Grounded: Millionaire Stays Close to Home. Makes a Point About Privacy

[CoffeeCat]

SAN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.

<snip>

The gate agent asked for his ID.

Gilmore asked her why.

It is the law, she said.

Gilmore asked to see the law.

Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is "Sensitive Security Information." The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection.

linky:
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm

[LiviaOlivia]

1. Who did he vote for?

eom

[jbond56]

4. not 100%

But I think Kerry. I know his friends did like John Perry Barlow. http://barlow.typepad.com/barlowfriendz/ Barlow also has an interesting court case involving searches at airports.

If you want more detail on Gilmore's case check out http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/


These guys are true Americans. Some of there other work can be seen here http://www.eff.org

[slaveplanet]

8. unfortunately- it's a battle he won't win

Just scanning over his site , I feel he is approaching it wrong.

What I perceive the problem to be, and I suspect this is somewhere in the secret regulation, Is they have made all air travel a commercial endeavor. That is all air travelers are now considered travelers for commerce and are now governed under UCC code. In my estimation this is the only way they could pull this off. This would make the travelers subject to the same type of codification as if you were a driver driving a car. This is the only way the courts could have jurisdiction.

from his site: "When Congress passes a law, it is as often as not up to some agency to decide what that law means and how to enforce it. Usually, those regulations are available for people to examine, even challenge if they conflict with the Constitution."

The problem is beyond that, We are still under War powers from the civil war- Therefore the agency that decides is not even government , but merely an employee of government.

In order to have this heard on Constitutional grounds he needs a different Court with the proper jurisdiction...such a Court(not including The Surpreme Court) does not exist ...this is the fundemental problem.

Since the has no ID , he is not a legal fiction (Name in all Caps). therefore the court does not recognize him . He or his attorney can talk all they want but unless he comes at them as a natural born , Flesh and blood, person and challenges their jurisdiction, the court can't hear him . They can only hear the legal fiction person. This is why he gets decision's like this:"When Gilmore started this fight, he was a lone wolf on a far frontier of privacy. No more. What has changed in the meantime? For one, there was the Supreme Court's Hiibel decision in June, which upheld a widespread right of cops to ask you to identify yourself on pain of arrest.

But what Hiibel did not do—because even the five Supremes insensitive to Mr. Hiibel's privacy rights realized this would hit a tripwire in the American political consciousness—is demand that that ID had to be state issued. They refused to extend too far the areas in which a citizen must have a government-issued ID"

This is a trick ruling because there is no such thing as government issued ID...Only Agency(Employee) issued ID. All passports and DL/ID are issued by non-governmental(affiliate) agencies.

Therefore he has to challenge their jurisdiction over him all the way to the Supreme court or he wont win.

[WhiteTara]

5. I can not think it would have been* eom

[Trillo]

2. This seems particularly relevant given the ChoicePoint data disclosure,

and the others we've heard about, as well as the ones that haven't been disclosed:

"Gilmore is asking just how much citizens are giving up when they hand their driver's licenses to a third party, in this case an airline, where it is put into a database they cannot see, to meet a law that, as it turns out, they are not allowed to read."

I'm glad there are a few that can afford justice, I hope he gets it: it may benefit all citizens by freeing us from our home-grown tyranny.

A good read with food for thought, although a bit long with biographical detours.

What difference does it make?

[Elidor]

3. Thanks for posting. A very interesting read

The guy is probably a libertarian, but he's fighting the good fight. And he puts his money where his mouth is ($1 million to the Electronic Frontier Foundation).

[xchrom]

6. hmmm -- interesting

i wonder why nobody that that at some point someone was going to want to SEE the law?

the way it comes about -- it does make sense.

as far as privacy goes -- i'm not sure i think there is any -- and can we go back?

[lonestarnot]

7. Nothing but admiration for freedom fighters like Gilmore. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. Showing an ID stopped Atta, right?

And how about the one where they ask the question about if anybody packed your bag for you! All I can say is the the world is lucky that there aren't more people intent on blowing up airplanes, because if their were, the whole system would be shut down in no time.