Elonka wrote:
] (on Cathay Pacific the stewardesses do a kind of choreographed
] "aloha" dance while they're demonstrating the oxygen masks)

I like how Cathay has the camera on the bottom of the plane, so you can see the front wheel hit the ground durring landing. Always got a kick out of that.

On All Nippon Airlines (ANA) flight attendents lead the passengers through streching exercizes before the plane lands. I think they only do it on trans-pacific flights though.

Elonka wrote:
] But in terms of security at airports? I agree with the sign
] that is posted at St. Louis Lambert International Airport,
] which, to the best of my recollection, says: "Passengers
] wishing to fly are not required to submit to search of their
] persons or belongings. Such search may be refused, in which
] case the airlines have the right to refuse to allow the
] individual to board the aircraft."

You might be interested in this, its a lawsuit covering this issue which is currently in the courts:

http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm

The lawsuit brings the following issues to bare on the comments you made:

1. You state that an ID requirement to fly is ok if it isn't also coupled with ID requirement as bus terminals, hotels, train stations, and other travel related businesses. The case argues that it is.

2. A search at an airport isn't legal just because you can avoid it by not flying. This kind of excuse could be used in any context. (You can avoid the search by opting not to, say, buy groceries, go to church, visit a doctor, or vote...) The searches are legal only because they are specifically intended to find weapons and explosives and are directly related to airline security. This doesn't mean that they can't bust you if they find evidence of a crime, but it does mean they can't LOOK for it. For instance, they can't pass out a picture of a stolen artifact and ask airport security to keep an eye out for it. This would constitute a warrentless search that has nothing to do with airline security.

Consider how this fact relates to the no fly list. If they can't look for evidence of crimes, then can they look for people who may be wanted for crimes? There seems to be a very fine line here.

An ID check is only useful to the extent that the IDs are cross referenced with a database. Prior to 911 the *ONLY* reason that ID checks were performed was to prevent people from reselling tickets. (Consumers bought into this because they beleived it was security related, but in practice ANY form of ID was acceptable and they were not cross referenced with anything other then your ticket.)

What database should these IDs be cross referenced with? It would clearly be illegal to cross reference the IDs with traffic ticket information. Again, this is a search with no cause. Its a dragnet.

Where do you draw a line between this and the no fly list?

Frustraing matters, of course, is the fact that the government security regulations are "secret" as is the no fly list. This might explain why the experience is inconsistent. The airlines probably don't really know what the actual rules are.

This also creates an incredible opportunity for abuse. What do we know about who is on this list? Do we even know if its well maintained?

Decius wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] But in terms of security at airports? I agree with the sign
] ] that is posted at St. Louis Lambert International Airport,
] ] which, to the best of my recollection, says: "Passengers
] ] wishing to fly are not required to submit to search of their
] ] persons or belongings. Such search may be refused, in which
] ] case the airlines have the right to refuse to allow the
] ] individual to board the aircraft."
]
] You might be interested in this, its a lawsuit covering this
] issue which is currently in the courts:
]
] http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm
]

Interesting, though I can't say that I necessarily agree with everything in the suit.

]
] 1. You state that an ID requirement to fly is ok if it isn't
] also coupled with ID requirement as bus terminals, hotels,
] train stations, and other travel related businesses. The case
] argues that it is.

Ah, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with ID checks at bus terminals, hotels, and train stations, either. Those are private companies who have the right to refuse service, so I believe that they also have the right to institute reasonable security measures, and I see an ID check as a reasonable measure.

Where I would draw the line (and I understand that *my* location for drawing the line is completely different from other people's location -- this is just my personal stance), is where someone is required to show ID even when traveling *under their own power*. So in my world view: getting on a Greyhound requiring an ID check to cross a state line? Okay. Having to routinely show an ID when driving across a state line in my own car? Not okay.

] This also creates an incredible opportunity for abuse.

Such opportunities exist everywhere, alas. If I may be permitted an "abuse" rant on a related subject:

I have to admit that I've been amused and horrified at some of the laughable security procedures that have gone into place after September 11th. For example, though I saw it as a good idea to limit access to airport gates to ticketed passengers only, then they turned around and said that an E-ticket was sufficient proof that you were a ticketed passenger. I laughed when I heard that, because e-tickets are *trivial* to forge -- Anyone with access to a single E-ticket, a printer, and any kind of HTML editor (including Notepad) could churn out an infinite number of e-tickets with any name that they wanted, within about 30 seconds. Though these forged e-tickets would *not* be good enough to actually get someone on a plane, at the security checkpoint all that would be checked was that the name on the ID matched the name on the printout, and you'd be waved through. I also have personal experience of times that I'd accidentally show the wrong e-ticket to security at an airport (like I said, I do a lot of flying, and sometimes ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Elonka wrote:
] Ah, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with ID checks at
] bus terminals, hotels, and train stations, either. Those are
] private companies who have the right to refuse service, so I
] believe that they also have the right to institute reasonable
] security measures, and I see an ID check as a reasonable
] measure.

You kind of wriggled around my point to an extent, so I want to reengage it a bit...

First off, and I'm not really very familiar with the law in this area, but I don't think private companies have a "right to refuse service." For example, I'm fairly certain that its illegal to put a big sign in front of your store that says "Whites Only." There are certain things that buinesses can refuse service for (proper dress, behavior), but this isn't a right like freedom of speech is a right. Its a legislated issue. You can refuse service in certain contexts. I don't know exactly what those contexts are. In some cases (such as the American's with Disabilities Act) you are forced to provide service.

However, I won't pursue this point any further. For the purpose of this dicussion I'll conceed that it ought to be legal for companies to require ID for their services for simple identification purposes. I wouldn't do business with such a company, and I'm not sure it should be legal, but its too much of a tangent to explain.

The thing is, we're not talking about a bunch of private companies spontaneously deciding to run ID checks. We're talking about a secret government requirement that forces these companies to do this. In this context we're not talking about private companies operating on their own will, we are talking about a government ID check requirement.

The core point that I'm concerned with is that an ID check is meaningless unless it is correlated with a database. What I'd really like to know is what you think that database should consist of, in the context of a manditory government ID check?

Should you be forced to undergo a warrant check (think traffic tickets) in order to get a hotel room? If not, then where do you draw the line?

Also, consider that the government cannot require you to carry ID on the street, but how meaningful is this if the government can require you to carry ID to do business with a company? Its not really possible to do anything in this country without doing business with a company.

Sure, you could grow your own food, make your own clothing, but its silly to insist that this is a realistic alternative.

So you're really arguing that the government can require an ID check from me for almost everything that I do, many times a day. They should have almost omniscient information about my location and the commercial transactions that I engage in.

This is much much more, well, orwellian then what currently exists.

So, I'll close by observing that our success as a society is directly related to ou... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] Ah, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with ID checks at
] ] bus terminals, hotels, and train stations, either. Those are
] ] private companies who have the right to refuse service, so I
] ] believe that they also have the right to institute reasonable
] ] security measures, and I see an ID check as a reasonable
] ] measure.
]
] You kind of wriggled around my point to an extent, so I want
] to reengage it a bit...

Heh. I feel like you're trying to force me into the position of defending the legality of a wide spectrum of behaviors. But I'm not prepared to do that. I'm not an attorney or a lawmaker, I'm just a private (but voting) citizen who has my own views on what is and isn't acceptable for *me*. If you don't share those views, that's fine, I respect your right to have a different opinion.

] First off, and I'm not really very familiar with the law in
] this area, but I don't think private companies have a "right
] to refuse service." For example, I'm fairly certain that its
] illegal to put a big sign in front of your store that says
] "Whites Only." There are certain things that buinesses can
] refuse service for (proper dress, behavior), but this isn't a
] right like freedom of speech is a right. Its a legislated
] issue. You can refuse service in certain contexts. I don't
] know exactly what those contexts are. In some cases (such as
] the American's with Disabilities Act) you are forced to
] provide service.
]
] However, I won't pursue this point any further. For the
] purpose of this dicussion I'll conceed that it ought to be
] legal for companies to require ID for their services for
] simple identification purposes. I wouldn't do business with
] such a company, and I'm not sure it should be legal, but its
] too much of a tangent to explain.

Private companies *do* have the right to refuse service. If someone's on a bus or a plane, and starts raising a ruckus, the transportation company has the right to throw them off such vehicle. As you mentioned, there are indeed certain race- or disability-based exceptions, but in general, no one has a "constitutional right to ride a particular bus."

To be even more clear, I'll bring it into my own industry, of multiplayer games. As a private company, we have policies about what behaviors are and aren't allowed in our games. If someone doesn't abide by those policies (or even if they do), we can choose not to do business with them. No one has any constitutional right to be allowed to log into one of our products. We have the right to refuse service to anyone, and we exercise that right on a routine basis.

] The core point that I'm concerned with is that an ID check is
] meaningless unless it is correlated with a database.

I disagree quite strongly on this point. ID check... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Elonka wrote:
] Heh. I feel like you're trying to force me into the position
] of defending the legality of a wide spectrum of behaviors.

You seem really concerned that I'm trying to squelch your opinion. Thats not my intention at all, although I do seek to both understand it and influence it.

It is a matter of policy, with respect to the government ID checks, and as a democracy we ought to talk about matters of policy, and we ought to work them out. I think that this is one of the things that the net is really good for, although this has to follow through to political action, and currently thats not happening, and it really requires open minds, which is usually a very hard state to acheive.

There is a lot more to say here, in particular with respect to anonymnity in online communities, but it sounds like you really don't want to talk about it, so I'll drop it. I just wanted to clarify my intent.

Decius wrote:

] First off, and I'm not really very familiar with the law in
] this area, but I don't think private companies have a "right
] to refuse service." For example, I'm fairly certain that its
] illegal to put a big sign in front of your store that says
] "Whites Only." There are certain things that buinesses can
] refuse service for (proper dress, behavior), but this isn't a
] right like freedom of speech is a right. Its a legislated
] issue. You can refuse service in certain contexts. I don't
] know exactly what those contexts are. In some cases (such as
] the American's with Disabilities Act) you are forced to
] provide service.

Actually, two things here. "Whites Only" would be institutionalizing discrimination - stating that if you are not visibly caucasian (yes, Michael Jackson could possibly get in...) - then you can not get service, and that is illegal. It is against the law for a public company (private "clubs" are an exception, such as those male only dinner/cigar/brandy clubs or even Augusta National Golf Course/Club) to discriminate based upon race, gender, religion, physical ability or sexual orientation (in some states). By requiring an ID, they are not discriminating against a class of society, they are refusing service to an individual. The ADA does not require that every business provide service to every person with a disability, they require that those with disabilities have the same access to service as those without. This means that if someone in a wheelchair were to refuse to show an ID, they could be refused service just as easily as any other person.

Private businesses are, thankfully, still allowed to refuse service to any individual as long as it's not discrimination. I'd hate to be in the position of having the government force me to serve a belligerent and drunk gay latino jew in a wheelchair. The operative words there being "belligerent and drunk," but strung along with the others to show which part actually matters.

Dolemite