What is Digg?75 Comments
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+57That's so messed up. I hope the Supreme Court tells them where to shove this. Because if they don't we're heading it's going to get even uglier than Guantanamo.
I can see it now. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and no you're not allowed to know the law you're being held for breaking. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31You just broke two of them by even asking.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Johndi's right. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, so the fact that no one will know this law will have no effect on whether or not it is prosecutable. (sarcasm)
The law system is so biased towards government and corporate power nowadays, this hardly makes a difference. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"The first rule of The Secret Law is that you will not talk about The Secret Law..."
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Way to miss the point. The big deal is that the law is secret, hence the headline.
- KGBhoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Recently I was flying from Denver to Las Vegas. Right before check-in I realized I left my ID at home. They still let me travel - I just had to go through a thorough security screening, which only took 3 minutes more than usual. Looks like the other side of the coin.
- orangeRam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15SD 96-05 says:
"1. IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER -
A. ALL PASSENGERS WHO APPEAR TO BE 18 YEARS OF AGE WILL PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID, OR TWO OTHER FORMS OF ID, AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.
B. THE AGENT MUST RECONCILE THE NAME ON THE ID AND THE NAME ON THE TICKET -- EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW.
C. IF THE PASSENGER CANNOT PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION, OR IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED TO MATCH THE TICKET, THE PASSENGER BECOMES A "SELECTEE." CLEAR ALL OF THEIR LUGGAGE AS NOTED IN SECTION 6, BELOW."
Looking at Part C, he had the option not to show ID and be processed as a selectee, which if you read http://home.earthlink.net/~cdtavares/flying.html he has before. IMO he's just someone that is unhappy with something (Iraq, Bush, etc.) and has found a public wagon and hitched his horse.
I was able to find the text of SD 96-05, he could have just as easily and seen that this law isn't secret at all...hell, it isn't even a law. He's taking advantage of the inexperience of ticketing agents who don't know about it themselves so when he asks to see it can't produce it.
Sorry about the caps, that's the way it was in the document and I didn't want to retype it. - slapshot24, on 10/12/2007, -13/+23It's not a question of a secret LAW. The law that gives the FAA power to issue security rules at airports is very clear.
The FAA has issued a REGULATION within its power under the LAW. There is an important difference. Regulatory bodies (EPA, FAA, HUD, etc) issue as many regulations as they want within their grants of power. - orangeRam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11For those of you who are up in arms that this is a violation of civil rights, as it was written, it was not. The item he is objecting to is Security Directive 96-05 which was put in place after the TWA Flight 800 disaster. Its intent was to know who is on every flight so in the event of a crash, they can more easily identify victims and notify relatives.
- DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I wonder how many other secret laws there are?
Hopefully none, but, y'know, they're secret. - A1kmm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Regulations are laws (one definition of law found on the Internet was "the collection of rules imposed by authority"). Statutes, statutory regulations, jurisprudence, and various executive orders are all rules imposed by authority, and are therefore laws.
- FTLTorgo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I want to try and get John Gilmore on Free Talk Live to talk about this, but he's not the easiest man in the world to contact. If anyone has any contact info for him and can forward it to torgo@freetalklive.com, I would be very appreciative.
- mywindow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Transparency of government is mandatory under a democracy.
America is now home of the "FREELY ENSLAVED"
Is it just me or, has the world gone insane?
If insanity is defined by:Repeating the same mistakes of history over and over, expecting different results?
The only thing I want from my federal government is for it to uphold the Constitution and Secure our boarders. Federal Governments reach into everyone life is proof that its arbitrary at its best. History has shown big government is corrosive to humanity as a whole.
Think about it people? Look at the services big government gives to us all and compare with the service you would expect from a business. Even common money makers like licensing, taxes and the legal system are not representations of progress or success? Not in my proud and arrogant America. - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is why we should just let Bush make up the rules/laws as we go along. It would be so much easier that way. I wouldn't have to think or worry about terrorism, gays, or bringing private religion into our schools.
- rdivilbiss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@david76:
>Showing ID to board a plane to confirm identity isn't exactly as draconian as travel restrictions in the USSR.
1. USSR no longer exists. One of the major reasons was the lack of rights for the citizens, (which indirectly caused economic harm.)
2. The US Bill of Rights says the government may not pass laws that deny a person their right to assemble peaceably (e.g. go where they want with whom they want) nor may the government demand a persons papers (ID, et. al.) without probable cause.
Various case law has established some right of government officials to demand ID under certain circumstances without a warrant and/or without probably cause, for example a law enforcement officer can ask you for ID (among a few other things) based only on reasonable suspicion you have or are about to commit a crime.
There has been no case law to my knowledge which overturns your constitutional rights to free assembly, travel and security of your papers where there does not exist probable cause that you have committed a crime.
Possibly, current circumstances dictate this precaution before air travel, however it should be decided by the court if it is indeed constitutional.
Since you can travel without showing ID (if you allow yourself and your possessions to be searched) then the demand for ID probably will be found to be unreasonable. As the person wishing to travel without showing ID must consent to the search without a warrant, it is likely that could be considered a search under duress, and if so, it would be a violation of the 4th amendment.
Should the rights extended in the Bill of Rights be extended to non-citizens? If not, how can you tell the difference for domestic travel if you can not violate the rights of the citizen by demanding ID????
It really isn't a simple case nor overblown.
Liberal or Conservative as any of us may be, the Bill of Rights, in particular Article 1 are the single most important reason why the USA is so strong. - toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8is it a law or a regulation?
- DEaDIRiS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4These secret laws (or SSI) have been around since 1974 and were largely aimed at preventing "bad people" from being able to exploit them. i.e. if you were able to see the laws you would find out that boxcutters were not against the law to carry on airplanes etc...
Should be an interesting case - rdivilbiss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is oversight...its called the Judicial Branch which is why this matter is being hear by the court.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10but if an "executive department order" can have an effect that takes away your rights, it needs more oversight than a simple department head. In most cases like the decisions made by the FCC for instance, the law that allows the "orders" defines rules for recording the rules, and apealing the rules to some kind of arbitration or court. In the case of the TSA, there is no written rules, there is no apeals process, no mechanisms to go to court... the rules involving important things like freedom to travel and searching up to body body cavities are not restrained by any oversight at all? Considering non-cooperation could result in punishement up to death by police, I'd say there should be some oversight, at least a publik method of change notification. The whole TSA organization is another of Bush's "don't question, I'm the boss" issues.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I dont get it. Not only do you not need an ID to fly, its actually faster: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/09/1731249
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The fact is, we are over-impressed by our "progress." The Founders lived in a time when the British were hunting them down to hang them, and the Republic had the mightiest army and navy in the world trying to strangle it in it's crib. So, did we give up our rights?
Telephones, airplanes, and the Internet are just technological froth. All the same principles apply now as they did then. Travel is travel, and it is your right. - atpcliff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hi!
The big deal is that the ID is required, in many airports to travel. The WWII era Germans did this, as well as the Eastern Block countries.
The Government can then track your movement, and then know where you are at all times. When your spot in the oven opens up, they can find you and send you to the correct concentration camp for your final solution.
As GW Bush keeps saying, we're fighting for Freedom, which means you can move all around the country without telling anyone who you are, where you're going, or what you're doing. The "Freedom" stuff is just propaganda for the masses. We are much less free at home since 911, and before. Clinton WAS doing fascist-type government stuff, but GW has put them all to shame.
What's the difference between Mussolini and GW Bush?
Not much.
cliff
YIP - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I say we just give up flying. If man were meant to fly, we would have been born with wings.
- CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The whole concept of what makes mankind superior to other animals is our ability to understand sarcasm ;)
- SAUCERMEN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4why is a plane any different from a bus? It's a form of travel, yet when was the last time they ask for id when getting on a bus...or a ferry, or a train, or a taxi for that matter, what's next, id stops at tolls, gas stations, walking to the store?
- Darthcactaur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All of them apparently;
If you don't have an ID, you must submit to additional screening procedures. This happened to me after I had my wallet stolen.
The additional procedures were performed by a TSA agent (who was fully aware of my lack of ID) so apparently a law or policy (or order) existed somewhere, so its not a airline (private) level policy. - Darthcactaur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Secret law making:
A democratic government action?
A democratic government inaction?
A non-democratic government action?
Hmm..I wonder how my representatives voted. - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Worry about congressional oversight first.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Sounds like he's got a lot of road trips in his future. Sucks for him.
- FlyboyP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think there should be a law that says we must have our ID on every TCP/IP packet that comes from our computers. That way we can easily identify when a terrorist is online, and do something about it. This law should be secret because if anyone knew what it actually said the terrorists would have an advantage, like maybe they would spoof their address, or not use computers. Also this is not a violation of the First Amendment because the authorities only do something if you're a terrorist.
Any safety-loving American won't object. - tjlsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If man was meant to fly he'd have been born with rights.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, you're lucky you have your name in your profile -- if you had "annoy"ed someone without it, it would be against the law.
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html - Darthcactaur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doesn't mean he isn't up for a Supreme Chancellor position.
- devnill, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11I was once proud to be an American, but more and more i find myself ashamed. I hate to be cliche, but secret laws are the moral equivalent to thought crime. This is *****.
- Catalyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/bills/?bill=8977581
Same folks who vote against this i'm sure....... - rdivilbiss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Why, that's exactly what they do in the Congo. It doesn't seem to be working too well for anyone except the dictator and his friends.
- rattus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you remember buying your ticket with cash at the counter without ID?
I'll bet you do not.
That's the point. You are not allowed to travel anonymously and the safety issue is secondary. He is contesting that on constitutional grounds. You got it now? - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Birds fly, men drink.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Oh yeah, that's why the whole 747 fleet was grounded so they could fix that "spontaneously explodes" problem. I'm sure they figured out how a low voltage line could do that, too, and rewired the fleet so it could never happen again.
Oh... wait... that never happened, did it? - kazem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't see the difference between an airline wanting something and a person. They're both legal persons. You have a flawed argument, sorry.
- shadekeiko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Well, it's not so secret now.
- Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I definitely wouldn't be cool with the idea of secret laws, but I can't say I'm going to not fly because I'm asked for my ID at the airport; even if I'm not entirely sure why they need to see it. I don't think it's that big of a deal, considering how I am asked for an ID to do much more trivial things like buying tobacco or alcohol. I think it's totally sensible to need an ID to get on a plane.
I don't think it's invasive of my privacy for someone to glance at my full name and mugshot.
It is dangerous for the government to have secret laws. But I'm going to guess that there are dozens of them and no one's going to get them revealed just by asking or trying to use reason. - abqjudy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It doesn't matter. Government regulations are generated under law, but if a regulation violates the bill of rights, it can and should, and even sometimes has been, declared illegal. Trouble is, requires lawsuit like the one in this article to determine legality. And depending what the lower court decides, must go through long legal process to get a final decision. Since this involves what current administration considers critical action, if the suit is decided in favor of the plaintiff, it will go all the way at taxpayer expense. If the suit is decided in favor of the government, that will likely be the end of it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Guess whos above the law?
- orenthal, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8someone creates a website making a claim about "secret laws" and now you are ready to renounce your citizenship?!? wow.
- rdivilbiss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Until very recently, a merchant demanding ID when you used a credit card violated his agreement with the card issuers and the merchant could lose their ability to take credit card purchases.
They could only compare your signature to the one on the card and ask for ID only if the card was not signed. - tr0gd0rr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, the law regarding ID should not be secret. I believe that the law should mandate that anyone who fails to provide picture ID at anywhere at any time can be detained and searched. That would include citizens and aliens.
Over 100 countries already have ID systems, many with such police power: http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html
Furthermore, the US may have an ID system in the next few decades: http://epic.org/events/id/
FINALLY, IMO THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY SHOULD NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO ANONYMITY. - erichb1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This article is just wrong. I have flown 5 times without an ID. The procedure is that if you don't have an ID you must present yourself for extra screening, that is all.
The extra screening is a pat down and a search of all your stuff. That is it. It is in fact faster because you go right to the front of the line and are escorted from the ID check station to the screening area.
I was courteous and explained the reason and I didn't not demand anything. They were kind and understanding back. A good policy to have anytime. - spillz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Has this guy never used a credit card before? Or a check? Whats the big deal?
People need to find something important to make a scene about. - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think the point is that the 9th circuit court finds the TSA directive to be unconstitutional (or something like that) but the 9th circuit's decision is not applied universally throughout the land. The article over-hyped, but I don't think the spirit of it is wrong.
Although, since the airline can refuse you service if it sees fit and they all seem to be more or less in lockstep on this, the issue is fairly moot. -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is