Posted on 07/18/2002 2:36:22 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Secret rule demanding 'Your Papers Please' claimed unconstitutional San Francisco - Civil libertarian John Gilmore today challenged as unconstitutional a secret federal rule that requires domestic US travelers to identify themselves. "United States courts have recognized for more than a century that honest citizens have the right to travel throughout America without government restrictions. Some people say that everything changed on 9/11, but patriots have stood by our Constitution through centuries of conflict and uncertainty. Any government that tracks its citizens' movements and associations, or restricts their travel using secret decrees, is violating that Constitution," said Gilmore. "With this case, I hope to redirect government anti-terrorism efforts away from intrusive yet useless measures such as ID checks, confiscation of tweezers, and database surveillance of every traveler's life." At issue is a series of secret security directives issued by the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of Homeland Security. The directives appear to require US airlines to demand identification before allowing customers to travel. Because the directives are secret, no citizen actually knows what they require. On July 4, Southwest Airlines staff prevented Gilmore from boarding a pre-paid flight from Oakland to Washington, D.C, where he intended to petition the government to alter the ID check. He then went to San Francisco International Airport and tried to purchase a similar ticket on United Airlines. Both airlines, though unable to identify any actual regulation requiring him to identify himself, prevented him from flying. United stated that they were following an unwritten regulation that had only been communicated to them orally, and which changes frequently. "History shows many abuses when government agents can demand 'your papers, please!'" said Bill Simpich, an Oakland civil rights lawyer, and lead attorney in Gilmore's suit. "TSA plans to deploy 'CAPPS II' later this year. This will use your ID to search in a stew of databases like credit records, previous travel history, criminal records, motor vehicle records, banks, web searches, and companies that collect personal information from consumer transactions. Your life history will be gathered and scanned, using secret criteria, whenever you book a flight or arrive at an airport. If the machine decides you're a risk, the airline will not let you fly, and federal cops will show up to interrogate you. They will probably tell you that you were 'randomly' selected for all this attention, but they will be lying." Gilmore v. Ashcroft, filed today in Federal Court for the Northern District of California, challenges every secret regulation that demands identification from innocent citizens, or restricts their domestic travel. Such regulations are unconstitutional because they are unpublished; require government agents to search and seize citizens who are not suspected of crimes; burden the rights to travel, associate, and petition the government; and discriminate against those who choose anonymity. The case also argues that because the regulations are secret, they violate the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Gilmore is a businessman, civil libertarian, and philanthropist. He was the fifth employee of Sun Microsystems, an early author of open source software, and co- creator of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cypherpunks, the DES Cracker, and the Internet's "alt" newsgroups. He serves as a director on several for-profit and nonprofit boards. The legal complaint, FAQ, and other case documents can be found at: http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm Contacts: John Gilmore - plaintiff William Simpich - lead counsel David Greene - First Amendment Project. Contact FAP for comments on the burdening of the right to petition the government. Linda Ackerman - Privacyactivism.org. Contact for CAPPS I and II profiling issues.
+1 415 221 6524
+1 510 444 0226
+1 510 208 7744
+1 415 215 9351
The airlines hated this because they wanted to be able to charge extra for last-minute bookings, etc.
I remember years ago you could look in the want ads and buy tickets cheap from people that could not use them for whatever reason. It was great. If you bought an inexpensive seat way in advance and something came up you could always sell it at a loss but still get some of your money back. Now you buy a ticket there are no refunds and they are non-transferable. This forces people to either pay full fare to be able to make changes or just eat the ticket.
I am not sure how it became common practice - either by law or the airlines own policies - but it has been a real windfall for the airlines.
After a dozen or so planes from Freedom-Loving Airlines crash into skyscrapers, they'll either adapt or go belly up (assuming they could find enough Freedom-Loving pilots and flight attendants stupid enough to board those aircraft....)
I am reminded of a warning from a radical of the late 18th century:
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785: Works 1:163
Freedom to get on a plane with people who refuse to identify themselves? You can have it.
It realy depends on how it is done. My last trip I had to go through all kinds of searches, etc. At Dulles they treated me respectfully while at Detroit I was treated like scum. I would be more willing to put up with the indignities if I felt that it was effective.
For example, when I went to the ticket counter to check my bag and get my boarding pass I had to wait in a total of three lines, one to get my boarding pass, one to get my bag inspected, and a third to check it once they put the sticker on it. Of course, each person I dealt with was ruder than the one prior. Also, once they check my bag for explosives (and probably valuables as well) they put a sticker on it to say it is OK then I go stand in another line. What was preventing me from putting something in it at that point?
Then when you go to get on the plane they pull aside about every third passenger. Each of the lottery winners is then subjected to a pretty undignified search where they all remove their shoes and belts and then get passed over with the wand and then patted down. While all of this is going on some other "security" person is rifling through your carry-on luggage, briefcase, and purse (in the case of women) by pulling out all of the contents willy-nilly all over some table and then stuffing it all back in any old way. Of course all of this is going on in full view of all of the other pasengers either boarding or waiting. One of my co-workers went through this and they "forgot" to put his keys back in his briefcase so when he got home and found himself in the satellite parking lot at the airport in the middle of the night - guess what?
The big point I see in all of this is that if a private company decides that this is what you have to do to go on their airplanes that is one thing, but as soon as it becomes the Federal Government that is making the demands it becomes a little different. Also, since they are now all government employees, the government is conducting the searches, not the airlines. It gives them a sense of authority and a huge attitude to go with it. On top of that they are now pretty much unacountable. Now they are talking about running credit checks, etc. whenever you get on a plane. If you are a fequent flyer, what does that do to your credit score. Each credit inquiry lowers your score by some degree and a lot of inquiries puts a red flag on your credit report. What's next, FBI background checks, retina scans, and DNA tests?
I have to fly for business but if I go somewhere for personal reasons, I will drive.
Is there a section in the Paranoid Conservative Handbook that descibes the best method of debate being the ad hominem attack or what?
I'm not devoid or lacking of any common sense, and I am a reasonable person to debate with. Now, since you seem to the one in a position to judge "common sense," (and therefore must be the ultimate source of all common sense) would you please give me a "common sense" explantion as to how showing an ID prevents sterrorism?
You can use any form of Picture ID you wish, your Sam's Club card is just as good.
This is not true, at least with Continental in Houston. My mother-in-law was, at first not allowed to board a flight to FL because her TX Non-Driver ID (she's 81) had expired TWO days before the flight.
They would not accept her Sam's card, or any of several other non-offical ID's she had.
She finally was allowed on board after she started crying about not being able to see her very ill daughter in FL and refused to leave the counter. After much consulting with supervisors, she was allowed to fly.
And this was PRE 9/11.
Today she'd probably be arrested and strip-searched.
piss off
Nice argument. I'll vote GOP and allow our gov't to use fluid regulations and laws. You have me all boxed in with your rapier wit. Please stop. Ooohhh you are hurting me.
Interesting dialog you bring to the debate Dennis. Very skillful and studied on the topic apparently.
Best regards,
Lloyd
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.