EU steps into digital rights debate

TalkBack 24 of 69:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

It is very clear: Here's a good site, complete with all arguements and exhibits, and the specific statutes and codes that are used in the governments arguement, involved in the Gilmore case:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-5554/03-5554.mer.ami.gilmore.pdf

If you want to plug in the numbers referenced in the case, maybe try here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/cases/

I believe that I understand your view and Gilmore's view. You may have a good point that we aren't legally required to have any form of ID. With the obvious exceptions of the "REQUEST" to produce ID for bank transactions, employment, registering to vote, operating a motor vehicle, obtaining permits and other licenses and many other instances.

Now if a person chooses not to have an ID then they can also choose to avoid doing the things that an ID is required for (or requested) and avoid public contact in general. That is the only right that I see that they have.

Now where we basically differ, it seems, is that I don't believe that the constitutional guarantee of privacy extends to an all encompassing and unassailable right to be able to override anyone elses right to be secure (perceived or real) in their property and possessions, or that it somehow mandates that someone has to provide you with their services whether or not you meet their requirements.

The cruxt of the governments view is that this requirement is a "security directive issued by the FAA", which basically states that if a person doesn't produce an ID, then they must be subjected to other security measures that would accomplish the same means, such as a search to make sure that the person in question can be reasonably assumed to be no threat to the airline or other passengers.

So basically, if he would've allowed a reasonable search of his person, to assure the airline that he was no threat, then there would be no problem, and he would've been allowed to board, with his anonimity intact (as per the official airline statement). Even though his name was on the ticket, so.......? Kind of a moot point here.

If you look at this on the most basic level, what I see as the only issue here is, is there a law that says we must provide ID to authorities when asked? The answer seems to be yes, and it also seems that this law is shielded from disclosure under the protection of national security interests.

So I don't believe that a persons perceived right of anonimity extends into the public domain. You and happy Gilmore seem to disagree, although I do see where some might perceive this "secret law" to be dangerous, I do not.

You are also right that the courts are there to sort all of this out, however from my viewpoint I don't see the supreme court siding with Gilmore. Basically, as I stated before, his rights don't trump anyone elses rights, including the airlines, liquor stores or a peace officer.

He is not forced to participate in a civilized, concerned society if he chooses not to, and I still think it is outrageous to think that asking for ID is unreasonable. If you don't want to do things that involve disclosing your identity, go live in isolation like a mountain man or cave dweller.

So we will have to wait to see about this "secret law" business. And I am open to the possibility that you are correct about the dangers involved with such laws, but I don't see it myself.; Posted by: Spoon Jabber Posted on: 02/11/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use