Why? If it is private airlines and not the government requiring it.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens with this suit. It made me think a little more. Lately I’ve been asked to show my driver’s license when I enter private pay parking garages in Washington, DC. Of course, who would know if I show a fake one??? They don’t copy it or write down the info.
I personally have no problem with such a card. They should at least offer one that you can purchase (to cover costs) that will get you through faster than those who object to having such a card.
Erm, sailor, the government is requiring it. The airlines didn’t come up with this regulation on their own.
Well, if it is the feds requiring it then I have a hard time finding it acceptable . . . but . . . in practical terms I don’t think it makes much difference. Customarily air tickets have always been nominal and are nominal world wide (AFAIK). I have never seen any air ticket, be it paper or electronic that was not made out to a named person. Even if the Feds did not require the airlines to ID passengers I am quite sure the airlines would be doing it on their own. If they sold a ticket for Joe X to fly they have a right to make sure it is Joe X who is flying (although a case could be made that tickets should not be nominal and I could give my ticket to my cousin to use but that opens up a host of other problems). Now, it is a very different question whether they can be required to facilitate this information to the Feds and i would say not without a judge’s order. That seems like a reasonable safeguard to me, lust like a wiretap. As far as flying safety the only thing the government needs to know is that all passengers have been adequately screened for weapons etc.
As far back as I have been flying airline tickets were non-transferrable but the airlines didn’t always check IDs. I don’t know when they started requiring ID to board a plane, but I remember sometime in the early 80s flying home using the return portion of a friend’s round-trip ticket (my wife & I had driven from Chicago to DC for a trip while he & his wife had flown, but he drove back with my wife and I flew back with his wife - matter of finances and available vacation time). When we were boarding the plane I just said I was my friend & had no problem. It was against the rules but no one seemed to care.
I think I see what you mean - your objection is to having the government knowing where you are travelling and when, correct?
I guess I always assumed that the passenger manifest lists on commercial airlines were accessable to the FAA. But I can’t find confirmation or denial of that.
These plane security measures are starting to get a little ridiculous. They only randomly search people farther than the metal detectors. Same goes for baggage. And they also seem to choose the least likely people to search. Chances are that any hijacker would breeze through security. Also, what they don’t seem to realize is that THE CHANCES OF THEM ACTUALLY REPEATING THE PLANE THING ARE SLIM TO NONE! They’ve done it already, and know that it will be expected. So why do it again? They would most likely do something new and totally unexpected. Terrorists may be bent on destruction, but they aren’t stupid.
I think the crux of this lawsuit is that the government is requiring I.D. to fly, but has done so through secret regulations that they won’t reveal (and that the airline staff won’t reveal) to the person who’s I.D. is being requested. That does start to get a little creepy.
“Please, sir, drop your pants and bend over.”
“Why?”
“Sorry, sir: secret government regulations. Co-operate if you want to get on the plane.”
It rather eats at the heart of justice in a democratic society to have secret regulations like that. The guy who’s suing was told that the regulations weren’t even in written form, just verbally issued. It does sort of smack of “your papers, please.”
Of course, although I object to secret government measures as much as the next gal, and perhaps much moreso, there is no “right” to fly whatsoever. Now, of course, it would make my commutes to London a fucking bitch if I couldn’t, so not flying is not practical for people like me, and thus the government has me at a serious disadvantage.
It’s a tough call IMO - I can’t see that one side or the other is entirely right.
Monica:
So should we stop trying to prevent any method of hijacking or terrorism that’s already been tried? I agree that the exact methods of 11 September are unlikely to meet the same ‘success’, but that doesn’t mean that nobody could ever do it again. By all means improve or change security, but don’t stop looking for the obvious signs either!
Incidentally, I would like to see this gentleman attempt to enter another country without ID. Customs would have a field day. Or is he solely targeting domestic carriers?
>> there is no “right” to fly whatsoever
Well, we could argue about that for a while. I know all teenagers are told "driving is not a right, it’s a privilege " but that is a great oversimplification. Forget the labels. The government cannot discriminate without reason. They cannot say "we forbid Anthracite to fly for no reason at all. She has no right to fly and we do not grant her the privilege of traveling by air (or getting a driver’s license for that matter). Legislatures can regulate and even limit some activities for good cause as long as the laws apply to everyone equally.
Now, the question is whether the government has a compelling interest that justifies knowing who is on every flight. I am sure having that information is helpful in fighting crime. other information would also be useful like who is on every train, on every bus, in every department store, in every amusement park, who lives in every house, etc. These are very similar activities in that they are privately provided services to private individuals. We have to draw a line somewhere because, even knowing it would help fight crime is not enough justification.
You would have to show a very direct link between the information being gathered and the specific crime you are trying to prevent or prosecute. I cannot see it. If the object is to make that particular flight safe then a search should be sufficient. If the object is a wider databank of information about people then I believe it is NOT justified any more than if they required you to tell them who lives in each house or who you are before you board the Greyhound bus. The government has to show a compelling interest before they can do something like this and I do not see it.
Crusoe, when they would have a field day is with someone who cannot tell the difference between an airline employee and an immigration officer. I’ll give you a hint: An immigration officer can put you in cuffs (and in the US can sodomise you with a broom handle) while airline employees generally cannot do it (unless its Air France or Alitalia).
The fact that I am going to the bank to open an account and will have to show my ID there does not mean I need to show it to get into that bus that takes me there.
Would somebody please tell me where the Constitution says you have a right to travel anonymously? Seriously, I can’t even begin to fathom what this guy is basing his lawsuit on.
Ah, but to play devil’s advocate, would you then argue that all of our rights are only those specifically outlined in the Constitution? Or would that be covered under the 9th Amendment? 
I thought that the whole ID thing was to ensure you didn’t steal your ticket.
Just a quick thought. 
>> Would somebody please tell me where the Constitution says you have a right to travel anonymously?
You’re joking! yes? Or do you really think the government has a right to demand you to ID yourself just because you step outside your home? Can they demand ID on trains and buses too? how about checkpoints on the roads and streets? Where in the constitution does it say you can shop at Kmart anonimously? I guess the police can ask you for ID anywhere any time?
No.
Pretty much, yes.
Yes.
Checkpoints are by and large unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. I can even cite case law that says so. Nothing remotely resembling your proposition exists in constitutional law.
Nowhere. That’s the point.
Yes, pretty much.
Seriously, man, where did you get this idea that there’s a constitutional right to anonymity?
What about the case of the tall black dude all dressed in white who loved to walk all over, often late at night, in neighborhoods other than his own?
I believe he won his case. He didn’t carry ID and he refused to state who he was when questioned by police. I belive the police lost on all counts.
Anyone got a WayBack machine handy?
The obvious point that everybody seems to be missing is that checking ID did not ever stop any hijacking in the first place. It does not serve any security purpose, and no purpose at all other than making it impossible for me to sell a plane ticket that I cannot use.
Let’s not forget that all the hijackers on Sept. 11 presented valid ID at the gates.
Additionally, other countries are utterly irrelevant to a discussion of freedoms protected by the United States Constitution, so let’s leave out the “England and France do it, so you should too!” rhetoric. When Constitutionally protected freedom is in question, it does not matter a whit what other countries do or do not do.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those that attend too small a degree of it.” A quotation that has no force of law, but which is a powerful statement by the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence, one that covers my feelings on the subject nicely. We live in a free state - something that cannot be emphasized strongly enough these days, and indeed seems to be taken for granted - and one of the facets of a free state is that we have the liberty to travel, communicate, go about our daily business, etc without exposure to needless intrusion by the government and without any need to justify our whereabouts or intentions unless there is probable cause to believe that we are involved in a crime - and even then, we are deprived of that liberty under the strictest of rules and circumstances.
In a free state, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means it is the responsibility of the government to prove that we do not have the right to go where we choose and conduct our business, not our own to prove that we do.
Freedom is not cheap. We in this country have come to take our liberty for granted, and that is a dishonor to those who fought to win it, and purchased it with their own blood.
Give me a break, will you? I thought lawyers were supposed to know how to research facts. Or are you too lazy to do a web search? Evidently that’s the case, since you’re always running your mouth about things without knowing what you’re talking about (like John Lott, and like this).
If you bothered to read the article, you would fathom what the case is about, just like the rest of us. But since you can’t be troubled to educate yourself about the facts of the case before spouting off, I’ve done it for you:
Read this. It explains the story and reasoning in detail. At the top of the page, you will find a link to the actual complaint. Read it before you comment further, ok?
I’ll go you one better. The Tenth Amendment says that the federal government does not have any powers not explicitly granted to it by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment says I have the right to be secure in my person, papers, and effects except on probable cause. That means the police do NOT have the right to randomly check my ID without cause. And without probable cause or a warrant, I will not identify myself to a police officer, period.
So instead of my justifying my right to travel freely without interference, why don’t you show me where the government has a Constitutional power or right to hassle me for ID when I have done nothing wrong?