Grounded: Millionaire John Gilmore stays close to home while making a point about privacy

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Sunday, Feb. 27, 2005 | Dennis Roddy

[TheBlackFeather]

He's unable to travel because he refuses to present a government-approved ID

SAN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.

[gitmo]

I guess what you don't understand is that other people's rights are THEIR PERSONAL rights...ok?

What makes his rights more valid than anyone elses?

The US Constitution lists specific rights that apply here. Did you even read the article?

[Smartaleck]

Regulation of commerce / transportation goes all the way back to Washington and Jefferson. I think it safe to say they knew what the Constitution meant?
(Without getting into the specifics of how these prescidents evolved, we come to 2004 and the laws pertaining thereto.

Acting as the legislative body congress, Public Law 107–71
107th Congress Nov. 19, 2001.

....the ‘‘Aviation and Transportation
Security Act’’.TITLE I—AVIATION SECURITY

‘‘(2) establish procedures for notifying the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration, appropriate State and
local law enforcement officials, and airport or airline security
officers of the identity of individuals known to pose, or suspected
of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat
to airline or passenger safety;
‘‘(3) in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies
and air carriers, establish policies and procedures requiring
air carriers—
‘‘(A) to use information from government agencies to
identify individuals on passenger lists who may be a threat
to civil aviation or national security; and
‘‘(B) if such an individual is identified, notify appropriate
law enforcement agencies, prevent the individual
from boarding an aircraft, or take other appropriate action
with respect to that individual; and
‘‘(4) consider requiring passenger air carriers to share passenger
lists with appropriate Federal agencies for the purpose
of identifying individuals who may pose a threat to aviation
safety or national security.

One way to carry this out is to ask for identification to identify.

[Smartaleck]

TSA Will Limit Access to Sensitive Security Information (SSI)

TSA will maintain secrecy over SSI, in order to protect the safety or security of the traveling public.

Section 1520.7 of the regulations, specifies types of information and records that may be classified as Sensitive Security Information. The Preamble to the new rule reveals an intent to broadly classify as sensitive, any information that could help someone determine how to defeat security systems.

Further, § 1520.3 reveals that the scope of sensitive security information can include information developed for the conduct of security as well as research and develop activities under 49 U.S. Code § 40119. Thus, work schedules, the physical location of property and many otherwise routine matters may become secret.

These functions are effected until changed or otherwise challenged and are carried under by Public Law 107-71 as enacted by Congress making it statutory. Looks like they can to me.

[gitmo]

The Commerce Clause does not eliminate the Bill of Rights. And it is probably the most misused clause in the Constitution, used to justify power grabs by the Federal Government.

[Polybius]

On miltary duty you are not a citizen, you are government property.

If you were a civilian contractor or visitor, you also did set foot inside that security area without either a visible ID that you had to show upon demand or with an escort.

The next time you get stopped in traffic and you need to show ID, tell the police officer that you are not State property. Let me know what the Judge says about that.

[Tench_Coxe]

"The Commerce Clause does not eliminate the Bill of Rights. And it is probably the most misused clause in the Constitution, used to justify power grabs by the Federal Government."

I notice he didn't answer my inquiry into his thoughts on the National Firearms Act of 1934. Probably because answering truthfully regarding the Commerce Clause might expose his true thoughts on rights.

[Polybius]

Perhaps you should stay at home and cower under the covers. I can go on an airplane with an ID and enough items that are still allowed and cause damage if that was my intent. Quit worrying about your pathetic life and start being free.

Do you get this irrational when a cop asks you for your ID at a traffic stop? When they ask you for ID to cash a check you must really go ballistic.

Tell you what, the next time you are at an airport, tell them, "I can go on an airplane with an ID and enough items that are still allowed and cause damage if that was my intent."

Use those exact words.

So, what kind of "damage" do you fantasize that you can do with "items that are still allowed"?

Blow up the aircraft?

Force your way into the cockpit and crash the aircraft?

Injure or kill a stewardess or two before the other passengers beat you to death?

[Smartaleck]

"The Commerce Clause does not eliminate the Bill of Rights."

When you want to fly American and they ask to see some ID, just what part of the Bill of Rights are the offending?

You can refuse and not fly ya know?

[Badray]

Yes, of course...logic, reason and proof would blow your argument clear out of the water wouldn't it?

When you start using any of the above, please ping me.

[Oztrich Boy]

YGPYEO, that is rich! You're a FReeper since 11/2004 and you're calling Palmer (who has been on this board since 10/1999) a troll.

Post November 2, DUmbs realized that they needed infiltrate the VRWC and bring it down from the inside.

[Badray]

And your direct experience working with a regulatory body is........

Enough to know that I avoid it at all costs now. Are you a petty bureaucrat? Is that why you are so pissy about being obeyed? LOL

[Badray]

You'll be told. Those that have, it's in the news.

So was this.

Ann Davis, a spokeswoman for TSA, tacitly acknowledged the strange rabbit hole into which Gilmore has fallen. The Department of Justice, in its first response to Gilmore's suit two years ago, declined to acknowledge whether such an instruction existed. Later, it admitted its existence. Then the government asked a judge to hold a hearing in secret and preclude Gilmore's lawyers from seeing the regulation they sought to challenge, the contents of which seem to be pretty widely known.

[Badray]

Jefferson would be a freaking communist today. Don't you know he was the father of the left? I don't know why he is so revered.

4 hours and no comments. No wonder. It doesn't deserve one.

[Old Professer]

One man's lunatic is another man's father.

[100%FEDUP]

Ah yes another dreaded

I-ME-MY-MINE

I hate I-ME-MY-MINEs

[Oztrich Boy]

The police chief issues an order to not speak publically about who is under investigation. He further issues and order to withold evidence about the crime. (Read, undisclosed regulations.)

Does the public have a right or even a need to know about these orders?

Anybody that the police chief attempts to detain or restrict the movement of has the right and need to know what authority the chief has to do so. Amendments 4 through 6 of Bill of Annoying Limitations to Government Control.

[zook]

And you called *my* remark stupid? "Safety is a feeling and not an absolute"???? Yeah, so what? By your logic we can do away with all security measures, then we'll all be *really* safe.

[Old Professer]

Commenting indirectly, my experience here for some 6.X years is that the most stubborn in their arguments are the least informed and the most overwrought; to read the article clearly and clinically would only make their affliction worse.

[Mulder]

Mr. Gilmore is free to travel anywhere in the country, the only restriction is on air travel. He can travel by bus, train, automobile or even on foot. If he wants to go to Hawaii, he can always rent a rowboat.

You're missing the point. Today, it's airlines. Tomorrow it's buses. And so on.

[Mulder]

Another sterling example of a seemingly intelligent person so caught up in himself, and his own rights, he has no room in his mind or heart to consider the safety of anyone else.

He'd already been searched (illegally) for any weapons.

So why is presenting ID necessary?