×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Gilmore Loses Airport ID Case

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-comment dept.

The Courts 521

smooth wombat writes "In the final conclusion to John Gilmore's fight to be able to fly on an airplane without providing identification, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, let stand an appeals court ruling which said that Gilmore's rights are not violated by being required to show proof of identity. Gilmore had argued that without being able to see the law which says one must provide identification before being allowed to board a plane, there is no way to know if the regulations call for impermissible searches."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Article summary wrong (surprise) (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511678)

You can fly without ID. You could when Gilmore's case started, and you still can now. In fact, here's how [schneier.com] . In fact, Gilmore's own site tells you how [papersplease.org] , in the form of the court decision specifically authorizing it.

The exact wording:

The identification policy requires airline passengers to present identification to airline personnel before boarding or be subjected to a search that is more exacting than the routine search that passengers who present identification encounter.

The very page describing the case [papersplease.org] says that he would have been allowed to travel at SFO without ID if he submitted to a search. That alone devastates the "secret ID law" claim, as allowing him to fly without ID, search or not, would have been in violation of that law.

First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?

The answer is a resounding "no". 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.

Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).

Claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.

But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.

There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time: they are guidelines and directives for the handling of security issues, some routine and some special or time-specific, within airport and airline processes. That's the TSA's job. And didn't some call for the federalization of airport security?

I'm glad he's asking these questions, but I wish he'd be less sensationalistic and tinfoil-hat about it - especially since his primary claim is that he can't travel anonymously, which is not only tremendously wrong considering there are so many other public and private means to travel with no ID, but also because he would indeed have been able to fly with no ID.

Yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.

But, in any event, he already found he could travel by plane, without ID.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (5, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511762)

I disagree that investigators must have ID to start with for an investigation. Let them start with nothing other than the facts of the crime. The core of the matter is that we're allowing our government to assume we are criminals, which is evil and the basis of a police state. By default, the government does NOT need to know who I am or what I am doing. However, we've raised two generations of SHEEP who submit to whatever the government says without question, and who do not know what freedom is.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511866)

I disagree that investigators must have ID to start with for an investigation. Let them start with nothing other than the facts of the crime. The core of the matter is that we're allowing our government to assume we are criminals, which is evil and the basis of a police state. By default, the government does NOT need to know who I am or what I am doing. However, we've raised two generations of SHEEP who submit to whatever the government says without question, and who do not know what freedom is.

Then, by all means, fly without ID, as you are legally allowed to do.

The problem is that it is human nature to assume someone is trying to hide something when it, well, looks like they're trying to hide something. So in the system at large, this means that they take greater precautions with someone who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to present any identification to fly.

This isn't about sheep or some higher-level conspiracy to keep people under the thumb of a fascist police state. These were reasonable regulations, which are exceedingly imperfect, to make air travel as safe as possible, and to make people feel it is as safe as possible - which is a huge component of this, by the way, since people not living in fear of air travel is, in its own right, an important social and economic factor.

Not your fault that people are afraid of something that will statistically have a far less chance of affecting them than dying of a toenail fungus or a drunk driving crash? Of course it's not. But do you actually expect the government to be the entity to somehow convince people that there's nothing to worry about while at the same time making NO CHANGES to airport/airline security? People DEMANDED change, and whether it's security theater or not, "people" wouldn't have accepted anything less than some "action" - read: changes - on the airport security front.

People can talk about reinforced cockpit doors and Israeli airlines all they want, but the fact is that the only response the government could have had - no matter who was in office - was a real, perceived, or a combination of both, "increase" in security at airports and on airlines.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (5, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511972)

to make people feel it is as safe as possible - which is a huge component of this, by the way, since people not living in fear of air travel is, in its own right, an important social and economic factor.


Until I ask them what's to stop someone from standing in line with a large rucksack filled with explosives during say, the day before Thanksgiving? How about three people. One in the front of the line, one in the middle and one further back?

I love the look of fear and horror on peoples faces when I pose that question.

But we're safe because they ask for ID and run you through a metal detector, they tell me.

But only after you've been standing in line, I reply.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512086)

Until I ask them what's to stop someone from standing in line with a large rucksack filled with explosives during say, the day before Thanksgiving? How about three people. One in the front of the line, one in the middle and one further back?

I love the look of fear and horror on peoples faces when I pose that question.


Anyone who hasn't though of that is a moron.

So do you have an idea of how many of those people we're dealing with?

Hint: it's the same number of people who feel much safer because of all the additional "security precautions."

So, should we educate them all and say, hey, you're far more likely to die falling off a ladder putting up Christmas lights than you would from a terrorist attack? Should we explain to them that we wouldn't be any fundamentally less secure if we had basically zero security at airports? (By the way, we do need to prevent things like guns and explosives from getting on the planes themselves - of course, that's another problem entirely and isn't related to ID.)

I guess my question is, how do you tell people that it would have been acceptable to DO NOTHING with regard to air security after 9/11, and actually have them believe you?

The problem is that someone falling off a ladder putting up lights is a tragedy. But no one (except friends and loved ones) cares. But when 20 or 200 or 2000 or 20000 people die at once, and when they die because someone who doesn't even know you HATES you with such fervent passion that they're still willing to kill you even after living in your own society for months or years, that bothers people. I don't think many people realistically, personally fear being killed by a "terrorist". They just want society at large to be protected from them.

But we're safe because they ask for ID and run you through a metal detector, they tell me.

But only after you've been standing in line, I reply.


Yes, the sterile area is a big thing. But there's nothing stopping someone from doing exactly what you've suggested against any number of soft targets, like, say, the Mall of America or numerous other locations. The point with airline security is still really keeping the PLANES secure, for better or worse, and that doesn't just include the cockpit only or preventing planes from being used as missiles.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (-1, Flamebait)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512264)

By the way, we do need to prevent things like guns and explosives from getting on the planes themselves - of course, that's another problem entirely and isn't related to ID.
I can see why we would want to prevent explosives, but I fail to see why banning guns actually helps us. If the passangers aboard the planes on 9/11 had guns, the attacks could not have happened. The presence of guns by average citizens is often a deterent to certain types of crime.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (3, Insightful)

John3 (85454) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512478)

I can see why we would want to prevent explosives, but I fail to see why banning guns actually helps us. If the passengers aboard the planes on 9/11 had guns, the attacks could not have happened. The presence of guns by average citizens is often a deterent to certain types of crime.
While you could argue that gun ownership does sometimes deter crimes you're really making a stretch when you say that guns on a plane would have stopped the attacks on 9/11. The terrorists had superior training in combat and weapons and would have merely massacred all the passengers on the plane before taking the cockpit. Firearms on aircraft would be a BAD thing except in the hands of fully trained air marshals.

John

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (0, Troll)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512808)

I can see why we would want to prevent explosives, but I fail to see why banning guns actually helps us. If the passengers aboard the planes on 9/11 had guns, the attacks could not have happened. The presence of guns by average citizens is often a deterent to certain types of crime.
While you could argue that gun ownership does sometimes deter crimes you're really making a stretch when you say that guns on a plane would have stopped the attacks on 9/11. The terrorists had superior training in combat and weapons and would have merely massacred all the passengers on the plane before taking the cockpit. Firearms on aircraft would be a BAD thing except in the hands of fully trained air marshals.
 
John
 
I don't care how much training you have: crazy arab gets a box cutter, I get a .45 == I win.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512844)

Only if it's credible that the armed citizenry right (1) know how to use them (2) be able to use them in a crisis situation and (3) actually use them. Even if (1) and (2) are met in a 9/11-type situation, (3) is problematic. Have you given a thought to what discharging a firearm on an airplane at 30,000 feet might do if you puncture the hull of the plain and depressurize the cabin?

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

denebian devil (944045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512596)

I guess my question is, how do you tell people that it would have been acceptable to DO NOTHING with regard to air security after 9/11, and actually have them believe you?

No one is saying that. You're just putting words into everyone's mouths to make your arguments sound oh-so-much more insightful than they really are.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512618)

No, actually, a lot of people have been saying that - that most, if not all, of the air security changes after 9/11 were unnecessary and meaningless. So instead of claiming my argument is invalid because "no one is saying that", why don't you actually offer suggestions as to what should legitimately have been done after 9/11, keeping in mind that the ID requirement was actually instituted after TWA 800?

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (2, Insightful)

denebian devil (944045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512724)

There is a big difference between saying "the changes that were made were unnecessary and meaningless" and "no changes should be made to the way airline security is handled." You're conflating the two for your own purposes.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (2, Insightful)

b0bby (201198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512672)

Of course, it would be easy to find large groups of people to blow up. The psychological effect is far less than blowing up an airplane, however. People are already afraid of flying, they don't want to add the fear that a bomb might go off in the air. ETA's bomb in Madrid isn't going to stop people from parking in garages; a bomb on a plane would make a lot of people change flight plans.

Parent is a TROLL. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17511786)

Like it or not, it IS an invasion of privacy.

Re:Parent is a TROLL. (1)

Chr0me (180627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512108)

and like it or not you DO NOT have a right to fly. the only god giving transportation right you have is your own body's locomotion. As the parent said, if you don't want to go through the process you don't have to, just like if the airline doesn't want to let you fly they don't have to. Airlines are private industry, they can choose their passengers, just like McDonald's is a private business and can refuse you service for not wearing shoes and/or a shirt. so the two simple solutions if you don't like the way that a private (read: not state owned) transportation business handles said business are 1). start your own and make your own rules or 2). walk and when you need to cross water ... swim. You might want to pack a towel.

Re:Parent is a TROLL. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512330)

just like McDonald's is a private business and can refuse you service for not wearing shoes

I seriously doubt that Mcdonalds can refuse a double amputee service ... or someone with their feet in casts ... or in a wheelchair but without shoes because of burns, etc.

Strawman Argument (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512706)

You're not really that stupid, are you?

Re:Parent is a TROLL. (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512370)

The problem is that many people see the airline bailouts by the government as acknowledgment that the airlines are public transportation, instead of widely used private transportation.

But that simply isn't true.

People need to look at the multi-billion dollar bailouts as a financial move only. Airlines are far more beneficial if there are a lot of them and there is competition. Airlines fuel thousands of other businesses. Take a state like Florida. Without relatively inexpensive air fare, Florida's entire tax system gets thrown out the window. Thousands of businesses will go under, greatly reducing the overall tax income. This applies to almost any city -- businesses rely on planes, too, not just for tourism.

So when someone tells you that you personally paid $8 of your tax money to bail out American Airlines, smile, don't frown. Your $8 is helping keep hundreds of thousands of people employed. Sometimes you need to violate your principals for the greater good, even if it is supporting a failing industry.

Re:Parent is a TROLL. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512498)

So when someone tells you that you personally paid $8 of your tax money to bail out American Airlines, smile, don't frown. Your $8 is helping keep hundreds of thousands of people employed. Sometimes you need to violate your principals for the greater good, even if it is supporting a failing industry.
,p> Bullsh*t!

The industry will eventually have to be replaced with something more efficient anyway ... high-speed rail links, whatever. Subsidizing air transportation to keep its apparent "costs" artificially low is preventing the development of alternatives that are more fuel efficient, less damaging ecologically, and easier to secure.

So instead of smiling, frown - your money went to the equivalent of subsidizing the SUV manufacturers during an energy crisis.

Re:Parent is a TROLL. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512542)

Sometimes you need to violate your principals for the greater good, even if it is supporting a failing industry.

Except that the industry wasn't failing. We were just protecting failing business models in the face of smaller, nimbler companies. If the behemoths had been allowed to fall, the vast majority of those "hundreds of thousands" of people would have found perfectly suitable employment at the smaller carriers that would have replaced them.

Wrong, sir! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512492)

and like it or not you DO NOT have a right to fly. the only god giving transportation right you have is your own body's locomotion. As the parent said, if you don't want to go through the process you don't have to, just like if the airline doesn't want to let you fly they don't have to. Airlines are private industry, they can choose their passengers, just like McDonald's is a private business and can refuse you service for not wearing shoes and/or a shirt. so the two simple solutions if you don't like the way that a private (read: not state owned) transportation business handles said business are 1). start your own and make your own rules or 2). walk and when you need to cross water ... swim. You might want to pack a towel.
Good for you to have an opinion. However, you neglect to consider that the government IS DEEPLY involved in airline transportation. We have TSA nazis patrolling. We have government-mandated searches (cavity or otherwise) on people based on when they buy their tickets, what payment they use, whether they are flying alone, whether it is one-way, etc. You'll get the SSSS printed on your boarding pass by the government and be just shy of raped because they have "reason" to suspect you of something. It isn't the private industry doing this. It is the federal government. If the companies want to make up their regulations, let them do it, but this is NOT the case.

Government is on the wrong track anyway. (3, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512254)

If they actually wanted to solve this problem, they should have:

  • Armored and completely isolated - audio, video, access - the cockpits on commercial aircraft (requires new and separate external entry doors for the pilots)
  • Armored the skins and ports of commercial aircraft against small arms
  • Issued small arms to any adult passenger that didn't have same at boarding

No hijacking can succeed in such a situation. You can't get at the pilots, and the pilots have no way of knowing what is going on in the cabin behind them, so you can't directly control the aircraft; you can't threaten the entire set of passengers at once, and consequently, someone will pop you before you can say in'shallah.

This also has the additional benefit of demonstrating the inherent value of the 2nd amendment. Because this would actually work, it would relieve the feds of the apparent need they have created to screw with legitimate citizens going about their normal activities. No fly lists; searches; long lines and delays; etc.

This doesn't solve straight up bombings, or at least, probably not most of them, but neither does anything else. Any intelligent and technical person could get a bomb onto an aircraft; it's just that intelligent and technical people generally won't pursue such stupidities. Anyway, exploding a bomb on an aircraft isn't something you can leverage into causing the kind of damage you can by using the aircraft itself as an aimed kinetic energy weapon.

Re:Government is on the wrong track anyway. (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512514)

I'm pretty sure the amount of armour you'd require on a jumbo jet to do that would ensure the thing would never take off.

Re:Government is on the wrong track anyway. (1)

crawling_chaos (23007) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512606)

Oh it would take off, but it'd only hold like 6 passengers while using exactly the same amount of fuel. $30,000 one way tickets, anyone?

Re:Government is on the wrong track anyway. (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512788)

Nah. All you need to do is ensure that the outer pressure capsule isn't violated. You can do that with what amounts to a layer of cloth. There are all kinds of high-tech, very light armoring methods. It doesn't have to be a layer of steel or anything heavy. It can replace cosmetic internal plastic, too. Viewports can be replaced with lexan and similar goodness. Lighter than glass, not easily punctured by bullets.

Yes, it'd add weight; but not like you're thinking.

ID requirement is not about security. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511794)

It is more about preventing people from re-selling their "special discount" non-refundable, non-transferable tickets.

Now the airlines can restrict the use of those tickets to the person who purchased them and enforce that with the ID requirement.

As has been stated, requiring ID does NOTHING for security because the hijackers all had ID.

This is about making more money for the airlines, not making your trip any more secure.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511934)

It's about the perception of security, and people demanded it.

Do you really think the government - no matter who was in office - could have gotten away with making NO CHANGES to air security after 9/11?

Can you imagine how that would play in the press, or if there was ever any other event, ever? Look at me with a straight face, and tell me that they could have reasonably done nothing to improve security, either real or perceived, or a combination of the two.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (1)

denebian devil (944045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512150)

This isn't a question of making changes vs. not making changes. This is about making changes that temporarily made people feel better vs. making REAL changes that actually do some good. Do I feel safer now that I have to carry my ID and ticket in one hand, my jacket in another hand, my bag in another hand, my shoes in another hand, my laptop in another hand, my liquids in 3 oz or less containers in a clear ziplock baggie in other hand (whoops, I seem to have run out of hands 4 hands ago)? No. Because that type of security is an obvious farce. Would I feel safer hearing that the government had instituted measures that to me may be invisible (bulletproof cockpits and the like) but nonetheless would have an enormous benefit to aircraft security? Yes. I don't need to see it to know it's there, and I think the US population for the most part realizes the same thing. They know the knee-jerk reaction to ban the terrorist method du jour is not going to work forever. Why else do you think the most common joke I've heard recently is "I'm glad that the shoe bomber wasn't an underwear bomber!"? Because people know that these regulations are crazy, if followed to their logical albeit extreme conclusion.

That is known as "Security Theatre". (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512182)

It's about the perception of security, and people demanded it.

That is known as "Security Theatre". It is useless. It wastes money. That money could better be spent on improving the security.

Do you really think the government - no matter who was in office - could have gotten away with making NO CHANGES to air security after 9/11?

The changes that have been made have NOT improved the security. It's all theatrics. You are as vulnerable today to a bomb going off on a plane as you were in 2000.

Can you imagine how that would play in the press, or if there was ever any other event, ever? Look at me with a straight face, and tell me that they could have reasonably done nothing to improve security, either real or perceived, or a combination of the two.

You might want to look up "straw man" because I am not saying that "nothing" should be done.

I'm saying that we should be focusing on actual security improvements rather than the "Security Theatre" that you're supporting.

I'm saying that wasting money/time on theatrics is a NEGATIVE because that means there is less money/time to spend on REAL security improvements.

I'm saying that every false positive is a FAILURE of the system and a DETRIMENT because it makes it that much more likely that a future true positive will be mistaken in the sea of false positives.

Re:That is known as "Security Theatre". (3, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512418)

I'm saying that we should be focusing on actual security improvements rather than the "Security Theatre" that you're supporting.

Ok, what are the actual improvements, then?

Wait, let me guess: something about cockpit doors or El-Al's security track record?

Please enumerate exact suggestions for improvement, and why you feel the suggestion is not currently being implemented.

But no, it's actually still important to keep weapons, explosives, and so on, off the planes and out of the cargo holds to begin with.

The "security theater" aspect is important to people as unreasonable, emotional creatures. They felt safer with national guardsmen with unloaded weapons walking around the airports. No government could educate people to the point you expect, and make them magically feel like coming back to air travel was a safe, much less pleasant, thing to do.

This isn't about straw men. It might be to you, but there are a lot of people who argue that the security that was already in place before 9/11 was "security theater", too. There are a lot of people who argue that all we really need are strong cockpit doors, and that anything else is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and that even if there were a bombing every here and again, people should somehow be smart enough to just chalk it up to the price of living in a free society, and not be scared or worried.

We can tolerate dying by accident or by our own choices, as tragic as they may be. What doesn't set well with us, no matter how statistically insignificant overall, is people dying in large numbers. What we don't tolerate, no matter how statistically miniscule, is people intentionally killing other Americans, even still feeling so strongly after having lived in our own society and culture for months or years. Many people want to see defined change they can comprehend that appears to be aimed at preventing such instances. Just like those people won't understand change they can't see, others likely will continue to doubt that there are and have been massive initiatives to improve security, communication, and intelligence at all levels, security "theater" aside.

Mod parent UP and GP DOWN! (1)

SailorSkank (1043840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512554)

Who keeps modding this GP yahoo up? Spending tax dollars to make the idiots of the world FEEL safer while no real security is added and the terrorists just keep on terrorizing? And he calls himself a Slashdotter.

Re:That is known as "Security Theatre". (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512678)

You might want to look up "straw man" because I am not saying that "nothing" should be done.

I don't think thats what the GP was getting at. After 9/11, having a bad plan was seen as being better than no plan at all. Nothing would get the bureaucrats in hot water faster than giving even the appearance of doing nothing differently.

The contribution to security from these measures is, at best, marginal, but as long as it makes people feel safe, it makes no real difference. Perception is reality.

Re:That is known as "Security Theatre". (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512832)

I'm saying that we should be focusing on actual security improvements rather than the "Security Theatre" that you're supporting.

Talk is cheap. I see no "improvements" in your post. One of my friends says the same thing you do. He bitches all the time about how "incompetent" TSA is. He says pretty much what you do, except his big thing is the typical Republican mantra of "Privitize it! Privitize it!" which ignores the fact that airport security was privitized prior to 9/11 at some of the airports used by the terrorists, notably Boston. I do have a question - when is the last time you flew? You see, my friend who likes to bitch about this hasn't been on an airplane since before 9/11. I find that the people who complain the most are the ones who travel the least.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (2, Informative)

rickwood (450707) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512292)

The ID "requirement" was put in place after TWA Flight 800 in 1996. Just sayin'.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17511960)

"It is more about preventing people from re-selling their "special discount" non-refundable, non-transferable tickets.

Now the airlines can restrict the use of those tickets to the person who purchased them and enforce that with the ID requirement."

That hardly needs a government regulation - airlines could refuse to allow a customer to use those tickets without ID whether the government requires ID or not.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511970)

As has been stated, requiring ID does NOTHING for security because the hijackers all had ID.

But you're conveniently ignoring the fact that things have changed, in the past 5 years (and will continue to) with regards to how easily one can get ID. It's not like we can only choose one thing to improve, and all we could opt for was making it harder to get on a plane without ID. We're also making it harder for scammers to get legitimate IDs, and making it harder for criminals to pass off forged IDs. It's going to take a while. But to suggest that because those jackasses were able to easily get IDs means that, thereafter, anyone will always be able to do the same - that's just BS, and you know it.

Now, can some crazy person with legit ID still be a problem? Of course. But we're certainly seeing more of a problem with people who travel specifically to cause trouble than we are with people who don't.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512262)

But you're conveniently ignoring the fact that things have changed, in the past 5 years (and will continue to) with regards to how easily one can get ID. It's not like we can only choose one thing to improve, and all we could opt for was making it harder to get on a plane without ID. We're also making it harder for scammers to get legitimate IDs, and making it harder for criminals to pass off forged IDs. It's going to take a while. But to suggest that because those jackasses were able to easily get IDs means that, thereafter, anyone will always be able to do the same - that's just BS, and you know it.

It's all quite irrelevant because they don't run your ID numbers anyway. They just use it to match your name to your picture. None of these asshats will be able to recognize a professional fake ID, so the whole thing is worthless anyway.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512634)

It's all quite irrelevant because they don't run your ID numbers anyway. They just use it to match your name to your picture. None of these asshats will be able to recognize a professional fake ID, so the whole thing is worthless anyway.

Look, even bouncers at bars are starting to have equipment that, with an ID-card-swipe, can get back a simple up/down legitimacy test for an ID. Not just a display of the magstripe contents, but a bounce off of the databse that issued it. When the ID someone's carrying doesn't pass the smell test, it just means a little more of a check, that's all. But as time goes by, there will be virtually no state/federal ID token that can't be tested for legitimacy more less instantly. That doesn't mean the TSA worker is going to be lookign at your credit history - it just means it will be hard to present a state driver's license that looks good AND connects to a testable record in the state's database. Believe me, I don't want to have to rely on a security guard's personal evaluation of a card, visually, to determine if the person carrying it is or ain't an at-large For Real Bad Guy.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512858)

But as time goes by, there will be virtually no state/federal ID token that can't be tested for legitimacy more less instantly.

The point is that the technology exists to check IDs today and they are not using it. I work in a Casino and we use a system that's actually integrated into our gaming management software which, when you scan an ID, will fill a new user template with the user's name and address information.

Re:ID requirement is not about security. (2, Insightful)

rsidd (6328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512172)

Now the airlines can restrict the use of those tickets to the person who purchased them and enforce that with the ID requirement...
This is about making more money for the airlines, not making your trip any more secure.

I don't know about you, but I'm glad that scalping and black-marketing are uncommon with airline tickets. It means I can still afford to fly. In other words, it's about saving more money for me.

And I don't care if they know my real name. Lots of people do.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511926)

But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.
And why is that?

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (2)

saider (177166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511980)

Yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.

They don't photocopy the ID. They simply look at it to make sure that the person standing in front of them is the person on the ID and the person on the ticket. They might scan the magnetic barcode at some terminals, but they do not get any picture data from that. This will prevents amateur (or poorly prepared) attackers but any "real" terrorist will look like a normal citizen no matter what precautions you have in place.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512042)

The answer is a resounding "no". 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.

for how much longer? How soon before being required to show ID when crossing a State Line? How soon before being required to show ID when checking into Hotels/Motels? How soon before being required to check in with the local police station when you intend to stay somewhere more than a few hours? How soon before having to get written permission before you can travel more than so many miles from your nominated place of residence?

Slippery slope people... they'll nibble away at your "freedom" by adding little "reasonable seeming" requirements here and there... all in the name of protecting you from terrorism/saving the children from pedophiles/whatever the current "bete noir" is...

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512132)

damn. I didn't know they allowed net access from an assylum.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (2, Informative)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512244)

At least two of the things the GP mentioned are true in some European countries.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (3, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512242)

Living in a secure, stable society of law and order comes with responsibilities and restrictions.

Not everything is a slippery slope.

The Franklin quote everyone likes to trot out usually leaves out a couple critical words:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

With those bolded words left out, it's the very witty and ominous warning people who quote it usually intend it to be. But with these words, suddenly, things become a bit more subjective. Is not having to show ID at an airport essential to my liberty? No, not remotely, in my own view. Is the safety gained from airport and airline security changes "temporary"? Again, no. Am I, personally, offended by the balance between liberty and security in general? Once again, no.

I can see how people who legitimately believe we are becoming (or already are) a police state are deeply troubled by something like this. I know that many people like to think that it's exclusively about cultivating fear. Of course fear is a tool politicians and governments have used. It's been true for generations and will always continue to be true.

Your mistake is believing that is EXCLUSIVELY what is happening, instead of realizing that there are thousands of dedicated people, some extremely educated and skilled, at all levels of government, who really do value their jobs of safeguarding the country and doing their own little parts to help secure something like an airplane. This all isn't some "who will think of the children" plot.

Who gets to decide? Who draws the line? These are all subjective things, and you can't just categorically say that showing ID or submitting to the standard "intensive" search is unacceptable and represents a "slippery slope", only moments away from devolving into tracking devices being implanted in every citizen and being required to show papers when traveling between states. Showing ID at an airport (which is something almost all people did before 9/11 for years anyway) is nowhere near any of the other presumably mandatory examples you cite. Some security changes really are "reasonable" and nothing more.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512718)

"Living in a secure, stable society of law and order comes with responsibilities and restrictions." ...which were pretty well articulated by the Constitution, and ignored by every fearmonger since.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512300)

Isn't the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy in some cases?

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

udderly (890305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512842)

for how much longer? How soon before being required to show ID when crossing a State Line? How soon before being required to show ID when checking into Hotels/Motels? How soon before being required to check in with the local police station when you intend to stay somewhere more than a few hours? How soon before having to get written permission before you can travel more than so many miles from your nominated place of residence?

Slippery slope people... they'll nibble away at your "freedom" by adding little "reasonable seeming" requirements here and there... all in the name of protecting you from terrorism/saving the children from pedophiles/whatever the current "bete noir" is...


It's interesting that that you mentioned the "slippery slope [onegoodmove.org] ," since this is a well-known logical fallacy.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512090)

First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?

The answer is a resounding "no". 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.

That's true, mostly only for the rich. Pedestrian travel is not a feasible option for anything like the common case. Motorcycle, car and boat all require a bunch of identification and licensing - or the payment of taxi fees that quickly become the provenance of the rich for travel between cities. Train and bus require ID unless you purchase your tickets with cash. And while Greyhound doesn't specifically require ID to get on the bus, other carriers do.

So, it is far from a "resounding no" - more of a "qualified no" and one that keeps getting more and more qualified as time passes. Do we really need to wait until the cat is out of the bag before we try to get people to notice what is going on?

Yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.

This kind of argument comes down to your philosophy about governance. Does society exist to serve law-enforcement, or does law-enforcement exist to serve society? If you believe the former, at what point do you draw the line? Should ID be required to go to the movie theater? How about sporting events? Ride the subway? Mail a letter?

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512120)

And didn't some call for the federalization of airport security?

And it turned out that that idea sucked. Let's have the airlines responsible for their own security, and then tell them that if they have a plane fall out of the sky, the taxpayers aren't going to bail them out. The security theater will give its last performance that very same day.

they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives"

Personally, I think this is just word games, whether it's US Code, Building Code, or "If the person does not have ID, then 1) obtain one (1) pair of latex gloves and wear them on your hands...", the government telling people what to do is a "law". The fact that it's a law that tells someone else what to do doesn't make it any less so.

Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).

The problem was without being able to see the "directives" that the airport operated by, he had no way of knowing whether it was actually possible for him to trade identification for a search. How would he know the search was even offered in good faith (nothing like spending 30 minutes on a body cavity search followed by "sorry, still can't let you fly without an ID")?

Your response is ridiculous (4, Insightful)

crush (19364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512144)

First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country? The answer is a resounding "no". 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.

Actually you're wrong. When you travel in a car you are very easily trackable. The British perfected the art of tracking suspected Republican terrorists in Northern Ireland by recognition of license plate numbers on cars. When travelling on Amtrak I have been asked for photo ID for tickets which were pre-booked and paid for with a credit-card in advance. It is now illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. NYC) to have your face covered in certain situations. All of these remove the ability to travel anonymously.

Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).

And similarly, if you want to get free money from a bank you can do so providing you serve a jail sentence afterwards ;) Being searched is unpleasant, intrusive and effectively a punishment deterring anyone normal from not taking the easy route and trading their ID-less anonymity for an escape from close body contact with security personnel.

Claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.

The claim is that ID is worthless in preventing terrorist attacks and that the only possible excuse for massive infringements on our liberties is the avoidance of the greater infringement of terrorist nutbags taking away our lives.

Yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident,

God, who gives a shit? Despite all the 9-11 conspiracy morons it was clear and is very clear who did what because THEY WANTED US TO KNOW. Terrorists don't make a habit of not telling you excatly what it is they want and who they are. The flight rules are intrusive crap that no one puts up with except for the reason that they think it's going to protect them. And most of them fail, and can only fail to do that. They are a closing of the open society and victory for terrorists.

Re:Your response is ridiculous (1)

mungtor (306258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512430)

Actually you're wrong. When you travel in a car you are very easily trackable. The British perfected the art of tracking suspected Republican terrorists in Northern Ireland by recognition of license plate numbers on cars. When travelling on Amtrak I have been asked for photo ID for tickets which were pre-booked and paid for with a credit-card in advance. It is now illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. NYC) to have your face covered in certain situations. All of these remove the ability to travel anonymously.

There are a few differences. Tracking a license plate only shows where you've been, not where you're going. Same as a "credit wake". Maybe patterns can emerge, but somebody would already have to be watching you to notice them. When you get on a plane or a train, your destination is already a given.

Also, while it may not be possible to travel on Amtrack without ID, you can certainly walk or ride a bicycle (paid for with cash, I assume). The convenience of traveling by train is partially offset by the inconvenience of having to provide ID, which is an Amtrack policy. Their trains, their rules. Whether it is a useful rule in any way is not really part of the discussion as far as the people who provide the transportation are concerned.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (2, Insightful)

SEAL (88488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512228)

I'm glad he's asking these questions, but I wish he'd be less sensationalistic and tinfoil-hat about it

I wish he'd shut down his open SMTP relay but it's still a free country, so far.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

codegen (103601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512270)

or by bus or train, entirely anonymously

Acutally, you cannot travel by amtrak anonymously. You must show ID with your ticket to board the train. Any most interstate bus travel also requires you to show ID.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (1)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512850)

Although I just took amtrak from Philadelphia to DC, and they never asked for ID.

Anonymous Travel Is Not So Easy (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512318)

> 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.

I'm white and nerdy, and apparently, really suspicious-looking. Because I have been stopped by police and asked for ID while walking (you match someone's description), bicycling, and while driving a car. I have also been obliged to show ID before I could buy bus, train, and boat tickets.

But, of course, I live in the USA.

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512436)

And if you'd argue against a search [that is more exacting than the routine search that passengers who present identification encounter], then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.
I don't see how that follows. I would argue that the additional, more invasive searches are an arbitrary punishment intended to discourage people from flying without ID.

sniff the stinky spot FP!!! (0, Troll)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511680)

btw, i ate out your grandpas ass!!!



ENOUGH OF THIS GAY BANTER, ON WITH THE TROLLING!!!

8====D~~



I was still in High School, I had a big cock and was horny all the time, jerked off at least 3 times a day. My body is small and slim with very little hair, 5"4",125lbs. My fat cut 7" cock looked huge on me. I had been jerking off thinking about gay sex lately, I was very turned on by the fantasy of having sex with an older man, and having a cock in my ass.

I got a job working after school and weekends at a antique shop, it was ran by 2 older gay gentleman, very nice gentleman who were always flirting and teasing me. An older very distinguished looking handsome customer came in the store, he was a silver haired fox who looked like he had money.

The owners knew him well, he bought a small end table and asked the owners if I could help him unload it at his house, I thought this was kind of suspicous since it didn't weigh much but my horniness and curiousity made me jump at the chance. We rode in his SUV to a big house in a ritzy neighborhood and I carried the end table into his house. He gave me a tour, it was huge and very nice, there was an indoor hot tub and he asked me if I wanted to soak for a while, I told him I didn't have a swim suit and he laughed and told me I could go without, he always did.

I was getting turned on so I started to undress, my tank top came off first and my back was turned to him and I pulled down my cutoffs, no underwear and bent over to finish removing my cutoffs, it was a turn on to expose my ass to him, he watched me climb into the hot tub, my cock was rock hard. I watched him take off his shirt, he had a sexy chest covered with silver hair, he pulled down his pants and underwear in one motion exposing a beautiful 8" cut cock, very fat. We sat in the tub for five minutes talking, he asked me if I wanted a massage, I moved over close to him with my back to him and sort of sat on his lap, I could feel that big cock, I started moving my ass around until it was between my cheeks, I moved up and down, it felt so hot, made my asshole spasm. He was rubbing my shoulders and back, he reached around and started massaging my inner thighs making my cock twitch, finally he started stroking my cock, I was so turned on it was all I could do not to cum. He had me stand up and started tonguing my ass while stroking my cock, I was in pleasure overload and exploded cum after about two minutes of this.

We went into his bedroom, still naked and dried off, he put his hands on my shoulders and gently pushed me to my knees, grabbed the back of my head and guided me to his cock. I sucked on it hungrily feeling it get harder in my mouth, when he was rock hard he guided me to the bed and had me lay on my stomach. He ate my ass again this time harder, getting his tongue up inside me, this made my cock hard again, I relaxed and felt my boypussie open up. Next he slowly inserted one of his fingers , it kind of hurt at first but then I started to love the feeling. Two fingers was next with some lube, he two finger fucked me for along time, I loved how it felt, like I was getting stretched. I was moaning and moving my ass up and down.

He stopped and put his big cock back in my mouth, I sucked him for maybe a minute and he pulled out and rolled on a condom, had me get down doggie style got behind me and pushed that big cock head against my tight hole. He slowly pushed, I thought it was to big and would never fit, all of a sudden it popped in, the sensation took my breath away, it felt so huge and it hurt a little, but I was starting to relax and it was feeling better by the second.

He slowly pushed in until he was deep inside me and moved in and out very slowly to start with, it still burned but the thought of getting fucked, having a big cock inside me was such a turn on.

He fucked me for a long time, after I got used to it and fully relaxed the feeling was pure pleasure. My cock was rock hard.

The pace got faster and harder, finally I came again, without even touching my cock, such intense pleasure. He came and stayed inside me, I layed flat on my stomch with him still inside me, he slowly went limp, slipped out of me and rolled off me.

national security (2, Interesting)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511688)

"So sorry. We can't show you that piece of legislation. It's a matter of national security."

Re:national security (1)

larien (5608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511728)

To me, it's like playing cards against someone who won't tell you what the rules are, only that you have to draw 2 cards, discard 1 and oh, you've lost, better luck next time without telling you why.

Re:national security (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511758)

So sorry. We can't show you that piece of legislation. It's a matter of national security.

That's because there is no "legislation" that says you must show ID. The legislation, in effect, is "the TSA can set guidelines for security in airports." The TSA, in turn, has security directives, some of which are secret because they pertain to security procedures and processes which they don't want people who would intend to circumvent them knowing about. Further, it's already been determined several times over the course of this that you can fly without ID [slashdot.org] if you submit to the standard "intensive" search that anyone pulled out of line gets. I fully realize some people will still think that's unacceptable, but the point is that you can fly without ID with the standard "intensive" search.

Re:national security (1)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511824)

It was a *joke*. I apologize for not putting "/sarcasm" on it.

Re:national security (1)

EveLibertine (847955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512644)

So the million dollar question is: Can you have security directives that are open to the public that provide an acceptable level of security?

It certainly seems possible. Proving that it is impossible to have security directives that aren't a secret which still provide security would be an argument in favor of keeping the source to the voting machines closed. I don't have enough blind faith in either the TSA or EAC to trust that either system actually provides the level of security that they purport it does, though that is exactly what they are asking for; Blind trust in the governmental oversight that is to be keeping them in line. Call me paranoid, but that doesn't exactly sound like the system is designed with my best interests in mind.

whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17511706)

at first i thought you were talking about david gilmore. thank god it was just a false alarm.

exersise (0, Offtopic)

Mipoti Gusundar (1028156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511718)

He should be taking the train, or even walking! Maybe he could be loosing some weghts like that!

any proof? (0, Redundant)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511734)

So is there even any proof that requiring ID makes us "safe" from terrorism?

It stands to reason that anyone doing anything like that would just get a fake ID.

Re:any proof? (4, Funny)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511784)

Or use your own - like the 9/11 hijackers did.

Moo (4, Funny)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511838)

They should allow him, and him alone, to fly without ID.

He'll just have to prove that he is him, so that they know that he is the one that doesn't need id.

Re:Moo (1)

erykjj (213892) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512544)

I just have to tell you that this made me burst out laughing. Good one!

Prive entities can demand to see your ID. (5, Interesting)

AdmNaismith (937672) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511890)

Private companies are allowed to d*ck the public around like this all they want. I go into office buildings all over Los Angeles for my job, and none of them will let you in without at least looking at a Driver's License. Sometimes they hold it (unsecurely) if you are from an outside delivery or repair service. I asked LAPD and they said there is nothing to prevent private companies from doing this and they, as law enforcement, will do nothing to intercede. In the end, there is no law about this either way, but you can be prevented from access to private property (and an airplane likely qualifies) if the owner wants to see or hold your ID.

Re:Prive entities can demand to see your ID. (2, Interesting)

Tuidjy (321055) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512288)

I've been asked to leave my driving license as security for using a pool table. It reminded me that in Bulgaria, when I was growing up, leaving one's passport as security was an offense punishable by jail for both the owner of the passport and the one holding it.

As far as I am concerned, this is a convenience. Most people would prefer leaving their license rather than a cash deposit. I hate leaving my license, so I always offer to leave cash. The only time it has not worked is when I tried to rent a powerboat from a place no one knew me. I am sure that a cash deposit would have worked there as well, if I'd had 10k.

When I fly, I have to show ID. I know this does not stop determined terrorists, but if that's what takes to make even one old lady feel safer, what is the harm? If I had a reason to fly anonymously, sure, I'd mind. But even if the only reason they check ID is to prevent you from transferring a discount ticket, it's their right. It may be baggage from growing up in a Communist country, but I am more wary of laws that tell a private business what it can do than of businesses that impose stupid requirements. Your milleage may, of course, vary.

Re:Prive entities can demand to see your ID. (2, Insightful)

jrockway (229604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512298)

Hi. The Department of Homeland Security is the government, not a private company. If an airline wants to see my ID, that's great. I can fly on his competitor instead.

As Schneier Says.. (4, Informative)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511920)

The airlines love this "security measure" because it solves a business problem for them. Prior to this it was common to be able to buy tickets for cheap on the secondary market. Now that market does not exist.

Corporate policy becomes security policy (1)

kherr (602366) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512024)

Prior to this it was common to be able to buy tickets for cheap on the secondary market.

As a matter of fact airlines started using ID checks years prior to 9/11 in order to prevent people flying on cheap tickets purchased by others. It's asinine that this is now being called a "security measure" when it started out as a way for corporations to maximize profits. And now the government has ruled that these corporate rules can stand as basis for vague laws tracking behavior.

Security theater indeed.

"In the final conclusion..." (5, Funny)

stankulp (69949) | more than 7 years ago | (#17511966)

IS there such a thing as a non-final conclusion?

Re:"In the final conclusion..." (1)

MojoBox (985651) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512028)

Clearly you haven't seen "The Return of the King"...

Re:"In the final conclusion..." (1)

blindbug (979761) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512118)

When you are talking about the US Court systems... yes

the inanity of naive privacy idealists (-1, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512026)

privacy is a very valuable concept in this world

and, like every other single valuable concept: freedom of expression (shouting fire in a crowded theatre), security (convenience), happiness (responsibilities), etc. it has it's limits

everything has its limits. every single concept you consider dear and cherished and penultimate. take the most important concept to the functioning of society you can imagine... guess what: it has its limits

you do not have the right to get in an airplane without someone verifying who you are. why? do you really have to ask in today's world?

and if you are someone who honestly believes that you should have this right, i'd ask you what you think about a person who innocently or passionately professes to believe they have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre due to freedom of expression

exactly my point

look: there are many dangers in this world. one type of danger in this world some of you may not appreciate is naive idealism. idealism in many respects is a noble concept. it suggests unerring devotion to a high minded ideal. well, there is also such a thing as uneducated idealism: it is easy to profess unerring devotion to an ideal... if you are somewhat clueless about how the real, complex world works!

uneducated idealism that adheres to a simplisitic understanding of how society works without any understanding and acceptance of limits in human behavior because of complex and overlapping needs and wants in society is, in its own way, a type of danger to us. religious fundamentalism, for example, is a type of uneducated idealism: "what is written in this book trumps all." blind nationalism is also another type of uneducated idealism: "my country can do no wrong"

many of you can appreciate the folly of these uneducated idealisms. and yet some of you can't appreciate that some people have an equally unhealthy uneducated idealism associated with concepts that are actually important and that we should all hold dear... but with LIMITS. consider: tolerance (we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant), compassion (we shouldn't have compassion for the truly heinous and vile), etc. there is a limit to EVERYTHING. no matter how noble the concept

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill"

you don't have the right to fly in an airplane you share with other people without some sort of id

you simply don't

and if you can't wrap your mind around why this is so, you have a serious problem, you are a clueless naive idealist

Re:the inanity of naive privacy idealists (2, Insightful)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512630)

The "fire in a crowded area" bit is a lame piece of sophistry. The right to bear arms is not the right to shoot people. The right to freedom of expression is not the right to ignore the consequence of your words.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from responsibility.

we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant

Why not? "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death your right to say it."

we shouldn't have compassion for the truly heinous and vile

Are we any better than them then?

you don't have the right to fly in an airplane you share with other people without some sort of id

What good does the identity document do? What does it prevent from happening?

you are a clueless naive idealist

I would suggest taking a good long look in the metaphysical mirror.

Its all about control (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512044)

Showing identification at airports has absolutely nothing to do with security, it's all about control. If you are a political activist or Bush detractor, your name is probably on a "do not fly" list somewhere.

It's just like video camera's in public places, it has nothing to do with fighting crime (even the police will tell you this).

Keep in mind... (4, Insightful)

suman28 (558822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512066)

For all those who keep asking the question, "What is wrong with having to show an ID?", you need to keep in mind that once the government starts saying we cannot show you the law because it is national security and all that, they can also say, you are subject to "intensive search" at every 500 ft (for example) for not showing an ID or any other number of rules like that....So, where does it end?

Re:Keep in mind... (-1, Troll)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512306)

It ends with either every non-Islamic infidel dead (this includes every Muslim of every sect that doesn't win the war to control Mecca, in 200-300 years), or with a nuclear weapon detonated on top of the Kabba at the Great Mosque in Mecca. Those are the only two options for an end to this. The Constitution is an anachronism that is obsolete in the face of that fact.

Re:Keep in mind... (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512732)

Where does it end? At things that are clearly unacceptable.

The problem is that the threshold of freedom vs security in a society based on rule of law is different for everyone. I have no problem at all with showing ID to fly. I might have problems with something else, and so might many other people.

So where does it end? At things that are clearly unacceptable to the majority of people. Good thing we live in a majority-representative democracy.

Just because you have to show an ID to fly (or submit to the standardized "intensive" search in lieu of showing ID) doesn't mean or imply that anything else follows, and isn't automatically a "slippery slope."

Secret Laws are Police-state tools (5, Insightful)

demo9orgon (156675) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512084)

This case was a challenge to the government to disclose secret laws.
Of course it's not in the interest of any government to disclose secret laws.
Any government. Any secret law.

With secret laws, and non-disclosure/denial of legal representation, the goal is to foster and achieve an environment of terror for the citizenry.

The best system is one that works randomly (or in the least fosters that impression) in the perception of the subjects.

Every Government is a "Skinner Box" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_box), where the rats behave the way they're supposed to more often with a minimal amount of enforcement and other controls.

The Democracy "Skinner box" is just as rotten as every other form of government "Skinner box". They're all assembled with the same corrupt intentions.

Cheers.

Re:Secret Laws are Police-state tools (1)

convolvatron (176505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512746)

you contradict yourself somewhat. corruption is the behaviour that arises naturally from the system. it isn't really an intent in and of itself.

mod up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512156)

hahs bVrought upon dim. If *BSD is

Damn, wish I knew this would be posted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512276)

I would have bought some stock in foil-making companies, given all the tin-foil-hat wearing, BusHitler-foaming, loopy moonbats this topic is bound to arouse.

What ever happened to policy? (4, Insightful)

twifosp (532320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512368)

This lawsuit is just plain stupid. Asking for IDs for boarding a flight is not the same as asking for identification papers ala Soviet Russia. It's a business policy, plain and simple. Does Best Buy have to have legislation to ask for your ID when you pay by credit card? No. Do they? Yes. Why? Business policies. Do stores have to have national laws enacted when they enforce their return policies? No. Do they? Yes. Why? Business policies.

Airlines are commercial enterprises and they can set whatever policies they want. Yes I know the analogy isn't perfect because the Airline industry is federally regulated, but it's still the same thing. It's a business policy to present valid ID before boarding a pressurized aluminum tube carrying a ton of highly volatile fuel, and that's that.

No rights are being violated because there are no expressed rights to purchase fare on an airplane. That's a privilege and a luxury. Travel on foot next time if you're so worried about your papers.

Note: It is my opinion that presenting IDs actually makes security worse. If having a valid ID automatically clears the bearer into a lower level of suspicion the system is already broken. "... He was white AND had a drivers license. How were we supposed to know he was a terrorist!"

Re:What ever happened to policy? (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512712)

Does Best Buy have to have legislation to ask for your ID when you pay by credit card? No. Do they? Yes. Why? Business policies.

Bad example - almost all merchant credit-card contracts prevent the merchant from requiring ID to make a purchase. The primary reason is that the credit-card companies want their credit cards to be as easy to use as cash and cash does not require an ID. You can argue all you want that it sucks for the merchant, but as you said -- business policies.

PS - there is a loophole, merchants are allowed to ASK for ID, they just can't require it.

I don't care about the ID... (4, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512374)

...I hate the stupid luggage bullshit you have to go through. TSA puts your luggage through x-ray machines yet they feel the necessity to have the ability to go through it by hand. I took a three week trip all over China a little over a year ago and had no trouble with the locks on my suitcases on the numerous flights I took. When I got back in the States nearly all my locks mysteriously disappeared despite the fact that they were TSA approved locks. I don't trust TSA wage slaves with my personal belongings and I trust baggage handlers even less yet I'm now forced to risk loss of personal property on the whims of a high school drop out.

Re:I don't care about the ID... (1)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512508)

Now, IANAL, but AFAIK locks are fair game for the bolt cutters, at least coming to Canada.

Re:I don't care about the ID... (2, Informative)

CKW (409971) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512650)

The travel guide I was given by my travel agent for my tour through China said Chinese regional airlines would *refuse* baggage that wasn't locked ... they can't guarantee it's security from theft otherwise.

Slashdotters - Sanctimonius/Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17512408)

Clearly another spectacular failure related to Microsoft! Ahh, if only we all were APPLE-ish!

Retard (1)

moracity (925736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512460)

Whether or not there is a law is irrelevant. It's still airport and/or airline policy to require proof of identity. Policies and rules don't require law to back them up unless they are in directly conflict with existing law.

The court is correct that requiring proof of identity does not violate any law or civil right. There is no civil right that allows a person to travel on an airplane flying under FAA regulations without providing identification.

Now, if only we could get the same ruling on voting.

Re:Retard (2, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512874)

Whether or not there is a law is irrelevant. It's still airport and/or airline policy to require proof of identity. Policies and rules don't require law to back them up unless they are in directly conflict with existing law.

You are missing the larger picture here. Whether or not there is a law is the ONLY relevant aspect of this. Because if there is a law, and us lowly citizens are expected to follow it but are not allowed to SEE it, then something is horribly wrong.
It turns out there is a law basically saying "the TSA can set regulations for air travel and those regulations are effectively law". The problem is that the TSA keeps these regulations secret for security purposes (which is funny because so little they do actually has anything to do with security), so viola, we have secret laws. They can change them at will, we are not allowed to know, but we can be detained, arrested, etc for now following them.

How long before we start seeing other laws delegated to "agency regulations" which carry the same weight but are put into place by bureaucrats (circumventing congress) and kept secret for our own good? Would we even know if they already started this? Like pretty much all our existing legit laws they could be selectively enforced.

Finkployd

on what grounds anyway? (2, Insightful)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512588)

Air travel is a private business. Now, it might be possible to create a law that would require them to let you fly without identification, but by default, a private business should be able to make showing identification part of the process of boarding a plane.

Identity is no proof of intent. (1)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512604)

Identity is no proof of intent.

No more than three justices agree (3, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512684)

Note that the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari - fancy talk for "they decided not to hear the case". Their rules state that if any four (out of nine) justices vote in favor of granting the writ, the court will hear the case.

What this means is that the court decided by a vote of at least 6-3 not to hear the case. In many cases, though, this has less to do with the factual merits of the case than it does the fact that there is no conflict among lower federal courts on the issue.

Rights vs Privileges (3, Insightful)

auroran (10711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17512814)

I find it interesting how several people have commented, and continue to do so, that flying is their right. Believe it or not you do NOT have a right to ride from point A to point B in an aircraft.
The aircraft is private property run by a private company, and as such can refuse business to any individual they wish for any reason they wish.

It's similar to someone claiming that they have the right to eat in a restaurant when they're causing a ruckus. You don't have the right to eat there, you're always welcome to go home and cook.

If you have a problem w/ the service then you are allowed to file a complaint. There's regulations & legislations regarding minimum standards of service for the safety of the general public.

Want to drive a car w/o ID? you're more than welcome to make the attempt. However driving a motor vehicle is not a right and there's rather clear legislation that states that your license must be shown on the request of a peace officer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?