Interesting People mailing list archives
Gilmore v. Ashcroft: Friday AM hearing in SF
From: David Farber <farber () tmail com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:36:07 -1000
-----Original Message----- From: Trei, Peter <ptrei () rsasecurity com> To: 'farber () tmail com' <farber () tmail com> Subject: Air ID: Gilmore v. Ashcroft: Friday AM hearing in SF Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:12:54 -0500 For IP, if you don't have this already. Peter Trei
---------- From: John Gilmore[SMTP:gnu () toad com] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:12 AM To: cryptography () wasabisystems com; gnu () new toad com Subject: Air ID: Gilmore v. Ashcroft: Friday AM hearing in SF [Moderator's note: This isn't exactly about cryptography, but I think it is pretty important so I'm forwarding it. --Perry] My case against John Ashcroft, TSA, and various other agencies will have its first hearing at 9AM on January 17, 2003 in San Francisco. You-all are encouraged to attend if you're nearby. We'll be arguing about whether the case should be thrown out as invalid. I'm asking for a declaration from the court that would overturn the unconstitutional requirement that US persons must show ID to travel throughout the US. Not only airplanes, but trains, buses, cruise ships, and major hotel chains are now enforcing ID requirements, largely at the behest of the Federal Government. Many skyscrapersalso demanded ID for a time after 9/11; I refused, and eventually mostof them have relented. I have not flown in the US since 9/11/01, andI've recently been denied lodging as well as travel, for my refusal topresent ID on demand. (Note that this is a *separate* issue from the government's recent demand for more information from citizens who enter or exit the US border. That's a bad idea too, but raises different issues.) We free citizens not only have a constitutional right to travel throughout the US without government-imposed restrictions, but also a constitutional right to refuse to identify ourselves to governmentagents unless there is probable cause to suspect us of a crime. These aren't made-up issues. There are many legal cases that uphold them inthe last few decades, as well as more than a hundred years ago. Read our reply brief for a guide to these cases: http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-god.htm We citizens also have a right to know what the laws are that affect the general public. There is no such law requiring IDs of travelers,and TSA won't publish their secret regulation that purports to requireID. So nobody actually knows whether ID is required, in what circumstances, what kinds of ID are OK or not, what options people without ID have, etc. (By nobody, I really mean nobody -- not even the people "enforcing" this "rule" know what the "rules" are. Try refusing to show ID on your next flight, and when they tell you that you can't board, ask them what regulation requires you to show ID to board a plane. I did this on July 4, 2002. The resulting confusion of different answers from each person in authority would be very amusing if it wasn't an unconstitutionally vague infringement of our right to travel.) The government and airlines responded to my lawsuit with a motion to dismiss the case. Here are their arguments: I can't challengeanything but the demand for ID, not what they do with it after getting it (thus I can't challenge or inquire into the "no-fly list" and otherdatabase lookups that *motivate* the demand for ID). I can'tchallenge anything at all in this court, because the Courts of Appealshave exclusive jurisdiction over TSA orders. The government need not publish a rule like this, because (1) TSA security directives are exempt from FOIA by statute, and (2) no other reason requires them to publish the law. The airlines' "request" for ID does not infringe myright to travel, even if they don't let me travel when I "decline". Ican't challenge the ID demand on trains, buses, or cruise shipsbecause I didn't actually go down and get rejected by a train, bus, or cruise line, even though their web sites told me I'd be rejected. TheFirst Amendment is not involved, even though I can't assemble with others, speak at conferences, or petition the government for redress,without traveling. Anything they do to anyone in an airport is exemptfrom the Fourth Amendment if they claim it relates to "security". That's the short version; you can read the long version here:http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-fmd.pdf, and their later reply here:http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-drp.pdf The government gave away their real motivation on the last page of their brief, though: "If a passenger refuses to provide or verify his or her identity,airline security officers cannot determine whether the passenger is among those individuals 'known to pose, or suspected of posing, a riskof air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.'"In other words, the demand for ID is integral to building a dragnet. They have a little enemies list of "suspected" "threats", and they need our ID to check us against the list. (How you get on and off this list is dubious and secret, but many documented cases exist of innocents beingharassed, searched, and denied boarding, due to errors in it.) Theconstitutional catch is that the government can't set up a dragnet and demand that every passerby identify themselves -- not in airports, and not anywhere else unless there's an exigent emergency (e.g. a bank wasjust robbed down the block by someone matching our description). Ademand for ID is a search under the Fourth Amendment, and they have noprobable cause to search us. We will argue that the case should not be dismissed, in the courtroomof Judge Susan Illston, on the 19th floor of the San Francisco Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue at Polk St, at 9AM on January 17, 2003.If you think airport security is out of hand, show up. If you think Total Information Awareness is a terrible idea, show up. (CAPPS 2 is the version of TIA they'll roll out in airports in 2003, and it all hangs on the demand for your ID.) If you think John Ashcroft is atraitor to the Constitution he swore to uphold, show up. If you thinkevery "free" citizen should not be routinely treated like a suspected terrorist, show up. Wear good clothes and be polite. Impress the judge with the seriousness of your interest in these issues. Oh yes, you'll have to show ID to get into the Federal Building. That's unconstitutional too, but not the subject of this particular case. You can read all the case documents at: http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm Thank you. John Gilmore --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo () wasabisystems com
-- Dave ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To unsubscribe or update your address, click http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Gilmore v. Ashcroft: Friday AM hearing in SF David Farber (Jan 14)