6 ms·

Iirc, Gilmore v Gonzales showed that the government can have secret laws. I can see the administration believing that it's also ok to have a secret interpretat

by Sukotto 15y ago

Iirc, Gilmore v Gonzales showed that the government can have secret laws. I can see the administration believing that it's also ok to have a secret interpretation of a law. I personally strongly disagree with both of the above but don't see how I can change anything by arguing about it. [1] [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html#Pensieri-Stretti http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html#Pensieri-Stretti (pg, please put anchors in your essays) -- [edit to add] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales

potatolicious 15y ago
TIL I am expected to be aware of, and follow, a law that I cannot see. Someone stop this ride, I want to get off now.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- sneak 15y ago
  Just move somewhere that isn't insane. It's time. (I did, for this very reason.)
- ubernostrum 15y ago
  Well... that's a really bad way to characterize the case. First off, this is not a "law" in the sense most people think of; it wasn't passed by Congress and signed by the President. Rather, it's a directive issued by a federal agency, which has powers granted by Congress to issue directives and -- when deemed necessary for security purposes -- to keep the exact details of those directives from being disclosed. There's nothing particularly new in that, by the way; governments, even governments of countries which would by any standard be considered "free", have long exercised the power to enforce security-related policies without disclosing the details of those policies to the public at large. Second, Gilmore's case specifically ran into trouble because A) he was informed multiple times, as all air passengers are, of policies regarding ID and B) he was also informed that a process exists for flying without presenting ID, and voluntarily chose not to use that process (this is what really sunk his case). Third, even if there were no government-issued policies specifically requiring passengers to present ID, there are multiple agencies who would have the power to deny licenses to any airline which did not have -- as a condition of the contract between passenger and airline, represented by the ticket -- a requirement of presenting ID to check in. And, frankly, I don't think anyone would try to argue that down if it happened; such policies already exist and are widely accepted with respect to age-restricted products like alcohol.
  - wnight 15y ago
    > First off, this is not a "law" in the sense most people think of; it wasn't passed by Congres s and signed by the President. Rather, it's a directive issued by a federal agency, which has powers granted by Congress to issue directives So in other words it's as good as a law, but without any safeguards and consequently no value to the public. > Gilmore's case specifically ran into trouble because A) he was informed multiple times, as all air passengers are, of policies regarding ID and B) he was also informed that a process exists for flying without presenting ID, and voluntarily chose not to use that process (this is what really sunk his case). Oh, of course he has no rights - they informed him of it. Well then, who could argue? > Third, even if there were no government-issued policies specifically requiring passengers to present ID, there are multiple agencies who would have the power to deny licenses to any airline which did not have -- as a condition of the contract between passenger and airline, represented by the ticket -- a requirement of presenting ID to check in. Almost total corruption being used to enforce secret laws. Check. > And, frankly, I don't think anyone would try to argue that down if it happened; such policies already exist and are widely accepted with respect to age-restricted products like alcohol. That makes less sense than anything else you've said. How does age-related restrictions on alcohol relate to ID requirements for flying? Flying isn't dangerous for the young like rampant drinking is.
    - ubernostrum 15y ago
      So in other words it's as good as a law, but without any safeguards and consequently no value to the public. If you'd like to create a society in which every enforceable rule must pass through multiple bodies for approval, feel free to try it. Oh, of course he has no rights - they informed him of it. Well then, who could argue? He was informed of the requirement, and of an alternate process which would not require him to present ID. The comment I was responding to apparently meant to imply that this was a law of which the public was unaware, and that violators would only be informed of what they had done after the fact. And while I dislike the TSA and "post-9/11" "security" measures as much as the next person, I don't believe that enforcing a simple security measure equates to total loss of rights. But then... Almost total corruption being used to enforce secret laws. Check. Wild hyperbole. Check. How does age-related restrictions on alcohol relate to ID requirements for flying? I cannot purchase alcohol without presenting ID. I cannot fly without either presenting ID or going through a screening process. Interestingly, both involve reasoning based on public safety, and in neither case is there a law passed by Congress which directly enacts the requirement.
neanderdog 15y ago
A nation of precedence, however ironic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
eli 15y ago
I happen to think the Gilmore decision was wrong, but the issue in the case wasn't about secret laws, it was that you don't have a Constitutional right to fly on a commercial aircraft.
- wnight 15y ago
  Nor to drive or walk the roads, use money, use a computer, etc. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it defines the limits of the government we approve to govern us.
andylei 15y ago
an enlightening quote from Gilmore v. Gonzales: "Moreover, Gilmore had actual notice of the identification policy. He alleged that several airline personnel asked him for identification and informed him of the identification policy. They told him that in order to board the aircraft, he must either present identification or be subject to a 'selectee' search. He also saw a sign in front of United Airlines’ ticketing counter that read 'PASSENGERS MUST PRESENT IDENTIFICATION UPON INITIAL CHECK-IN.' Although Gilmore was not given the text of the identification policy due to the Security Directive’s classification as SSI, he was nonetheless accorded adequate notice given that he was informed of the policy and how to comply"
seven_stones 15y ago
Down the rabbit hole. Not only are there secret laws, but now courts are being made to interpret secret laws they aren't permitted to see. Or rule based on evidence they aren't permitted to see: > The extraordinary limitations in place for the prosecution of Shamai Leibowitz, who was sentenced to 20 months in prison for disseminating classified information, meant that even the judge sentencing him did not know what he was supposed to have leaked. "All I know is that it's a serious case," Judge Alexander Williams said last year. "I don't know what was divulged other than some documents, and how it compromised things, I have no idea." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/secret-trial-revelations-prompt-usisraeli-diplomatic-storm-2350370.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/secret-tria... Secret laws violate Due Process according to our own previous interpretations. They were derided as the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, the kind of thing the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries did. NOT the United States, with its much-vaunted Constitution. Well, it turns out that if the people in power want to shred your civil rights, they WILL do so. At most you can ask them to pretty please respect your Constitutional rights, and then they'll say no. It doesn't matter that their behavior is illegal because nobody can make them comply. "Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules..." If you really want to be concerned, check out this Glenn Greenwald article: http://politics.salon.com/2009/03/03/yoo_5/ http://politics.salon.com/2009/03/03/yoo_5/ "The President, when using military force against American citizens on U.S. soil, is ”free from the constraints” not only of the Fourth Amendment, but also of other core guarantees of the Bill of Rights — including First Amendment liberties, Due Process rights, and the takings clause" (Note it's a long article and you have to click to "Continue Reading")
- wisty 15y ago
  The big question - how did the judge know that what was divulged was actually consequential? It can't be something that could just have sensitive parts redacted, or even something that could be described (i.e. the blueprints for a new weapon, a list of secret agent identities, or an analysis of likely targets). It must be information thats mere existence is damaging, like "a video of our troops gunning down innocent civillians". OK, in this case it was more benign - probably something about the US tapping into Israeli communications. But still, if they've done nothing wrong, what do they have to hide?

by Sukotto 15y ago

potatolicious 15y ago

TIL I am expected to be aware of, and follow, a law that I cannot see. Someone stop this ride, I want to get off now.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
sneak 15y ago
Just move somewhere that isn't insane. It's time. (I did, for this very reason.)
ubernostrum 15y ago
Well... that's a really bad way to characterize the case. First off, this is not a "law" in the sense most people think of; it wasn't passed by Congress and signed by the President. Rather, it's a directive issued by a federal agency, which has powers granted by Congress to issue directives and -- when deemed necessary for security purposes -- to keep the exact details of those directives from being disclosed. There's nothing particularly new in that, by the way; governments, even governments of countries which would by any standard be considered "free", have long exercised the power to enforce security-related policies without disclosing the details of those policies to the public at large. Second, Gilmore's case specifically ran into trouble because A) he was informed multiple times, as all air passengers are, of policies regarding ID and B) he was also informed that a process exists for flying without presenting ID, and voluntarily chose not to use that process (this is what really sunk his case). Third, even if there were no government-issued policies specifically requiring passengers to present ID, there are multiple agencies who would have the power to deny licenses to any airline which did not have -- as a condition of the contract between passenger and airline, represented by the ticket -- a requirement of presenting ID to check in. And, frankly, I don't think anyone would try to argue that down if it happened; such policies already exist and are widely accepted with respect to age-restricted products like alcohol.
- wnight 15y ago
  > First off, this is not a "law" in the sense most people think of; it wasn't passed by Congres s and signed by the President. Rather, it's a directive issued by a federal agency, which has powers granted by Congress to issue directives So in other words it's as good as a law, but without any safeguards and consequently no value to the public. > Gilmore's case specifically ran into trouble because A) he was informed multiple times, as all air passengers are, of policies regarding ID and B) he was also informed that a process exists for flying without presenting ID, and voluntarily chose not to use that process (this is what really sunk his case). Oh, of course he has no rights - they informed him of it. Well then, who could argue? > Third, even if there were no government-issued policies specifically requiring passengers to present ID, there are multiple agencies who would have the power to deny licenses to any airline which did not have -- as a condition of the contract between passenger and airline, represented by the ticket -- a requirement of presenting ID to check in. Almost total corruption being used to enforce secret laws. Check. > And, frankly, I don't think anyone would try to argue that down if it happened; such policies already exist and are widely accepted with respect to age-restricted products like alcohol. That makes less sense than anything else you've said. How does age-related restrictions on alcohol relate to ID requirements for flying? Flying isn't dangerous for the young like rampant drinking is.
  - ubernostrum 15y ago
    So in other words it's as good as a law, but without any safeguards and consequently no value to the public. If you'd like to create a society in which every enforceable rule must pass through multiple bodies for approval, feel free to try it. Oh, of course he has no rights - they informed him of it. Well then, who could argue? He was informed of the requirement, and of an alternate process which would not require him to present ID. The comment I was responding to apparently meant to imply that this was a law of which the public was unaware, and that violators would only be informed of what they had done after the fact. And while I dislike the TSA and "post-9/11" "security" measures as much as the next person, I don't believe that enforcing a simple security measure equates to total loss of rights. But then... Almost total corruption being used to enforce secret laws. Check. Wild hyperbole. Check. How does age-related restrictions on alcohol relate to ID requirements for flying? I cannot purchase alcohol without presenting ID. I cannot fly without either presenting ID or going through a screening process. Interestingly, both involve reasoning based on public safety, and in neither case is there a law passed by Congress which directly enacts the requirement.

neanderdog 15y ago

A nation of precedence, however ironic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial

eli 15y ago

I happen to think the Gilmore decision was wrong, but the issue in the case wasn't about secret laws, it was that you don't have a Constitutional right to fly on a commercial aircraft.

wnight 15y ago
Nor to drive or walk the roads, use money, use a computer, etc. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it defines the limits of the government we approve to govern us.

andylei 15y ago

an enlightening quote from Gilmore v. Gonzales: "Moreover, Gilmore had actual notice of the identification policy. He alleged that several airline personnel asked him for identification and informed him of the identification policy. They told him that in order to board the aircraft, he must either present identification or be subject to a 'selectee' search. He also saw a sign in front of United Airlines’ ticketing counter that read 'PASSENGERS MUST PRESENT IDENTIFICATION UPON INITIAL CHECK-IN.' Although Gilmore was not given the text of the identification policy due to the Security Directive’s classification as SSI, he was nonetheless accorded adequate notice given that he was informed of the policy and how to comply"

seven_stones 15y ago

Down the rabbit hole. Not only are there secret laws, but now courts are being made to interpret secret laws they aren't permitted to see. Or rule based on evidence they aren't permitted to see: > The extraordinary limitations in place for the prosecution of Shamai Leibowitz, who was sentenced to 20 months in prison for disseminating classified information, meant that even the judge sentencing him did not know what he was supposed to have leaked. "All I know is that it's a serious case," Judge Alexander Williams said last year. "I don't know what was divulged other than some documents, and how it compromised things, I have no idea." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/secret-trial-revelations-prompt-usisraeli-diplomatic-storm-2350370.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/secret-tria... Secret laws violate Due Process according to our own previous interpretations. They were derided as the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, the kind of thing the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries did. NOT the United States, with its much-vaunted Constitution. Well, it turns out that if the people in power want to shred your civil rights, they WILL do so. At most you can ask them to pretty please respect your Constitutional rights, and then they'll say no. It doesn't matter that their behavior is illegal because nobody can make them comply. "Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules..." If you really want to be concerned, check out this Glenn Greenwald article: http://politics.salon.com/2009/03/03/yoo_5/ http://politics.salon.com/2009/03/03/yoo_5/ "The President, when using military force against American citizens on U.S. soil, is ”free from the constraints” not only of the Fourth Amendment, but also of other core guarantees of the Bill of Rights — including First Amendment liberties, Due Process rights, and the takings clause" (Note it's a long article and you have to click to "Continue Reading")

wisty 15y ago
The big question - how did the judge know that what was divulged was actually consequential? It can't be something that could just have sensitive parts redacted, or even something that could be described (i.e. the blueprints for a new weapon, a list of secret agent identities, or an analysis of likely targets). It must be information thats mere existence is damaging, like "a video of our troops gunning down innocent civillians". OK, in this case it was more benign - probably something about the US tapping into Israeli communications. But still, if they've done nothing wrong, what do they have to hide?