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.

[Badray]

I do too, but I think that is becoming a lost art.

Have you ever read any of the letters from soldiers to their families from the Civil War? Unbelievable eloquence from even the lower level foot soldier. We just don't take our language as seriously as we did back then.

That said, you do quite well. You always communicate a clear meaning in your messages and with today's literacy rate, you can't get too fancy on them.

[Badray]

I may disagree with him, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.

Sound familiar?

When did we become afraid of unpopular opinions?

The guy may be wrong 9 of 10 times, but when he is right, he will get my support.

Freedom is a messy business. And scary. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

[epow]

When and how did a privately owned airline, owned by the citizens, become either a "foreign nation(s)" or one of "the several state(s)" or an "Indian tribe(s)?"

State governments do not normally engage in commerce with each other, therefore it is reasonable to interpret "and among the several states" as granting power to Congress to regulate commerce between private parties and corporations in the several states. If I am not mistaken, the USSC has held that interpretation since before any of us were born. I will agree that the clause has been stretched to the breaking point in order to give far more regulatory power to Congress than the authors intended, Nevertheless, it is almost universally accepted that their intention was to grant Congress some degree of power over private interstate commerce rather than power to regulate virtually nonexistent commerce between state governments and agencies.

Even assuming that you are correct in assertion that Congress has the enumerated "power" to "regulate" private property, that power still cannot violate the Bill of Rights.

What BOR amendment gives a private party such as Gilmore the right to demand access to the services of a private company such as Southwest Airlines without regard to that company's rules and restrictions? The government made the rules, but the company is in charge of enforcing compliance with those rules. If I wanted to make a point concerning private property rights, IMHO the company would be within it's rights by refusing service to Mr. Gilmore for any reason or none at all.

[JimRed]

But as far as "lib" goes, I thought it was a conservative thing to want government intrusion and tracking of its citizens at a minimum, also I thought conservatives believed in government being accountable to its citizens.

I guess that it's my knee-jerk name-calling reaction to folks who reflexively object to any rule perceived as coming from the government. I still have not figured out which of our rights are violated when I.D. is required on commercial flights, so long as government is held accountable for any abuse that results. Pain in the neck? Sure. But necessary.

[Badray]

At 438 posts, we are still waiting for someone to explain exactly HOW and ID card makes anyone safer or how the lack of it, if the passenger is screened, scanned, folded, and mutiltated, endangers anyone?

The last time I flew and I mean that literally, my name was mispelled on my boarding pass. It took an agent 45 minutes and 3 phone calls to (I'm guessing) the head of the airline, Congress, and God and a $10 reticketing fee for me to board the plane.

Was national security enhanced? Was anyone even safer? Did anyone even think that they were safer? Would anyone have even known if I hadn't pointed it out?

I just know know why it is important for the government to know when and where I'm traveling. If flying is probable cause for a search, where is the warrant? The 4th Amendment allows for reasonable searches UPON PROBABLE CAUSE with a warrant.

None of this is to concede that your interpretation of that clause is a valid one. I believe it to be much narrower in scope, but it's too late tonight for any more critical thinking for me. I'm off to work at the missile launch site.

[Smartaleck]

"If I am being searched prior to boarding an aircraft and found not to be a threat, what difference does it make to anyone what my name is? "

Can't get a ticket without a name. You are elimiated from the list of known people by process of elimination and somebody might need to know if you were on the plane if it goes down.

[Smartaleck]

"Freedom is a messy business. And scary. But I wouldn't have it any other way."

Can create a lot of frivolous lawsuits to. I personally don't find it scary at all.

[Oztrich Boy]

"What page are you on?"

See #62 ID'ing passengers.

There are many sensitive areas at the moment. Random searches of little old ladies and asking everyone including terrorist sleepers for an ID are just two of the many distractions from that security effort. In your case your background check got you on the ship, not your ID.

62 posted on 02/27/2005 8:06:43 AM PST by palmer ("Oh you heartless gloaters")

You got nothing. Figured as much.

[Smartaleck]

You might find this interesting.

The first link spells out what "Sensitive" or, what is being called secret information, is.

This is statutory i.e. mandated and codified by Congress.
As written it's easy to see why they might want to keep certain information and activities from being disclosed.

They also wrote the measure in a way that does afford the public a certain measures of protection of their privacy.

In the current topic/court case, it appears that in the absence of a different ruling from higher up's, the FAA personal are prohibited by law from even disclosing certain information to the judge in the case?

The Congress has made its case for the "rightness" to keep certain information secret by law.
Is it wrong?

§ 15.5 Sensitive security information.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?region=DIV1;type=boolean;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=10abd9cafe510979b789edd3bb8f086f;q1=passenger;rgn1=Section;op2=and;q2=screening;rgn2=Section;op3=and;rgn3=Section;view=text;idno=20040518;node=20040518%3A1.0.1.3;rgn=div7

PART 1520—PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?region=DIV1;type=boolean;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=10abd9cafe510979b789edd3bb8f086f;q1=passenger;rgn1=Section;op2=and;q2=screening;rgn2=Section;op3=and;rgn3=Section;view=text;idno=20040518;node=20040518%3A1.0.2;rgn=div5

[P_A_I]

 
Tahiti wrote:
"When and how did a US business, owned privately by the citizens, become either a "foreign nation(s)" or one of "the several state(s)" or an "Indian tribe(s)?"

____________________________________


It's spelled out quite nicely here since the Constitution was written.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/28.html


Original intent discussed here.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/32.html

---

It may be "spelled out nicely" but findlaws conclusion is nevertheless faulty reasoning, as it's writer inadvertently admits, here:


"The power has been exercised to enforce majority conceptions of morality, to ban racial discrimination in public accommodations, and to protect the public against evils both natural and contrived by people. The power to regulate interstate commerce is, therefore, rightly regarded as the most potent grant of authority in Sec. 8."


Yes indeed, -- "the power" has been exercised [read misused] to enforce "majority conceptions of morality" & to protect us from contrived "evil" -- in the past.
Not "rightly", but that is how it was used.

It is now time to stop such infringements of our individual rights of life, liberty & property. The commerce clause is being used to rule the USA by a 'democratic' tyranny of the majority.

[tahiti]

"The government made the rules, but the company is in charge of enforcing compliance with those rules. "

That is precisely my point.

Our government made "rules" that violate the BOR. Amendments II, IV, V, IX, XIV.

TAS is also enforcing some of those "rules." TAS is violating the BOR. Amendmend IV.

If the airline made the rules and used their own personnel to enforce the rules, (by the way, that is what free people do) I have no problem with presenting an ID or even being prevented from being allowed on board a private property owners aircraft for any reason that the private property owner decided upon.

I do not believe in thatv civil rights philosophy. "you have a right to seat at the lunch counter."

[palmer]

My bad, I meant MOLE :0)

Actually I like troll better, they live under bridges and throw out sarcastic comments like the one I made to you which set you off. A mole implies subversion and I am not and have never been subversive.

It's interesting to me that you can use the anonymity of this forum to hide your boorish behavior. If you really believed in identities as much as you say you do, you would propose having everyone identify themselves here so it can be proven that they aren't government agents or other subversives. Because in the long run our freedom will be guaranteed by the ideas that survive here even as they are eroded by government plans to protect our safety.

[palmer]

Just to be clear, my post 62 was not a statement of government regulations!

[palmer]

Sorry bluejay, that comment was meant for Blue Jays

[Mulder]

Have you ever read any of the letters from soldiers to their families from the Civil War? Unbelievable eloquence from even the lower level foot soldier. We just don't take our language as seriously as we did back then.

I haven't read much about the War Between the States (as we say down here).... I read alot about the American Revolution though.

There was a diary from the War written by one of the Revolutionary soldiers, Joseph Plumb Martin, which was published in the 1800s.

He was 15 when he joined, and lived to be 90. His writing skills and language usage surpass about 99.9% of "educated" Americans.

Those guys were pretty damn smart back then, and don't get the credit they deserve.

[from occupied ga]

Counting posts till the first one that says something akin to

See posts #6 and #7

[Smartaleck]

"What page are you on?" #362

Upon further research it looks like here's what was / has been put into place.

The Feds can control the airlines....assume that's a given.

Going back to the hijackings to Cuba etc 60-70's the Feds started requiring the screening of passengers access to certain areas of the airport.

Jump to 2001 and 911....there were obviously holes in the access screening programs and these were tightened in an effort to thwart additional 911's.

Let's assume the Feds don't want to get into a legal issue about passenger liberties and assume they cannot directly control passengers.

They can, however, control the airport and the airlines as a matter of commerce.

The law says these people have to have a security plan and part of that plan must include a screening of people into certain secure areas.

The airports then set up a system for defining access areas and who can access them. Some are employees of the airport/airlines, some are Feds and some are passengers each with different access privileges.

To differentiate those passengers with access privileges and non-passengers who are barred from access the security programs spells out a means to identify and screen between these two groups. Further the airport is to check potential passengers against a list of people who are known terrorist.....as well as physical checks that assure potential articles that can harm people or the plane aren't carried on board or into a restricted access area.

How does the airport plan to do this differentiation?
Passengers by definition are requesting access to controlled / secure areas.

Passengers are requested to provide ID when they purchase a ticket. At the access screening area the airport asks the passenger to verify that they are the same person who purchased the ticket requesting access, by, presenting the ticket and or boarding pass and or identification that matches the ticket. (I presume that when the ticket is purchased the name is also run against a list of names of people of "interest".)

So where's the law that says you have to present ID? There's isn't one that states so "directly" so far as I can see, but as a matter of compliance with other requirements an id of passengers is a logical way to screen passengers and passenger access to restricted areas as defined by the airport and approved by the TSA.

The questions Gilmore, and it's not just ID that he's taking to court, raises a variety of other questions and by law the people he's taking to court are barred from answering his question....so to speak.

It's important to note that an airport's security measures (including passenger ID presentation) is sensitive material and is to only be disclosed on an as needed basis in part or whole as needed but only upon approval of the TSA, DOT or some other body / person so designated by law by Congress....blah blah blah

If a person thinks their rights are being impinged upon now they need to look into an idea being floated about using RFID's embedded in tickets/ boarding passes as a means to track the holder of such. ;-)

[Smartaleck]

"It is now time to stop such infringements of our individual rights of life, liberty & property."

That's why FR exist. Have any ideas how this should happen?

[Smartaleck]

see #362

[Glenn]

ID is such a joke. Which of the TSA agents could spot a well-done phony?

To my amazement, I was able to renew my drivers license (which had expired!) online in PA this morning. Not a single question. Just pay the money and you are done. I could be blind and they'd issue the license. All you need is a drivers license number, date of birth, and the last four digits of a SSN to both modify the address and have the new license sent out. The picture will be four years old.

I'm not complaining. Just pointing out that some IDs issued by some governments may not be as secure as others.