Secret Laws.

[Bradylama]

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm

AN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.

The gate agent asked for his ID.

Gilmore asked her why.

It is the law, she said.

Gilmore asked to see the law.

Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is "Sensitive Security Information." The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection.

So the law that requires one to show one's ID at an airport is Sensitive Security Information?

Somebody made a comment on this issue that sums up my views rather nicely.

Personally, I feel much safer knowing that airport security is so tight, and that they verify photo ID. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of privacy for peace of mind in this instance.

Herein lies the problem. You are no safer than you were before, and you're more than willing to sacrifice your freedoms in order to have this feeling of safety.

Showing an ID in no way increases the security of an airport. If eighteen year olds around the country can aquire fake IDs easily enough to get into most bars and clubs, how hard do you think it will be for a terrorist to get one? Even then, IDs only verify identity, not intent. The 9-11 bombers showed their identities before boarding their planes. Their identities were known and yet their intentions were not.

However, the bigger issue here is that there is a law mandating this but it is kept a secret from the American public. If you read the linked article, it is clear that a law exists, but nobody has been shown this law, nor is it availble to the American public. How are we expected to follow laws which we can't read or discuss? More troubling, how are we supposed to know which "secret laws" exist and which are simply ones that the person demanding compliance is just making up? First we have a secret law demanding you show ID at an airport. Weeks later a police officer demands you show ID before stepping in your car; he claims there's a law forcing you to. Is he right? Or is he simply telling you that to see your ID? With a precedent of secret law, you can't know.

 

[bob_the_rambler]

No laws should be secret......if the government passes a law that requires me to have a bar code tattooed on my body for ID purposes i want to know about it..... im not sure where i heard it but i think that if you fly in or out of the country you are fingerprinted and photo catologed into the FBI database? i dont like that idea (if its even true) at all, i dont want my info in the FBI database just because i want to leave the country........

 

[Shadowbird]

"Ignorance of a law does not void the responsibility to abide by it." Cool - if we want to see a law, we can't, because it's secret, but if we break it, we can still get prosecuted since not having seen the law does not void the responsibility.

 

[bob_the_rambler]

kinda reminds me of 1984............

 

[Shadowbird]

kinda reminds me of 1984............

What do you mean "reminds you of"? Apart from the fact that it's the large corporations that control everything instead of government, the world described in 1984 is what USA is striving to...

 

[bob_the_rambler]

kinda reminds me of 1984............

What do you mean "reminds you of"? Apart from the fact that it's the large corporations that control everything instead of government, the world described in 1984 is what USA is striving to...

Ok so we are living in a pre-thought control time? so what do we do about it? can it be stopped? or will our debts to major corporations keep us silent?

Any one ever read "pawns in the game" by William Carr?

 

[Roshambo]

Sort of like the premise behind THX-1138, and the remake, with the blind consumerism for the sake of consumerism and the economy with a sort of "The Prisoner" feel to it.

 

[Flop]

So the law that requires one to show one's ID at an airport is Sensitive Security Information?

I find this to be pretty strange. Not only is it grotesque to not allow people to see a law, for the reasons people have already stated. It doesn't make any sense at all. I really can't see any reason to label a law sensitive security information.

 

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

*snippity snip edit*

Herein lies the problem. You are no safer than you were before, and you're more than willing to sacrifice your freedoms in order to have this feeling of safety.

Showing an ID in no way increases the security of an airport. If eighteen year olds around the country can aquire fake IDs easily enough to get into most bars and clubs, how hard do you think it will be for a terrorist to get one? Even then, IDs only verify identity, not intent. The 9-11 bombers showed their identities before boarding their planes. Their identities were known and yet their intentions were not.

Although I also feel that laws we should abide by should in no way be kept secret the post here is in some ways wrong and missing part of the point.

IDs do not, in such a direct way as the poster is considering, increase security, however in a round-about way they do. If a terrorist blows a plane up then all the authorities immediately know who was on that plane, a quick check should immediately throw up the fake ID and a trace can begin, it simply gives the authorities the upper hand after the terrorist act has been comitted, and could give them a headstart to identifying and stopping others, which may save lives. A fake ID also gives people reason to detain the holder, if a known terrorist in making their way onto a plane with a high likelyhood of destroying it then they can prevent them from boarding or delay them long enough to avert disaster and give the authorities more time.

The other reason for ID is so that when planes malfunction and drop out of the sky or blow up people know when their son/daughter/brother/sister/parents were on that plane, they dont have to wait weeks or months for forensic experts to sift through the ashes to find bits of finger to dna profile and run up against other known information.


Now I am not condoning secret laws, I'm pretty much dead against them. But realise that IDing has valid uses that can't be dismissed with a simple post about how it does not increase "security" whilst not adressing the better points for it.

we can still get prosecuted since not having seen the law does not void the responsibility.

Although having secret laws would make a seemingly vaild exception, it cannot really be any other way. I personally have never seen a law defining, prohibiting or even mentioning murder... or for that matter assault, rape or torture. I would hope that we all agree that I should still be able to be prosecuted.



edit:
Oh and I also heard (from the same source site as that post came for I beleive) that for some airlines and airports the bloke could have boarded without ID after a more intensive security check.

 

[Flop]

Actually, I don't think anyone here is against a law that says you have to show your ID when boarding a plane (at least noone has expressed that), and I'm personally all for IDing. I'm Danish, and here you can't really do anything without showing your ID, and the police can ask you to show it if they feel there is a reason (which means anytime they like).

But as far as I understand from that original post, the 9/11 terrorists did indeed show their ID when boarding their planes, which means a secret law that you have to show your ID would have no effect in that case.

It's the "secret law" thing that pisses me off. I don't care if it's a law that says you have to show your ID, or a law that says you can't ride a bike when it's raining. The secret part is stupid either way.

 

[Bradylama]

IDs do not, in such a direct way as the poster is considering, increase security, however in a round-about way they do. If a terrorist blows a plane up then all the authorities immediately know who was on that plane, a quick check should immediately throw up the fake ID and a trace can begin, it simply gives the authorities the upper hand after the terrorist act has been comitted, and could give them a headstart to identifying and stopping others, which may save lives. A fake ID also gives people reason to detain the holder, if a known terrorist in making their way onto a plane with a high likelyhood of destroying it then they can prevent them from boarding or delay them long enough to avert disaster and give the authorities more time.

So you're more than willing to do this for something that may or may not increase security eventually?

Nevermind how far back a trace can go if he got the ID in a back alley and not from Osama himself.

Good sleuth work, genius.

kinda reminds me of 1984............

PUHLEASE. 1984 is so old hat by now. Everybody who's anybody knows that society is slowly beginning to emulate A Brave New World.

 

[Tempistfury]

im not sure where i heard it but i think that if you fly in or out of the country you are fingerprinted and photo catologed into the FBI database? i dont like that idea (if its even true) at all, i dont want my info in the FBI database just because i want to leave the country........

I believe it is a law for people ENTERING the US, from certain countries. There was a South American country that made a big stink about it and retaliated by making all US citizens have to go through the same process when they entered that country.

 

[Maphusio]

Flop perhapse you would be more pissed off reading the "Patriot Act" of the USA and the UK. It blatently states if you are suspected to be breaking any laws that may be concidered treasonous there is nothing protecting you. The authorities can come take you away and you will never be heard from again. This is the case with many Americans this very moment. There is a man in Oregon that was believed to have connections to Alquetta and Hellzblah (sorry for poor spelling) he was taken away shortly after 9/11. There have been demostrations demanding his family/anyone be allowed to contact him or know what happened after the gov authorities picked him up. To this day there is no response from any authorities. They all deny picking him up. This whole ID thing I believe to be yet another false security set up to make us in the USA comfortably numb.

I truly believe the US security mesaures to be very flawed. I have a very good friend that was keeping VERY close communications with Alquetta for about a year prior to the 9/11 attacks. He had vital info that one would think at the time just may have been of use to the US gov. Hell he even knew 4 days before the attacks that something big was going down since all communications were cut off. Imagine being in a room full of chattering people then they all just stop.. dont say a word... Doesn't that throw up a flag? Sorry I know I am a bit off topic. As I said, this ID thing is nothing special and the fact that you are not allowed to view the law is a violation of your most basic rights... of course that is, before the Patriot Act.

 

[Bradylama]

Our rights were violated before the Patriot Act. People didn't care then, even without the pretext of International Terrorism.

They never will, and we'll doom ourselves to increasing subserviancy from apathy and ignorance. By the time people notice that something's wrong it'll be too late.

 

[Shadowbird]

Oh and I also heard (from the same source site as that post came for I beleive) that for some airlines and airports the bloke could have boarded without ID after a more intensive security check.

Read through.

They reached a strange agreement for an argument about personal privacy: In lieu of showing ID, Gilmore would consent to an extra-close search, putting up with a pat-down in order to keep his personal identity to himself. He was wanded, patted down and sent along.

As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.

"He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,' " Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.' "

 

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

So you're more than willing to do this for something that may or may not increase security eventually?

Nevermind how far back a trace can go if he got the ID in a back alley and not from Osama himself.

Funnily enough as I pointed out it's not an eventually situation, it *can* help now, just not in the way you seem determined to think.

And a trace doesn't have to lead back to anyspecific person or group to help. It can just mean that you pretty much know which of the passengers the terrorist was immediately, rather than having to go through the scattered remains of over 200 people and work from there taking weeks or months. That can help.

A fake ID can also be traced to where else it was used. So if they only had one and have used it since they got it, you dont know anything about them but may know where they've stayed and where they've been. This coupled with the fact you can start work immediately is a helluva lot better than not having anything but bits of fingernail and metal to work with.

Good sleuth work, genius.

Thanks.

Read through.

My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Brother None]

PUHLEASE. 1984 is so old hat by now. Everybody who's anybody knows that society is slowly beginning to emulate A Brave New World.

Promiscuous sex with women perfected by a long cloning process while hopped up on drugs? Yes please!!!

And a trace doesn't have to lead back to anyspecific person or group to help. It can just mean that you pretty much know which of the passengers the terrorist was immediately, rather than having to go through the scattered remains of over 200 people and work from there taking weeks or months. That can help.

A fake ID can also be traced to where else it was used. So if they only had one and have used it since they got it, you dont know anything about them but may know where they've stayed and where they've been. This coupled with the fact you can start work immediately is a helluva lot better than not having anything but bits of fingernail and metal to work with.

That's a whole lotta ifs there, buddy.

And as has been pointed out, the ID checking is hardly the issue here. As far as I know, it is unconstitutional to withhold a law from public viewing. It pretty much defeats its own purpose, ey?

 

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

That's a whole lotta ifs there, buddy.

True, true. Identification of dead bodies and possible terrorists isn't one of them though and that alone can give you an edge you didn't have. Couple that with a high possibility to detain or delay others and possible traces and it can be a damn good tool for hunting. On top of that a "whole lotta ifs" is better than nothing. *edit*: In fact a lot of investigations and intelligence work is built upon "a whole lotta ifs" sometimes they're the only things you can work with, and it pays off.

And as has been pointed out, the ID checking is hardly the issue here. As far as I know, it is unconstitutional to withhold a law from public viewing. It pretty much defeats its own purpose, ey?

I agree. I just don't like people immediately sweeping the idea of ID checking away with arguments that wouldn't hold up to even minor probing from a bunch of 14 year olds.

 

[Bradylama]

I agree. I just don't like people immediately sweeping the idea of ID checking away with arguments that wouldn't hold up to even minor probing from a bunch of 14 year olds.

You'll have to excuse me for not liking the idea of ID checking (by law) because it could lead to a bunch of ifs and maybes.

So tell me, how has ID checking helped fight the War on Terrorism? Or is that Sensitive Security Information?

Promiscuous sex with women perfected by a long cloning process while hopped up on drugs? Yes please!!!

Which proves the point.

 

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

You'll have to excuse me for not liking the idea of ID checking (by law) because it could lead to a bunch of ifs and maybes.

That's fine, but that isn't the case, and what most people still dont seem to be able to latch onto is that the "bunch of ifs and maybes" are valid reasons and there are still others to support it aswell

So tell me, how has ID checking helped fight the War on Terrorism? Or is that Sensitive Security Information?

Haven't I already covered this?

Tell you what, a more specific example, just for you.

9/11 and within days we knew who the blokes were and had been in contact with flight schools and people with flight experience. From this I seem to remember other terrorists were picked up promptly in Britian. The blokes in Britain may not have been able to be picked up in time were there not known people and links.


The information on the actual links between IDs and terrorists probably is sensitive secret information, the intelligence services dont go running down to their nearest press office screaming "hey, we think this is the bloke and we're going to pick him up now" only to find that they've flown the coop because of the release of the information.


Even if this wasn't the case I've given you enough to point you in the right direction to think about the benefits of ID checking, unfortunately you dont seem to want to.

Hell, I've given you straight up reasons for ID checking and you're still not noticing them.