John Gilmore's Search for the Mandatory ID Law 1568
powerline22 writes "John Gilmore, the millionare who cofounded the EFF, has been prohibited from travelling because he refused to show an ID while boarding an airplane. He's been under this self-imposed ban since 2002. From the article: "The gate agent asked for his ID. Gilmore asked her why. It is the law, she said. Gilmore asked to see the law. Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is 'Sensitive Security Information.' The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection. What started out as a weekend trip to Washington became a crawl through the courts in search of an answer to Gilmore's question: Why?"
Private Company... (Score:3, Insightful)
Old Soviet rules... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I see... Security means less privacy, according to some, uh?
Re:Because. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's getting out of hand. (Score:2, Insightful)
How much is too much?
Re:Because. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the law is in print somewhere (ostensibly), but no layperson knows precisely what it says. In essence, we are being held accountable to rules that we cannot know.
Re:Because. (Score:5, Insightful)
So there's no law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Private Company... (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't been on a plane for 15+ years, what are the written rules for passangers?
Re:Private Company... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude! wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because. (Score:4, Insightful)
New slant ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a law, furthermore, that was not passed in accordance with the constitution. We have faceless individuals deciding on controls on everyday movement and almost no questioning of their right to do so.
I am actually surprised Mr Gilmore has not asked for a court injunction asking either for proof that such a law exists (and its text) or for the regulation to be lifted.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse! (Score:5, Insightful)
ObCatch-22 quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, the reason people go to law school and the reason pay lawyers so much money is because the law is something that needs to be done BY THE LETTER. It sounds like the airlines want us just to abide by the spirit of the law.
And while I personally wish society were at point where we COULD just go by the spirit of things, we are not there yet, and so in order to protect OUR rights, and OUR safety, we need to be able to view these laws and make certain we're not getting screwed over.
It reminds me. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Only problem is, there has not been a school shooting I know if that was not perpetrated by a student who is authorized to be at that school.
Same thing with airplanes. "Ha ha, you dumb terrorists! Now you have to prove you bought the ticket to get on the airplane!" I'm sure this inconveniences them much more than it inconveniences me when getting on an airplane. In fact, I bet it inconveniences them so much that they would scrub years or decades of planning. Sure, I get on an airplane once every couple months, and it hasn't made life too much harder for me, but somehow it's magically different for terrorists.
Re:Because. (Score:3, Insightful)
So when does this stop being something bad just in concept? When should I start thinking about getting myself and my family out of here?
"Lose" your ID (Score:4, Insightful)
Me: I'm sorry, I lost my wallet somewhere. All I have is some cash until I get everything replaced. You have no idea just how difficult this has been.
Ticket agent: Okay, you'll have to go thru some extra screening, though. [Meaning a guaranteed wanding, remove shoes, etc.]
Me: Okay.
Been there, done that. It works.
Of course, I actually DID lose my wallet on that trip, but the principle is the same.
-Charles
Re:Old Soviet rules... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh I see, I just totally trashed your idiotic comparison. Excuse me while I go take my victory lap.
Re:Bullet, meet foot. Foot, this is bullet. (Score:5, Insightful)
One can not have a Democracy if the laws are hidden from the people.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I consider myself pretty liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to drive without ID in most if not every state.
The FAA requires that you carry positive ID along with your Airman's Certificate (their gender-charged language, not mine) whenever operating an aircraft
Walking is an impractical method of moving around the country at this point in history, requiring people who don't want to show ID to walk would preclude them from many types of job.
Hitchiking is illegal in every state where i've bothered to research the law.
If he starts a private airline company then he will be subject to the rules of the FAA or TSA and have to impose the same requirements.
He actually has a pretty good point.
Re:I consider myself pretty liberal (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some people who are smart enough to be bothered by the whole concept of having a bunch of government bureaucrats enforcing secret and unwritten laws on an unknowing populace and then there are stupid bastards such yourself who aren't much higher on the intellectual food chain than say a retarded steer, or perhaps a particularly bright carp.
You're right. But wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
But exactly wrong too!
Perhaps there should be a law so that you have to prove who you are to board an airplane. I'm not sure about that.
But if that is the case, then a law should be passed. If its really that important, congress should simply pass a law. They could do it in one day if it was important.
But they haven't passed such a law. Isn't that interesting?
Isn't it even more interesting that the government claims there is such a law, but that its too secret to tell you about? Doesn't that make you *the least bit interesting* in what the hell is going on?
Where do you draw the line? If the police asked you for papers when you crossed from one state to the other, but couldn't tell you under what authority, would you simply brush it off? Seriously, where will you draw the line?
In other news, congress is trying to get bigger fines on broadcasters in case they say "anal sex" on the air.
Re:So there's no law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Point one: The request for ID was never mandatory; the airlines had been fighting for it to be mandatory for some time, since they didn't want tickets to be transferrable.
Point two: The request for ID by itself is not as serious, in many people's minds, as the fact that we are bound by regulations that we are not allowed to know.
Re:I consider myself pretty liberal (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA agents, who are *government* employees, are telling him he has to show ID because it's the law.
Airline officials are *not* saying that this is company policy; they are saying it is US law.
He is asking to see said law. No one will show it to him. Private laws are *not* something we should be saying "Oh, well that's okay then" towards; they lead in exactly the wrong direction.
Re:So there's no law... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I consider myself pretty liberal (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Ecks
Re:Ho Chi Minh beard (Score:2, Insightful)
Joining Volkswagen Bugs, Rhode Islands, and Libraries of Congress: the new monetary unit "Seasons of Trek", an amount of dollars necessary to fund one season of Star Trek.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Except that he could travel by air without ID (Score:2, Insightful)
He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Foot and bike do not reach towns whose only access road is an interstate. Motorcycle, car, and boat require licensure, and states reserve the right to deny licensure to people diagnosed with epilepsy.
how does ID... (Score:1, Insightful)
Can a person with an ID not have "impure" thoughts ? Or carry a knife ?
Re:Apt Quote? (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at what the Administration is doing now, then compare it to the 1860s, 1960s, 1940s, 1910s, 1950s.
You'll find that the Bush Administration is acting like the model of restrant when compared to the Americans, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, British, French or Russians during any of those decades.
For example, 1861-1865 - 600,000 dead in US, civil liberties restrained much more openly and much more harshly than now.
Re:I consider myself pretty liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old Soviet rules... (Score:4, Insightful)
As a no American, let me say the USA should be ashamed of how far they have allowed their system to slip towards a totalitarian facist state.
Re:I consider myself pretty liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?I
Republican President Bush backs a big-government national ID card. The "conservative voice" condemns this action as un-American as does the ACLU. Is it just me or are these labels sort of stupid? Perhaps destroying the checks and balances of the three-branch system?
Oh well, maybe it's just me.
Re:Because. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just because it may not be a law... (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides why planes? Why high-security airports? You americans got crazy about planes because they were used recently. But what will stop a guided missile launched 5 miles away from hitting the White House? How are you going to stop a truck filled with nerve gas from driving into Manhattan? Why do you think someone can't attach a container with cyanide and a pump to the tap at home and pump the poison up the water pipes of a city network?
You can't protect yourselves. The best you can do is to stop giving people reasons to hate you and doing any of the above, but you're working really hard on the opposite.
what an idiot (Score:1, Insightful)
You, my friend, are an idiot.
Why isn't the law public then ? If it's so good for us, let us see it.
Are you really buying into the "it's secret for our own protection" bullshit ?
To make people feel better (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bullet, meet foot. Foot, this is bullet. (Score:5, Insightful)
If persons with authority start telling people what to do on the grounds that the law says they can, and then it turns out that they don't know what they are talking about, indeed for all appearances might just be making it up, then there are no limits to what citizens can and will be forced to do. If that's not a grave threat to civil rights, I don't know what is. It no longer matters what the law does and does not allow, the law doesn't make any difference any more if anyone with a badge can claim, "It's the law" and then without any further explanation demand anything they want.
It's never wrong to question authority. Authority can be expected to have an answer.
Re:This is the line? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to say "do you have a license? and can I see if it's valid?" it's another thing to say "I will now log your driver's license into our database".
Re:New slant ... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not about showing licenses... (Score:5, Insightful)
This one is mostly harmless. But it's just a step away...
Imagine such a law: Any visitor to an anti-government website is considered traitor of the country, subject to arrest and lawsuit, without right to a lawyer, with methods of interrogation like tortures allowed, bound with secret about everything they see or hear, including this law.
Now this law comes into effect, except it's not being published anywhere. Just the same as the "ID check" - you don't get a chance to know it exists possibly until after you've violated it. The agents are free to drag you out of your house and keep you imprisoned for months, then eventually kill you and nobody can do anything about it, they can't even know what happened to you. And it's all fine in the eyes of law - and nobody can protest because nobody knows, and those who know, by knowing are bound by secret, or they violate the law and are subject of prosecution.
That's the method of rule of totalitarian government. Laws you don't know about until it's too late. And of course laws made up on the spot, just as binding because nobody can verify they were made up on the spot...
Well the court said.... (Score:1, Insightful)
And, well the court also said, that you must show identification to board an aircraft [findlaw.com].
Case closed. Liberals, if you want to be able to change the laws from the judicial branch of governemnt (gay marriage, abortion, patriot act, etc) then you should at least live by the other court rulings as it would seem hypocritical to do otherwise. Oh wait....
OK, now mod me down!
Re:What a dick AKA I'm a moron (Score:2, Insightful)
What the hell does knowing who someone is have to do with whether they're carrying a weapon or bomb onboard? Absolutely NOTHING!
I have no problem w/ security screenings, even though they're ineffective at preventing weapons other that large bombs (which can still easily get through too). I could list 5 'innocent' things I can carry aboard a plane to kill someone with, if I were so disposed. I could probably come up with an even longer list of things easily smuggled aboard. But knowing who I am has nothing to do with any of that
Re:Apt Quote? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:2, Insightful)
The real reason for ID (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a ticket you can't use, you can't sell it in the paper (or on eBay). There used to be all kinds of classified ads for airplane tickets for sale. No more. It's economics, not security.
Actually, (Score:3, Insightful)
conservatives are the ones who have pushed through regulations on personal freedoms as well as pushing their morals. Liberals have normally fought this.
OTH, Liberals, and the 1960-1970 republicans, pushed through such things as environmental laws. IOW, business regulations. Fortunately, some regulations have been destroyed, such as when the oil industry dereg occured due to Nixon and Carter (reagan simply accelerated their laws by 1/2 a year).
That is so (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a battle worth fighting.
Re:Except that he could travel by air without ID (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole security thing is overblown. There are things that need to stay secret, but things like this aren't one of them. A list of items that cannot be carried onboard might be something, but the basic conditions required to get past security and onto the plane should not be secret. There's not even been anything saying that you can get on a plane without ID if you submit to a search. None of that is public, and that's the problem here.
Re:Because. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a helluva way to spell "gibbering cowards."
Retarded (Score:1, Insightful)
If the airline decides that it requires an ID to get on one of it's planes, it's perfectly within thier right.
So my point is: Maybe it isn't a law, but a policy.
A gym requires ID to get in, so does a library. I need ID to get into my place of employment, into a bar (sometimes) and more often to buy cigarettes. I need to show ID in the form of a credit card to get nearly every utility hooked up (even though they are not billing the CC).
Re:Showing IDs (Score:5, Insightful)
True! You do feel better! Unfortunately, you are no safer, but everyone has less privacy. Is the loss of their privacy worth happy feelings on your part? Perhaps you should take happy pills instead? That way, you'll still be happy, and other people will still have their privacy.
-russ
Re:Old Soviet rules... (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember in the days after 9-11 around here they had this town hall meeting so people could talk about their fears. There was this lady, she had a couple kids, and she was blubbering about who was going to protect them? Another guy stood up and said he'd be happy to give up all his privacy if it would help and people appluaded that remark.
Those people make me sick. What made America great wasn't some sniveling pussy bawling about who was going to protect them. Absolutely disgusting. Instead of looking to the government to protect us in a free society you look to the government to provide the tools to protect yourself.
If we hadn't spent decades conditioning people to just cooperate with terrorists and criminals they wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in a sunny July day in downtown Dallas, Texas of taking over an airliner with just five people.
We're no longer the country we started out to be and we don't deserve the freedom that most college students today would trade for an iPod.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, any sheep would pull out a photo ID. I, for one am glad that Gilmore has the time, money and motivation to follow through on this.
I bet you show your receipt at the door at Fry's too...
Re:Private Company... (Score:3, Insightful)
if that were true, they'd be free to discriminate however they liked.
Re:Because. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it with the USA? The cold war is long over but we see the former USSR steadily getting more democratic and the USA steadily adopting more totalitarian tactics.
National security should never be used as an excuse when "I just want to do whatever I want" is the real reason.
The case of this guy is trivial. The case of not disclosing the information and saying "Because I said so" is not - many non-democratic third world countries can't even get away with and at least have flimsy pretexts based on published laws when they do things injustly. Think of what sort of injustice you can get up to when you don't have to rely on published laws and superiors are not expecting you to be responsible for your actions until the press find out.
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be able to prove to your insurance person that you actually did see a driver's liscense.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I consider myself pretty liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
To my knowledge Congress has never passed a "law" implementing the "Do Not Fly" list which led to this requirement airlines ID all passengers. If they had passed a law it probably wouldn't be secret and someone could show Gilmore the "law", There isn't one.
Congress has toyed with passing a law for several versions of "CAPPS" which are the next gen successors to the current stupid "Do Not Fly" list but Congress has so far balked at at the privacy invasion of CAPPS though the executive branch keeps bringing it back over and over again.
The "Do Not Fly" list began in the early '90's as FAA "regulation" in concert with the FBI. It was lame and wasn't for the most part enforced. After 9/11 it was given new life, dramaticly expanded and turned over to TSA, Homeland Security and FBI and is now widely and badly enforced.
It is to my knowledge all done through secret "regulation". However all airlines that fly in or in to the U.S. have to at least go through the motions of enforcing it, ID'ing all passengers and preventing passengers from flying whose names are on the "Do Not Fly" list. When they get a match they are supposed to call TSA/FBI agents who detain and interrogate the person. The person is usually completely innocent and just an unfortunate victim of having the same name as a suspected terrorist or even an alias a suspected terrorist uses. These innocent people are routinely harrassed, embarrassed and often prevented from flying and there is no known procedure for cleaing your name. Your best option is to petition your congressman who in turn begs the FBI, TSA, Homeland security to clear you.
If an airline employee refuses to enforce the regulation they will probably be fired so its "law" to them. If an airline refuses to enforce it they will probably be denied access to U.S. air space so its "law" to them, but it is really secret regulation created by the executive branch and its agencies, the FAA, TSA, FBI and Homeland Security.
Re:No Right to Fly (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd call that something VERY worth arguing about.
Get off my planet.
Re:Dude! wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing to note, my car at the time was equiped with a video recorder next to the odometer.
Sounds cool. Got a link?
Re:So there's no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
it's about secret government laws.
how is it possible to be a law-abiding citizen when the government passes laws you aren't even allowed to know about? "just use common sense" is not justification, because there are thousands of laws which are not sensible at all.
Re:Retarded (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should you need to show a credit card to buy something not on the credit card? I tried to report a car running a red light and almost hitting me on my bike. The police wanted to see my drivers license. Um- I wasn't driving. As a cyclist, I'm not required to have a drivers license. So, why ask for it?
Just because things are ubiquitious in our society doesn't make them right. Most of the time you are 'required' to flash a card, it's for the convenience of the other party.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Insightful)
This country has turned into a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
Re:Dude! wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
which television stations or newspapers covered the story?
do you have a copy of the formal apology somewhere?
how about a copy of the video?
or maybe the name of your lawyer?
You're so right (Score:2, Insightful)
Seee? Its that simple. If there is a regulation that he should show it, then he should show it.
Umm.
That's the point though. There is no such regulation.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
If you break the law in a rental car, like running a red light or hitting a pedestrian, the police must to be able to match up the driver (and their licence) to the perpetrator. For this reason, and for the specific case of renting a car, I don't have a problem with handing over my driver's licence details.
OTOH, I would not want to have to show photo ID before I could use a taxi.
John Gilmour's main point, though, is that secret law is an abomination. With this, I agree wholeheartedly.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I should tell you, I really don't give a fuck if the guy trying to hijack the plane I'm flying on has an ID or not.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:3, Insightful)
And you're surprised that he didn't ask to be searched at the second airport? And you really expect that he would have been let on the plane that time when he wasn't the first time?
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right in thinking that I still think that Gilmore has a case. Which account is right. I don't know, and either way there is still a secret law requiring us to "show our papers" to travel within the US.
Interestingly, I see that you can't challenge a single one of my assertions about the current state of the police powers in the United States: "We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments." My position stands unopposed by you with a single fact. The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no. There is literally nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says the Bill of Rights only applies to those the President approves of. This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.
Your straw argument that if some things should be secret then it is ok to have secret laws (like those in Communist China and Soviet Russia) rings hollow. Yes, some things should be secret, such as the details on how to make weapons of mass destruction, but the actual laws we have to follow day to day need to be public so we can know what they are and challenge them if they are unconstitutional.
We do live in 1984. The government can do sneak and peak searches, warrantless secret searches of your medical records, credit card transactions, library records and any "public" record. They can also, without a warrant, record who you phone and when, and many other transactions. The Administration to increase pollution is called Clear Skies; their plan to deforest is called The Healthy Forests Initiative. All I can say is that I think the President is double plus un-good.
Re:I consider myself pretty liberal (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting, isn't it? Conservatives always claim they don't want stuff like this... Yet the instant they get into power, they start passing it left, right, and center, and blame the "Liberals".
Re:The real reason for ID (Score:5, Insightful)
govt lobbysts (Score:3, Insightful)
Big friends in high places, lets unite and make it look like someone else is doing this... takes the blame away... etc... Usual Suspects, Usual Scum.
Imagine if cars were non transfereable, used car market would be DEAD.
Technically and legally, the airlines could easily setup a system were anyone could reauthorize their ticket to anyone else, like a normal sale, and with only $3 admin fee (talking 5minutes to a $11/hr employee should not cost $25 admin fees, again same scum making false fees)
or done online. We know us slashdotters could easily do it, unless their ticket systems are so ancient and cruddily coded in COBOL or some lego systems.
Why is it easier to build a 747 with millions of parts and efficient engineering, yet the airlines billing/ticket/scheduling systems are MORE OUTDATED than your local blockbuster running DOS ordering systems.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I have nothing to hide, then the government has no need to know. Period.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Insightful)
One basic tennant of any legal system is that none may ignore the law (although I don't know how it's typically formulated in English). How are you supposed to know about a secret law ? It doesn't fit in the system.
Re:It's not really about terrorism. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:3, Insightful)
"No, the sheep are the ones admiringly looking on at such ineffectual dilattante windmill-tilting."
Yeah, anybody who values their privacy must be a fucking hippy or something.
Nobody sane would want to do that. Privacy is for assholes who have something to hide.
Re:Homophone (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton-esque
Big Oil
Big Energy
Big Religion
Bush Administration
One of these things is not like the others.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Insightful)
More like a Kafka story or novel.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:3, Insightful)
Possible reactions (Score:2, Insightful)
One, you could look at it as evidence that the United States is fascist or is heading there and that it is mostly corrput and devoid of legitimacy, and put on your proverbial tinfoil hat.
Two, you could look at it as an inevitable mistake inherent in a government run by humans, and have faith that the system will eventually correct itself.
Which seems better to you?
The law in the United States is a dynamic thing. Laws can be passed that are unconstitutional - but that doesn't mean that they're on the books forever. Most unconstitutional laws are eventually declared as such and become unenforceable. If one makes headlines rather than slipping quietly to its death the way it ideally works, that doesn't make it any more permanent.
The law relies on incidents like this in order to make sure that it's fair.
Re:Hey, I've done this (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights are not just for nice guys. Rights are for everyone. The government shouldn't give random people jobs to harrass people and only let the nice ones travel.
They just searched her. And at BWI, we were so late for the plane, they didn't even search her.
So, if you're nice, no one even bothers to look twice at you. That's amazing high-quality security. Is the whole point of this is to randomly harass not-nice people, or protect people?
Constitutionality (Score:3, Insightful)
Study of what can go wrong in a democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
"Either your with us, or against us"...
rental car not the same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd argue that the rental car contract is not the same thing as flying without an ID.
A rental car company is libel when it gives a vehical away. It is required to be postively sure that the individual is fully capable and legally permitted to drive the car, or else it WILL be sued in the event of an accident, insurance be damned. Similarly, the credit card check is not to verify that the individual is what the ID says it is -- its to avoid having to do their own credit background check (minimum week or more delays and hefty increase in costs) in order to lend the car with the knowledge its going to someone likely to give it back.
they hold the credit card company responsible for dealing with that credit check and that cost, to save themselves the money and keep competitive.
both items are strictly business decisions that have no relation at all to the no flying without an ID law.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So there's no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: Ok, I'll hire a lawyer.
Officer: Don't bother, your lawyer will be appointed by the court. We can't have any old lawyers around, they might hear the secret laws.
Me: I want to see the judge! I want to face my accusers!
Judge: I'm afraid we can't have that. If you face your accusers, you may find out what law you've broken. We can't let out what law was broken.
Me: At least I get my day in court.
Judge: You will be tried outside your presence, because we can't have you hearing the sec...
Me: Yeah yeah, how do I know this law even exists?
Judge: Trust us.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)
How valuable is that two seconds if every piece of information about you is tracked in some database? Forever?
How valuable is that two seconds if you no longer control your own personal information, such as where you go, when you go there, who you see, what you buy, and how long you stayed?
How valuable is that two seconds if you travel to someplace for personal reasons, but while you're there, there's a massive political protest in the same city, and the government automatically assumes that's why you went there, and logs it into some database somewhere?
How valuable is that two seconds if you just want to check out, off the grid, for awhile, recharge, meditate, whatever, but someone files a missing persons report on you, and you get tracked because of your ID? Or your cell phone?
How valuable is that two seconds if some event that happened in your past comes back to haunt you in the future, and keeps you from doing something you need or really want to do?
Sheep think about the two seconds. Wolves think about the damage done to the their privacy and their freedom.
New definition: Sheep are nature's efficient, sane food.
Re:Bullet, meet foot. Foot, this is bullet. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) People who enforce laws shouldn't be required to have all of them memorized.
Well, I'm going to agree that the average street cop doesn't need to know tax law. But I assert that someone who enforces one very small specific subset of laws, e.g. TSA law enforcement, should in fact have a VERY thorough understanding of what is and is not illegal within the purview of those laws. That IS their job. Otherwise, that person may enforce personal preference or prejudice rather than the laws, or allow illegal activity to continue and thus endanger the lives of passengers. I'll go further and suggest that there should be on duty at all times some TSA enforcement person who has a written copy of such laws available for public perusal and for agent reference. This is my opinion, of course, not fact. I'd like to go on record as vigorously disagreeing with both your opinion and the factual basis underlying it.
2. Common sense suggests that a law requiring ID to board a commercial airliner exists and is reasonable.
Common sense is neither.
More specifically, I would assert that common sense suggests that if there is a law requiring you to show said ID, it can be found without having to break it first. That wasn't the case. The author might have tried to find such a law (the fine article doesn't say), perhaps in reaction to a previous TSA enforcer's actions*, or out of a desire not to have to tell every random stranger in a uniform that he was an epileptic, and couldn't.
(*Having flown several times in the last year, I can relate from experience that TSA people can often be rude, unpleasant, and leave one with a sense that one's privacy and dignity has been invaded unnecessarily. )
Common sense suggests that if one searches diligently to find a law prohibiting or requiring some pattern of behavior, and can't, then that law doesn't exist. That wasn't the case.
3. Making the scene that he did was unnecessary.
How else do you find out about secret laws, other than breaking them? Clearly we can't trust our lawmakers to be open about what's illegal. Applying common sense, as we've seen above, won't do either.
As mentioned previously, he may have had perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to show his papers - excuse me, for not wanting to show or have a TSA-approved photo ID.
Turning this around, common sense suggests that hiring a lawyer to file a court case to ask the government whether a specific law exists is unnecessary. However, this is what you said was "the correct answer." I'm thinking that perhaps common sense means something else when you say it. Maybe that's why we have laws instead of asking everyone to rely on their common sense...?
4. The TSA enforcement people reacted appropriately to this incident, as they would to a threat against the President.
I didn't really understand this - I'm hoping this was you being unclear in your phrasing, rather than as simple-minded as it appeared. Joking about assassinating the President is not a particularly parallel case. It's explicitly illegal [about.com], a Federal crime, and the law is readily available for citizens to read. Moreover, the foreigner who jokingly makes such a threat will quickly meet some nice Treasury Agents, probably members of the Secret Service, each of whom is perfectly capable of telling him exactly which laws he has broken. They will be polite, knowledgeable, and very serious.
TSA agents pulling a man out of line without being able to cite the relevant law is not reasonable or appropriate. This is NOT a personal fiefdom for agents to throw around personal power; this is a sensitive position in which agents are tasked with enforcing laws to protect "transportation"**. The agent's responses, FTFA, suggested that he pulled Gilmour at least in part because he
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Insightful)
This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.
It's not unprecedented. [lewrockwell.com]
Re:Bullet, meet foot. Foot, this is bullet. (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, just strolling into the airport and creating an unnecessary problem doesn't help anyone.
I'm sure people have said the same thing about Rosa Parks [google.com] when she refused to sit at the back of us bus
"Oh look at her causing trouble! That doesn't help anyone and just made the poor bus drivers life more difficult.".
It seems the disagreement here is that you seem to see this protest as 'unnecessary', where as others (myself included) think it is quite justfied.
I think there are enough gross abuses of power by governments, most of which cost time and money to impliment but deliver no real benefit to citizens but do deliver rather convenient oppertinuties for air time to politians (IMO a primary reason why terror legislation is so in vouge in the USA and UK).
I am relieved when I see someone prostest publically against this sort of thing, it's something most of us can't afford to do when we have to worry about holding down our jobs just to keep a roof over our head.
If I were a multimilionare like John Gilmore I like to think I'd make a professional pain-the-ass of myself to draw attention to similar scandalous legislation (and the equally inept execution of it by trusted officals).
Re:Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask many lawyers what their favorite moment in court would be, and they will respond "the chance to make new law." That doesn't make sense, does it? Only legislatures make law. But the laws need to be interpreted by you and me, and by everyone else. It's the lawyers and judges that interpret, and people pay good lawyers so much money because they can convince the judge that their interpretation is better than the other lawyer's. Once that's done, their interpretation becomes "the law" that everyone else has to live with.
Two rational people often differ with respect to what any given phrase means, and laws are no exception. The key question is, what is the background against which the laws are read? What political, social, economic, and moral criteria do we use to interpret the laws? Those criteria are what really drive "the law" forward. In this administration, those criteria are fear, paranoia, and distrust. Hence, we have laws that fear and distrust citizens, and citizens that fear and distrust the law.
Terrorism succeeds when it instills fear in our hearts. The only way to beat it then, logically, is to not fear it. As Franklin Roosevelt so eloquently said: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Until we remember that, and stop our unreasonable fear of fear, invisible laws will continue to be passed and enforced. It's up to you.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly. Even the Nazis had public trials. The knowledge that bad things _can_ happen to you if you offend someone in power is enough to stifle freedom in most cases.
Re:What a dick? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bringing this injustice to light is why he's doing this. You should be fucking thanking him for making this an issue, not considering it a 'waste of time'.
I recommend you jerk your knee into your own forehead in the future. Perhaps, in between the stars and tweety-birds you'll see why people who challenge government abuses should be supported.
You said one thing that was about 1/8th right. Civil liberties and security is a balancing act. Hiding the laws that affect either is extremist and unrealistic.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:4, Insightful)
They are both correct, since they refer to two different incidents. Read the fine page you linked to, it's right there at the top:
Hell yes. You want me to abide by your rules, you have to disclose them.
Tactical military information, sure. (Only for a limited time, though...any classified information should automatically expire after a time limit.) That's about it. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy.
The TSA is not trying to secure air travel. The TSA is trying to give the appearance of trying to secure air travel, so people will continue to fly.
You want to make air travel safer? Making passengers show papers does jack. Instead, re-enforce the flight cabin doors, then give every able-bodied person on the plane a big-ass knife. Let any potential terrorists get the Flight 93 [unitedheroes.com] treatment, just give the passengers the tools to do the job. (Guns are problematic in cramped quarters, though the whole explosive decompression thing is a myth.)
Don't like knives? Fine, make it stunguns instead. Put 'em in the seatback pockets right next to the barf bags.
Jim Kramer's usually a smart guy (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, we're not talking markets, but the guy still has a point. Without some sort of structure, some rules, you do end up with chaos.
HOWEVER, and this is a point that too many people miss, rules for the sake of rules add nothing to that structure. A decorative wall-hanging is all fine and well, but it adds nothing to the strength or durability of the wall it is hanging on.
Thus, we can say that decorative rules serve no function other than to exist. Removing them does not create chaos, though if they add some aesthetic element to life, removing them may reduce the enjoyment of life. To date, I've never heard of a decorative rule that did add to the aesthetics, but I'm willing to concede that it is possible such rules exist.
Finally, neither necessary nor aesthetic rules require invisibility. A wall is no less a wall if people can see it is there. But if it can be seen, you can tell whether something is functional or not. It certainly can't be aesthetic if it can't be seen.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
said Dr. Ferris.
"We want them broken....There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well,
when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many
things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without
breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there
in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be
observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a
nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's
the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it,
you'll be much easier to deal with."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, "White Blackmail"
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude! That is one whopper of a qualification. The whole point is the government in the U.S. can now unilaterally decide what is terrorism, and who is a terrorist, with no proof whatsover, without judicial oversight, and lock the person up indefinitely without access to a lawyer, or to their family, without due process and on a number of occasions have shipped them to third party countries to be tortured by proxy.
The whole crux of their strategy for wiping out our civil liberties and due process, is for them to say "we only do this to terrorists" to which the public is supposed to reply, "oh well if you only do it to terrorists thats OK". The only catch is the government never at any point has to offer any proof the person was actually a terrorist under their new rules, so they in fact can arrest anyone without charges, not just "terrorists".
If you are going to have a civilized nation with due process and the rule of law you HAVE to apply the same rules, equally, to everyone. As soon as you give your government an exemption allowing them to deny due process to one person you have set a precedent allowing them to do it to anyone and everyone, and have opened the door to totalitarianism, and its entirely at the discretion of the powers if they decide to seize the opportunity and turn your country in to a police state.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuckers. I only hope we're all still here to see 'em taken down when the inevitable revolution comes.
Re:Yes, you're right! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:2, Insightful)
I admire folks like John Gilmore who are willing to inconvenience themselves in the name of confronting mindless obedience and the "herd mentality" like this. The closest I usually come to such civil disobedience is subjecting myself to being hand-searched and wanded at the airport, by refusing to "voluntarily" take off my shoes at the security checkpoint.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with it, and judging by the general
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Keith
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
It is silly to think these rules happen in a vacuum. The terrorists are quite well aware of them and if they had a rule which stopped people who had overstayed their visas the terrorists would have known this and only used agents who hadn't overstayed their visa.
The point is there is yet to be a compelling argument that these ID restrictions really give us much security. The burden of proof should be on those who want to impose such measures not on us to show that such measures aren't useful.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm inclined to agree with you on the reason- the problem is that it requires the rule/law to actually DO something productive towards prevention of a problem even before you can consider security through obscurity. Not to mention the fact that just because it's obscured to the public, doesn't mean that the people that ARE obscured couldn't be subborned to reveal the law and any apparent weaknesses. In the case of the "must show ID" regulation (it's NOT a law, mind...) the possession of an ID that maps to the alleged identity for the tickets and boarding passes does NOT mean in any way, shape, or form that the ID is even valid. Bam, there goes the reason for the regulation right there- it doesn't do anything useful against even the least determined attacker. It'd not have prevented or deterred 9/11. It won't prevent or deter another similar attack. So, why in the hell have it in the first place?
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course their only recourse is to throw you out of their store. Once you have bought your item and on your way out they don't have any right to search you. Since you don't have a membership this doesn't really cost you anything if you are tossed out (they can't easily stop you from coming back)
Re:Well yes, but why get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Walking into a live concert venue may or may not require ID, depending on if its all-ages or restricted.
There are lots of reasons to have ID.
Re:Possible reactions (Score:3, Insightful)
The "tinfoil hat" people are the mechanism through which the system corrects itself. The only reason our system can correct itself is because the people are left free to fight against injustices. The federal government will never willingly right a wrong without someone bringing them to task for it. It is precisely through this mechanism that this happens.
Who watches the watchmen? (Score:3, Insightful)
> If persons with authority start telling people what to do on the grounds
> that the law says they can, and then it turns out that they don't know what
> they are talking about, indeed for all appearances might just be making it
> up, then there are no limits to what citizens can and will be forced to do.
> If that's not a grave threat to civil rights, I don't know what is. It no
> longer matters what the law does and does not allow, the law doesn't make any
> difference any more if anyone with a badge can claim, "It's the law" and then
> without any further explanation demand anything they want.
The problem is that people in the position of authority have power, and power corrupts.
If there was a law stating that every complaint of abuse of authority will be thoroughly investigated by an independent body and, if found to be justified, the culprits shall be sodomized with jackhammers, then I will have no problem with showing IDs or trusting the authorities, because I will know that people with power would not even dream of abusing it.
However, as things stand now, policemen (and other people in a position of authority) can get away with crimes that a normal person would rot in jail for. Often they get "reprimanded" or are subject to "administrative measures" or, at worst, greatly reduced sentences because, after all, they are policemen...
WTF?
If you are given means to limit the rights and freedoms of other people (and often take their lives), you should be bloody made accountable! Any crime that also involved abuse of authority (whether as a parent, police officer, elected official, etc.) should be treated as crime against society and automatically warrant twice the maximum penalty set by law. Penalties for corruption should hurt so much as to make it not worth the risk.
Secret laws, laws that criminalize a large portion of the population, selective enforcement, etc. invariably lead to corruption and must be eliminated.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:2, Insightful)
The simple fact is, nothing that the government has done so far has been appalling to the majority of Americans. Had that happened, the Dem primary would have gone to the most effective protest candidate instead of the most mainstream canditate, as people wouldn't have been second-guessing their choice based on electability.
If the revolution really is inevitable, both parties will figure that about long before I do, and change who they put forward appropriately. Nothing beats a politician for knowing which way the wind is blowing. I think your desire to see a revolution will be forever frustrated, by the very political greed you worry about.
That's the cool thing about Democracy - we may not always elect the best candidate, but no one dares cross that line where no amount of advertising will fool people any more. Gilmore's quest to bring attention to secret law is a very helpful part of that.
I call BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Point hammered: if we let businesses require anything they like to shop at their stores, we are under a tyranny. Businesses are not feudal keeps, subject only to the King. They are corporations which hold a license to exist granted by US through our representatives. A. License. To. Exist. Not a right. They have no rights. If they want to operate stores, they can follow OUR rules. This is the basic failure of American imagination in the 21st century. We don't think we are in charge of anything personally, or think we have civil rights or even a basic right to privacy. BUT we think businesses can do anything they like. Corporations are not only legal citizens with civil rights -- they are the ONLY CITIZENS WITH ANY RIGHTS.
This insane belief has to be rooted out of the national mind and exposed to sunlight.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)
This only works until everyone realizes what's really going on. I remember being hassled for an ID at Best Buy to make a $30 purchase with my debit card. I told her I didn't have my ID with me because I had left it in another jacket. The cashier then informed me that I couldn't make the purchase without it. So, I took my debit card out of her hand, said "that's fine." and left. The really, really stupid thing about this whole mess is that it's NOT hard to get a fake ID, and I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. It's all a psychological game.
Re:Private Company... (Score:4, Insightful)
They certainly could, if they told you the terms of the contract up-front.
What they're doing here, would be like EULAs that say they are binding before you've had the opportunity to read them.
No, a company can't do whatever the hell it wants.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:1, Insightful)
No Need for a National ID law... it's here. (Score:5, Insightful)
George Bush is dead! Long live George Bush!
This is what is with the US (Score:2, Insightful)
100 years ago, if a hijacker tried to steal something like a plane (well, let's imagine a train instead) they had to do so with enough men and guns and ammo to fight off the people on the train. If they screwed up, they would be shot by the passengers on the train, or even the engineer himself. That's government BY the people.
When gangs formed up that were strong enough to bully people around, the people responded by making an even bigger gang (called a posse) to hunt them down and kill them. If things got out of hand, the military was called in to serve the people and kick the crap out of the perpetrators.
Today. things are a lot different. If I saw a bank robbery in progress, and subdued the robber with my handguns (which I'd be proudly carrying around my hips, 2nd amendment folks), I'd be thrown in jail. If the robber tried to shoot me and I shot back and laid him flat on his back six-feet under, then I would be facing life in prison.
If the hijackers took a plan and I whipped out my 45 and gave them all a new hole, I'd be charged with endangering the life of the crew, murder, or worse.
That's why life sucks around here. Restore our basic freedoms, and we won't need security checks at the airports. We won't need no Homeland Security department (we got all the security right here, in the barrel of my guns.) Heck, we wouldn't even need a national military. If Bush wants to invade a country, he'd have to convince a whole lotta us to follow him into battle. Otherwise, he'd be going it alone.
We'd have a lot fewer trial lawyers as well. We wouldn't need as many prisons either. And we wouldn't have a problem with wayward politicians, because we'd be the FBI investigating them.
Folks, that's government BY the people. If Mao said that government comes by the barrell of a gun, then we have a whole lot more barrels than the military does. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then we can fight with far more pens than any government can hope to muster.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's getting out of hand. (Score:2, Insightful)
All this post 9/11 paranoia is devastating our nation.
Re:Because. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:2, Insightful)
He's been searched by security, so he's not carrying a bomb. And there are no age restrictions on flying, as there are with alcohol purchase. How does knowing his mother's favourite choice of names for babies help security any further?
Re:So (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were actually the case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. But the reason the airlines have these policies is to (supposedly) comply with Federal Law. I say suposedly because we can't see the law. And the Government requiring it's citizens to show ID before traveling is what people are upset about.
Nipok Nek
Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Men do not follow POLICIES. They follow their own good judgement.
ompany in question doesn't want a LICENSE from The State to conduct COMMERCE, then they may expect to ignore the RIGHTS OF FREE MEN.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's all. My point was simply that it should be up to the USER what personal information someone has...it should be a matter of choice. What happens instead is that corporations and the government just demand things and we give it up without asking why and how. Personal control.
A citizen should be allowed to do anything legal without being tracked, at THEIR option, not a corporation's or government's option.
Get it? Probably not.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:2, Insightful)
The U.S. is currently on the path towards Soviet-style asking for papers everywhere. Airlines are only the first part, and I can easily see it extending further. Best to stop it here.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Boarding an airline is a service provided to you by a company. There is no inherent "right" to be able to fly.
Then maybe we should also be talking about how the airlines have no right to taxpayer subsidies. The airline industry willingly solicits and accepts "bail out" money and has a major portion of their security provided by the feds. You want to play free market purist, fine. Let's do it. Stop stealing my hard-earned money and handing it to the airlines. Then we can talk about whether they've got a "right" to deny me service. OK?
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:1, Insightful)
Get it? Probably not (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm afraid you gave up personal control when you consented (or not, see Thoreau : ) to live under a government. The argument of course is how much control you have, and yes to an extent it would be nice to control how much information the corporations/govt hold on you. However I think presenting ID at an airport is really the least of your worries if your government decides they want to track you. There are many easier ways.
A citizen should be allowed to do anything legal without being tracked, at THEIR option, not a corporation's or government's option.
While this sounds nice, in practice it's impossible. You can't drive without a licence and a licence plate (for tracking purposes). You can't be paid (legally) without a SS number for tracking reasons. Etc etc etc. Would you like to make those controls optional? The government is there to control you and protect others from you (and vice versa), and while I agree with you that an ID at an airport will do nothing for security, this issue is *insignificant* when compared to other erosions of freedom going on in the name of 'the war on terror'. It just happens to inconvenience Gilmore more than the others right now.
Personal control of your information does nothing for you if the government decides to lock you up without trial, indefinitely. They can do that right now in your country (and in the UK to a lesser extent), does that worry you?
There are far more important freedoms being eroded right now in the US than the obligation to present an ID when travelling internally. The climate of eternal war encouraged by this administration is far more worrying to me.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:1, Insightful)
In the legal system, Corporations have the same status as human beings. This means that you can sue them.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:1, Insightful)
Without due process, the 'Security Guys' are just a bunch of thugs. The executive branch ( cops / the president etc ) must be forced to follow due process, or there are no checks and balances on it's power. What meaning does the constitution, or the laws that congress passes have if the 'people with guns' can just push people around with no justification other than 'I said so'?
Sure, you can travel from point A to point B, according to the law, but if guys-with-guns stop you at a roadblock and tell you to go back home because they think your feet are too big ( maybe there was a report of a big-foot in the area and they are discriminating against anyone with a size 12 shoe size or above in the interests of 'Public safety' ), then you can't in reality get anywhere. Your right to travel is in effect null and void.
This can be extended to one's right to freely assemble and peacefully demonstrate, or to post dissenting opinions on the web. Sure, you have the 'right' to be a dissenter, but if it means being tailed/hassled by the cops all the time, or having your aquaintances ( like your employer ) hassled. Then the consequences for excersizing your rights could be made so high that the rights disappear for all practical purposes.
If you are afraid of the SS, and you complain about their behavior to a Judge, and that Judge is afraid of the SS then you aren't likely to get much relief.
The executive branch grabs power by creating realities 'on the ground'. It's easier to apologize than to get permission - and once you create enough 'realities' you don't even need to do that.
Re:Hey, I've done this (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither. If you think, even for a moment, that the "regulations" in place come close to protecting people, then I have I bridge to sell you.
Its my firm belief that the TSA is the product of a knee-jerk reaction to 9-11. Utilizing politician speak (say something enough times and it becomes true) and wide-scale cognitive dissonance, every one is lulled into a false sense of security; nudge nudge, wink wink.
Re:This is what is with the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, they see it as:
Two ways to end the war: (1) Kill all imperialist agressors. (2) Convert to Christianity. Unfortunately, diplomacy is not a part of either
But you are in the right of course. After all, you are American, and any bad things in your history don't get taught, and so by extending that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the USA to do any wrong. Yes Sirrie! Don't forget, we are talking about a document that states "all men are created equal", written by a bunch of guys who had SLAVES. So, in America, all white men are created equal. Then along came the religious fundamentalists, and now it's all Christian White Men are created equal.
Tho I do agree with you on the armed milita bit in some cases. 9-11 would not have happened if everyone on the plane had an airline-issue baseball bat.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Writing Checks at Fry's (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me. Ever try to write a check at Fry's?
We just had a new store open here in the metreo Atlanta area a few months back. During one particular visit, I had enough items to justify writing a check so I wouldn't completely obliterate the contents of my wallet. When I presented the check, the Fry's clerk said that it would take about 10 minutes to get through all their "check approval" policies, which I was told was a one time deal. I'm thinking they're going to call the bank, verify my ID, credit history and that I had enough cash to cover the purchase.
What they did, however, was take my driver's license back to a photocopier, and Xerox it and the copy of the check. Right off the bat, I'm upset, because with copies of just these two items alone, you could start a very healthy career as an identity thief (Georgia is still one of the states that uses your SSN as your driver's license number unless you specifically ask them not to). When I mention this to the clerk and a bystanding supervisor, they said it's standard practice at Fry's to keep this info on file (I'm imagining a large, unlocked filing cabinet in a minimum wage employee's office), and without it, I wouldn't be able to write checks at Fry's - ever. I took back my check, my ID, demanded the photocopies and left the store.
My questions are, does Fry's do this at every store? And is this something I can expect to see from other merchants in the future?
Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure if others have commented on this, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, how can people be expected to obey a law that they cannot examine? The old adage, "ignorance of the law is not a defense" comes to mind. In this case, I would have to assume that it is.
Most folks I spoke with thought the issue was not wanting to show identification, but that is not the case. I think it's about being subject to a "secret law" and seeing Red Amerika looming in the distance.
Re:Um. (Score:2, Insightful)
Can McDonald's chose to only serve white people? Can they say, "no white skin, no Big Mac?" Certain types of discrimination and restrictions are unconstitutional. That's the root of the issue here.
The problem of secrecy (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice trick, you want someone else to prove that something doesn't exist. It is near impossible. The burden of proving something does exist lies on you. The only suspect party that the article even mentions is SouthWest Airlines who isn't producing the copy of the law. Is it their responsibility to provide copies or obey the law? If lawsuits weren't such a problem, Hotels, Car Rental agencies and the rest wouldn't be forced to require identification. The problem lies in the moral decline of the people, not the policies of government. The article isn't clear whether Mr. Gilmore has sought an attorney to provide him with the law itself. I don't get the impression that Mr. Gilmore is working hard at it. If I were the airline I'd probably blow this political activist off as well. Its not their responsibility to provide him the law; rather, they are responsible for obeying it.
The last statement you make, We do live in 1984.
Here's your chance, present your evidence. You make a bunch of claims here with nothing to back them up. Your only proof that a secret law exists is that an airline can't produce a copy of the law, which only proves that the airline can't produce a copy of the law. It is not evidence that indicates any wrongdoing or secrecy from the government. The article makes no mention that any attempt has been made to any other agency to produce the law. It's as if Mr. Gilmore is arguing that someone is negligent when the only indication of negligence I see is his own. How irresponsible of him.
The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no.
Again, which facts? And for goodness sake, are you saying you want our constitution to protect a non-citizen? If so, who supports a police state here? What a ridiculous claim to make that the President doesn't support the constitution....
You are arguing with a world of people and asking for their trust, yet you don't present any evidence that supports your point. I ask that you be intellectually honest with the Slashdot readership.
Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)
My understanding was that the calls were made from the $5/minute (or whatever they are now) phones built into the plane, rather than private cell phones. Where's the claim they were made from private cell phones?