was with an electronics company that made circuit boards for cameras that went in police cars. If the flashing lights were on, then the camera was on. My second week on the job I remember the boss saying that the police departments had requested a modification--they wanted a way to turn off the camera while the flashing lights were still on. The first thing that popped into my mind was "why would they want to turn off the camera?" My entire political philosophy is built up from that question, but if your instincts are more trusting and credulous when it comes to government, then the question would never occur to you. Freedom requires skepticism of government motives. People have to understand and believe that, like Lord Acton said, power does corrupt. Not might or could, but does.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Insightful)
A great nation would live on in freedom after all of us are gone. A totalitarian regime will disintigrate in the name of "safety".
Re:To Save Time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well isn't he?? Saying that he is above the law and can execute wiretaps as he chooses on any american?? And if you disagree you are either "unpatriotic" or "a terrorist"??
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes Total Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
The right of petition is meaningless if it requires your presence in Washington.
In the 1790s long-distance travel was by stagecoach or coastal vessel. Physically demanding even for the young and fit, and damned expensive, too.
In those days you simply wrote a letter or assembled a presentation for your congressman.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep... From the ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
And, worse (bold is again mine):
Let's quickly recap what this all means in handy bullet-point format:
This court case tells us there are secret laws on the books, and we as citizens covered under them are not privy to them. This is bad, bad news.
Maybe. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that certainty is missing, that secret law governs what happens, and that there is no recourse. Unlike any other transport service, I can't count on being allowed to fly, even with a contract for that service in place. Calling the airlines private at this point is silly - they are all but nationalized - bailouts whenever needed, security all but outsourced, and plenty of congresscritters to buy them the legislation they want.
And that's before I bitch about the specific requirements and creeping TOA/BB/SS/Whatever you want to call it.
For them wot care, take a look at a different view [hasbrouck.org] of how airline regulation [hasbrouck.org], secret law, and the airline cartel's cozy relationship with government [fed-soc.org] is working out.
Truly, we are approaching a situation in which certainty of contract and basic privacy is reserved for those wealthy enough to use blinds, have a share of a plane, the money to create a trust for private finance, etc. And the cost is going up.
If you feel protected, you're deluding yourself.
The right to travel (Score:3, Insightful)
A guard at the border is the first thing a tyrant wants.
They didn't put "the right of a citizen to move freely among the several states, and to leave and return to the United States" in the Constitution explicitly because it underpins, and is implied by, the others. They should have, and we should do it now.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:1, Insightful)
A couple of things... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Gilmore website [papersplease.org]:
This is mostly right. Travel and assembly are related. Travel and free association are related. The last argument, however, is totally specious. No one told Gilmore he couldn't go to Maryland, they only said he couldn't do it (1) by airplane (2) without showing ID. This is not unreasonable given the current so-called state of war, and in any event it's certainly not unconstitutional. Denial of a particular mode of travel is not the same as denial of travel. This is substantially what TFA said. This one is trickier. The Fourth Amendment [cornell.edu] only applies to government actors. I can decide to not let you into my birthday party until you show me ID. That's fine, and it's not unconstitutional, because I'm not the government. The first answer to Gilmore's statement is that airlines are private companies, hence not government actors. However, there's an agency argument to be made, that the airlines are acting on behalf of the government, when they comply with federal regulations. Assuming the airlines are government actors, the Fourth Amendment applies only to unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonability of the search itself turns on whether there is a socially reasonable, legitimate, or justifiable expectation of privacy. Read United States v. Knotts [findlaw.com]. Does society at large think it unreasonable, illegitimate, or unjustifiable to have to show ID to board airplanes? The very fact that Gilmore's case is news seems to indicate the answer is 'no'. The core issue that the right to travel isn't at stake here has been obscured by rhetoric. Travel by airplane isn't a right, it's a convenience, and the constitution doesn't deal in conveniences. This is right on the money. Secret law is the purview of tyrants and dictators. If the federal government wants to regulate the airline industry by passing a law requiring ID checks, it is entirely within their power to do so.IMHO: Judges are smart, and they can see through rhetoric. This isn't an issue of freedom to travel, it's an issue of secret regulations and star chambers. The Bush administration will be remembered for two things: the so-called 'war on terror', and the vast and secret power grabs by the executive branch in order to fight that war. Maybe if Gilmore had focused his primary attack on the secret law angle, he might have had better success. Instead, he treated it as a "side issue".
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't like Social Security, Medicare, or the other government beaucracies, blame Congress. But then, the Radical Right controls Congress, and the Executive. Guess that leaves only the Supreme Court to blame.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:1, Insightful)
Atrocious comparison. And blatant, except to the four people who modded you up.
Here's a few reasons why: 1) If the bathroom is public, you don't have that right and never have. 2) Should your travel be constrained to your own property, you can travel anonymously now. 3) If you wish to travel in an enclosed area with a number of other people on a vessel that can be used to kill hundreds or thousands of people, the rest of us have a seriously vested interest in knowing a little about our fellow travelers. Nothing specific, mind you, but we want to know they're not going to try to kill us.
If you don't like that intrusion, you have the right not to travel. Incidentally, do you have a passport? A drivers' license? Based on your argument, I'd expect you to rail against those constructs too. They require you to surrender information in return for certain priveleges.
The Constitution isn't just remarkable for the rights it guarantees for citizens, but also that it (supposedly) restricts the rights of the government to what is specifically stated in the Constitution.
And that's been a fiction since before the ink was dry on the same document. And thankfully so, because using any code of laws drafted 229+ years ago isn't going to be particularly valid for our society. Not to mention which you're technically incorrect - further legislative abilities were supposed to be relegated to the states, and that's since been changed. So best case scenario for your argument, you'd get each state enacting the same things you hate which would be no less intrusive and 100 times as annoying to deal with.
Ideally, if the Constitution does not say that the government can regulate something, then they cannot regulate that thing.
And now you've learned the difference between ideality and reality.
So many wrong things (Score:3, Insightful)
2. US Airport security is nothing more than a joke. It's designed to make people "feel" safer, not actually "be" safer. Big difference.
Anyone who has been to any airport knows how weak it is.
The 9/11 Terrorists realized to get past security they needed 1 thing. And they could buy it at walmart: A razor blade. As long as they shaved, they weren't suspicious.
No matter what the US does, until they thoroughly check every passenger, it's just a matter of time. The only reason we haven't had another attack, is nobody has been in the mood to attack. Nothing more. There's no possible way to dispute that. There are as many chances to attack as their are flights in the US.
No matter what the technique to security is, unless it covers everyone, and everything, they will succeed.
I love the racial profiling idea... how stupid that is. Remember this guy [cnn.com]? Any idea what they were planning to do with him? Yea... get past security. And the State Dept. said at the time there were dozens of Americans "missing" in similar situations in that area.
Until you have 360 degrees of security, your still easily attacked. It just involves your enemy taking the extra step of walking around you first and finding that hole.
THIS is why I can't stand American politics... it's all designed to "FEEL GOOD". Nobody gets anything done.
It's political masturbation.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, maybe so... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. That will just exacerbate the problem. The twisted logic people keep using -- assuming that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant you some right, then you don't have it -- is utterly wrong. It's backwards!! And it confirms the fear of the original framers that were opposed to adding the "bill of rights" in the first place: that it could be construed to mean that citizens' rights are limited to those that were spelled out.
So - where in the Constitution is the GOVERNMENT granted the right to know the identity of travellers? Where is this type of authority implied? Regulating interstate commerce is authorized, but that only applies to goods transported across state lines.
The point is, you have the right to travel anonymously because the government has NO RIGHT to stop you.
How can a court be so totally ignorant... (Score:2, Insightful)
"the Constitution guarantees no right..."
Of course it doesn't, rights are not given or guaranteed by the Constitution, rights exist by themselves completely independent of any legal document. The Constitution merely affirms those rights, and in addition affirms those rights which aren't specifically listed (see the 9th Amendment).
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then either:
1) You don't live in the US,
2) You bought cars costing under $10,000 and paid cash,
3) The dealer broke the law.
Any cash transactions over $10k, you need to report to the IRS. And NO bank or "financing agency" would give you a rusty bent penny without a background check.
So offhand, I'd say that you either only buy used cars and pay cash, or that you did in fact submit to a background chack and didn't notice signing that particular paper among the rest of the stack.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:4, Insightful)
You could also be singled out and prevented from voting. In fact this used to be done in some areas, to prevent certain special interest groups (frex, racial minorities) from reaching the polls.
If the ruling had stated "a private carrier can require whatever they damn well please", I wouldn't have a problem with it. But a ruling that we don't have a Constitutionally-enumerated right of travel is an incredibly dangerous precedent, as it is far too extensible into every aspect of our lives. Legally, it means you have no right to *so much as walk down the street* without showing your papers.
Re:Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Amtrack, yes, Greyhound not obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Man o man... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, I'm so glad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? You could have said the same thing ten years ago about American citizens being held indefinitely without being charged and without being allowed legal representation. It's happening now. The Bush administration justifies this action by telling us that they're only doing this to "terrorists." Yeah, great. If you're ACCUSED of being a terrorists they can make you disappear.
Twenty-five years ago it would have been laughable to suggest that the government could take away your private property without due process. Now they simply "arrest your assets" thus taking your property without giving you due process.
"Glad to see that you want to give away all of our classified information to our enemies. You *definitely* need information on how to infiltrate the NSA headquarters. Yeah. That's totally a constitutional right. And giving that information out will be so helpful."
If you read my post carefully you would have noticed that I said "any regulation that effects me." I don't care to know the floor plans to the NSA headquarters. I do have a right to know about any thing that effects me.
"It's still laughable, as it's never happened."
As I said above, people being made to disappear hadn't happened before either. American citizens are not suppose to be spied on without a court order but King Bush doesn't think the constitution is anything but a "God damn piece of paper." as he put it.
Yes, that's right. When an aid told the President that: "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
Bush replied: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
So go ahead and mock all you want but this Administration has our civil liberties in its cross hairs!
Re:ok, so by that logic... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you go to a store and attempt to purchase alcohol, or cigarettes, or a firearm, and they request your ID, you can refuse to provide it, and walk away unharmed. If you go to the DMV and attempt to obtain a drivers' license, and they request your ID, you can refuse to provide it, and walk away unharmed.
If you spend $600 booking an airline ticket, and they don't ask you for ID (they don't, trust me), then you show up at the airport and they do ask you for ID, then you ask under what authority they're acting, and they refuse to tell you, stating that it's "the law," but that they can't provide you with a copy of that law, and that no, they aren't going to refund your $600, you can walk away, but you have been harmed. You're out $600, you aren't going to make your destination, and you can't get a reasonable explanation as to why. The airline blames the government, but they can't provide a copy of the law; the government blames the airline, and they won't provide a copy of the law, either.
That's what John Gilmore is pissed about, and it's incredibly unfortunate that he's been ruled against.
Next thing you know, there will be a secret law that forbids "posting to an internet discussion forum using anything but your real name." After all, the Constitution doesn't spell out your right to post to Slashdot using a pseudonym, so you wouldn't mind such a secret law, right, c6gunner?
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:2, Insightful)