Liberal Loses; Airport ID Checks Constitutional
The 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals got it right today. They told a Liberal Activist, and co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation that yes, you need an ID to fly, and NO, it does not violate any contitutional rights against unreasonable searches or any supposed “right to travel.” From the AP here in WAPO:
SAN FRANCISCO — An appeals court on Thursday dismissed a legal challenge to federal airport regulations requiring passengers to show identification before they board planes.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by Libertarian activist and millionaire John Gilmore that the policy constituted an illegal search and violated his right to travel freely.
After reviewing the government’s identification policy in private, a unanimous three-judge panel said the policy was not overly intrusive. The review was done in private for security reasons.
The court said Gilmore could leave the airport if he didn’t want to show his ID and had other ways to get around besides air travel. It also rejected assertions that the act of showing identification was an illegal search of Gilmore, who made his millions as a founding employee of Sun Microsystems.
He said government regulations should be disclosed in writing to the public. While millions of passengers willingly show their IDs at airports, Simpich said there is no way to know whether the regulations call for impermissible searches because the government, and the court, won’t make them public.
The court rejected the argument, saying airport signs and airline workers give adequate notice that an ID is required.
The court noted that the secret regulations allow passengers to fly without providing an ID if they submit to searches. The court dismissed assertions that such searches are unreasonable.
Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman argued that demanding identification “promotes the right to travel by protecting everyone’s safety.”
Gilmore is a classic elitist propellor-head. He can postulate right-sounding reasons why the government should not be involved in copyright protections, cell phone tracking, and even airport identification, but he ignores the real practical dangers of threats against Americans. Had the ruling gone the other way (and who knows with the 9th?), Gilmore would be responsible for removing a first line of defense against terrorists on American soil by allowing unrestricted air travel to all. And no, not everyone is allowed to travel freely, nor should they be.
Just because Gilmore is anti-government does not mean that he is a Libertarian as the article suggests. His stance on drug legalization, copyright protection by copyright holders, and even simple behavior as a netizen corrals him squarely into the Liberal Elitist group. Rules do not apply to him, he is smarter than everyone else, and there is a perfect digital utopia out there, and dammit, he is going to bring it about, regardless of his impact on other peoples’ safety and rights.
On the other hand, the case does reveal that you can fly Naked.
