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."
Why else? (Score:4, Insightful)
Two words: PatrIDiot Act
Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people.
What's best for the people is only important in the last few months before an election - and only then if the issue is a truly popular one and you wouldn't know how to twist it.
[Watch the BBC classic comedy series of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" for some *really* neat insight into politics...
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, the fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.
Or to summarise:
It's better that the government knows what it dosn't know, than it dosn't know what it dosn't know.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why else? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I'm not going to do anything illegal. Sure, the government could make something I do now illegal and then come after me. If it's a small thing, I'll stop it. If it's a big thing, I'll use the soap box, ballot box, and ammo box.
2. It makes it slightly harder to get away with something. If you are required to use ID everywhere, tracking you back
The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:5, Interesting)
Dean was screaming to be heard above the noise of the crowd. Unfortunately, the microphone he was screaming into had a filter for ambient noise. It was impossible to hear anyone else but Dean.
When the sound of the crowd was mixed back into the recording, recreating what actually could be heard, Dean was barely audible.
It would have been the work of minutes for any network reporter to get the correctly mixed version of the audio. But they didn't. Only Diane Sawyer ever apologized for the lynching after she heard the corrected track.
It was too much fun for the networks, the rightwing cable pundits, the network executives threatened by Dean's pledge to break up their growing empires, the late night comedians- even John Stewart: come on, John you're smarter than this! - to slaughter Dean, whom the majority of the pundits disliked because he said things that caused massive cognitive dissonance in their unbelieveably uninformed minds.
Now we've Kerry, who won't even condemn Bush's straight-out lying about WMD's. Dean had the balls to tell the truth. Now he's been Gored, reduced to a joke because reporters simply would not be bothered to find out about filtering mics. Immense momentum killed by laziness and a willingness to kill the messenger.
Re:Michael Moore is an amateur (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (June 11, 1807)
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that Moore's extreme style, more than his actual messages, are what attract the media. Controversy and spectacle always get attention, but more complex opinions that can't be easily compressed into a soundbite are often seen as boring and easy to ignore.
Of course, it's hard to make the arguement that excessive security measures around a few events will lead to the complete destruction of free speech, as is demonstrated by the pretty public uproar about the problems with the new voting machines. Also, what's this about arresting people for opinions?
It's about 3 in the morning here, and I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, so I'll cut myself off here.
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, Those are the adjective definitions. Try the noun:
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
Nothing in this def says a documentary can't have a point view. Also, dictionary.com, while convenient, is the Reader's Digest of dictionaries. If there are any subtleties in a definition, you won't find them there.
Re:The soap box and ballot box are nearly dead (Score:5, Insightful)
No, both the Reps AND Dems are wrong on firearms (Score:4, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
Like Gilmore is doing? You ought to stand up for him now. What are you waiting for? For the situation to get even worse? To find yourself with even less options at your disposal?
ballot box
November's getting closer.
ammo box
Well, then you'll be a dead terrorist. You're not going to make an armed resistance against the US Government and live. Or make any difference, for that matter. And don't forget, as a summary of the old saying goes, that by the time they come for you, there will be nobody left to stand up for you. Anybody with the sense to notice the creep of the police state and the guts to try to head it off will be long gone, if the 90% who don't care -- a group you appear to be among -- do not wake up and solve problems while they are still (relatively) small.
Basically, your stance boils down to apathy, laziness and pessimism. I also find it interesting that, while privacy and personal security are Constitutional rights that are under attack and being eroded yearly, the "important" issues you choose to focus on are all derivative governmental programs and policies. Not quite bread and circuses, but certainly a far cry from our most precious, fundamental rights.
Incidentally, you also have recourse to the jury box -- the other half of Gilmore's defense.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Interesting)
The soap box is buried in the "Society of the Spectacle", the ballot box is rigged by the two-party system, the jury box is rigged by definition - it IS the fucking state, for Christ's sake - and the ammo box is only useful if you can get enough people to take it up - which you can't because the soap box is buried, etc.
Wait for nanotech and do the job right.
My prediction: Gilmore is going to LOSE - big time.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You can get away with terrorism and live, it's just that so far all the terrorists have been either idiots ( McVeigh ), or only doing terrorism as a means to get their 70 virgins in paradise. ( idiots of another stripe ) They WANTED to die in the act.
In fact, getting away with terrorism and living over and over again is the basis for what is called guerilla warfare.
There is no moral reason not to use your individual soveriegnty and wage war against the state for good reason if you think you can win, but unless the general populace is likely to side with you, you have no chance of winning an out and out military victory. However, if everyone were armed with rifles, pistols, shotguns and homemade bombs and booby traps, and all decided not to obey a government - even one as militarily powerful as the US govenrment, then there would be no way for officials of that government to administer the towns and cities without having their heads sniped off. Sure, the government could nuke areas, but if the general populace wanted the government overthrown, nuking all the enemies of the state would leave nothing left to govern.
Of course there are wackos that die 'defending their compound'. Nobody sides with them because they are nuts. ( If you have a 'compound' you ARE nuts. ) But using the ammo box for real COMMON grievances is not stupid or futile.
If the US govenrnment were to do drastic things to remove the Soap Box, the Voting/Jury box, or the Ammo box, then that would be a wise time to revolt with whatever of the three means would be most EFFECTIVE. Individuals letting themselves be emasculated of their power is like them giving their lunch money to a bully. If you were a country and a bigger country demanded tribute or else they would attack, then paying it would only weaken you and make them more powerful making the inevitable invasion easier for the invader. It's always best to stand and fight at such a time and hope that others see that siding with the weaker party in a battle is in their own best interest. After all, letting the invasion stand leaves a more bloated potential future enemy ( nations failed to stop Hitler in WWII and his Reich grew to become a bigger problem than if it had been nipped in the bud. )
When there was a dispute between Kuwait and Saddam over the rights to pump oil from their shared reservoir, Kuwait correctly refused to buckle, and let itself be invaded. Because siding with the weaker party is in every countries best interest, Saddam was pushed back by those from outside, and eventually his entire regime obliterated. The Kuwaitis won in the end.
Siding with the weaker country leaves the 'rescued' country as a firm ally to the rescuer, and the beligerent country in the power of the allies. These time tested principles for being a sovereign are drawn from 'The Prince' by Machiavelli. Individuals, sovereigns of themselves should take it's lessons to heart.
The only way a few terrorists with interests counter to those of general populace could get their way would be to manipulate events subtly. A simple method that has been used the world over is to provoke the target regime to make enemies for itself within and abroad by attacking it. The attacks are like a mosquito bite, but the problems the giant creates for itself do it in. This strategy is so simple that it almost fails to qualify as being subtle. Influencing events in more clever ways would probably yeild even more bang for the terrorist buck. "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum, and I will move the world" - Archemedes A butterfly in Hong Kong could very well cause a hurricane in the carribean.
The cleverest terrorists may already be fully in control of the world. Their 'attacks' may not be indentified as such. They may be so subtle that they are not even violent or even illegal.
I say we bomb the Stonecutters.
Re:Why else? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, then you'll be a dead terrorist. You're not going to make an armed resistance against the US Government and live.
You know, I was having a conversation with my friend from the UK last week and we were discussing the difference between US and the UK, primarily gun law. I asked him, "What can you do if the government becomes corrupt?" He had a very interesting response:
"There are other ways you can overthrow a corrupt government besides violence. Imagine what would happen if all of the citizens simply refused to go to work. The government would have to agree with their demands because they don't have enough soldiers to point guns at everyone and force them to do their jobs. The economy would grind to a halt and the government would be thrown out on their ass in a moment's time."
This got me thinking: Suppose Bush decides to steal the election again in 2004... If this happens, I think one of the safest and best ways we could protest would be to stop going to work for a few weeks. Imagine what would happen...
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: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:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm assuming that double negative was a typo.
Federal courts have already stated we do not have the right to not identify ourselves to law enforcement. Obviously, we are still physically able to refuse to identify ourselves, but doing so will result in arrest. I'm not commenting on whether or not this is acceptable, or whether or not the right to refuse to identify one's self is one of those inalienable rights or anything philosophical. I'm just saying that as of today, the judicial and executive branches of government do not observe a right of the people to refuse to identify themselves to law enforcement upon request. As such, from a legal standpoint, refusing to identify yourself to a police officer who has no probable cause on matter of principle is civil disobedience.
Re:Why else? (Score:4, Interesting)
About 10 years ago, I did some work for a city (~30,000 pop) police station. They'd record "suspicious" persons on note cards.
A suspicious person could be, and often was, nothing more than a group of teenagers walking around the strip mall that the movie theater was in at night. They would be stopped, ID'd, and recorded on a note card. You could also get a card filled out for you if someone called in and filed a "suspicious" report on you (the caller would have to ID you by name).
Eventually, all those cards would end up in a database. So, don't worry...it's not a possibilty, it's been done for at least 10 years. ;)
Re:Why else? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, we can start with the 4th Amendment. The right to be secure in one's person houses, papers , and effects seems to uphold a consitutional right to privacy, when coupled with the 14th Amendment you have a pretty strong listing of rights (also remember, a right cannot be taken away from you with a law, laws regulate privilages - very important distinction.)
Also, you may want to examine Griswold v. Connecticut [thisnation.com] where the supreme court first upheld the right to privacy. Hope that helps you get a better grasp on a fundamental human right.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's implicit. At the time the constitution was framed, there were few privacy concerns because technology provided few tools for privacy invasion. No photographs, no fingerprinting, no DNA. Want a new identity? Move 100 miles and say you're someone else. Want to prove your identity? You'll have to do it using a web of trust system.
Technology has changed a great deal in tghat time. Unfortunatly, social advances have happened a lot slower, so we have the technology to violate privacy, but not the social maturity needed to keep our government from doing so at every opportunity.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to do anything illegal.
And you trust law enforcement to only ever invade the privacy of those they suspect of doing something illegal? And not, say, people whose politics those in power don't like such as civil rights activists, as they have historically done?
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a basic flaw in perception, here. There are a LOT of people out there, including many law enforcement officials I know, that think that the job of the people is to serve the State. They'd never phrase it quite that way, but thats what it comes down to - that you have an obligation to the state. Of course, the original ideal was the opposite - that the state is supposed to serve the people. The web of trust neccesary for the kind of unrestricted powers law enforcement wants is huge - individual officers, beurocrats, politicians.... And of course it's easy to marginalize the people who disagree. Abuses DO happen. That's just a given. Clearly the oversight we have is not sufficent, thats self-evident. Removing existing oversight (as limited as it may be) is hardly the answer.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are - you just don't know it yet, because the law hasn't been passed.
More likely, you probably are already doing something illegal - you just haven't had a cop inform you of the particular one of the millions of statutes in this country that you regularly violate without being aware of it. DO something he doesn't approve of (whether it is illegal or not) and you will then be informed of *some* law you are violating. React to the obvious injustice and you'll do time for "resisting arrest" and "interfering with an officer."
Your number 2 point is brain-dead. Nothing related to "paper checking" is going to stop any professional terrorist for an instant. Granted, most of these clowns aren't terribly professional, but anybody in the business will have any number of sources of perfectly adequate ID and cover stories. A good terrorist will waltz right through a check that would hang you up merely for technicalities (your papers aren't *quite* in order because your local state moron screwed them up - the terrorist's forger won't screw his up.)
Your third point is completely oblivious. You choose to focus on one issue - airplane privacy - and ignore the overall effects of repeated invasions of civil liberties on all levels. Meanwhile, you focus on issues involving sucking at the tit of government (education, health care) or which are never ever going to be changed (campaign finances) as long as politicians can draw breath.
In other words, you're just another American sucker.
You probably think we invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqis and safeguard America from those evil Iraqi terrorists, too, right?
A product of the American educational system.
No clue.
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: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:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
You break the law constantly. There are far too many laws on the books to avoid criminality. Traffic law is notorious for this. I have a friend who's a cop. Occasionally when we are driving along he'll point out how many people he can pull over and ticket. On the highway in modest traffic, that translates into about 1 person every 30 seconds
When you have more law, you have less justice. If we pass enough laws, everyone becomes a criminal. The wise man knows that criminals are primarily made by the legislature, and exercises restraint when empowering the legal system.
As for terrorism
Re:Why else? (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, man, God knows what sort of crazy terroristic shit you two could be thinking up when you are supposedly 'making love'. They gotta watch, it's for your own good.
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.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way?
Stop being vaguely theoretical. Follow your thought process through and show us how it helps.
On 9/11, we knew and know everybody who was on board. And it helps how?
In fact, it turns our the government knew these people were trouble, knew they got on board, and it didn't help.
How does tracking my movements within my own country help in this struggle?
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:Why else? (Score:4, Interesting)
People without weapons are no match for two people trained in the use of a high-powered sub machine gun, especially along a narrow point of entry (cockpit door).
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, you ARE naive. A perfect example is the CAPSII system of profiling suspects to search at the airport instead of a blanket random search. It's mathematically provable that the CAPS2 system is LESS secure and has a gaping fundamental loophole that terrorists can exploit that random sampling does not. But, to the ignorant, profiling SOUNDS much safer, since all the dark-skinned poor people can be pulled out of line and harassed, so it was enacted by the government.
(For mor information go look here [mit.edu])
And a personal anecdote: I was flying home from Japan once, and was searched 6 times during that adventure. The entire time I had a hermetically sealed biohazard box given to me by a hospital worker to put my home-made super-hot hot-sauce in, complete with all sorts of biohazard flowers and warnings that the content was amazingly dangerous. It wasn't some joke box, it was the real deal from a real AIDS hospital that a friend nursed at. This was looked at and passed over by not less than 15 different people who did not open it or even look twice.
They did take away my Korean chopsticks (made of metal, but not sharp or anything).
Your government is not trying to protect you at all. They ARE trying to offer you the slight illusion of protection and betting on the fact that the 9/11 events were a fluke.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
England would have had as much luck trying to round up all the world's Catholics in attempt to curb IRA attacks.
And if we make Arab Americans second class citizens wave everyone else by security, it will only A) get them that much angrier and B) teach Al Quaeda to recruit caucasians with caucasian names.
No, a just law applies to all citizens equally. If we're going to be sacrificing freedom for safety, then we've all got to give it up.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will when your made up name "Hassan Al Brahimi" also shows up on other lists. Producing ID does not 'prevent' anything. It makes the terrorists job harder. Juggling multiple 'safe' ID's, etc. Make it harder, and they will slip up.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's nonsense... Also - depending on what people do, you might flag them for totally harmless things (i.e. what do you do if Hassan Al Brahimi is actually a consultant often flying between different cities staying at those for sometimes and afternoon, sometimes a couple of weeks.
Flagging people is just bound to cause a major fuck up sooner or later.
Also, for a while, the Department for Homeland security was apparently contemplating on whether they should color-code passengers according to their threat potential. One of their ideas was that (non-US) people known to have had training on automatic weapons should be chained to their seats for the duration of the flight...
Personally, I've struck the US off my list of potential holiday destinations, until the whole patridiot act mess has been resolved (and removed). In the meantime, I will not even entertain job offers that might require me to go to the US - I'm simply sick of the kind of paranoia the Bush government is celebrating...
Re:Why else? (Score:4, Insightful)
I reiterate what I've said elsewhere. No terrorist worthy of the name is going to have a problem producing perfectly adequate ID which will sail through any check you care to devise (with the possible exception of biometrics, which is not feasible until you have everyone on the planet in your DNA database - and as I recall, in the movie "Gattaca" they beat that one, too.)
As for "slip ups", make the paperwork more voluminous and the morons in our government departments will "slip up" - with the result that innocent people will be detained, and terrorists will slip through the cracks - as always.
For proof of that, read the statements pertaining to the effectiveness of the FBI translation department as outlined by Sibel Edmonds, the FBI whistleblower.
And even if you succeed in making the terrorists' jobs "harder", that will not stop them either. They will simply find another way to accomplish their goals.
The only way to eliminate terrorists is to eliminate the social, religious, economic and political causes of terrorism and then kill the ones still living. No live ones, no replacements. Nothing else is going to be effective. Nothing.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Funny)
As someone who flies regularly...
Please, please, please God, let this be implemented.
Re:Why else? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the stupid people are in power, you get Nazism.
If the smart people are in power, you get Communism.
If you can't see who is in power, you get America.
The horse is out of the barn for good..... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, a government can never take away your rights, they can only chose to not honor them.
Re:The horse is out of the barn for good..... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The horse is out of the barn for good..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember 1789?
(hint: it happened in France and involved guillotines)
remembering 1789 (Score:5, Informative)
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Re:The horse is out of the barn for good..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely. Rights are not something that you are "given" by those in power (like a gift), or something that you have to "earn" or "win". The truth is exactly the opposite: Human rights are derived from human nature. We are *born* with rights, because it is human nature that gives us those rights, not government. We have evolved as unique, thinking individuals, but at the same time we have evolved to work together in groups for mutual benefit. The only way to interact with other unique individuals, and retain mutual benefit, is to respect the natural rights of other individuals. There is no "list" of rights, nor could there ever possibly be a list. The very notion of enumerating rights implies that freedom will be limited to somebody's arbitrary idea of how people should behave. This requires an initiation of force. The initiation of force is the only mode of human interaction that violates our natural rights.
We are born free, and from there our rights can only be limited. No soldier has ever died to "earn" or "win" those rights. They died to *preserve* the rights that have been with us since the day mother nature gave us the intelligence to respect each other as unique, thinking individuals.
Re:The horse is out of the barn for good..... (Score:5, Interesting)
As expressed by Utah Phillips:
"Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free."
Re:Sorry, but WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
We are born to our position in society, and from there we have only the rights our leaders see fit to grant us.
I must disagree. Rights themselves exist regardless of the whims of one's leaders; they are inalienable. However, the set of rights you might actually be able to exercise are very much dependent on the leaders.
It might seem like a trivial distinction. Who cares if you still have rights if you are in no position to use them? Actually, it makes a big difference. If governments grant and take away rights at will, who can say if they are just or unjust in doing so? One could not claim something like slavery is wrong -- slaves have no rights, so nobody could possibly infringe on those rights.
On the other hand, if rights are an innate part of the human condition, one can easily discern good government from bad by looking at what rights people have that are being repressed. The goal then is to minimize the dichotomy between the rights people are born with and the rights they are actually free to exercise.
Ho Hum (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect it is for two main reasons: to help identify the corpses and in the case of fake IDs, to provide a starting point for the police to investigate.
I agree though, it does nothing to improve safety.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were after THAT - shouldn't you rather go for DNA samples of each passenger before a flight (and discard the samples unchecked in case the flight landed safely)?
As for the fake IDs - again, the terrorists used their original IDs. Nothing fake to spot there...
(Especially if you bear in mind that unlike, say, a thief who might have several previous offences as a thief, a suicide bomber will never have a previous offence as such -- either he succeeded; or in case he didn't - intelligence agencies will probably stay sooo interested as to whom these people deal with that they'll never be in shape to try again [once they're released from prison, that is].
Re:Ho Hum (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said the fact that I just mentioned I am going on a plane today and mentioned the fact that it could crash-- that everything I just said is a red flag to them-- THAT is wrong. Yes personal security through obscurity (Who am I?) would protect you from that, but your own civic duty supersedes that which should not even be an issue.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:4, Insightful)
However, many political activists have also been screened out of commercial airline flight. Google for "tsa political activist" and read the stories yourself. Or here is a representative story:
No-fly blacklist snares political activists [sfgate.com]
John Gilmore wants to travel to Washington, DC to petition his government. Maybe I want to fly out to Las Vegas for the next DefCon without getting into a FBI database. Maybe you want to fly to a WTO meeting or a political convention, either to attend or to protest.
Of course, you can come back and say "the airlines have a security interest in knowing the identity of their customers". I acknowledge that. Perhaps that overrides the liberty of passengers to travel anonymously; perhaps not. However, that's different from your desire to declare your name. You can choose to declare your name, for your own reasons, without stomping on other's people's rights not to declare theirs.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:5, Insightful)
> almost 100% certainty whether I'm on it in the case of a crash. If there was no
> IDing, they wouldn't have any idea, and might not for several days.
Your mothers uncertainty is a price that i'm prepared to pay. You can just tell her which flights you're taking if you're bothered - there's no way to opt out of a surveillance society.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:4, Funny)
Is this a new product from Apple? How do I get it?
Re:Ho Hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should anyone be forced to carry papers to travel? The next step is to confiscate someone's papers so that he cannot travel.
What's the stereotypical German railway station scene in a WWII film? There are the guards asking for people's papers; there are the guards patrolling with dogs. Well, when I flew a month ago I was forced to show ID, and there were dogs patrolling the aeroport.
My great uncle died on Iwo Jima to keep this country free; my brother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather have all served in wartime to keep this country free. Millions of other brave men have done the same. So why the hell is it getting less free every year?
Not that I fault either major party more than the other: they are both to blame, because they are run by the populace, and the vast majority of the electorate are sheep who are willing to trade all their liberty for the temporary illusion of safety.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:4, Interesting)
Sir, you should refer to the Yakolev-42 accident which caused the death of 62 spanish militars the 26th of May of 2003 (which surely were carrying identifications... being in the military)
One year later, the buried corpses had to undergo DNA tests to correctly identify them.
Something that the ones incinerated by the wrong familiars couldn't do...
Half of the corpses were found to be misidentified in the first place.
To identify... (Score:3, Insightful)
It probably doesn't, but i imagine it helps to identify the passengers in case of a crash.
Re:To identify... (Score:5, Insightful)
People are reading too much into this. They're getting annoyed because they have to show their ID to a private entity who's letting them use their aircraft. Also remember, with the American litigious climate, people have to cover their asses, and I'm sure that's the major driving force here.
Sort of understandable (Score:3, Insightful)
There is just too much chance of 1 person being able to cause harm to a large number of other people.
If they required ID to fly in a private plane, or ride as a passenger in a auto, I would bitch very loudly.
Of course, they just made it so that you have to tell the myour name when asked, but as far as I know it's not illegal to lie about what your name is, unless you actually end up being arrested.
So I'm just bitching quietly, for the moment.
Re:Sort of understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
There is just too much chance of 1 person being able to cause harm to a large number of other people
*/me checks list*:
Intention to cause destruction, check;
plastique, check;
evil plans, check;
fake ID - oh bugger, there's no way I'll carry that off. Perhaps I'll stay home and water the roses instead.
It's called the illusion of security - insert Ben Franklin quote here. It does not solve any of the issues that lead the one or two to cause, or attempt to cause, harm. If we tried a little harder to understand or even address the causes, we wouldn't be in this mess now.
Re:Sort of understandable (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce Scheneier [schneier.com] calls this "Security Theatre".
Re:Sort of understandable (Score:4, Insightful)
Which are the public planes?
Re:Sort of understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need an airliner to kill a couple of hundred people. A truck filled with ammonium nitrate does just fine. You can get close with a bunch of explosives guns on your person, as is demonstrated in Israel on a regular basis.
And before you jump in with the "almost 3000" figure from 9/11, that was a one-time event. Airline passengers are never going to sit still for a hijacking again. The largest possible loss of life is still the passengers plus whoever the airplane accidentally lands on when it crashes.
UK domestic flights (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it doesn't really affect security.
Its not a conspiracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Its not a conspiracy (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's what dental records are for.
Re:Its not a conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Its not a conspiracy (Score:4, Funny)
Oh come now, don't get Kerried away...
What a troll... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've also flown internationally where there was so many empty seats that we were able to move around and get our own row (in some cases).
Plus, have you ever been to a plane crash? It's not like everyone stays in their seats.
So, if you've got better information, share it. But your vague assurance that it's just for lawsuits is bs.
ID's (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like what I see day by day, that people just have to give up a bit more freedom to ascertain "safety" (baah). Where I have lived most of my life, you could go nowhere without papers, let alone fly (god forbid).
Hopefully you guys won't loose too much and hopefully we will get some more and then we could meet half ways up
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Chicago's O'Hare airport is so overbooked that the FAA is threatening to cancel flights in advance simply because even if the condiditions are clear and perfect all day, there's no way all the planes can take off on time because of the schedule being too tight.
The current airline system just wasn't designed for the volume of users it currently has. The old-line airlines are failing, while new line airlines like JetBlue and Southwest are stepping forward with simpler flight schedules and pricing models. They appear to be the wave of the future there.
Re:simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the volume of users that's the problem; it's the volume of aircrafts.
I remember taking airline trips from Newark to St. Louis twenty years ago, and the plane would be a 747 or some other jumbo jet, seating maybe nine people across, with two aisles splitting the seats up.
If I make that same trip today, I'd probably be flying on the jet equivalent of a puddle-jumper -- a tiny craft with fewer seats than a Greyhound bus
and a single narrow aisle.
People want the option to catch a flight to their destination at 5:30 AM, or 11:30PM, or at any two-hour interval in between. So the airlines have moved towards more frequent flights on smaller aircraft... and this has come to create an air traffic nightmare over time.
Re:simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
You people with your faulty forms of boycotts. I am boycotting a product unless I really want it. Boycotts are not an easy thing to do. If you are going to boycott a product then do it right. Boycott it even when it is to your disadvantage. The company cannot get a single cent from you. Unfortunately it seems little people know how to boycott anymore. Thus we have all these problems
Re:simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Hehehe. Go Brother!. I'm also against the killing of dolphins by tuna fishermen, so I absolutely refuse to eat tuna. Unless i'm like, REALLY in the mood for it.
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.
Contacting Family. (Score:5, Insightful)
I Find that there is often 3 reasons why people do something.
1. The reason they promote it. (It is good for security!)
2. The reason why they care about it. (It was save me a lot of money)
3. Suff they dont want to tell. (This could be use to track anyone.)
It's All About The Lists (Score:3, Funny)
Airline security is a sham anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
I just flew from the UK two nights ago, and in the tax-free area after the security control, you are able to purchase D-cell maglites. As those in the know would tell you, the most dangerous part of a knife for use in close combat is not the blade, but the handle. Applied to the head of the adversary it is more likely to be deadly than the blade applied to the torso. Same thing with a maglite or any other object of similar hardlyness for that matter.
A highly motivated would-be hijacker could easily find similar makeshift weaponry that would be just as effective as knives or nail-files. In fact, the easiest of all would be simple social engineering; i.e. claiming that there was a bomb onboard and that an unidentified accomplice would set it off if certain conditions are not met would probably allow a hijacker to meet his requirements with little or no danger of being apprehended before the plane was airborne.
So why are we being hassled to such a ridiculous extent in airports? Probably so that most passengers will be lulled into a sense of security as well as making the task of airline hijacking seem much more complicated to the casual hijacker seeking escape from a hostile regime, political attention, quick cash, or some other common reason. The dedicated terrorist would likely find a way around anyway.
Anonymous travel a right? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't new, it's just happening on planes to white people. You are about 100 years too late to stop it.
Knock Knock. (Score:4, Funny)
Zee German Inspector.
The German Inspector w.....
I AM ZEE ONE ASKING ZEE QVESTIONS HERE!!!!
Insert appropriate agency personnel for the inspector.
ID on domestic flights (Score:5, Funny)
I generally leave it up to friends to book my flights because I don't care what airline/airport I fly into and out of but they do. So for a wedding in North Carolina in 1999, the friend put down "Crackpipe Johnny" as my name while booking. I chuckled until we actually got to the airport because I didn't know how they'd react. Instead of showing my ID, I showed my Zippo which had Crackpipe Johnny emblazoned on it. "Ok sir, go right through."
Since then it's been a running joke and even post-9/11 Crackpipe Johnny has had no problem booking a flight or boarding a plane.
I wouldn't recommend trying this, but until someone tells me to stop doing so, I will continue to do so. Just because someone says something is so (in this case mandatory ID carrying) isn't reason to freak out.
It's even simpler than that: it's profitable. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have to present ID that matches the name on the ticket then you cannot resell the ticket. It used to be the case that people would resell tickets they couldn't use. Now, depending on the type of ticket you didn't use, your money is either gone, locked in an airline account with one year to spend it on another ticket, back in your hands less 25%, or some other such "arrangement".
The airlines fight tooth and nail to prevent the expense of new "security" measures. If one is accepted it usually means that someone, somewhere is making solid profit on the scheme.
What a question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read any slashdot thread about ID cards, biometrics and the new passports they are trying to issue. Some of the people who post here, who really should know better because they can READ, are aplolgists for all of these techniques and technologies.
The number of times that I have read "i dont have a problem with it as long as"...that is how we have arrived at this juncture; people who should know better are apathetic, compliant or simply asleep. Then you have the morons who whip out the "Tin Hat" jibe whenever someone posts that a Totalitarian state is being built right in front of your eyes; they are also a part of the reason why these measures can be introduced without even a fight.
That question is really quite astonishing; "how we got here" is right in front of you, and has been for three years. It isnt too late to turn it all around; the "joined up government" isnt joined up yet. If you are not willing to use this place to solve the problem (and by the tone of this question, I am presuming that you DO think its a bad thing) then don't even ask; its completely infuriating.
By "use this place" I mean consistently promote the FIPR [fipr.org], Privacy International [privacyinternational.org], No2ID [no2id.org] and the other organizations that are trying to orgainze resistance to these measures both in USUK.
If you are not willing to do this, then accept what is being done to you and your country quietly. This should be one of the loudest places screaming against these measures, not somewhere where once in a while, we get a single stunned question.
Showing ID to fly is not the issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Privacy is becoming much more important in the age of identity theft. I went around with a cell phone provider on a service quote because I wouldn't give them my social security number. I tried to explain to them if I'm not claiming income from them, they don't get my social security number. First they said it was the law but once I questioned them about which law they backed off to it being company policy. The dentist office tried to claim the insurance company requires it, but all they really need is your group policy number and employee ID.
Lost my ID recently (Score:5, Insightful)
It was an eye-opener. NO-ONE can do anything for you. Amex ($400 a year platinum card with "concierge service") would not send me a new card because I had no ID. The cops would not initially write a report because you need to show ID. A new passport at the Canadian embassy was very difficult when you have no ID and have lost your citizenship certificate as well (though they were helpful). Try to check into a hotel without credit cards or ID - it cannot be done. Try to rent a car - same. Try to buy lunch. Nope. If I had not had a support network in place (relatives living there) I would have slept in the street.
The moral of all this: nice to have ID at the basis of everything, but just wait until you slip off the road.
Not sure anyone would want to go through what I went through in that week. Before you say "normal people should have nothing to fear from having to show ID" - wait until you lose it.
Real reason for checking IDs (Score:4, Insightful)
Showing ID does nothing to enhance security. We know that IDs can be easily faked, or secured by bribing officials, and that having a valid ID does not prove that you wont do something bad. The problem is that for this to enhance security, the airlines need an "I will not do something bad" card to determine the intentions of their passengers. ID cards are not it.
The airlines put on this theatre though, since it solves a business problem of theirs. Namely, it prevents people from reselling tickets. If you have to show ID to get on a plane, and that ID has to match the name on the ticket, you can't buy a ticket from someone who doesn't want it anymore. Therefore, you have to buy a new ticket from the airline, so the airline gets more revenue. So, the airlines use ID checks to ensure that tickets can't be resold, and they explain it to the public as "enhancing security" which it isn't.
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:Some questions (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't. Not even with a "simple ID check."
I'm sure lots of people here have similar stories, but once upon a time during my wild youth, my ID said my name was tuxina (as opposed to tuxette) and the year of birth indicated that I was old enough to buy alcoholic drinks. During a bust of a bar that was serving "minors," a cop looked at my tuxina ID and gave it back to me. So cops, bouncers, barkeeps, etc couldn't tell it was fake. I could have easily travelled on an airplane using that ID.
Re:This is the trade-off, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that should tell you all you need to know about the security and reliability of databases, shouldn't it? If a "rocket scientist" tells you he wouldn't fly on a rocket, would you suit up and climb aboard?
As for databases, all of them have a mechanism for automatically generating a unique key for a record. There's no technical reason that different databases need the same key, so that part's a red herring.
Re:Is My Constitution Outdated? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have it backwards. You shouldn't be looking for the clause that provides your right to travel anonymously. You should be looking for the clause that permits Congress to pass a law that restricts your right to travel anonymously.
Congress also cannot pass a law that allows police to install cameras in my toilet, but the reason isn't because it's specifically mentioned in the Constitution "People have the right to shit privately" - it's the fact that specific responsibillities have been ALLOWED to Congress and the government. All others are prohibited.
Please read The Constitution [house.gov], and also Federalist Papers which provide a lot of background information about the thinking of the framers of the Constitution.
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:I hate leftie slashdot folk (Score:4, Funny)
While there are lots of things terrorists may do on a plane, to f*ck is not one of those things I'd expect them to do there.
Re:What Right to Travel Anonymously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amendment IX says that "Just because we've enumerated these rights does not mean that we have enumerated all the rights." It does not say "Anything we didn't mention is a right of the people." Amendment X is irrelevant -- it deals with the powers of the federal government, not with the rights of the people.
The problems is this -- the Constitution, as amended....
1) Does not say that there is a right to privacy (no mention)
2) Does not say that there cannot be a right to privacy. (Amendment IX)
Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the Constitution is:
C) There may, or may not be, a right to privacy.
People always assume that Amendment IX automatically grants any right they wish. This is wrong. It just prevents the courts from automatically denying a right because it wasn't listed. The courts *can* deny that rights exist, but need to do so based on the body of law -- of which the Constitution is *only* a part. It's the supreme part, but it is not the whole body of law.
The right of privacy has come about only through judicial and legislative action -- and may well go away from that same action.
Re:A remarkable right (Score:5, Interesting)
It's nothing of the sort. The purpose of a driver's license is not track your whereabouts, it's a license to drive. When you pull out of your driveway and go to work, is there somebody waiting there to check your ID and ask where you are going?
Then again, this could come in handy. I think I'm going to tell my boss that I have a right to make over $200,000 a year.
I love this type of argument -- I call it the "Hey, let's draw a completely stupid and unjustified analogy and hope the other guy just doesn't notice" method.
Re:WTF? Are you people just stupid? (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of it like pain. Each person has a different threshold for pain. There are some things which one person barely feels at all, which another person would experience as terrible pain.
Tolerance for intrusions into our private lives is also a variable, like tolerance for pain. Some of us guard our privacy quite closely, while others seem willing to publish all the details of their most private thoughts right out in public (witness LiveJournal).
You're simply one of the people with a very high tolerance for privacy intrusion. The problem is, right now the entire country is on Privacy Morphine from the 9/11 attacks and the events in Iraq. It's much easier to buy the line of bullshit that we must give up more and more rights in exchange for protection against threats like that.
As any drug user can tell you, it's really stupid to make important decisions while doped, and here we are, the United States, making the decision to toss away all the things we enjoy about our lives in exchange for barely any real security at all. And one day I think you'll hit that threshold where you suddenly realize "I can't tolerate this level of government intrusion," but by then it will be too late. The drugs the United States is taking are some strong ones, and the kinds of decisions that are being made are not the kind that can easily be backed out of.