Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html (I also have an article in that issue of Reason magazine.) -Declan --- From: "Nick Gillespie" <gillespieat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: reason's story about john gilmore and privacy Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:51:52 -0400 Message-ID: <EJEALCKKHGNNCNJMDFEOKEOCFDAA.gillespieat_private> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal is online at reason.com. i think the politech crowd will be interested. nick ************** Nick Gillespie Editor-in-Chief REASON magazine www.reason.com c/o 509 Glenview Drive Oxford, OH 45056 Phone: 513.523.6505 Cell: 513.255.5151 Fax: 513.523.5443 Email: gillespieat_private ************** --- [Please remove my email] Hi, Declan This story reminds me dark times of communist regime here, in Poland. Right after delegalisation of "Solidarity" by the Reds some of "Red Beton" in TV speech had said "We will sieve out all 'crawling contrevolutionists'!" Soon many people started to wearing homemade buttonts displaing 'Crawling Contrevolutionist'. I personally was wearing such for years, even in school. Never had trouble because of, and can't recall anyone had had. Eh, yet we will see Russia admitting US or EU political refugees. Regards, -- Wojciech S. Czarnecki << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE --- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:06:04 -0400 From: Jamie McCarthy <jamieat_private> Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button To: declanat_private, politechat_private, gnuat_private X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Message-ID: <r02000000-1026-22A474AFB9F211D7BD6B0030655680F4@[192.168.0.159]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit declanat_private (Declan McCullagh) writes: > Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch > her said that she thought the button was something that the > security people had made me wear to warn the flight crew that I > was a suspected terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure. And apparently the solution in that situation would be to make the identified suspected terrorist *remove the button*. --- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:24:40 -0500 To: declanat_private From: "Megan E. Gray" <mgat_private> Subject: "Suspected Terrorist" button Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Declan - I also have one of these pins and have worn it on several flights without complaint. Megan --- From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavittat_private> To: <declanat_private> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Subject: Re: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:50:23 -0700 Organization: B40 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Our country has descended to a threatre of the absurd. Hmm... well, maybe the entire "West". Or is it just "The Coalition" (of two). I suppose if I wore a "Buck Fush" button, the odds are fair I'd be turned back at the gate as well. Or should it be a "Buck Flair" button? :) Locally, the city of Santa Cruz has passed regulations that prohibit political tablers from remaining in one location for more than 60 minutes at a time (you must move at least 100' and not return to the same location for 24 hours), and actually arrested people for violating these (as well as a variety of other obnoxious rules and regulations which the police selectively enforce against activists that annoy them and poor people whose aesthetics displease them). Since when did America start catering to the most craven and illogical forms of paranoia? Very sad. Thomas --- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:40:26 -0600 From: "Allen S. Thorpe" <athorpeat_private> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree that our approach to airport and travel security sucks, but I think Gilmore's behavior was childish. There are better ways to make his case than confronting airline employees. It has long been known that jokes and sarcastic remarks at airport inspection sites will only get closer scrutiny and delay. If he wants to make political statements in ways that make other travellers nervous, he should quit flying. The airline industry depends on its passengers feeling safe and secure. It's a matter of perception as well as reality. Stuff like this just makes matters worse. So does the silly policy of searching nuns and little old ladies. We all knew, or should have known, that this would be the result of the federalizing of the security employees, but publicity stunts won't help. Neither will this insistence that everybody has a right to be anonymous. At a time when we're under a contiinuing threat from terrorists, we should support any measures that can narrow the focus of inspections more reliably. When Alan Turing and his associates were trying to crack the enigma code, one of the first things they concluded is that they should first identify all the approaches that couldn't be correct, and not waste time on them. We should do the same thing with this problem. That's why a positive and airtight way of identifying ourselves is important, not to intrude but to protect us from wasting their time and ours on pointless searches. It should be voluntary and bulletproof, so that those who pass can be admitted without the delays of inspecctions. If you don't want to carry such and ID, you can wait in line. Second, we need profiling, not on the basis of a person's race or complexion, but on specific behavior patterns. This works on the same principle: narrowing the field of suspects, but it has to be more refined than just "He acts nervous." Third, we all need to pull together like we did in WWII. Instead of selfishly thinking about our individual "rights" so much, we need to recognize our responsibilities as citizens and try to help instead of behaving like two-year olds when we don't get ourr own way. Litigiousness wastes time and resources that should be applied to solving problems. I'm a lawyer myself, but I think that America's lawyers are doing more to harm society than improve it, when they encourage more lawsuits. Our watchword should be "independence," not liberty or freedom. Independence means you contribute, take responsibility for your own life, and that used your freedom in ways that don't make things worse for others. Allen S. Thorpe P. O. Box 1238 Castle Dale, UT 84513 email: thorpeat_private OR athorpeat_private --- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:55:16 -0500 Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) Cc: politechat_private, declanat_private To: gnuat_private From: Jim Davidson <davidsonat_private> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Message-Id: <AEC3BC7C-BA33-11D7-B045-000393B96BDAat_private> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear John, It certainly is getting crowded in the list of airlines I won't fly for various reasons. Now British Airways joins the list. You might consider a slightly different approach to conveying the same information. Try sewing a yellow Star of David or a pink triangle on your clothing. These are widely recognized as the symbols required by the Nazi regime of Jews and homosexuals, respectively, both of which groups ended up in death camps. I'm very glad you are standing on principle and refusing to fly on airlines which require you to censor your free speech. Good for you! Regards, Jim http://www.ezez.com/free/freejim.html --- From: =?koi8-r?Q?=22?=Qullex=?koi8-r?Q?=22=20?=<qullexat_private> To: declanat_private Cc: gnuat_private Subject: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing =?koi8-r?Q?=22?=Suspected Terrorist=?koi8-r?Q?=22=20?=button Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19 X-Originating-IP: [65.121.20.3] Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:17:12 +0400 Reply-To: =?koi8-r?Q?=22?=Qullex=?koi8-r?Q?=22=20?=<qullexat_private> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <E19edLc-000N38-00.qullex-mail-ruat_private> My apologies, I've forgoten to include the Subject in my previous version of this message. I have to retype every message in a webclient as opposed to responding using my standard client because of firewall issues. Declan, I was hoping you or your readers could clarify something for me. While I am currently in US, I am not native to this country and I am somewhat confused regarding the law in this case. As far as I understand it, corporations are legal entities that are designed to protect individuals in business from liability ( first definition from www.dictionary.com: A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corporation ). Also, airlines are also corporations and therefore, do they not have rights as I do? Now, there is nothing forcing me to do business with a corporation or an individual except my desire for their goods and/or serivces. Conversly there is nothing to forcing me to sell my property, time, or services except my financial need. If I can choose not to do business or choose with whom I do business, do the corporations also not have this right? And as BA owns its planes does it not have the right to regulate what speech it will allow on its property? I know I can certainly control speech on my propert! y. Now, while I do not think that refusing to do business with someone over something as innocious as a button with a political statement is a sound decision, if BA does not mind losing business, what is the problem? --- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:32:27 -0400 From: "Christopher A. Petro" <petroat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>, John Gilmore <gnuat_private> Subject: more airline security fun Message-ID: <20030721163225.GZ21473at_private> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> In case you hadn't caught this one yet, some charter airline from my home town is going to be installing video cameras on planes, keeping the footage for up to 10 years, and maybe doing facial recognition and such. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59652,00.html -- Christopher A. Petro .. petroat_private .. 917-346-1536 --- From: "Duplantis, Ron" <Ron.Duplantisat_private> To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private> Subject: RE: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspect ed Terrorist" button Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:56:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 My2cents, My opposition to the position that Mr. Gilmore takes is based in two points: 1. His comments, like most ideologues, are too broad-brush. He tells the BA official: "Everyone is a suspected terrorist in today's America, including all the innocent people, and that's wrong." That's not true. In most activities in everyday American life, all goes pretty much as normal. "Everyone" is, in fact, NOT "a suspected terrorist." It is mainly in areas of mass public transportation (remember 9/11?) that additional, intrusive security has been introduced. And frankly, the overwhelming majority of innocent people out there are OK with the additional measures being implemented. Not that those measures can't be fixed some. Not that some tweaking is not in order. But given the possible 9-11esque alternatives, the general concept of additional security is not unacceptable. That does not mean that the "terrorists have won," nor does it mean that "our country [has turned into] an authoritarian theocracy" (interesting that he calls it a "theocracy"; where did a "security" religion come into play?). And that does not mean that enduring the suspicion of being "a suspected terrorist" in all areas of life would be acceptable to most people. It wouldn't, and it isn't happening. Too broad brush, Mr. Gilmore. 2. There is a time and a place. Freedom of speech is not absolute. If it was, one could yell Fire! in a crowded theater without penalty (whenever penalties apply, by definition freedom does not exist). Mr. Gilmore knew that his free speech behavior would undoubtedly cause a disruption and probably his ejection from the plane. He should have complained in another venue. He should have removed the button, as requested, and then sued. If his goal was to change the system, he gets the same result. Granted, if no other venue exists for his complaint, then perhaps doing so on the plane would be more acceptable. But other venues exist. Strippers believe they are making a free speech statement when they remove their clothes, but society (and the U.S. Supreme Court) limits where they may exercise that expressive freedom: they can only do it in a building and only in front of adults. It's not like there are no venues where the raging debate over liberties vs. transportation-related security does not rage. Mr. Gilmore and others who joke about bombs or terrorism, speak out against security measures or otherwise challenge the authority of airport security services believe that the only way to change the world is through "in your face" activities in a time and place of their choosing. As the end result of Mr. Gilmore's experience proves (and I believe the resulting court decisions), apparently not ... Thanks, Ron Duplantis Huntington Beach, CA --- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:32:45 -0400 From: Christopher Baker <chrisat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Message-Id: <20030719233039.0FBD.CHRISat_private> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am not sure what to make of Gilmore's antics. It sounds like to me that he just wants something to complain about. One claim is very suspect: "...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...." I worked in the hotel business for a total of 33 months from September of 1994 to March of 1998. I worked nights the whole time. When I started out, I was quite naive. I generally checked in almost anyone. I didn't ask for an ID, so anybody could have made up a name. At the time, we didn't even take phone deposits from people who paid cash. It was not unlikely for someone to check in, pay cash for the room, make a bunch of calls, and then leave. Sometimes, guests would check in and pay cash for one night and then decide to stay for another night. I soon found out that this was not a wise thing to do. We got stuck with a lot of phone calls as well as room charges. If we had no valid address, we had no way to find the customer so we could get paid. We especially had trouble with some women who danced at a nearby strip club. Some of them were our best customers, and others were our worst customers. Many of them tried to check in under their stage names. I soon adopted a policy of making a copy of their driver's licenses and stapling it to their registration. I know that I also probably rented to minors on occasions as well. The problem with this is that if a minor damages anything in the room, the hotel has no legal recourse. We also had a room which we kept for "shady characters." I rented to people who seemed to fit that description on several occasions. In one case, I later learned that the guest was a drug dealer. Another time, the guest in that room came down and bragged about his sexual conquest. He later found that the woman disappeared and stole his gun. I saw just about everything in my time there. We threw one customer out because they often left their children alone in the room. Once the kids were reportedly even swinging outside the second-floor room on the curtains. We banned another customer because he spit tobacco or something all over the walls of his room. And of course, I won't forget the guy who walked up to the desk, asked for a non-smoking room, and then lit up as he walked away from the desk. It cost us money because we had to clean smoke out of the room that we shouldn't have had to clean it out of. It really isn't good policy to treat your customers like they are potentail criminals. But the hotel and everything in the room is the property of the owner. A small percentage of guests don't understand this. When you rent a room in a hotel, the deal is that you will try to leave the room to the hotel in the same condition as you found it. This means that you won't take pillows, the phone, the television, furniture, or towels. You can take the soap and shampoo if you like. At the time, I learned that other hotels did have more restrictive policies. The local Hampton Inns, for example, refused to rent to locals within a 50-mile radius. After we changed over to a Holiday Inn Express, we did begin to ask for identifications. It was also easier to ask for ID's. The Holiday Inn comptuer system required us to enter a customer's information while at the desk. It was easier to take an ID than to ask for the information. Many customer's also had unreadable writing. I understand and sympathize with the Gilmore's concerns regarding travel on buses, planes, and trains. And there is a difference. You can't steal something very easily from an airplane. You can't run up a large phone bill and charge it to the bus company. If you damage anything on a plane, people are going to witness it. Hotels can't watch their guests constantly, and we don't want to. We want to respect their privacy. That is why one of the first rules I learned is that you never give out a room number. In the hotel business, we generally bent over backward to please the customers. All we asked of them was that they respect the hotel's property while they stay with us. A small minority of those guests don't do that, and that is why hotels demand identification. Chris ============================================================ "I don't like to make TV shows that you enjoy and forget. I designed Buffy to be an icon, not just a TV show." -- Joss Whedon ============================================================ Chris Baker -- www.chrisbaker.net chrisat_private, chrisbakerat_private, cbaker2at_private "When you stop growing, you start dying." --- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:50:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "J.A. Terranson" <measlat_private> To: declanat_private cc: gnuat_private, cypherpunksat_private Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307191247530.483-100000at_private> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII <Huge Snip> "You can see the button at: http://eminism.org/store/button-racism.html" Errr... No, you can't. It appears they have removed this selection. Very interesting :-/ -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadminat_private "Every living thing dies alone." Donnie Darko --- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:51:41 -0400 From: Nick Bretagna <onemugat_private> Reply-To: afn41391at_private X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gnuat_private CC: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Better Police, for a Better Police State. -- ------- --------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- Nicholas Bretagna II mailto:afn41391at_private When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the fifth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent. When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it. --- User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:39:00 -0700 Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button From: Bruce Mitchell <ibamat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Message-ID: <BB3EFA73.15A28%ibamat_private> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Declan and John Gilmore, This is but the latest example of people buying in to the whole societal control through scare tactics strategy without even thinking about what their actions really mean. I applaud John Gilmore for making the very important point about this occurring at the hands of "...people whose individual actions are turning the country into a police state." I recently had a similar experience over an attempted simple $3500 cash transaction at my own bank, where I've had accounts for 23 years, when the bank staff people misread and misapplied the supposed anti-terrorist regulations and treated me as though I were obviously a criminal even after I pointed out their error. They were all too eager to go on the attack, as though it were a game among young guys playing CIA agent. At the request of an activist group concerned with privacy issues I wrote a detailed account of what happened and included the forms and documents the bank staff used to justify their actions. I had to obtain the forms and documents from the bank staff by cunning because they said they were not even permitted to show me the forms to be filled out or the regulations prompting their actions, both of which also proved erroneous. To me, this stuff is really scary. I hate what is happening in this country. I hate even more how so many people cannot see the forest for the trees and therefore they cannot comprehend what these actions portend for our future. Bruce Mitchell BTW, please forgive, but I feel compelled to pass along a question posed by a friend to whom I forwarded the story: How did a guy with the name Khaleel Miyan get a job as Cabin Service Director on a British Airways flight? No offense intended; it just shows further how absurd the whole thing is. --- To: declanat_private Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:32:24 -0400 Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" Dear Declan, Normally I'm totally sympathetic to Gilmore's point of view, but there is something insufferably smug, and nasty little boyish see-how-defiant-I-can-be about his "suspected terrorist" button. True, the airport security rules are idiotic. To protest them by ridicule is a public service, and I am grateful to Gilmore and others for doing so. But many people are nervous about flying to begin with, and, yes, the mere mention of the word terrorist tweaks their nerve endings and puts additional and unnecessary strain on them I say this as someone who loves flying, who is a private pilot with many hundreds of hours in the air, and who has flown under all kinds of conditions in peace and war. Just being up there is a strain on many people, and not just little old ladies in tennis shoes. Airline personnel have their hands full calming the nervous types and, yes, even a button with the word terrorist on it is enough to send some of the edgy ones over the brink. I agree a button wasn't enough to make an issue over, but that cuts both ways. Gilmore shouldn't have made an issue over it either. Howard Singer --- From: "Rayzam" <rayzamat_private> To: <declanat_private> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> Subject: Re: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:08:17 -0700 Declan, I wonder what they would have said if after the captain and the airline representative said he couldn't wear the button, he pulled out a small sticker and covered over the T, turning it into a statement that he's a Suspected errorist! :) Though I suppose, they were more in error than he was in this case.. Maz --- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:54:08 -0700 From: k claffy <kcat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Cc: John Gilmore <gnuat_private>, Ann Harrison <ahat_private> Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button Message-ID: <20030721125408.C31151at_private> References: <20030713102512.A99238at_private> <200307140636.h6E6an6J013555at_private> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030719013554.03a2ad20at_private> my strongest reservation w this incident (npi), given that i board an aircraft (90% of time operated by a united states airline) 5-15X a month, and i watch and listen to passengers, is that (1) you got an interesting sample here: I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I could tell. because (2) what i see, and hear, is that passengers on all the domestic flights i travel on (many a month) and even w passengers i talk to, is that they find all the arbitrary security crap to be `annoying but in the final analysis worth it if we can prevent another 9/11', that is, the people are doing some kind of cognitive `new math' (not sure how new it is) and they come down on the `it's worth it' side. which makes me worry that it's not john ashcroft or your two sued airlines or other agencies that you need to convince, but the americans (both those who fly and those who don't but just like the general idea since they might work in tall buildings) who seriously seem to think it's worth all the hassle to give them a [false] sense of security [couldn't the 9/11 terrorists have done w.o boxcutters and just used martial arts or whatever] mom jokingly wondered why they just didn't stop you for the treacherously dangerous itty bitty metal pointy needle thing that attaches the pin to your shirt so they wouldn't have to mess w the `silly free speech thing' k ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 22:28:01 PDT