![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearslashdot has an article about the EFF's John Gilmore going to court and being effectively grounded because he refused to carry (well, show, whether he carried or not) his ID before boarding a plane. Turns out the law itself is consider "security secret" info and as such, while legally binding, nobody's technically allowed to reveal it.
this is, of course, a rediculous thing that NEEDS to be sued against. it is a violation of due process because you simply don't have the ability to prepare a defense against a law you can't read. (to make matters worse, you have to sue the government to see the law, and in one instance, a prosecution was *dropped* against TSA baggage handlers because to have had the case go to court would have required revealing the security process, "protected" by the secrecy standard.)
however, there was a snide comment in the article itself, [other computer geeks] arrived in rental cars that required a valid driver's license and one major credit card.
I'd argue that the rental car contract is not the same thing as flying without an ID.
A rental car company is liable when it gives a vehicle away. It is required to be postively sure that the individual is fully capable and legally permitted to drive the car, or else it WILL be sued in the event of an accident, insurance be damned. Similarly, the credit card check is not to verify that the individual is what the ID says it is -- its to avoid having to do their own credit background check (minimum week or more delays and hefty increase in costs) in order to lend the car with the knowledge its going to someone likely to give it back.
they hold the credit card company responsible for dealing with that credit check and that cost, to save themselves the money and keep competitive.
both items are strictly business decisions that have no relation at all to the no flying without an ID law.
this is, of course, a rediculous thing that NEEDS to be sued against. it is a violation of due process because you simply don't have the ability to prepare a defense against a law you can't read. (to make matters worse, you have to sue the government to see the law, and in one instance, a prosecution was *dropped* against TSA baggage handlers because to have had the case go to court would have required revealing the security process, "protected" by the secrecy standard.)
however, there was a snide comment in the article itself, [other computer geeks] arrived in rental cars that required a valid driver's license and one major credit card.
I'd argue that the rental car contract is not the same thing as flying without an ID.
A rental car company is liable when it gives a vehicle away. It is required to be postively sure that the individual is fully capable and legally permitted to drive the car, or else it WILL be sued in the event of an accident, insurance be damned. Similarly, the credit card check is not to verify that the individual is what the ID says it is -- its to avoid having to do their own credit background check (minimum week or more delays and hefty increase in costs) in order to lend the car with the knowledge its going to someone likely to give it back.
they hold the credit card company responsible for dealing with that credit check and that cost, to save themselves the money and keep competitive.
both items are strictly business decisions that have no relation at all to the no flying without an ID law.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-01 05:17 am (UTC)As I see it, there doesn't have to *be* a choice between protecting our consitutionally guaranteed rights and protecting us from terrorism (in the skies or elsewhere).