rental car license check not the same as flying without an ID.

[acroyear]

slashdot 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.

Comments

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

just a nit-picky point. The word you want is "liable" not "libel". Too very different things.

[dave-lister.livejournal.com]

To be even more nit-picky, it's "Two", not "Too". ;)

corrected

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i make that mistake constantly. i hate spelling.

[scaleslea.livejournal.com]

Another thing to consider is that rental car companies are notoriously lax in checking for valid ID. A couple friends of mine were heading home on their motorcycle when they were run over by a drunk driver making an illegal u-turn from a center lane while driving on a suspended license (from a drunk driving offense) in a rented vehicle. Even though his business rented the vehicle and his secretary made the arrangements, he should have been required to show ID when he picked it up, and that should have soured the deal right there. My friends survived, but both were in physical therapy for the next couple of years.

Doc

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

And, to be even more pedantic, it is "ridiculous", not "rediculous".

But, as I see it, spelling is not nearly as important as the points made.

Like this one: they hold the credit card company responsible for dealing with that credit check and that cost, to save themselves the money and keep competitive.

This is a pretty unwise thing to do. The reality is, credit card companies give cards out to just about anyone who asks for one, and many times, do so *knowing* that the person is fiscally irresponsible. I can't tell you how many times we've seen people come in looking for "debt consolidation loans" because they have so much debt from credit cards that they can't make all their payments. Trusting the credit card companies to judge a persons credit worthiness is a little like trusting a wino to tend bar at your daughters wedding.

I'd argue that the rental car contract is not the same thing as flying without an ID.

Speaking as a banking official, and *not* as an aviation official, I can tell you that a contract witnessed by someone representing some other company that requires ID would still not get your check cashed.

Edited for lacking some crucial words

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

yeah, but the credit card companies, wise or not, have statistics to show that such actions are still profitable. on the individual, it sucks, but the individual IS still obligated to pay off that debt eventually (with extreme interest), so the profit remains because the law still enforces the debt collection.

its cheaper for rental companies not have to deal with that, and its cheap for credit card companies because the laws of volume counteract in a MAJOR way the small percentages of lossy customers (that still pay off eventually).

similarly, getting a credit card as an extreme risk does not necessarilly mean that the credit card company will automatically approve the $2000 "check" that the car rental place runs on a first-time customer (not backed by a corporate ID number and contract). Fortunately, I (with my relatively crappy post-college credit) established myself as a good renter through my work first and had a reputation with Avis before doing my first personal rental.

But usually for first timers, I seem to recall they do a "swipe" for a LOT more than the actual expected bill. to the credit card company, it puts that $2000 or whatever into a transitional state, where its inaccessable to other withdrawels until 7 days or so before it times out (or is counteracted by a phone call or other e-transmission cancelling the charge attempt).

$2000 its a round figure pulled from me arse; i'm not sure what specific companies use, but i do know they tend to request an authorization for more than just "the bill".

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

simplification: if it was not profitable for the credit card companies to give it away the way they do, they wouldn't do it. regardless of it being unwise to the poor exploited chap, that's irrelevant to the bottom line.

corporate exploitation is always a bad thing to the individual; and government-protected corporate exploitation (bank mergers, utility monopolies, FCC regulations, and the power of the MPAA and RIAA) is worse...but that's not a discussion for now. :)

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

Yes...it's called a "pre-authorization", and it holds the funds until such time as they actually process the ticket for true payment. If they don't follow through with an actual payment from the account, the hold will fall off after a certain number of days.

The way the Credit Card companies make this "profitable" is by charging obscene amounts of interest to most of their clientele...which is, incidentally, how they manage not to care overly much about fraud as well. Many places of business that take credit cards and debit cards are no longer requiring signatures for these kinds of purchases. Quiznos and the theatres in the Worldgate Plaza Shopping Center, as a couple of for instance. I am a little afraid, to be honest. I've been in this business for 20 years, and it no longer makes any sense to me. These practices are making it easier to commit identity theft.

Which is also why I am for the airlines being a little anal retentive where it concerns identifying people. That's not your finances at risk...it's your life.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i'm aware (as my wife has drilled into me until we finally did something about it) of how bad the interest-paying aspect of it all is.

on the other hand, if the airlines want to make carrying an ID an official documented policy, then put it absolutely in the terms of service contract (its not there now; its in other aspects of buying a ticket, but not in the official terms of the ticket contract). Mr. Gilmore would have had no problem whatsoever with showing his ID if there was a documented clause specifically stating that he had to that the airline would show him.

There was none. The worse part about it, of course, is that the law they followed back on was a law that nobody was legally allowed to show him.

this is utterly wrong. secret laws, secret courts, held under the discretion of the administration without due process or access to a lawyer.

NO personal safety is worth living in that kind of a state.

an entire generation fought against that very tyranny from '41 to '45, and another generation and a half from '64 to '75. to have it come through our back door like this is nausiating.

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

I hear what you're saying, and yes...why *not* make it an advertised part of the policy? That makes no sense at all.

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).

Re: corrected

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

I hear ya...but, in the end, spelling is not really important to an intelligent point. That's why even the best writers have editors, after all.