John Gilmore Sues Ashcroft et al. for Freedom to Travel 992
ChTom writes "John Gilmore initiated a federal suit today in CA Northern District against Ashcroft, et al, challenging the air travel ID requirement:
http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm
(Mr. Gilmore is a businessman, civil libertarian, and philanthropist. He was the fifth employee of Sun Microsystems, an early author of open source software, and co-creator of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cypherpunks, the DES Cracker, and the Internet's "alt" newsgroups. He serves as a director on several for-profit and nonprofit boards. )"
Nyet! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now we not only question almost every interstate traveler, we search them and arrest them if they question the legitimacy of the search.
Re:Nyet! (Score:2, Interesting)
You owe the Oracle a "get out of jail free" card. (Score:5, Informative)
The pilot was going through the screening process around 7 a.m. EST when he "made an inappropriate comment relative to security," said US Airways spokesman David Castelveter, who said the airlines was "cooperating fully" with the investigation. "We find this type of behavior intolerable," he said.
Re:You owe the Oracle a "get out of jail free" car (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You owe the Oracle a "get out of jail free" car (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile, airlines are pushing to give easy wave-throughs to business-class travellers, while harassing economy-class more. Of course, the 9-11 terrorists WERE travelling in business class exactly to be closer to the cabin.
All window-dressing.
Re:Nyet! (Score:5, Interesting)
Do I win?
Re:Nyet! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nyet! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also foolish. If they're criminals, leaving them together will allow them to obfuscate any crime, and possibly allow them to overpower or outwit the guards. If they're innocent, leaving them together will encourage reciporcal indignation, slowing down the process.
You don't get it, do you?
The searches are being generated randomly by computer. When it indicates that a 5 year old boy should be searched, they do it. And you're telling me that if I was the boy's parent I couldn't go with him? Instead I'm supposed to tell him to go WITH this strange person for an indeterminate amount of time, possibly to be strip searched?
I don't think so.
And this isn't a baseless complaint either. Shortly after 9/11 a computer triggered a search on a 10 year old boy. The screeners grabbed the kid with his backpack and were taking him behind a screened area to search. The boy's father complained, demanded to be allowed to go with them, they told him he couldn't legally go with them. The boy was trembling and close to crying. Eventually they did let the father come with -- after the father threatened to call the police right then and there and swear out a statement accusing the screeners of child abuse.
They searched the kid again at the gate.
I'm not a parent (yet), but no fucking way are you taking my child out of my sight to be searched. You will have to kill me first.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nyet! (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep in kind, there are a lot of Americans who do not own private vehicles.
(Or, live in a state so big that traveling to any other state is a trip of well over 300 miles. In the seven years I've lived in Texas, I have only *driven* out of the state once.)
Re:Nyet! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nyet! (Score:5, Insightful)
ID checks exist -- and have existed for some time -- to prevent people from reselling plane tickets. Originally the tickets were just good for a seat, and people would sell them at will. Eventually they had markings to indicate the gender of the passenger, limiting by half the number of people one could resell them to. Now they have your name, so the resale value of tickets is zero.
For some reason this serves the purposes of airlines. It hasn't got a scintilla of value from a security perspective.
Re:Nyet! (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't mean to suggest that we should get rid of the police, simply that you should abandon the goal of never having future terrorist incidents by dint of foiling terrorists at every turn. Alternative methods may work better, such as not being much of a target.
Hell, Israel's just done a bang-up job of foiling terrorism by cracking down on perpetrators so far, huh. You just never hear about terrorism there, what with all of their security measures. Canada on the other hand, which is quite lax, boy, that's just a war zone.
mostly in the southern US (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
predicted result (Score:3, Interesting)
- Necron69
Not by car (Score:2)
Perhaps travel by bicycle?
predicted result (Score:3, Funny)
Show your rights... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Show your rights... (Score:2)
It won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not going to win, for the same reason that you don't have a RIGHT to drive a car. Mr Gillmore is perfectly free to travel to his destination on foot or bicycle. I don't agree with that statement and think it contradicts the 10th amendment, but necessary and proper has prevailed. Air travel is interstate commerce, and thus can be regulated by the gov't.
Re:It won't happen (Score:2)
Didn't think so. Please have your ID ready to show at any and all times. Thank you; have a nice an safe day, and don't do anything suspicious, because we WILL be watching you and will lock you up and throw away the cell if you complain.
Re:It won't happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Why stop there? Congress hasn't. They've claimed that if you own or use something that was made in another state you've engaged in interstate commerce and are therefore subject to federal jurisdiction.
Time to fdisk this mess and install a new OS, if you ask me.
Re:It won't happen (Score:2)
Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
An ID check at the gate does not and cannot prevent a hijacking. An ID check tells you who a person is -- his/her name, SSN, DOB, possibly criminal record, and so forth. It does not tell you what the person's intentions are.
There are terrorists who are U.S. citizens. There are terrorists who are white Christian boys with no connection to Axis of Evil[tm] nations, much less to Al-Qaida. There are terrorists with clean criminal records, and with honorable military discharges. These folks are just as capable of hijacking a plane, should they wish to, as Osama's boys are. As it happens, the last bunch decided to blow up some Federal employees in Oklahoma City instead.
Tools to prevent a hijacking cannot be tools that are used on the ground, because hijacking attempts do not take place on the ground; they take place in the air. You don't know if a person wants to hijack a plane until he tries, just as you don't know if a person wants to hold up a store until he tries. So when he tries, you need to be able to stop him.
Armed persons charged with defense of the airplane seem to be a good idea in this regard. Federal air marshals are one way to accomplish this; arming and training pilots is another; hiring security guards is another. There are other methods as well. Pick a few of them.
(Naturally, this logic only applies if the goal is to prevent hijackings. If the goal is to cast a segment of the population as "suspect" or as second-class citizens on the basis of some datum which can be divulged by an ID check, it does not. However, despite a few isolated cases of what look to me like unjust discrimination on the basis of race or political affiliation, I have not seen any evidence that it has become a policy goal.)
Re:Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on this whole guns in the sky issue. Currently there are F-15/16's standing on alert across the country to shoot down any hijacked airliners. So its ok to send a sidewinder missle up the ass of a 767 but if Uncle Louie takes a stray round while the pilot is placing a double tap in Osama's head its somehow a bad thing? Wake up people!!!
Re:Reality (Score:5, Interesting)
"The reality of life in the US in the 21st century is that without ID checks and other security measures at airports, someone may fly the plane that you have a right to travel on into a building."
The reality of life in the US in the 21st century is that with ID checks and other security measures at airports, someone did fly the plane that you have a right to travel on into a building.
Re:Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Other friends of mine have seen drunken, abusive passengers put on notice by other pasengers that they need to cool it or suffer the consequences. Outcome: suddenly quiet drunken passengers. Alert citizens have always been able to protect themselves better than the government ever could.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It won't happen (Score:4, Informative)
You sure can. Its called an "investigate person" charge. The usual comment is "you matched the description of someone wanted for a crime" and in most areas, the police can hold you for at least 24 hours on that alone. (Trust me.. its happened to me, and its legal)
Now same situation, but that person is in a car. Can you be searched, by a federal officer, without cause or suspicion? The answer is *mostly* no - if they see something in plain sight that could give them exegent circumstances and allow them to search the car and you.
Depends.. do you consider the cops to be federal officers? Probably not.. but.. I have yet to see a cop who cannot pull over a suspicious person for SOME reason (I thought you had a bad registration. I see that it is current. Mind if I search your car? No? I cant? Wait here please..) and in some cases, they can get a warrant on the spot to do it, if there is a judge handy to a phone. Its not all that hard to get nailed for doing nothing wrong.
How is it any different from walking down the street. The government owns both transportation mediums (airport, street/highways). The person checking you was is a government employee (FBI vs. Transportation Sercurity Force). How is one contrained by the 4th amendment and not another?
The government doesnt own the airport any more than it owns Conrail or your local bus company. THey are REGULATED by a government agency, but so is UPS. and FEDEX for that matter. What the person at the ticket counter asks for is no more governmental than I am. Its a policy of said airline. (If you can show me a federal regulation requiring people to show ID, I may change my tune). But to use your analogy, yes, they can. The federal government has regulations regarding the use of roads and highways by citizens. THey are fairly lax and quiet, but they exist. SO there is already a precedent.
I have never been checked in an airport by a "smith". I have always been checked by private security forces hired by the owner/manager of the airport for the purpose of maintaining security. The Guardsman with the AR-15 has never asked to see my bags.
Maeryk
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It won't happen (Score:3, Informative)
Utter Bullshit. You have now exposed yourself for the troll that you are. A LEO can indeed search you any time with no cause if you consent. As long as you are not in custody if you consent to a search it is legal. With very, very, very narrow exceptions (like you let them search a house that isn't yours) this does not violate the 4th ammendment. It is very clear to everybody over the age of 5 that when you go to the airport you consent to have your bags searched, you walk through a metal detector, and you have to show ID. If you don't like it you don't have to be there. The court wil see it that way.
If you don't like it you certainly have other options. Take a bus, or a train. Drive your car. Fly on a charter flight, heck learn to fly yourself.
But so then, by that rationale, it IS legal for them to search you when you travel on a government road? Or walk down a government sidewalk?
The Supreme Court says yes. Ever been through a sobriety checkpoint? Ever have a cop stop you on the street for a chat after exiting a bar late at night? All perfectly legal. All tested in court.
Why shouldn't a police officer been entitled to talk to you as you walk down the street? If you don't have anything to say to him, don't. It's your right. It's also within the law for him to pat you down if you are behaving suspiciously.
You should also reread the press release. Gilmore isn't suing because he had to show ID. He is suing because he claims "secret" laws are unconstitutional. He is also concerned that the ID checks will turn into something much worse.
Such regulations are unconstitutional because they are unpublished; require government agents to search and seize citizens who are not suspected of crimes; burden the rights to travel, associate, and petition the government; and discriminate against those who choose anonymity. The case also argues that because the regulations are secret, they violate the Freedom of Information Act.
BTW absent any regulation the airlines would still ask for ID to make sure you are the person named on the ticket. There is certainly nothing unconstitutional about that is there? Aiplanes are after all private propoerty.
Re:It won't happen (Score:3, Informative)
People seem to forget that ALL of the terrorists on the September 11th planes had their IDs checked. They had legitimate visas. How does forcing everyone to show their ID (an act that is only good for tracking the average american citizen) in any way improve the security of the flights? If 16 year old kids can fake IDs, well financed terrorists shouldn't have much of a problem...
Re:It won't happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "safety amendment" to the Constituton; and no exception to the 4th for it. If we want to allow congress to regulate this, FINE. Than lets pass an amendment and do it right.
Hmm... Let's look at the 4th amendment.
It seems to me that searching someone before boarding an airplane is perfectly reasonable. That's where the "safety amendment" comes in. That pesky word "unreasonable".
Re:It won't happen (Score:3, Informative)
I am debating the meaning of that word. Unreasonable. Being searched without cause is unreasonable. Being searched for exercising a right (to travel) is unreasonable.
I disagree, and I believe that the courts will disagree as well. The meaning of "unreasonable" in my opinion takes into consideration the government interest as well as the type of search. This is why police are able to break into a house without obtaining a warrant if they have reason to believe that someone is in imminent danger.
Also note that it specifically demands specificity in searching - ie - you cant simply put out a "dragnet". You must detail the person/things to be seized and searched.
No, warrants must describe these things. If the search is reasonable, you don't have to have a warrant, and therefore you don't have to describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. That's my interpretation, anyway, the courts have been divided on that issue:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It won't happen (Score:5, Informative)
John Gilmore is suing John Ashcroft because the FAA and/or the Transportation Security Administration has released a series of SECRET DIRECTIVES to the air line.
"United stated that they were following an unwritten regulation that had only been communicated to them orally, and which changes frequently."
It seems that John Gilmore considers unknown, unwritten, frequently changing rules to be somehow unfair. He isn't claiming that the governement doesn't have the right to regulate Air travel, but that the rules should be open. Thus allowing people to at least know what will be required of them to allow them to travel.
Z.
Re:It won't happen (Score:3, Informative)
He's claiming more than that. He is definitely claiming that the government does not have a right to require identification or searches, whether or not those laws are secret. His FAQ in particular extols the virtues of anonymity and explains how they're necessary to exercise your first amendment rights. He may be tilting at windmills, but he makes the perfectly legitimate claim that he may not constitutionally be compelled to show ID.
Re:It won't happen (Score:3, Informative)
He certainly can't claim he didn't know about the policy can he? Gilmore had no doubt they would not let him on the plane without producing ID, but he had to do it to have standing to file the lawsuit. He couldn't sue the government until he had been harmed by the regulation, so he went out and got himself "harmed".
Re:It won't happen (Score:2)
Bad analogy, for the reason that you have every RIGHT to ride in a car. He's not asking to pilot the plane. And as he's pointing out, freedom to travel unhindered by the government within the country has long been upheld by the courts.
If the case were vis a vis a single airline, it would be more complex, since on the one hand it is a private contract at issue, while on the other the airline only exists via a grant of public air rights, so the contract with the public as a whole to provide reasonably free travel (e.g., can't keep people off for racial reasons) may trump the right of the airline as a private contractor to impose its own identity requirements, or may not. The issue Gilmore raises, however, is whether the government can exercise its own control through the airlines here.
If the parallel with driving a car were to hold though, should people with nonstandard credit profiles or a history of "unpatriotic" posts to /. be hassled when they go to renew their drivers license? I personally don't mind if the airline checks that I'm at least a citizen or have a valid visa; but I'm going to start getting upset when the clerk at the airline counter gets a snapshot of my political leanings, credit history, medical conditions, &c., and keeps the FBI appraised of my travel within the country.
___
Re:It won't happen (Score:2)
Re:It won't happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Really?
I have the right to walk, don't I? Well, don't I?
Think so, eh? Then what about on a sidewalk? It's public property, right? So do I have the right to walk on it? Or is it a "privilege"?
I think it's a right, even though it's on "public" property. In fact, especially because it's on "public" property -- because public property is owned by the people. By us.
Now, if you have the right to walk on the sidewalk, then why would you say you don't have the right to fly, or even to drive?
Remember the 9th and 10th amendments: the enumeration of the rights in the Bill of Rights will not be taken to deny the existence of other rights not explicitly listed, and those powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.
You have a lot more rights than you think, if the Constitution has anything to say about it. I think it says a great deal about how much the situation has changed for the worse over time that most people in the U.S. today believe that driving and flying, and many other actions which do not inherently trample upon the rights of another, are not rights but "privileges" to be granted or taken away at the whim of the government they obviously believe themselves to be subservient to.
Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:5, Interesting)
So, my conclusion is that they are fearful for some reason of anglo-appearing redheads, travelling alone, with a ticket booked through American Express Business Travel Services for an IBM contractor.
There is profiling going on... (Score:2)
Re:He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:5, Interesting)
This 'S' stand for search. If you have it on your boarding pass, you've been preselected for searches. Prepare to be searched at every gate along your way.
Of course, the computer decided that it had to be you. So, this can't be wrong right. And since it's secret, no one will hear about it, especially not the terrorists.
oh well...
Re:He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:4, Interesting)
At the gate, preboarding, we were informed that the computer had "randomly" selected her to be searched before boarding, but the counter person had no idea what the selection criteria were.
The second set of security drones were rude to the point of being obnoxious.
The point being - somehow some "secret" set of algorythms decided that an 11 year old girl traveling alone (which requires a guardian's signature and ID at each end) was a likely security threat.
I wish Mister Gillmore luck. There is definately something 'broken' behind the scenes, and someone needs to at least bring it to light.
Re:He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:4, Interesting)
It isn't random. I don't know what it is, but is isn't random. On a trip to Spain (pre 9/11) I and all 5 of my co workers on the same flight (major customer with big problems) were "randomly" selected. Not a chance it was random.
On of the guys I traveled with is Indian (from India, a green card resident of the US) He can tell you how random it is, and he travels often enough to know that whatever their random criteria is, those who don't look like North Easter European decendents are 90% likely to be randomly selected, while Those who do look right are rarely selected (2-3%). I haven't asked him what it is like post 9/11, but I think we can assume the gap closed if only because there isn't much room to get him to 100%, and plenty of room for the rest.
There are not enough watchers to watch everyone, plus keep all the watchers watched.
Re:He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:3, Interesting)
On our layover in Pittsburgh, I was yet again pulled out of line for another search. This time I protested loudly, and the kid (he couldn't have been more than 20 and looked like that guy with the porkchop sideburns on those TNN commercials) mutterd something about me being "number 11". Again, off with the shoes, everything pulled out of my bag, and more amazingly, another guard came up and picked up my wallet. He proceeded to turn his back to me and muttered something about looking for razorblades in my wallet. Well, I still had a few hundred bucks (I had a good time in Vegas) in there. I again protested loudly. Loud enough to attract some attention from other passengers and from a supervisor. After some back and forth, and some very stern command from both myself and Porkchop's supervisor, my wallet was returned to the table without anything missing, thankfully.
Of course, in their zeal to search my Nikes and my Timmy wallet, they forgot to see if I was smuggling anything under my hat. Not once did anyone bother to ask me to remove my hat to see if anything was in or under it. OVerall the experience reeked of unprofessionalism.
I'm shocked that responsibility for airline security are given to kids who aren't even old enough to drink legally, obviously aren't given any/enough training (I used to work in physical security and in the armed forces), little or no supervision, vague and random criteria for searches, no regard for professional appearance or conduct, etc... I wonder if these people even care about what they're doing, or just consider it a chance to score some phat lewt from people.
Re:He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:3, Interesting)
If so, you are now marked, and will get searched EVERY time you go to the airport. Your ticket (depending on airline) either has a 4 digit/letter code on it, or a certain box filled in, to let them know to search you after checking your ticket to let you into the gate area.
Re:He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:2)
Re:He's right about the randomness thingy (Score:2)
Did any of the people who LOOKED Like terrorists get searched? Nope. Were we crossing the border INTO the US from Canada? Yup. Did any of the CANADIANS get searched? nope. Just two americans, trying to get home.
"random" my butt. Why do you think they have radios?
Maeryk
one-way tickets? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to think the screening is more sophisticated than that. Maybe the fact that I am a single guy and not checking luggage (I know how to pack light and don't want to leave my bags in someone else's hands) is another flag, who knows.
Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Score:2)
more details? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:more details? (Score:2)
Airplane Myopia (Score:2)
I'd hoped that the events would have been interpreted properly; as in "something is fundamentally wrong" rather than "it's easy to get past airport security".
I guess I was wrong.
Terrorists won't restrict themselves to airplanes out of respect of the fact that this is where the US government has been focusing efforts.
IMHO, that's why legislation such as this is silly.
Re:more details? (Score:5, Insightful)
It reminds me of a story I had heard. I'm not sure which actor it was, but I think it was Cary Grant, at the height of his popularity, when everyone knew him. He was boarding a plane, and the gate attendent said "Mr Grant, I need to see ID".
The only reason that IDs are required is so that passenger's can't trade/sell tickets. That policy is based on money, not security.
Re:more details? (Score:3, Informative)
Your PAPERS please! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Counterproductive and silly (Score:3, Insightful)
There are hills worth dying on and this isn't one of them.
Re:Counterproductive and silly (Score:4, Informative)
Just become most people are in favor of something doesn't mean it is okay to do.
Re:Counterproductive and silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like second guessing those that actually are fighting for basic freedoms. Of which the freedom to leave your home and travel to other places without harassment, suspicion and anal probes is a pretty basic one.
It is stupid to call this action counterproductive, unless you honestly think the grounds for the action aren't solid. Because people have been convinced that these measures are good and proper that people have to fight them.
Remember reason for a bill of rights was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. To protect me from the whims of distant leader or morally irresponsible legislature and ultimately from you.
but, but (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm going to start up an independent line of airports and airlines, just to show 'em. Coming soon, you just wait.
I doubt he has a case. (Score:2)
Re:I doubt he has a case. (Score:5, Insightful)
More power to him (Score:4, Informative)
Fast forward 12 hours - trying to leave NYC at laguardia, I went to the gate, went through security, was not asked to unbox the firewall for the metal detector, was not asked to turn on the laptop, was not manually searched for metallic objects. I breezed through until I actually attempted to board the place - when I handed them my ticket and expired passport, usair flipped out. After talking to the supervisor, and quickly realizing that there was no way I was going to get on the plane, I tried to get some answers from the supervisor:
"If you require valid id from all passengers, is it US Air's corporate policy that all passengers 16 and under need a US passport (because they can't have driver's licenses) for domestic flights?"
"no no no, you are different, you have id, you didn't bring it"
"that has nothing to do with anything. I would like a answer to my question - I have two siblings (17 and 12), and I would like to know if they will be able to fly USAir, as they don't have drivers licenses"
"blah, blah, blah" - basically, his body language and stammering said: I don't know what to say, basically, that, if we think you should have id, then you should have it. we won't discuss the qualifications for our assessing whether you think we should have id.
Basically, Logan was concerned about making sure that people were checked when getting on planes. Laguardia isn't too concerned abotu what you bring on, they just want to make sure that when it blows up, they have a good idea of who was on it
ostiguy
OT, but what the hell (Score:2)
Hmmmm.... I bet that on 9/18 security at Logan would be tighter than ANYWHERE else in the world. Remember, two of the planes took off from Logan. I'm sure that the Logan's security chief had a new one ripped for him...
Re:More power to him (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because the winners write the history books.
The truth about the ID requirements (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why the airlines never fought the rules, even though they are clumsy and inconvenient for ticket agents to enforce.
I'm surprised (Score:2)
I would have expected him to be like the Oracle guys.
Wouldn't a national ID database need lots of expensive Sun servers running Oracle?
Please (Score:5, Funny)
Big Brother watching.. oops, he's already there! (Score:3, Insightful)
"United States courts have recognized for more than a century that honest citizens have the right to travel throughout America without government restrictions..." Well, we have to admit not all of those using our travel means in this country are honest citizens. The bulk probably are, but not all of them. So there has to be some form of verification/weeding out.
"This will use your ID to search in a stew of databases like credit records, previous travel history, criminal records, motor vehicle records, banks, web searches, and companies that collect personal information from consumer transactions. " Now this I have a small problem with. I can (maybe) see checking things like criminal records or travel history.. but my credit record? My bank record? Those are in no way relevant to the choice I make to fly to Phoenix for the weekend.
Once again, the government is demonstrating an obscene overreaction to terroristic threats on our soil by ignoring key portions of the Constitution in the same of 'public safety.' Well, at this stage the cable guy can't come into my house (soon, maybe: TIPS), I can't fly to Miami (this crap, maybe), and I have to sit at home (or set up a motion-based webcam, look for sneak-n-peek in Patriot Act) to see if my domocile has been searched. Hell, I can't even surf for pr0n on Google anymore without being federally monitored.
If you asked me, the terrorists have managed to pull of some significant victories. It's a damn shame.
I know the Secret Directive! (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's the same one used for years by many police departments.
The Analogies are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as you should be free to walk down the street without being required BY THE GOVERNMENT to show identification, so should you be able to board a plane without being required BY THE GOVERNMENT to show identification.
If the airlines themselves want to require ID (for tickets, seating whatever) that's fine. But the government has no absolute right to require you to show identification whenever they feel like it (in the absence of a crime, probable cause, whatever).
And for those of you comparing this situation to cars and driving, remember Mr. Gilmore is not operating the vehicle, he is merely a passenger. Would you like to show ID every time you are in a car that gets pulled over for speeding? Have a background check run on you when you hit a DUI checkpoint in a car full of people?
This issue is not as black and white as it seems.
-ajb
He's got my vote (Score:2)
Wow - this guy is probably going to become the Patron Saint of Internet pr0n.
They have good peanuts, tho (Score:3, Funny)
I.D. Doesn't reduce "plane in to building" threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Note I specifically stated "scheduled commercial airliner". All of this airline security is just a smokescreen. Did you know that chartered flights don't have any of these security restrictions?
On a chartered flight you can drive your car up to the plane and board without ever passing through any security checkpoint. The size of the plane doesn't matter, nor do the number of passengers (to the best of my knowledge).
If the terrorists are going to do this large-plane-into-larger-building thing again, they'll be smarter to get on a large corporate jet, like a chartered 737 or something. They wouldn't even need to sneak anything on board, just act like really rich people. They could load their luggage with C4. They could board with guns conceled in their coats, take over the plane and fly into anything. No plane full of pesky passengers to thwart any hijaking attempts.
As for the air-force shooting them down when they left the flight path? Well, imagine the hijackers treating the plane like a German V2... keep the normal flight path until they get near/over a major city, they just point the nose at the ground. Aim for something large downtown. 35,000ft to impact in under 7 minutes. Even if the plane was hit by a missile from a figher jet, it'd still fall in a flaming wrek over the city.
Or perhaps this... You can learn to fly a small plane like a Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, etc in a matter of days. At least well enough for a suicide run. These planes have a usable cargo load of above 1500lbs in most cases (that's a LOT of bomb). Imagine a fleet of 19 of these things loaded with high explosives making a systematic hit on a downtown area. Again.. no metal detctors, no bomb-sniffing machines, no passengers to deal with. Just the attackers and their ordinance.
Light Aircraft Would Be Very Ineffective (Score:5, Informative)
First, most GA Cessna's, Pipers, and Beechcraft (I own one of the latter) have a usable load of only between 800 - 1100 lbs. By the time you have a 200 lb adult male, that amount is reduced to 600 lbs. The number you cited includes fuel, which weighs a significant amount.
Even if you loaded up with 600 lbs of c4 in an aircraft, especially a light aircraft with neither the speed, fuel capacity, or mass needed to do anything remotely like 9/11, you would pretty ineffective. Indeed, from the terrorist's point of view it would be a collasal waste
As has been demonstrated in Florida and Italy, there isn't a whole lot of damage you can do with a light aircraft, even one full of fuel. The things are flimsly and light, don't carry all much fuel to begin with (my Beechcraft carries 60 gallons), and don't have much usable cargo weight. The kid in Florida managed to break a window in his suicide run
Your scenerio with the charter of a large aircraft is more realistic, but light aircraft on the other hand are about the least effective delivery method you can use, unless of course you have a dirty, or atomic, bomb and just need altitude for maximum dispersal...maybe you'll irradiate an extra mile or so, but of course, there again, concentration will be reduced, making the overall toxicity of the event signficantly lower than a ground attack.
Ditto for biological or chemical agents.
Frankly, terrorists chances of success are a lot higher if they just rent a large truck and drive it up next to the target
Re:I.D. Doesn't reduce "plane in to building" thre (Score:4, Informative)
Learning to fly a jumbo jet (after it's already in the air): rather simple.
Buying plane tickets for four flights that take off around the same time: one visit to travelocity or expedia or any other ticketing web site.
Hickjacking a plane: please, any moron with anything resembing a weapon could do that.
Because the goal of the people who planed, and the people purpetrated the attack wasn't the most effective way to kill people. They merely figured out the best way to stike the most fear/terror in to the people of the U.S. They succeded. They've caused the US Gov to start stripping away fundamental rights. They caused people to fear travel, and large buildings.
On top of the initial attack, they've inderctly caused hundreds if not thousands of deaths in Afganastan, which was not in any way responsible for the attacks. The planners/operators of 9/11 were mostly Saudi Arabian and they used Saudi money. So are we attacking Saudi Arabia? Nope, we're attacking the people of Afganastan.
On profiling and ID (Score:5, Insightful)
Story 1:
I am an arab american, palestinian to be exact (born in palestine but adopted as a baby by american missionaries).
A few weeks after 9/11 I had to fly from my home in Hawaii to Witchita Kansas (the home of modern aviation I might add, this is where all the big planes are made). I expected the worst.
Throughout the entire trip, I was never once searched nor questioned. I waltzed right through with minimal checks (e.g., normal xray, that's all). Everyone was asked to compare their ID with their ticket, by a guard at the gates EXCEPT on the way out of Witchita... there, I showed my ID and a very irate guard told me she didn't need to see it and to please move on (nobody else was in line with me either).
Now... I certainly look arab. I AM arab... I would expect to be profiled. However, being adopted I do not have an arab name, and being adopted as a baby, I do not have an accent. Add a Hawaiian Aloha shirt and viola... an arab waltzes right through security.
Story 2:
In december I took a vacation back to the mainland with a male friend of mine. Again, no checks, no stops, no Scarlet Pumpernickle (the *S* search S they scrawl on your ticket). On the way over there was a HUGE search line. I saw a number of pakastani women (in full garb) in one line and IMMEDIATLY got in that line. The pakastani women were made to stand over rubber mats and they were very well checked. I was brisked on through, no check. Hrmmmmmmm. Profileing? Lousy job.
Interestingly enough, on the way back my friend made an expensive impulse buy of a Parrot. At the gate, this time, we both received the Scarlet Pumpernickel... were very simply patted (the guy in front had to remove his shoes, but we were wearing rubba slipahs and they didn't make us remove them). However, they insisted that the parrot had to be removed from the cage and searched. My friend refused and said the parrot would simply fly away. Eventually the captulated and allowed us to board the plane without checking the parrot.
Story 3:
Friend of mine owns a hotel here. About a year before 9/11 a 80ish year old couple came to the island and, on one of their hikes, found a huge bowie knife (7 inch blade, huge thing). THey put it in their luggage and returned to the mainland.
AFTER 9/11 (this January for that matter) they returned to Hawaii. Upon flying from the East Coast, making transfers, and then flying to several islands over several days (therefore, lots of security checks), lo and behold they found in their suitcase, the forgotten bowie knife. HOW did this make it through that many security checks?
Bottom line? Profileing? Yes, it happens (witness the Pakastani women) - but they're doing a lousy job. As I heard the head of Israel security say the other day on TV... "yes we profile, but we only profile those we need to... there is no need to profile an 80 year old couple". With this type of thinking - it's obvious to me that even if you ARE arab... having no accent, an enlish name, and an aloha shirt, or being 80 years old, gets you out of the profile list. If it's that easy for me to figure out, won't others figure it out too?
Security is only good if it WORKS. Security for security sake does nothing. Losing your rights over security that does not work is a travesty.
Aloha
Search yes, ID no (Score:5, Informative)
It's a major issue: does the Government have the right to track your travel? Historically, the answer for U.S. citizens within the US has been "no".
U.S. Transportation Security Agency regulations 1544.201 [dot.gov] do not call for an ID check, just searches of passengers. Airport employees are subject to stringent ID checks, but passengers don't seem to be. And those regs are dated February 22, 2002; they're definitely post-9/11.
Gilmore's lawyers have probably read that material. The ID requirement doesn't seem to rest on law or regulation. Airlines may wish to impose such a requirement, but the Government doesn't seem to.
Airlines need ID (Score:5, Interesting)
An ID makes absolutely no difference to the security . The perps of 9/11 all had valid IDs. Some posters say that they had "deportation orders" against some of them; even so, it wouldn't have made a difference because airlines don't check against any 'deportation lists'. Even if they did, I can get a passable fake Drivers License for a couple of 100 bucks. And what does the gate attendant in, say, Boston know about an (say) Alaskan DL? They all look different! The airline attendants don't specialise in ID verification; they are ticket agents, for crying out loud!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention (Score:3, Funny)
It would certainly make it more fun for the rest of you, as you get to see G. W. Bush be strip search at the airport, because he fits the profile (white, over 20, christian)
Of couse, with my luck, they'll blame the incident on the innocent muslim arab sitting next to me in the cabin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Strangely enough, noone exactly knows what this Terror is. First it was the Al-Queda. Then it was Afghanistan. Now it's Iraq. Or perhaps it was always Iraq. It will always be Iraq. Your freedoms are unimportant because your country is at war! Work hard. Be productive for the good of the party. Don't show dissent. If you show dissent then you're a terrorist. Perhaps even a commie terrorist! Go directly to jail for re-education.
Are you seeing a problem with this future?
Fighting for freedom is the most important thing that a civilised country (meaning: rich, powerful, and seemingly without ethics) can aim for. The USA population seemed far too eager to throw away their freedom after an event that was - compared to the continual horrors in countries with real terrorism - relatively minor. Perhaps the USA citizens have forgotten the true value of freedom. It's damn obvious you have.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
See, as the Prez sez, the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms.
Get rid of our freedoms and voila! The terrorists won't hate us anymore!
It's brilliant!
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad timing (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't need people to protect us in our planes. We're perfectly capable of protecting ourselves on a flight. Look at the shoebomber. He tried something funny and got the shit kicked out of him, then arrested. If you scan news reports in the months after 9/11 you'll find several instances of people causing disturbances on airplanes and in every single instance they got ganked by the passengers and were restrained until the plane could land.
Americans won't stand for it anymore. In the 1980's the stakes were lower. Americans knew that if the plane was hijacked that they could keep their cool and cooperate and be released relatively unscathed when it was all over. Now days we know that the price of complacency during a hijacking is death, and Americans like to go down swinging. The odds of anybody being able to successfully hijack an airliner are drastically lower than they were on September 10th, and the terrorists know this. That's why I think that their next target will not be airplanes. It will likely be truck bombs on bridges or in front of buildings (a la Tim McVeigh). It will probably eventually be suicide bombers in our shopping malls. It might even be biological and chemical agents being disseminated in our office buildings and schools or dropped from small private airplanes. Commercial airlines haven't got anything to be worried about now I'd imagine.
I mean honestly, what is more terrifying to the average person? The possibility that someone may crash a fully loaded commercial airliner into the Statue of Liberty or that you may get blown to shreds while standing in the checkout line at the Piggly Wiggley (or whatever grocery store you frequent)?
Re:Impediments. (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe that the airlines screen out their frequent customers and "pick on" their non-frequent or one-time customers.
Re:Screw him (Score:2)
As for this issue, I agree with you. People need to recognize this isn't about taking away your civil liberties, it's about making sure you don't get flown into a building. Some people take stands on every little thing(and so loud...)and they just need to choose thier battles a little more wisely. It's fairly plain to see that anyone who argues against these new laws would change their tune pretty quickly if a loved one died do to violence because the law became relaxed in the future.
Re:Screw him (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think John is suggesting that planes should not be secure. He's saying that one should not secure planes by taking away the right of free travel, free anonymous travel, from the people of the USA.
Some of you are willing to give up that right, does that mean all should? Or should we all be required to show our papers when we travel and have our movements tracked?
As to the option of not using the airplane, can you tell me how that works in a country the size of the USA? Should people who wish to protect their rights be relegated to forms of transport orders of magnitude slower, which effectively make it impossible to travel on short notice to many places?
Why should travel at the speed necessary to conduct business in this country be a privilege rather than a right?
Re:He still has freedom to travel (Score:2)
When was the last time that you drive to Hawaii?