Two replies to John Gilmore on right to travel freely [priv]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] John Gilmore on Americans' right to travel anonymously
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 01:03:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Mann <mann () eecg toronto edu>
To: declan () well com (Declan McCullagh)
CC: mann () genesis eecg toronto edu (Steve Mann), politech () politechbot com, 
 gnu () toad com

From my understanding of the Constitution, etc., you're free to walk
across state lines without showing ID.  You're also (I believe) free
to leave the country to neutral territory (not Canada because you'd
have to have "your papers in order" to enter Canada), but you could
swim away from the US, into the ocean without having your papers in
order.

But I think you conflate two different (although related) things:
(1) the right to move around within the US, without showing ID.
(2) the right to use equipment such as aircraft, or motor vehicles,
without showing ID.

I think you will find that your rights to drive a car, or to
fly an airplane, require some kind of ID.  Additionally, the
right to board an aircraft, which, even if a private aircraft,
is controlled by Covernments or Gorporations, also requires ID.

What's next, you ask?  Maybe they'll start requiring ID to board
a bus or train.  This could be a requirement, imposed by
"license", that to get a bus driver's license you must ask
all the passengers for ID.  Then after that's accepted, we enter
the Smallpox Era (Anthrax Age, etc.), of quarantine, where even
pedestrians are asked for ID.  It's for your own safety, they
will tell us.  I think we live in a surveillance state, as your
link to papersplease.org suggests.  So perhaps the only answer
is sousveillance (inverse surveillance, i.e. recording of an
activity by a participant in that activity).  I wrote a
recent paper on the legal, ethical, and policy issues of
equiveillance (balance between sur and sous veillance),
http://wearcam.org/glawprint.pdf and would welcome comments,
thoughts, ideas, etc., that anyone might have on this.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] John Gilmore on Americans' right to travel anonymously[priv]
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:40:49 -0500
From: Daniel Horowitz <dhorowitz () digmedia org>
Reply-To: <dhorowitz () digmedia org>
To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan () well com>

        Small tiny problem with his theory... The mode of transport was not
guaranteed within the 1969 decision, was it? Whether you and I agree with
CAPPS II or not is not the underlying point. The incorrect assumption that
John Gilmore made was that interstate travel by PRIVATE AIRPLANE was the
same as personal vehicle.

        CAPPS II does not apply to you in your automobile or even your own private
plane.

        It does apply when you the private citizen choose to use hire a private
company to transport you on a common carrier for a large number of US
citizens. Just as the phone system is regulated for the "common good", the
airline system is regulated for the "common good" as well. Heck, if the
airlines and the USG agreed, they could demand that everyone have a strip
search and send all of their belongings on a separate cargo airplane. Not
very efficient, but perfectly within their ability.

        While the esteemed and brilliant Mr. Gilmore may be correct in applying the
intent to the current situation, I thought it would be important for him to
be reminded that he is making not only a large leap in interpretation of the
'69 decision, but also incorrect in his application of that decision to the
public/private partnership which is the FAA/TSA and our nation's airline and
airport systems.

        Use this as you will. Thanks as always for your work on these and all of
the other important issues of which you keep us informed.

        - Dan
________________________
Daniel Horowitz
Principal
Columbus Street Consulting


_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)