EU steps into digital rights debate

TalkBack 22 of 69:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

I'll give you that

I agree that secret laws are bad, we do need to know them. Our government definitely needs more transparency, not complete but more. I also agree that we are dealing with to seperate isuues, secret laws and ID. Although now, in this case, you indicate that the two are inextricably linked.

My point to you before is simple. The scenarios you mentioned, secret mission etc, do not require giving up your anonimity, as there are ways to travel other than a plane. Now if your mission was top secret, why in the world, knowing that you will have to produce ID, would you not find a more anonymous means of transportation?

You mention a slippery slope, what kind of slope would there be if anyone, including wanted criminals, convicted child molesters and the like, were allowed to travel anonymously along with unknowing citizens on a plane? What if one of these characters stole your plane ticket, or pretended to be you when purchasing the ticket, and used the opportunity to commit a crime, afterall your name is on the ticket. I demand of my bank, retail stores, airlines etc, to require ID when doing any kind of transaction. There will always be those that can fake it, but it will certainly reduce the chances of someone stealing my identity. Not perfect but better.

If a person doesn't have ID then I refer you back to the vagrancy laws, nothing secret there. What benefit to the authorities would a secret law have, especially when there are "unsecret" laws that serve the exact same purpose?

No, this person is standing up for his Constitutional rights.

Possibly, but I see him as making a mockery out of the legal system. I am doing a little research right now about this supposed secret law, directly into the US code and I'll get back to you on that part. It does seem to me that the case isn't about any secret law at all, but merely that the guy thinks he has some sort of constitutional guarantee in this case, and he does NOT. The constitution is a foundation, or framework, that the country is built on. It does not, and can not address every situation, that's why we have so many laws, based on the constitutions guidelines. I also don't believe that "open to interpretation" is a good way to describe the upholding of the constitution. Let's face it, if you let the liberals start "interpreting" things and the constituion will not exist in 20 years in its present form.

Posted by: Spoon Jabber   Posted on: 02/11/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Get top-ranked Novell support for Red Hat at 50% less Novell A simplified IT environment isn't just less complex, it's more reliable. ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now