5 ms·

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.

by potatolicious 15y ago

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.

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.