alan
Member
Judge to Hear Air ID Challenge
By Julia Scheeres | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1
02:00 AM Jan. 18, 2003 PT
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.
Story Tools
Story Images
Click thumbnails for full-size image:
See also
Disputed Air ID Law May Not Exist
Dutch Prepare for Hacker Invasion
Adobe Tries to Quell Protest
ACLU Spooked by Domestic Spying
Everybody's got issues in Politics
Today's Top 5 Stories
Flying in the Face of Infertility
Curtains for Digital Show Sharing
Judge to Hear Air ID Challenge
Science Aids Guatemalan 'Miracle'
High Hopes for New AOL Chairman
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."
Have a comment on this article? Send it
More stories written by Julia Scheeres
Page 1 of 1
Related Stories
Librarians Split on Sharing Info Jan. 16, 2003
Year in Privacy: Citizens Lose Dec. 30, 2002
Terrorists on the Net? Who Cares? Dec. 20, 2002
Warm Party for a Code Group Sep. 13, 2002
Getting the FDA Hooked on Ecstasy Dec. 10, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired News: Staff | Contact Us | Advertising
We are translated daily into Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese
© Copyright 2003, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions
Note: Wired News content is accessible to all versions of every browser. However, this browser may not support basic Web standards, preventing the display of our site's design details. We support the mission of the Web Standards Project in the campaign encouraging users to upgrade their browsers. (Read More)
Report this p
By Julia Scheeres | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1
02:00 AM Jan. 18, 2003 PT
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.
Story Tools
Story Images
Click thumbnails for full-size image:
See also
Disputed Air ID Law May Not Exist
Dutch Prepare for Hacker Invasion
Adobe Tries to Quell Protest
ACLU Spooked by Domestic Spying
Everybody's got issues in Politics
Today's Top 5 Stories
Flying in the Face of Infertility
Curtains for Digital Show Sharing
Judge to Hear Air ID Challenge
Science Aids Guatemalan 'Miracle'
High Hopes for New AOL Chairman
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."
Have a comment on this article? Send it
More stories written by Julia Scheeres
Page 1 of 1
Related Stories
Librarians Split on Sharing Info Jan. 16, 2003
Year in Privacy: Citizens Lose Dec. 30, 2002
Terrorists on the Net? Who Cares? Dec. 20, 2002
Warm Party for a Code Group Sep. 13, 2002
Getting the FDA Hooked on Ecstasy Dec. 10, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired News: Staff | Contact Us | Advertising
We are translated daily into Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese
© Copyright 2003, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions
Note: Wired News content is accessible to all versions of every browser. However, this browser may not support basic Web standards, preventing the display of our site's design details. We support the mission of the Web Standards Project in the campaign encouraging users to upgrade their browsers. (Read More)
Report this p
By that measure, you cannot advertise to share a house and not accept anyone that shows up at your door. If you are a fundamentalist Christian male, you HAVE to accept the gay man that shows up if you can't find another good reason to say no than "No way, you are gay".