And etc. But why on earth is anonymity some sort of constitutional right?
Because the Supreme Court has consistently held that it is. For example, in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979):
minty green, are you a lawyer? From Joe_Cool’s post I gather you may be. I am not a lawyer and I am not going to spend much time researching this but I am quite sure the SCOTUS has found a right to privacy in the Constitution which in broad terms would prevent the government from requiring citizens to provide information to the government unless there is a compelling public interest. It is not that you have to prove the constitution says they can’t do it but rather that they have to show they have a good reason for doing it.
The government cannot require stores to turn over the ID of every customer and what they bought. When the government asked a bookstore in DC to tell them what Monica Lewinski bought, the bookstore refused and said they would not do it without a court order. The government does not have an automatic right to know everything you do.
You seem pretty confident of that, chief.
Given that the collected ID’s of the successful 9-11 hijackers allowed us to identify al Queda as the perps and that we subsequently killed thousands and thousands of them, disrupted their financial network and sent their leaders on the run, I’d have to speculate that you are not correct.
Is privacy a right? Yeah, within reason it ought to be, and we should be, at the least, careful when abridging it. That’s why some of this suit makes sense – the State can’t be doing stuff without saying why or what they do with collected information.
But at the end of the day, rights are things that are asserted. So for the benefit of everyone, I hereb assert a new right, before your very eyes.
I assert that I have the right to sit in my office building peacefully and honestly trading bonds without some whackjob in a stolen 676 obliterating me. Further, I insist that the State take such reasonable steps as are necessary to secure this right for me. To be specific, I assert that anyone who refuses to cough up their ID before boarding a flying bomb that will be passing proximate to my office building ought be denied access to that bomb.
Of course, that newly asserted right applies to real planes, like 767’s, too.
Yeesh.
There’s a very important distinction between Brown and checking ID’s at the airport, Tradnor. Namely, nobody is being arrested for the sake of identifying themselves. You simply go to the counter and show 'em your ID, just as you do multiple times every single day. If you don’t show 'em your ID, you go home. Poor Mr. Brown didn’t have that choice–he got stopped by the police after leaving a know drug location, then got arrested for not identifying himself. Nobody goes to jail if they don’t provide ID at the airport–but you don’t get on the plane, either.
Oh, and Joe, re: your point about the 10th Amendment saying this is outside Congress’ powers? It is to laugh, compadre. Could there possibly be a better example of interstate commerce than air travel?
manhattan, I do not buy your argument. The bad guys had IDs and they got on the plane. What allowed them to hiajack the planes was inadequate security. Nobody is denying the right of the goverment to collect very specific information when investigating a crime which has been committed or when trying to prevent future crimes. Then, with a court order, they can go to the airline and say “we want to know if Mr. X has flown with you” or “please let us know if Mr. Y intends to fly with you”. That is the same court order required for a phone tap or for an ISP to reveal your information. We do not grant the state the right to collect unlimited information about our activities just so it may have an easier time fighting crime. Rathe we give it a right to collect information which is reasonable linked to specific needs to investigate or prevent crime.
Obviously I am talking about domestic flights. The government has a legitimate interest in knowing who arrives at the border with intention of entering the country. But if it wants to know who goes from Boston to Salt Lake City, it should not demand the airlines provide that information about everybody any more than it asks hotels to inform about every person who stays there or car rentals to inform about every single person who rents a vehicle.
The government was making the same arguments about encryption saying it could be used for crime. They lost that case and I hope they lose this one.
Good grief, there’s no need to get snippy. I ask one genuine question about the chap’s intentions and how they could be practical in the real world and you jump down my throat misrepresenting what I said. I ask again: does this gentlement intend to force airlines to act upon this (assuming he can win), and if so will he attempt to fly internationally without ID?
Personally, I say you should be able to fly wherever you want without ID. Whether you’ll be allowed off the plane without a passport is between you and customs.
If you read the linked story, though, you’ll see that Mr. Gilmore (founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation) was barred from traveling from Oakland, CA to Washington, DC. This particular suit covers domestic travel.
That’s just factually incorrect. We allow the State to collect enormous amounts of information about people engaging or intending to engage in all sorts of harmful or potentially harmful activities, such as driving an automobile, selling securities, moving hazardous materials or negotiating a flying fuel tank over my office. Further, we require non-state entities to collect additional information which the State can request on good cause.
The limit is what, if anything, we allow the State to do with that information. The INS doesn’t have carte blanche to peer into the IRS database, nor can the FBI simply peruse our brokerage statements for the heck of it.
That limit is why this guy’s suit is potentially useful, as I said. Frankly, the State seems a little sneaky on this one, and I would like to hear their case before doing it exactly their way.
But rest assured, whiny protestations to the contrary, passengers can, should and will provide legitimate ID to someone if the operators intend to continue to fly their fuel tanks over my office once a minute, and that information will be on hand if necessary. Every place in the world that has a commercial airport also has extensive network of bus stations, parking lots, rail depots and sometimes even ferry terminals. Anyone with a problem with that is free to use an alternative method of getting around.
Except that most western countries have laws under which an airline can face very serious fines if they allow anyone to board a flight destined for that country without first proving they have the necessary documentation to enter the country. I believe it should go without saying that a passport is one element of that requirement.
Originally posted by sailor
We do not grant the state the right to collect unlimited information about our activities just so it may have an easier time fighting crime. Rather we give it a right to collect information which is reasonable linked to specific needs to investigate or prevent crime.
>> That’s just factually incorrect.
Come on manhattan. There is no way you believe the government has an unlimited right to collect information. The idea of unlimited government died with the Soviet Union. You do not believe the government has no limits in what it can do. If you do believe that, then this discussion is pointless.
>> We allow the State to collect enormous amounts of information about people engaging or intending to engage in all sorts of harmful or potentially harmful activities, such as driving an automobile,
The state has a compelling interest in assuring drivers are qualified to drive. It can require you to be licensed and provide the necessary information for that specific purpose. It can require your vehicle to be registered and require the information specifically needed for that purpose. Courts have ruled anything else is not legal because it violates the narrow purpose for which the driving license and vehicle registration are needed.
>> selling securities, moving hazardous materials or negotiating a flying fuel tank over my office.
In all those activities, just like doctors, etc there are public policy reasons that allow the state to require people to be certified to perform those activities. Being a mere passenger in a vehicle requires no skill or licensing. Being a passenger in an airplane is akin to being a passenger in a train or bus. It is not akin to piloting an airplane. You have failed to produce any evidence that giving the government all the information about who is flying serves any purpose which could not be achieved by providing the government with just the necessary information as is done in other criminal investigations.
Requiring passengers to identify themselves serves nothing to prevent criminal activity onboard. Nothing. What is reasonable is to search them and take all precautions so that the possibility of a passenger comitting a crime onboard is minimised. As long as you do not show why IDing people would be of any help, I will oppose it.
>> But rest assured, whiny protestations to the contrary, passengers can, should and will provide legitimate ID to someone if the operators intend to continue to fly their fuel tanks over my office
I didn’t know you had been appointed to the SCOTUS and given five votes all to yourself.
Note that I acknowledge the state has a compelling interest in having the passenger list in case of international flights which require passport control so I have nothing against that. On domestic flights the airlines are entitled to demand whatever they want and the state should be able to have access to that information for probable cause and with a court order. What I object to is the government automatically having all that information, which they do not need, and without telling the public what they do with it or how they use it.
I have a very healthy distrust of government. Terrorists have killed a few people but overall, the numbers are not so big when compared to deaths by many other causes, including common crime. In spite of the large numbers of victims of murders, we do not give the state unlimited powers to fight crime. The chances that I may become a victim of terrorists are very slim. The chances that I may become the victim of overzealous government officials is much higher because there are so many more of them intruding in my daily life with a potential to abuse their authority. Personally, government officers have caused me way more problems in my life than any terrorists. My vote is to limit the powers of government as much as possible. I’ll take my chances with the terrorists just like I take it with the murderers, thiefs, burglars etc who run loose because we do not live in a totalitarian society.
Just to back sailor on this, I most definitely prefer the “danger” associated with freedom than the “security” associated with overbearing government.
And if I were the only one who felt that way, there would have been no revolution.
Ya, that’s what they said until Richard Reid tried to light his shoe bomb and blow up an American Airlines flight only three months after Sept. 11.
Of the 19 suicide bombers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, authorities say that six were using false names (and false Saudi Arabian passports).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/fake.html
The point is that no one has shown any purpose for the government being told who is flying. Whether people present valid or fake IDs, the fact is it does not stop anyone from anything. If it is so easy to get on a plane with a fake ID then so much more so.
A government which secretly requires unneeded information and does not tell the public how or for what purpose it is being used is something truly frightening.
Obviously I have no problem with the airlines disclosing specific information for a specific and justified investigation, just like I do not have a problem with an ISP disclosing information to the government for an investigation. But sure as hell I have a problem with the government requiring ISPs to tell them everything I do on line. That is the situation in China and it should not be acceptable in the USA or any free country.
sailor already beat me to it, but I’d like to reiterate:
So what?
They showed ID. They got on the plane. What valid security purpose was served by checking their IDs? AND, even more to my point, they were tracked down and their true identities discovered ANYWAY, even though they showed fake IDs. So you have just demonstrated that presentation of ID prior to flying is not even necessary to the post-incident investigation!
In my previous post, did I give an opinion in any direction on this matter?
NO.
I corrected a matter of fact, not opinion. Quit reading opinions into it.
** Walloon**, relax. We all understood what you meant and we could have a long discussion on whether “valid” means legitimate or just “valid enough to get you on a plane” (even if counterfeit). But let us not get sidetracked as it is quite irrelevant to this thread. The point is that, so far, no one has shown any legitimate purpose is served by the government checking passengers’ IDs on domestic flights. None. Criminals also have ID and in many cases, several. It does not prevent anything. Searching passengers for bombs and knives serves a purpose. Checking ID does not. That is the point.
And, on a tangent I will mention I wish they would not serve alcohol on flights as that would make them quite a bit safer. Last week I was seated next to a huge guy who was spilling over into my seat and kept asking the attendants for more of those little bottles of gin, two at a time and he asked me if I minded asking for some more for him. He had a thick accent and sounded German (maybe) and I played dumb and didn’t get them so he started being obnoxious. It is not the first time this happens to me. I was a bit concerned because if this guy got rowdy, with his size he could probably capsize the plane just by rocking it.
I do not know who on earth thinks it is a good idea to let passengers get drunk on the plane. Well, as I am pondering this experience, a couple of days later a man sort of highjacked a flight when he was quite drunk. Fighter planes had to be sent up (I don’t know what they can do other than shoot the entire plane down). If we want to increase safety let’s get the alcohol off the planes. At any rate, I just thought I’d share this tidbit unrelated to the matter at hand which is that bad people also have IDs, oftentimes more IDs than you and me.
Checkpoints are unconstitutional? Hmm. I’ve seen them more than once when I was in the south. Guess they don’t have the same constitution as the rest of us. (or they got overturned after a trial, dunno).
[sarcasm]For the record, I don’t have a problem with being forced to carry identification so the government and businesses can track me, either. I mean, what about the children on those planes? And how can they focus my junk mail accordingly if they don’t know where I travel with my under-12 passenger at or about 6PM? Won’t someone think of the advertisers?[/sarcasm]