-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm amazed that there isn't a law requiring positive identification before boarding secret or otherwise. If there isn't there should be. I presume your concern is related the US Goverment's possible unconstitutional actions in passing a secret law. Surely we're all agreed that it's a good idea to check passports before boarding an aircraft? David On Monday 20 Jan 2003 3:00 am, David Ross wrote: > About time! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Judge to Hear Air ID Challenge > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57276,00.html > > By Julia Scheeres > > San Francisco -- A U.S. District Court judge agreed to hear a challenge to > an airline requirement that forces passengers to show identification before > boarding a plane, despite a motion by the government and two airlines to > dismiss it. > > John Gilmore, the co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has > sued United Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Attorney General John > Ashcroft, alleging that the ID requirement stems from a "secret law" that > violates his right to anonymous travel within the United States. > > The case stems from two July 4 incidents in which Gilmore refused to show > his ID at San Francisco and Oakland airports before boarding cross-country > flights. Southwest refused to let him board without identifying himself, > while United said he could board if he submitted to a hand search, which he > refused. > > Gilmore, a longtime libertarian, arrived at the federal building wearing > Birkenstocks and a purple suit jacket. Pinned to the lapel, was a button > with the words "suspected terrorist" superimposed over the shape of an > airplane. > > "If there's a law that requires the public to show an ID, we ought to know > about it," he said after the hearing. He maintains that the mere demand for > an ID is an unreasonable requirement that violates the Fourth Amendment. > > His attorney, William Simpich, argued before Judge Susan Illston that the > requirement that Americans show their ID for domestic travel was the > equivalent of creating an internal passport that allows authorities to > monitor people's movements and activities in the United States. > Additionally, he argued that United Airlines' requirement that Gilmore > either show his ID or be frisked violated Fourth Amendment protections > against unreasonable searches. > > Justice Department Attorney Joseph Lobue argued that the ID rule was > necessary to ensure aviation safety. > > "The only way airlines can compare passenger lists with terrorists is by > asking for an ID," said Lobue, adding that searches to prevent passengers > from boarding with weapons were not unreasonable, and therefore did not > violate the Fourth Amendment. > > Gilmore said that before Sept. 11, he flew several times without showing an > ID, and that he fears the government is building a "dragnet" to track the > movements of innocent citizens. > > Brian Kalt, a constitutional law expert at Michigan State University, > opined that Gilmore's Fourth Amendment argument would fail, especially > after Sept. 11, when searches of airline passengers became more reasonable. > > "Gilmore might have a stronger argument about the alleged secret > regulation," Kalt said. "There are statutory requirements about publicizing > rules that affect people's rights, and assuming hypothetically that his > claims are true, these requirements might have been violated. But the > remedy is not to overturn the rules, it is just to publicize them." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+K4gUKsvwCXwmAPgRAsFoAJwLHcZ6GqUN8YrFf+12gEDuGmAORgCePka5 d/j6fw1ECsNcs02frhvuGhc= =f08L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----