-------- 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@private> To: declan@private (Declan McCullagh) CC: mann@private (Steve Mann), politech@private, gnu@private 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@private> Reply-To: <dhorowitz@private> To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private> 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/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Mar 02 2004 - 22:35:00 PST