| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Newsmax: Justice Wants Airline ID Case Kept Secret |
| 2004-09-07 |
| EFL - I would have titled this: Idiot wants to hurt our security - Asks 9th Circuit for assistance. SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane. A federal statute and other regulations "prohibit the disclosure of sensitive security information, and that is precisely what is alleged to be at issue here," the government said in court papers filed Friday with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Disclosing the restricted information "would be detrimental to the security of transportation," the government wrote. Attorneys for Gilmore, a 49-year-old San Francisco resident who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, said they don't buy the government's argument and that its latest request raises only more questions. "We're dealing with the government's review of a secret law that now they want a secret judicial review for," one of Gilmore's attorneys, James Harrison, said in a phone interview Sunday. "This administration's use of a secret law is more dangerous to the security of the nation than any external threat." Gilmore first sued the government and several airlines in July 2002 after airline agents refused to let him board planes in San Francisco and Oakland without first showing an ID or submitting to a more intense search. He claimed in his lawsuit the ID requirement was vague and ineffective and violated his constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures. A U.S. District Court judge earlier this year dismissed his claims against the airlines, but said his challenge to the government belonged in a federal appellate court. Now in his appellate case, Gilmore maintains the federal government has yet to disclose the regulations behind the ID requirement to which he was subjected. "How are people supposed to follow laws if they don't know what they are?" Harrison said. [..] |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #14 Super Hose, If they were doing any screening I might agree, but all I see is grandmothers with knee replacements getting the third degree from some guy in a turban. It is a farce. And the government should not be asking for secret hearings to uphold secret regulations. I agree with the guy suing even though he is probably a wacko. We've unleashed all the little Hitlers in the country to show off how much power they have to make the general populace miserable without improving airline saftey one iota. I have not worried about flying since Flight 93 established how Americans will deal with highjackers from here on out. The TSA is a joke. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-07 5:36:33 PM |
| #13 Socky, I'm sure that Gilmore's case is every bit as legitimate as a midget suing Cedar Point to ride the Dragster. He doesn't want a plane ride he wants the screening process to be laid out in the light of day for PC disassembly by CAIR in coordination with the ACLU. This is just an extension of the "I want to be veiled in my driver's liscence or I'll cry racism" ploy. If you don't intend to allow for screening of passengers, how do you intend to stop terrorists who have stored their explosives internally? How much information about screening do you want available to Richard Reid? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-07 5:09:19 PM |
| #12 This ID thing is not security. If they are using "secret" regs screw um. The crap that passes for airline security isn't. They don't even profile. It's just random bullshit. It's a typical government goat screw. Telling us how they used ID's is not a secret. Telling us how they get the "names" on the no fly list might be, but I doubt it. Not with the numbers of "wrong" hits they appear to have. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-07 4:54:26 PM |
| #11 Angie, as the saying goes, locks only keep out honest people. Valid IDs will only be presented by honest people, or as long as the dishonest person can use his without being tagged. Counterfeit IDs will be presented by dishonest people, whether they mean to destroy the plane or not. The point is, IDs count for very very little in a resilient scheme of security. To return to the lock metaphor, since the lock is easily cracked, the homeowner better have something more useful in his arsenal, whether alarms, weapons, or his stealables stored somewhere with stronger security. And if your concern is that someone is going to break in to kill you, then your locks are really next to useless except as a minor delay to the attacker, and they certainly won't deter him. Same with IDs to someone who wants to take down an airplane. Frankly, the more sunlight that gets let in to the rotten crackhouse that we call airline security, the better. Gilmore may wear a tinfoil hat, but I sincerely doubt the DOJ has anything more to protect here than its own record of foul-ups (for example, coworkers of mine with highest level clearances in the service of the US, regularly pulled aside at the ticket counters for having the wrong name). If the information is classified, then there is a legal means of properly classifying and protecting it, and they should quit whining to the courts. If it's not classified and they're whining to the courts, then "sensitive" usually equals "embarassing." |
| Posted by: longtime lurker 2004-09-07 2:11:22 PM |
| #10 ...it's pretty obvious that producing ID at the ticket desk prevented nothing. etc etc etc Right, and houses have been burglarized via broken windows, or even through busted doors. That doesn't mean we don't lock the door when we go out. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2004-09-07 12:41:31 PM |
| #9 John never did know when to call it a day. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-09-07 10:57:02 AM |
| #8 First, producing two forms of government ID was not law in the past. When it became practice in 1998, it was in reaction to the Embassy bombings, Clinton getting tough, etc. What it really did was prevent someone from reselling an airline ticket, which used to be common practice, and allowed airlines to force the buyer to eat the price of the ticket if the flight had to be changed or cancelled. The airlines said it was FAA regs, and called security if you argued. Given that terrorists on Federal watch lists purchased tickets in their own names and produced IDs in their own names (or at least the names of thugs on the watchlists), it's pretty obvious that producing ID at the ticket desk prevented nothing. False IDs are easy to produce, in high quality forms if you have the right money backing your operation. So if it's all about security, what happens when the terrorist checks in with his false IDs? Anyone who thinks IDs control anything needs to get familiar with Bruce Schneier (sp?) and "brittle security." Gilmore's attorney is hyperventilating about the danger of the "secret law", but I wonder--what in the world can be so secret about requiring an ID that it requires a secret hearing? What can be so sensitive about citing the actual Federal regulation? Maybe there isn't one? What the Hell is "sensitive security information" anyway? I know what classified information is, how its classification is derived, how it's protected and declassified--but "sensitive security information" is not classified. Anyone familiar with law enforcement incompetence should be wary of such a big blanket to throw over its actions. And if that's what's happening, then our security really isn't being improved, is it? The 9th isn't the ideal circuit to hear the case, but I don't think it will harm anything if the DOJ has to show some of its cards to the court. |
| Posted by: longtime lurker 2004-09-07 9:54:56 AM |
| #7 This kind of crap is why I don't donate to the EFF anymore. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-09-07 9:19:43 AM |
| #6 Showing the ID at the gate could preclude several "bad guys" (possibly middle eastern in appearance)and their surrogates (which could be blond/blue eyed) purchasing tickets on different flights, with relatively close departure times and then regrouping on one or more planes. Just keeping it real here! |
| Posted by: RN 2004-09-07 8:37:46 AM |
| #5 "We have met the enemy and they is us." Walt Kelly |
| Posted by: doc 2004-09-07 8:30:21 AM |
| #4 SPoD, No it has not been airline reg to show ID to fly forever. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-07 7:27:32 AM |
| #3 No thats an airline reg. Id to show you are the person who bought the ticket. No big deal and no secret there. That been that way forever. Those are company policies and no big deal, wanna fly show your ID. Pulling out your internal pasport/ID for a goverment employee to travel? "laws and regualtions" that are secret. Now thats bullshit. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-07 5:34:31 AM |
| #2 Um so the airline asked to have him show his ID to verify that the ticket he has shows hes the person the ticket was made out to in order to board the plane. Wheres the secret law here? Sorry this guy is just weirding out. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2004-09-07 4:29:27 AM |
| #1 Bzzzt wrong answer..Secret law and a secret trail. I hope this guy wins. We don't need no stinking secret laws, trails or judges, not in this Republic. "How are people supposed to follow laws if they don’t know what they are?" Harrison said. Yup, exactly. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-07 3:58:42 AM |