Gilmore Loses Airport ID Case 521
smooth wombat writes "In the final conclusion to John Gilmore's fight to be able to fly on an airplane without providing identification, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, let stand an appeals court ruling which said that Gilmore's rights are not violated by being required to show proof of identity. Gilmore had argued that without being able to see the law which says one must provide identification before being allowed to board a plane, there is no way to know if the regulations call for impermissible searches."
Re:national security (Score:5, Informative)
That's because there is no "legislation" that says you must show ID. The legislation, in effect, is "the TSA can set guidelines for security in airports." The TSA, in turn, has security directives, some of which are secret because they pertain to security procedures and processes which they don't want people who would intend to circumvent them knowing about. Further, it's already been determined several times over the course of this that you can fly without ID [slashdot.org] if you submit to the standard "intensive" search that anyone pulled out of line gets. I fully realize some people will still think that's unacceptable, but the point is that you can fly without ID with the standard "intensive" search.
As Schneier Says.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ID requirement is not about security. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't care about the ID... (Score:3, Informative)
No more than three justices agree (Score:4, Informative)
What this means is that the court decided by a vote of at least 6-3 not to hear the case. In many cases, though, this has less to do with the factual merits of the case than it does the fact that there is no conflict among lower federal courts on the issue.
Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (Score:3, Informative)
It failed because a majority of the pilots got together, said guns on an aircraft was a colossaly stuipid idea, and refused to implement it.
Re:Government is on the wrong track anyway. (Score:3, Informative)
Armored and completely isolated - audio, video, access - the cockpits on commercial aircraft (requires new and separate external entry doors for the pilots)
And how are the flightdeck crew supposed to take a leak or get food on a 11+ hour flight ?
Armored the skins and ports of commercial aircraft against small arms
That's not really needed. You can punch a lot of small holes in a plane before decompression becomes a problem. And between the time that the first hole is created and the time it would become a problem, the pilot can declare an emergency and descend to a safe altitude that does not require compression. Hell, I spend a lot of time at 15,000 feet above ground level with no oxygen or compression in the plane.
Issued small arms to any adult passenger that didn't have same at boarding
That's just a HORRIBLE idea. Untrained armed people are far more likely to kill innocent people than hijackers!
The other issue you don't address is emotional blackmail. You have to be able to communicate with the cockpit in case the cabin crew need to declare an emergency to the pilot. This same communication system could be used to tell the pilot that you will kill everyone on board or blow up the plane if he doesn't follow your instructions. How do any of your solutions (besides the one where grandma kills everyone in a turban with her newly issued cannon just because they look like a terrorist or a furrin devil) address this issue ?