Has it ever been proven that requiring id has stopped a hijacking? I think the main reason it is done is because the airlines want to make sure the person who's name is on the ticket is the one who actually is flying. In other words, if someone can't use his ticket, they don't want any one else to be able to fly on that ticket. ID's are easy to forge - I don't think someone who is going to hijack a plane is going to worry about something as inconsequential as an ID. David Ross http://home.attbi.com/~damiross/airlines.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fuoco" <jfuoco@lynx.dac.neu.edu> To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 20:47 Subject: Re: [AIRLINE] Wired: Judge to Hear Air ID Challenge > What do you mean about time?? > > This guy is a nut. > > I hope the judge sends him to h*** and orders him to stay away from > airports for the rest of his life. > > > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, 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." > >