lawsuit: ID checks unconstitutional

[dash8driver]

ok, WTF, over?!?! who is this loser and how much gall do you have to have to think like this after what just happened?

i would like to find out how to contact this guy and send him a letter... what an idiot.

Suit challenges airline ID requirements

July 19, 2002 Posted: 9:40 AM EDT (1340 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A prominent civil libertarian sued the U.S. government and two major airlines Thursday, claiming that security requirements that compel U.S. citizens to show identification before flying are unconstitutional.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco, John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that requiring ID from travelers who are not suspected of being a threat to airport security violates several amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit alleges that the regulations restrict freedom of travel, permit intrusive searches without good cause and violate the Freedom of Information Act because they have not been published in the Federal Register.

Although the ID requirements have been in effect since 1996, under the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) program, officials have increased their enforcement since the September 11 hijack attacks on New York and Washington, the lawsuit said.

Gilmore was prevented from flying by both UAL Corp.'s United Airlines and Southwest Airlines Co. on July 4, U.S. Independence Day, when he refused to produce ID or undergo extensive security screening, he told Reuters. As a result he hasn't flown since September 11 last year.

"It seemed obvious to me that the day we celebrate our freedom and independence would be a good day to see how much freedom we have left," he said.

Airline officials were unable to identify the specific regulation requiring identification, calling it an "unwritten" rule," the lawsuit says. Passenger trains and buses have similar restrictions, the suit said.

The Web sites of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration both say photo ID is required to travel, according to the suit.

But the passenger information section of the FAA site says airlines can allow people to travel without requiring ID if they use additional security measures.

Gilmore, who launched the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 1990 to lobby and educate about individual rights in cyberspace, said U.S. citizens have the right to travel anonymously.

Citizen dossiers

"There is no evidence against the vast majority of Americans," as to criminal activity, he said. "Yet they are being identified, tracked, and searched nevertheless.

"This policy violates decades and centuries of court decisions about the rights of innocent Americans," he said. "The mere demand for an ID is a search, which the Fourth Amendment protects us from."

The lawsuit claims the government, under CAPPS II, is preparing to combine travel booking and payment information with data from banks, credit-reporting agencies and other sources and integrate it with lists of suspected terrorists and criminals.

"Your life history will be gathered and scanned, using secret criteria, whenever you book a flight or arrive at an airport," said William Simpich, Gilmore's attorney. "This is the kind of data aggregation people have been fighting for 50 years or more and it's completely unacceptable."

A so-called "no-fly" list created by the FBI and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has already been abused and used to harass innocent citizens who happened to have names that match those on the list, the lawsuit alleges.

"They're using September 11 as a stalking horse to enable the government to implement a much more comprehensive system of electronic dossiers on American citizens than has ever been done before," said Edward Hasbrouck, a San Francisco-based privacy and consumer advocate and author of travel guides. "CAPPS was in operation on September 11 and it didn't work."

The lawsuit names as defendants U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge, Homeland Security chief; as well as the heads of the FBI, the Transportation Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the TSA; and United and Southwest airlines.

Spokespeople from the U.S. Attorney General's, TSA and Homeland Security offices, as well as United, said they had no comment, while officials from the other government agencies were unavailable to comment.

Angela Vargo, a spokeswoman for Southwest, said executives would look at the suit. "After what our country has been through in the past few months, frivolous lawsuits such as this are ridiculous," she said.

 

[Ted Striker]

This numbnuts needs a tune up. Beat him down!!!

 

[dash8driver]

ok found john gilmore's email address along with the email addresses of the rest of the people in that organization.

John Gilmore is at ***DELETED***

you can also find the rest of the contacts at that company at

http://www.eff.org/contact.html

i'll be writing him a letter soon, i hope others will too.

[Edited to remove person's email address]

 

[troy]

I found (the) John's E mail address from an article off of the Net called "What's wrong with content protection "http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=john+gilmore&hq=site:www.chguy.net

 

[RightBettor]

The BS flag...

What a bunch of horse shi+!! I took a law course in college and remember going over cases because of the whole screening issue that started in the 1970s. Well, guess what... the courts determined (at the time) that a search at an airport screening check point was not a violation of the Bill of Rights because one voluntarily subjects him/herself to the search. In fact, you are not required to be searched, at all! You have an absolute right to refuse any search of your person or property. You simply turn around, walk out of the airport, and find other means of transportation. It's not like you are being visited at home by the Gestapo. There are a multitude of ways to get form point A to point B. Tell this bozo to charter his own private jet or drive his betwetting a$$ to his destination!!

My fellow Americans never cease to amaze me. People seem to forget that getting on an airplane is not a right... much like driving on public roads is not a right... it is a privilege. You get caught DUI and you lose your PRIVILEGE to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. It's really that simple. With every right we have comes a responsibility. Finally, this guy can file a lawsuit for anything he wants. Wether or not he will win is another story... it's just too bad companies (read consumers) have to foot the bill for a defense.

Yet another reason we need a "loser pays" tort system!!!

Regards,
RightBettor

 

[328dude]

Just got done sending him a "Please remove the navel lint from your craniam" letter.

If you don't like it, Freakin walk.

 

[Tim47SIP]

No suprise

Look where the moron is from! One of the most liberal screwed up areas of the country. Although I was born there, it has definitely become the land of fruits and nuts! So he doesn't want inocecent people to be ID'ed and we are only supposed to Check suspicious people. I gues that would be another law suit! Only in America.

""There is no evidence against the vast majority of Americans," as to criminal activity, he said. "Yet they are being identified, tracked, and searched nevertheless"

Wasent everyone up in arms just a few weeks ago about profiling, which he is suggesting?? Did I say Moron, ya I guess I did. OK, I'm done. I am now going to email this yo yo. But remember, for all of you that do email him, he can use the email in court to prove whatever. So be carefull in what you say.

 

[Flydaplane]

Maybe this guy should sue 7-11 for ID checks when he buys beer, Movie theaters for ID checks for R rated (or X) movies. What about banks for asking for ID to cash a check. What a bonehead!

 

[flynhigh31]

"Beware the Leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caeser." - - Julius Caeser


Think twice before you give up your Constitutional Rights! Those same rights that men and women fought and died for to protect!

 

[dogg]

amen flynhigh31.

The current level of ridiculous requirements being churned out by federal and state agencies sickens me. It is time for history to be a requirement to be an American. When all of our rights are gone in the name of being "safe and secure" and another event occurs as it surely will, we will all look at each other like a flock of sheep running over a cliff and wonder why we did it. We will find that every thing that being an American means will have been detroyed and we will be no different than all of the other socialist states that exist in the world.

Remember it is not only our right to question authority it is our DUTY. It is high time that we put an end to the trashing and diluting of our most sacred document, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE


Live free or die period

 

[chperplt]

Remember it is not only our right to question authority it is our DUTY. It is high time that we put an end to the trashing and diluting of our most sacred document, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE

Where does it say in the Declaration Of Independence that it's our right as an American to be a faceless, nameless individual?

So, by your logic, it's a violation of our rights when a movie theater asks for ID to prove a person is over 17, so they can see an "R" rated movie? It's a violation of our rights when a store clerk asks for ID to purchase alcohol? It's a violation of our rights when a police officer stops you and asks for your ID?


The safety of the public is a little more important that the "rights" you perceive the Declaration Of Independence gives you. If your "rights" are being violated so much by an airline asking you for your ID so they can match your ticket, with you, then you have the "right" to chose a different mode of transportation.


By the way... Before you start throwing the Declaration of Independence around, make sure you know how to spell it properly.

 

[dash8driver]

this is hardly a violation of the constitution. its just an ID check, a small step in security. its there to protect you and the other passengers, its not some major consipracy for the government to monitor everyone for some evil plot.

asside from it assisting in providing security against hostile pax, it also makes sure that the person holding the ticket is the person that's supposed to be using the ticket. without an ID check any person that steals your tickets can use em without fear of getting caught. if ID checks were unconstitutional just think of what will happen the next time someone steals your checkbook or credit cards. after you liberate your rights for ID checks with your bank, why dont you let us play with your checkbook...

 

[eriknorth]

In fact, you are not required to be searched, at all! You have an absolute right to refuse any search of your person or property. You simply turn around, walk out of the airport, and find other means of transportation.

F'in A, man. Right on! These people have way too much time on their hands to dig up this stupid crap. You don't have to be doing something wrong to be checked for something. If you go to a gas station, the policy, around Atlanta at least, is that you have to show ID for cigarettes if you are under 26 years old. Well, how do you know if someone is 26 if you don't check their ID? I really hope this guy loses the case horribly. People like that need to put that energy into something more productive than that, like staring at walls and shutting the heck up. Man, I need an aspirin. I hate this kind of stuff...

 

[skypine69]

This topic is quite the double edged sword. While I agree that the ID checks are in fact constitutional, how far do we let it go? I will need a lawyer (not an attorney, but a lawyer) to verify this but I believe that it is required to have some form of ID on you at all times while in public. I am under the understanding that if you are walking down the street and a peace officer asks you for your ID you must present it. If not you are subject to arrest. Of course this does not happen often, but do you really want the government to have that power? I laugh at all the people who wear there IDs around their neck at the airports nowadays. In fact in the last few months I have stopped wearing my Company ID when I am jumpseating in just my pilot shirt (no tie, hat, bars). I now keep it in my pocket and present it to the gate agent and capt when needed. I ask you, how easy will it be for the TSA to see all the sheep walking around with their IDs hanging around their neck and implement a requirment that when at an airport you must display your ID? How would feel about that?
It is good to be patriotic and easy to denounce what this guy is doing as frivoulous, but I beleive that part of what he is trying to do is make people realize that very slowly personal freedoms are being taken away from the general public. Remember, this country is founded on the belief that 2 sides can have different opinions and still coexist. If you dont want to have to listen to his views you can move to any number of countries where if you have a differing view, you will be shot.

 

[flynhigh31]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

As a people, you have every right to question authority when that same authority infringes upon your unalienable and Constitutional Rights. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks should happen. You Have That Right.

 

[flynhigh31]

this is hardly a violation of the constitution. its just an ID check, a small step in security. its there to protect you and the other passengers, its not some major consipracy for the government to monitor everyone for some evil plot.

I bet this guy is willing to give up all freedoms in the fight for security. There are better ways for our government to fight this issue. And they don't even have to take away the freedom that you are so willing to give up.

 

[flynhigh31]

By the way... Before you start throwing the Declaration of Independence around, make sure you know how to spell it properly.

Work hard....people on welfare depend on you.

You really should check yourself before you critisize someone else.

By the way... To HELL with everyone on welfare. It is not my responsibility nor is it their right.

 

[chperplt]

You really should check yourself before you critisize someone else.

Point out my error... and critisize is spelled criticize.

By the way... To HELL with everyone on welfare. It is not my responsibility nor is it their right.

Yea... That was kind of my point. You're not a Mensa member, are you?


http://www.mensa.org/

 

[A Squared]

I've gotta side with flynhigh, skypine and Dogg on this one.

It's astonishing what a bunch of sheep we've become, how willing we've become to invite the government one level deeper into our lives...and deeper.....and deeper....when is it going to end?

We all sit here and complain about mindless, ineffective and intrusive "security", then when someone tries to actually do something about it, he's a "moron" or a "numbnuts". He should just shut up like the rest of us and accept an increasingly intrusive government.

Tell me, who is it that determines that things are "priveliges" not "rights" ? Hmmmm....could it be the government? and could it be because it is convenient for the government for driving, and flying and such to be "priveleges" and subject to immediate and arbitrary suspension? It certainly doesn't serve the people to have things be "priveleges", and not rights.

So, let's think about the current situation:

You need government issued ID to get on an airplane. You need Government issued ID to get on a bus or train. You need Government issued ID to drive on the public highways. The police have the "right" to demand government issued ID from all occupants of a car, not just the driver, and you are subject to arrest if you don't comply. You may be requred to show govvernment issued ID when you are merely walking in public. Alright put those thoughts on hold, and think back in time a little. Remember how shocked you were to find out that a Soviet citizen needed an internal passport to travel within his own country? Remember how amazed you were at the lack of freedom?

Now, how far from internal passports are we, in real terms, if we need government issued Identification to be allowed the privelege of using ANY form of travel in the US, including WALKING. Is that really what our founding fathers envisioned? Government ID required for walking? What's the next step? a visa to visit your parents in the next state? Think it can't happen? really? why not? All the government has to do is declare it a privelege, not a right. After all, visiting family isn't one of the rights listed in the constitution.

We as citizens of the United States have the *right* to travel freely within the US, right? But, if each and every individual means of travel is a privilege, then the *right* to travel isn't much of a right after all.

think about it guys, maybe when someone pushes back against the ever expanding, ever encroaching government, we ought to cut him a little slack, instead of expecting him to bow his head, and follow the Judas goat, just like the rest of the sheep.

regards

 

[chperplt]

A Squared

You make some very good points. However, I would disagree that requiring a photo ID to board an airplane is the same as being required to hold an internal passport.

All an airline is doing by asking for you to produce an ID is to verify that the name on the picture ID is the same as the name on the ticket. Your ID can be bogus, as long as the name matches.

Airlines have always required ID. Either you showed it at the ticket counter, or you showed it at the gate. Now you show it a few more times. It's just another way for an airline to make sure that the person they sold the ticket to is the person using it. Tickets have never been transferable, and now there isn't any way around it.

 

[skypine69]

A Squared,

Thank you for making my point much more eloquently than I ever could! The bottom line is I am very suspicious of people that do not allow others to question authority. I am not much into history but I believe that some people questioned the authority of the British crown and next thing you know, We have a new country!
I wonder how this guy fighting this will affect anyone else in a negative manner?
Anyway, carryon.....fantastic discussion!

Oh and by the way, ID checks have NOT always been mandatory. It was started shortly after the TWA 800 crash. Tickets have not been tranferable, but until that point there was no way for an airline to verify who is traveling.

 

[A Squared]

chperplt,

>>>>I would disagree that requiring a photo ID to board an airplane is the same as being required to hold an internal passport.

Yes, I didn't say it was the same. WHat I meant was that *functionally* it is getting very close to it, a lot closer than I'm comfortable with.

I'll restate my point, as you seem to have missed it.

In the Soviet Uninon, you were required to have a Government ID to travel within the union.

Here, you don't have to have a Government ID to travel....BUT you do have to have a government ID to use any means of public or private travel, including riding in a private auto, and walking.

So, again, I ask what is the REAL differnce? Not just the semantics of whether the ID is a passport or not, not just whether it's permission to travel in general, or permission to use a specific mode of travel, what is the REAL difference? I think it's only a matter of degree, and a level of enforcement. I personally an not comfortable with slowly, bit by bit getting closer to the way things were in the Soviet Union. I've travelled in the Former Soviet Union, and I've seen the checkpioints at all the road intersection. I don't want a bunch of sheep to slowly rationalize our way to that same type of society.

regards

 

[chperplt]

I'll restate my point, as you seem to have missed it.

Thanks... but I didn't miss the point. You do make good points, but I simply disagree with them.

 

[Timebuilder]

Someone mentioned that the courts have determined that
the producing of ID does not constitute a seach. This is correct.

Although we have a "right" to travel freely, the type of traveling we undertake is a priviledge, and is subject to security guidelines. These include identifying passengers in order to keep the bad guys off the aircraft. When innocent citizens are asked to produce identification, they become a part of the teamwork necessary to protect our skies, our passengers, and our jobs.

Imagine what would happen if all travel was subject to identification. I submit that Samantha Runion, the little girl found dead in California would be alive, and Elizabeth Smart would be having dinner with her parents tonight. As a society, we are not ready to so actively protect our innocents. Our children will be ready.

A lot of people compare our ID checks with european security made famous in the Germany and Russia of the Cold War. They usually did this for the purpose of oppressing their dissidents, suppressing freedom. We, on the other hand, having refused to control our borders, not to mention our criminals, are faced with ID checks in order to preserve our freedom.

It is by any definition, an irony.

 

[flynhigh31]

Errors noted below.....

The safety of the public is a little more important that the "rights" your perceive the Declaration Of Independence gives you.

It really isn't a big deal. But if you critiCize someone, expect the same in return.

 

[Timebuilder]

Where are the errors you are noting?

 

[Freight Dog]

ok, WTF, over?!?! who is this loser and how much gall do you have to have to think like this after what just happened?

i would like to find out how to contact this guy and send him a letter... what an idiot.

Suit challenges airline ID requirements

July 19, 2002 Posted: 9:40 AM EDT (1340 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A prominent civil libertarian sued the U.S. government and two major airlines Thursday, claiming that security requirements that compel U.S. citizens to show identification before flying are unconstitutional.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco, John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that... blahblahblahblahblahblah

San Francisco, that should tell ya something... isn't that the home of Jihad Johnny and the most overturned court in the country?

___________
Obesity is the leading cause of fat ass.

 

[wingnutt]

whats black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?


...a doberman

 

[dash8driver]

I bet this guy is willing to give up all freedoms in the fight for security. There are better ways for our government to fight this issue. And they don't even have to take away the freedom that you are so willing to give up.

you, like this litigious john gilmore, take things a little too far. the way you bet, you shouldnt go to vegas. i never once implied nor did i give the impression that i'd give up all freedoms for security. i'm not sure how you got there, but i think this is probably what you have to resort to to "win" arguements.

since when is agreeing with the airlines requirement for an ID check an all out endorsement for "1985"? i can see the usefulness of asking for ID at the ticket counter and other places. i am against an all out lockdown on people. i am not against tightening up security and such when the times call for it, and loosening it when its not needed anymore. i, like most people can adjust with the need and not throw tantrums and lawsuits.

ID checks keep people from using stolen tickets, cashing stolen checks, using stolen credit cards, getting too far in the car someone stole from you, just to name a few. ID checks are a small price to pay for the security it brings. gilmore would probably sue the bank if they let someone cash a bunch of his checks without ID. probably right after he got out of court with UAL and SWA.

the other thing he wants is only suspicious people to be screened. well, tell me, who is in charge of determining who is suspicious and who is not? will you and gilmore come to his aid when he's attacked and sued for picking on people? to comply with this demand we would have to implement profiling, which the ACLU would jump all over. the ACLU will win that one, they have more power than gilmore. i dont see anything wrong with limited profiling. no one should be immune to security though, its everyone or no one. profiling should be used to enhance security, to more carefully scrutinize higher risk profile pax.

i think all these frivolous cry-baby lawsuits all started with that 7 million dollar cup of mcdonalds coffee. what a shame.

if you lack the ability to see between the extremes, then there's nothing i can do for you...

 

[A Squared]

Dash Driver,

So you think objecting to demands for ID with no probable cause is "take(ing) things too far". And those who do, are "unable to see between the extremes" ?


Really? My friend, if you don’t consider the current situation extreme, how bad does it have to get?

I recall a time when an airline passenger merely walked into the waiting area, along with anyone who came along to see them off. To get on the plane, you just flashed your ticket at the agent and walked on. Then came the metal detectors, the x-ray machines.

Today, the waiting lounge is like a fortress, passengers and pilots alike are searched, harassed. Personal belongings are confiscated. Both pilots and passengers are arbitrarily subjected to strip searches, with absolutely no probable cause. Persons daring to complain or suggest that this is unreasonable are arrested, hauled off in handcuffs and charged with a crime.

Now, back in the days of innocence, if someone had warned that we were headed for the situation which exists today, I’m sure there would have been plenty of people like you to jump up and accuse them of "take(ing) things too far" and being "unable to see between the extremes"

Freedom isn’t lost all at once, it’s lost bit by bit, step by step, one little inconvenience, followed by a minor intrusion, just another check, It’ll make life safer, more secure...on and on, until one day we wake up and we’re no longer free, and we wonder how that happened.

This morning I woke up to a world where in order to travel on a public conveyance, or even to operate it, I have to show government issued ID, my belongings will be searched, perfectly harmless possessions are confiscated, I may be strip searched for no reason at all, and if I express the opinion that there is something wrong with this, I may be arrested and charged with a crime. This isn’t some exaggeration, this isn’t some over dramatization, this is happening, this is real. Everything I’ve described can be found in the archives on this bulletin board.

Yet despite the situation, when someone protests, or files a lawsuit, or stands up and says "this is wrong" , you attempt to silence them, saying it’s better to accept, go along.

OK, I ask you, and this is a real question, I’d like an answer; How bad do things have to get before you will agree that it’s time to protest? When is the right time for civil libertarians, or just ordinary citizens to file lawsuits?

We’ve got the required Government ID for travel.

We’re got the random strip searches.

We’re arresting people who peacefully express an opinion.

What more do you need before you think it’s ok to protest?