5 ms·

> 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 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.
- wnight 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. Actually, yes. You'd have to be crazy to suggest otherwise. Think of it, "Enforceable rule". Not just something in this circumstance, but a rule, and enforceable. That's exactly what oversight is for. But I was talking about safeguards. Any rule is worthless without knowing when to stop applying it. Who's watching for it to go wrong? Nobody of course because it doesn't really exist. >> 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. It is a requirement the public is (mostly) unaware of. And because it's unspoken policy instead of a law it'll likely stay that way. > 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... It's not a security measure because it doesn't help security at all. Enforcing useless rules is a loss of your rights. >> Almost total corruption being used to enforce secret laws. Check. > Wild hyperbole. Check. Not at all. Using undisclosed governmental powers to secretly kill someone's business because they won't enact useless and counterproductive policies is a textbook example of systemic corruption. >> 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. Yes, that much is a given. Thanks. But one is because minors have shown to have (even more) problems with booze and it's been proven to kill, etc. On the other hand showing ID is absolutely worthless for finding weapons, in practice and in theory. > Interestingly, both involve reasoning based on public safety, and in neither case is there a law passed by Congress which directly enacts the requirement. But in the case of alcohol there is a law. We aren't a society of just-take-the-hint and why-won't-you-read-between-the-lines, we're a society of laws. Why are you so dead set on spinning this as business as usual? Who cares? It's broken.
  - ubernostrum 15y ago

by wnight 15y ago

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.

wnight 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. Actually, yes. You'd have to be crazy to suggest otherwise. Think of it, "Enforceable rule". Not just something in this circumstance, but a rule, and enforceable. That's exactly what oversight is for. But I was talking about safeguards. Any rule is worthless without knowing when to stop applying it. Who's watching for it to go wrong? Nobody of course because it doesn't really exist. >> 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. It is a requirement the public is (mostly) unaware of. And because it's unspoken policy instead of a law it'll likely stay that way. > 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... It's not a security measure because it doesn't help security at all. Enforcing useless rules is a loss of your rights. >> Almost total corruption being used to enforce secret laws. Check. > Wild hyperbole. Check. Not at all. Using undisclosed governmental powers to secretly kill someone's business because they won't enact useless and counterproductive policies is a textbook example of systemic corruption. >> 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. Yes, that much is a given. Thanks. But one is because minors have shown to have (even more) problems with booze and it's been proven to kill, etc. On the other hand showing ID is absolutely worthless for finding weapons, in practice and in theory. > Interestingly, both involve reasoning based on public safety, and in neither case is there a law passed by Congress which directly enacts the requirement. But in the case of alcohol there is a law. We aren't a society of just-take-the-hint and why-won't-you-read-between-the-lines, we're a society of laws. Why are you so dead set on spinning this as business as usual? Who cares? It's broken.
- ubernostrum 15y ago