Your Right to Travel Anonymously: Not Dead Yet 1353
ChiralSoftware writes "Remember John Gilmore's fight to be able to travel on commercial airlines without having to show ID? It has dropped out of the news for a while, but now it appears that the fight is continuing. I remember in the 80s we used to make jokes about Soviet citizens being asked "show me your papers" and needing internal passports to travel in their own country. Now we need internal passports to travel in our country. How did this happen? The requirement to show ID for flying on commercial passenger flights started in 1996, in response to the crash of TWA Flight 800. This crash was very likely caused by a mechanical failure. How showing ID to board a plane prevents mechanical failures is left as an exercise to the reader. How mandatory ID even prevents terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID. I hope the courts don't wimp out on this fight."
Re:The horse is out of the barn for good..... (Score:3, Informative)
When the system fails, nothing works... (Score:3, Informative)
For all the attacks that happen or that we hear about after being broken up, there's got to be dozens of plots that are being aborted or lose key personel to arrest before they had time to mature into being specific enough to pick an exact target.
As scary as it is for our "free" government to be fighting a "secret" war, we have to remember that a government-like entity without any homeland is already fighting against us that way.
Re:Some questions (Score:3, Informative)
And why would we want to prevent this? If I buy a non-refundable ticket and I am unable to fly that particular time, I can't sell the ticket because of the ID check.
So, the airline gets my money and an empty seat, and I get nothing.
Re:Sort of understandable (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce Scheneier [schneier.com] calls this "Security Theatre".
Re:Why else? (Score:1, Informative)
"Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people."
All Governments? Really? Pretty cynical.
Or did you simply mean this United States Democratic Society where you wont be impaled for submitting your biased anti-American views?
See, in this country, you can spew your hatred of Bush, the Patriot act, and whatever else you want in the name of free speech.
Not only that, YOU have the power to rally up support for or against the candidates of your choice, of whom you feel would do a better job than those you currently don't trust in government.
So, if you can make a better argument as to what other country allows citizens to speak out directly against its own government without threat of some type of reciprocal punishment, then you need to reevalute your ignorant and biased viewpoints.
-Anon and proud
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Informative)
All the hijackers on 9/11 HAD legitimate goverment-issued ID, and were required to show it before boarding their planes. A fat lot of good the ID requirement did then.
So what _are_ the other options? (Score:3, Informative)
- I travelled by train from Boston to New York. To buy the ticket I had to show my passport. Excuse me!? Was I going to cross an international border, then? At home I can buy a ticket to wherever I please without showing any identification.
- I travelled by rental car, twice. Identification was required. Well, I understand that since they give me an expensive piece of equipment, but I couldn't have rented the card anonymously.
- I travelled by plane, once internally and of course coming in and leaving. Not only did I have to show ID, but _each_ _single_ _time_ I was asked to step out of the line for a "random" search. Yeah, like that is really random.
Ironically, the one place where noone was interested in my ID at all was at the immigration desk, where I was waved right through. Noone thought to check my papers, or my bag (and I was hiding a dangerous Nail Clipper of Mass Destruction in it too, carrying it around the US for two weeks with impunity!)
So saying "don't fly" is cheap, since it only leaves you the option of not travelling at all. And not being able to move about, being imprisoned in your little region as it were, that's not freedom at all...
Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously? (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, no Right to Travel Anonymously. Where did this right come from? Hrmmm...
It's sorta like your right to privacy, it DOES NOT EXIST once you leave your home. Your right to privacy only exists within the confines of your home, so get used to it.
I found it listed right here:
Amendment IX
Amendment X
remembering 1789 (Score:5, Informative)
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Re:Is My Constitution Outdated? (Score:5, Informative)
You are on a hiding to nothing if you want to argue that this doesn't entitle Congress to regulate aviation.
You *might* be able to argue that the Commerce Clause doesn't entitled Congress to regulate flights within one State. See Thomas's concurrence in US v Lopez (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Informative)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AFAIK, being required to identify yourself is considered a "search".
Each citizen has a right to tell the government (and anyone else) to "step off". The citizen is assumed to be 100% innocent, legitimate, approved, etc. unless otherwise noted using appropriate means, such as a warrant.
I don't have to show you anything, papers or not. Period. Only a judge can say otherwise, or a law enforcement official with probable cause that a crime has been committed (and even then I am not required to identify myself....I would be booked as "John Doe").
I support Gilmore, but it looks like a gray area to me (IANAL). An airline is a corporation, not a government.
Re:Fly anonymously ? Named tickets (Score:2, Informative)
I can think of two exploits based on this to get on a plane the airline does not think you are on, though you do have to be able to get through security in the first place.
1) You and your associate buy tickets on two flights departing the same set of gates at a similar time. Go through security. Switch boarding passes once you are through security.
2) You fly into an airport shortly before your associate has an outbound flight booked for, making sure you are scheduled to arrive at the same set of gates as the outbound flight. Your associate hands you the boarding pass for the outbound flight, you get on the plane and your associate leaves without getting on a plane at all.
My conclusion: if this was a real a security measure, they would not leave loopholes like this. The ID check is there to keep people from casually swapping non-transferable tickets, and to give people a warm fuzzy feeling about security.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the US Supreme Court just decided otherwise in the case of HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY [cornell.edu]. Dudley Hiibel [papersplease.org] was approached by a cop and told to identify himself to help the cop "investigate an investigation." He was given no indication of probable cause (the cop was responding to a passerby who thought there was a "domestic disturbance" in progress, though in reality Dudley was arguing with his daughter on the side of the road.) His arrest for failing to identify himself was upheld. HE HAD COMMITTED NO OTHER CRIME! All other charges were dropped immediately. His "crime" was being John Doe, for which he was arrested, convicted and fined. See Hiibel Revisited [msn.com] at Slate for more analysis.
Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why else? (Score:2, Informative)
If we can get more apathetic people like you, we don't need a constitution, we don't need elections, we don't need media.
I have said it before, and I'll be more than happy to repeat it again: USA is the new Soviet-Uinon! USA is getting further and further into the police state quagmire. Peoples rights and privacies are beeing thrown out with the bathwater. I remember travelling in the old Soviet-Union back in the late 70's and early 80's and the only difference today is that the stores in the US have goods to sell, the Soviet ones didn't. Else, your rigths as a private citizen is much the same.
So, unless you want to live in Soviet-USA, you better open your mouth and protest and use the election in November to show your disgust with the current chimp.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Right. When they tried to board, after presenting identification several of them were red flagged by CAPPS. Unfortunately nothing was done with that information. Hopefully the government does something next time.
JetBlue and Southwest are no wave (Score:1, Informative)
They'll never fly to Missoula, MT because doing things like that mean they'd have to have different types of aircraft for different routes and they'd have to build a route system to feed passengers to and from the main trunk routes between hubs. Doing that would increase their costs and they'd be just like the other airlines that are on the verge of or are already in bankruptcy - United, Delta, USScareways.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Informative)
You aren't doing anything illegal? Are you sure? By the time you choose to "stop", you have already been tried, found guilty and charged or fined.
Laws are so complicated, chances are you are doing something illegal without relizing it. And, despite that a Lawyer needs 7 years of post-graduate training, for the layman, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it
One example:
Sex toys are illegal in Texas.
Now, personally, I have no problem with anybody popping a Mr Buzzy into any handy orifice if that's what gets them off, but its appears to be a problem in Bush's home state. Maybe there's something in the Bible about it. No idea.
Sure, you aren't going to bomb a plane, or extort a million dollars.
There are already toll-roads who will fine you if the time you took between the entry and exit implies that you sped. You were never detected actually speeding, and you can easily get around it by stopping off at a gas station and drinking a coffee.
But, hey, suddenly you get a letter in the mail for jaywalking, because there was no legal way you could have made the trip between two sidewalk monitoring points without having crossed the road illegally.
Then you go to jail for buying a vibrator in New Mexico and then driving to Lousiana. You must have passed through Texas, right?
Extreme example, but if big-brother is watching you, any little seemingly unimportant infraction becomes revenue for the government.
Realize that if you are focused on 20 different things, not a single one will ever get done
I'm so glad you don't work for me. Take a time management course.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:1, Informative)
"Carter said individuals would have to be "involved in criminal activity" -- not just civil disobedience -- to be banned from U.S. airlines."
Um-- "civil disobedience" is criminal activity. It's just not violent. The guy who coined the term ended up in jail for a bit because of it.
Maybe the FBI guy was thinking about legal assembly and speech (our political process!) when he said civil disobendience. If that is the case, he is a serious asshole and he has a gun and power of arrest. Great.
I can't imagine why anyone would ever call government agents "jack-booted thugs".
Re:Why else? (Score:1, Informative)
Are you seriously claiming the USA is the only democracy in the world with freedom of speech?
Two words: Canada. Europe.
There are countries out there where not only are you allowed to criticise the government, but you won't even get locked up indefinitely on a military base in Cuba without access to a lawyer or any information about the charges or evidence against you just for being a member of the wrong religion in the wrong place at the wrong time. What a fresh idea!
Hitchhiking (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why else? (Score:1, Informative)
The constitution is even more strict than that:
"and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
But it's still not working.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Informative)
In any event...
You are right about point 1. Everyone is doing something illegal right now. What you want is privacy so cops can't call you on it. What I want is better politicians willing to get rid of stupid laws. Lack of privacy is just a symptom of a bigger problem. We need campaign finance reform. Once we have good politicians, we can work on the smaller things.
Point 2. The point isn't to stop a terrorist. You can't do that! Ever! The point is to have a good paper train back to his funding. Then you assasinate the man with the money. The next guy with money MAY have second thoughts. Sure, there will always be some way around having an ID card. Let's try and make that system better. We need a way to track people from the time they enter the country till they leave. This won't be a problem as long as we can trust those in office. We can trust those in office if we know they are working for us vice Disney/Exxon-Mobil.
As for point 3, I think it's valid. I hate giving my Drivers License to a hotel clerk. I fly a lot more than most. In fact, I was due to fly internationally on Sep 12. I spent an extra 3 weeks overseas because of terrorism. I really hate having to show my ID and have my bags searched 5 times between the curb and the gate. I know it adds nothing to security. However, as much as I travel, it's still a small hastle. If the voters would focus on finance reform, we could take care of a much larger hastle. Choose your battles and only fight the important ones. We can get election reforms as long as we fight hard and under the same banner. Abortion, prayer, school vouchers, privacy, health care; these are all side issues to keep us distracted from the fact that our representatives take millions of dollars in bribes.
Who is the sucker? I can join with my enemies to fight the good fight. Could you?
We invaded Iraq so that GWB could get more money. How is your not showing an ID card gonna stop that?
I was educated in public school. I still have a valid point: All the privacy in the world does not fix your politicians.
I do have a clue. It just seems that I'm choosing to fight a much more important fight.
BTW, don't be so quick to flame. Take a breath before you hit 'submit'. We are all on the same side here.
Re:Why else? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, both the Reps AND Dems are wrong on firearm (Score:1, Informative)
(hint: people aren't kidding when they say 'the first step to gun confiscation is registration')
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop spreading this misinformation. The entire purpose of the CAPPS system was to guarantee that flagged passengers are on a plane before their baggage is loaded. This system was developed in response to Pan Am 108 which was destroyed by a bomb in a checked ghetto blaster, placed on board by the bomber who failed to board the flight. You have repeatedly said the government did nothing for the passengers flagged by CAPPS, when in fact they followed 100% of the procedures ordered by that system. Policymakers just never believed that someone would execute a suicide hijacking, let alone four simultaneously. Judging by your multiple posts, you really do need to read the commission report.
And if you did read it, read it again. If you can trust a government commission long enough to sit through its report, it's a very interesting read.
Re:No, both the Reps AND Dems are wrong on firearm (Score:5, Informative)
The SKS was declared legal and the California Department of Justice sent out letters saying it was fine. Later they changed their mind and arrested & charged people with felonies for having one. How did they know who had them? A registration list.
Even people who turned over the gun where threatened with a felony charge. Sure, you have a letter from DoJ saying it's legal, but ooops, it's now a felony.
Re:Why else? (Score:1, Informative)
The decision very clearly states you must identify yourself to a police officer in a Terry stop, which occurs when a cop has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is just about to occur. That cop also has the right to pat you down, but only to see if you have a weapon on you.
The decision leaves open what it means to identify yourself. It is not clear whether simply stating your name is enough, but one assumes it is. The court very clearly did not want to create case law that creates a national id requirement.
Despite that case, cops do not have the right to require you to produce id without reasonable suspicioin. They can stop you and request id for no reason, but you have the right to say no and walk away.
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:3, Informative)
I live in the Washington, D.C., area, and I have several good friends who were in the area on 9/11. One of them watched the plane fly OVER HIS CAR to crash into the Pentagon. He was close enough to feel the heat from the explosion. Federal authorities ordered he and the other people on the road to leave their cars on foot and come back later to retrieve them. Another friend was at National Airport and watched the crash. Nobody saw the plane? I think what you meant to say is that "Nobody *filmed* the plane" If a nobody like me who just happens to live in the area knows several trustworthy people who saw it, plenty of people saw it.
(I apologize in advance for the rant here, but this really pissed me off). Nobody was in that section of the building? I work with people who lost family members in the resulting crash. I know people who still bear the scars from burns they received helping others escape the flames. One hundred and twenty-five people lost their lives on the ground. Nobody? Congratulations. You've just told the grieving widow in my wife's office that her dead husband was "nobody." Not only is your post simply wrong, it's offensive. Get a clue about the facts before you post.
That is misinformation. (Score:3, Informative)
That is only true when and if a motor vehicle enters the equation. It is not true in general public situations (i.e. you are walking on the sidewalk); the police can pull up and ask for ID, but you do not have to provide it to them. My source is the ACLU. I highly recommend everyone read (and memorize) their What to do if you're stopped by The Police page, accessible here. [aclu.org]
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ho Hum (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, the government currently regulates what information businesses can collect and share. It's reasonable that they maintain their own private black list, nobody forces a bar to serve a troublesome customer, but when they start to share this data with law enforcement and credit agencies they aren't so free as they would like.
Anyways, the biggest reason the airlines want to demand ID is because they claim tickets are non-transferable. They charge up to 4x the early-booking price for last-minute tickets. If you could buy them on EBay from someone who bought early they'd lose the ability to dictate their fares and silly restrictions (must stay a weekend, can't use half of each of two round-trip tickets, etc). As soon as this gets taken to court by someone with the cash to stick it out till the end it'll be rules to fall under the doctrine of first sale like almost everything else on the planet and then the airlines won't have the huge financial incentive to ask for ID. Not that I think the airlines are lazy and corrupt, grown corpulent on taxpayer-funded handouts, or anything...
a link to a page six years old (Score:3, Informative)