“A prominent civil libertarian sued the U.S. government and two major airlines Thursday, claiming that security requirements that compel U.S. citizens to show identification before flying are unconstitutional,” CNN reports [via Reuters].
“In a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco, John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that requiring ID from travelers who are not suspected of being a threat to airport security violates several amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
The lawsuit alleges that the regulations restrict freedom of travel, permit intrusive searches without good cause and violate the Freedom of Information Act because they have not been published in the Federal Register.
Although the ID requirements have been in effect since 1996, under the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) program, officials have increased their enforcement since the September 11 hijack attacks on New York and Washington, the lawsuit said.
Gilmore was prevented from flying by both UAL Corp.’s United Airlines and Southwest Airlines Co. on July 4, U.S. Independence Day, when he refused to produce ID or undergo extensive security screening, he told Reuters. As a result he hasn’t flown since September 11 last year.
‘It seemed obvious to me that the day we celebrate our freedom and independence would be a good day to see how much freedom we have left,’ he said.
What is most interesting about this suit (I think) is that what’s being challenged is the practice of “requiring ID from travelers who are not suspected of being a threat to airport security” [my emphasis] — an argument that appears, from one perspective at least, to challenge the practice of not profiling. Instead, it is “random checks” that might be the constitutional problem here. Which means that (potentially, at least) this suit could pave the way for an Israeli-style profiling system — a sure method finally to increase airport security, not simply bureaucratize already inefficient procedures.
Gilmore, who launched the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 1990 to lobby and educate about individual rights in cyberspace, said U.S. citizens have the right to travel anonymously.
‘There is no evidence against the vast majority of Americans,’ as to criminal activity, he said. ‘Yet they are being identified, tracked, and searched nevertheless.
‘This policy violates decades and centuries of court decisions about the rights of innocent Americans,’ he said. ‘The mere demand for an ID is a search, which the Fourth Amendment protects us from.’
The lawsuit claims the government, under CAPPS II, is preparing to combine travel booking and payment information with data from banks, credit-reporting agencies and other sources and integrate it with lists of suspected terrorists and criminals.
‘Your life history will be gathered and scanned, using secret criteria, whenever you book a flight or arrive at an airport,’ said William Simpich, Gilmore’s attorney. ‘This is the kind of data aggregation people have been fighting for 50 years or more and it’s completely unacceptable.’
A so-called ‘no-fly’ list created by the FBI and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has already been abused and used to harass innocent citizens who happened to have names that match those on the list, the lawsuit alleges.
‘They’re using September 11 as a stalking horse to enable the government to implement a much more comprehensive system of electronic dossiers on American citizens than has ever been done before,’ said Edward Hasbrouck, a San Francisco-based privacy and consumer advocate and author of travel guides. ‘CAPPS was in operation on September 11 and it didn’t work.’
The lawsuit names as defendants U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge, Homeland Security chief; as well as the heads of the FBI, the Transportation Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the TSA; and United and Southwest airlines.
Spokespeople from the U.S. Attorney General’s, TSA and Homeland Security offices, as well as United, said they had no comment, while officials from the other government agencies were unavailable to comment.
Angela Vargo, a spokeswoman for Southwest, said executives would look at the suit. ‘After what our country has been through in the past few months, frivolous lawsuits such as this are ridiculous,’ she said.
Well, the suit is hardly frivolous if it moves us past our institutionalized adherence to Political Correctness, which leads (in my estimation, at least — and with regards to airport security screening) to a decline in privacy, to greater individual inconvenience, and offers in return no corresponding boost in security outside of accidental discoveries (which is what “random” means, strictly speaking).
All in all, an interesting case.
Hmm. It seems to me that if an airline is a private business, then it should be able to demand what it wants in exchange for ferrying people across the skies.
If you don’t like it, fly with another carrier.
This doesn’t mean you must like it—vocal protest of bad customer service is perfectly fine.
This also doesn’t address any issues that come up as a result of the admixture of the coervice power of the state with the rights of private businesses to require whatever they think is prudent in exchange for services.
An interesting case.
It won’t bring an end to political correctness. That just isn’t going to happen; the NAACP and the ACLU still have more than enough pull to sue the ass off any airport that even thinks about using Israeli-style profiling.
The only result from this, if it succeeds, will be the inevitable result of any damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario… namely, that dozens of airlines will close down when they realize that the entire business is nothing but a lawsuit magnet.
I used to wonder what would happen when air travel became a thing of the past. Of course, I operated from the assumption that something would replace it, rather than it getting shut down by droves of people who blame them for everything from Auschwitz to 9/11.
You can’t seriously think this lawsuit will move us past political correctness, can you? It never works that way – lawsuits merely redefine and refocus PC.
I always love when people make the argument that airport security checks are restricting our right to free passage between states. No one was stopping John Gilmour from walking to any destination he wanted to. For that matter, he could have chartered his own plane, built a plane, or driven in a bought, rented, or homebuilt motorized vehicle. But, if you want to gain access to a multi-passanger airlines, you have to deal with these restrictions. His suit has absolutely no merit, and I’ll be surprised if the US Government doesn’t win on a motion to dismiss. Remember, the consitution does give you the freedom to travel, not the freedom to travel by a commerical airliner.
OK—off-topic (slightly). I just have to bitch and moan, and this seems like the appropriate place.
I flew to Las Vegas last week. I am—ahem—naturally blessed. Unfortunately, I am also approaching forty and gravity is taking its toll. Without silicone, I need some underwire support (and lots of it). I was selected for the random search before boarding the plane, and the underwire in my bra kept setting off the wand/alarm. Rather than pulling me to the side and discreetly searcing me (which would have pissed me off anyway), I was GROPED (as if I were getting my annual breast exam) by this woman in full view of all boarding passengers. I was so embarrassed, I didn’t make a scene then (no need to call further attention to the activity)—but I wish I had. How does groping the breasts of a nearly middle-aged woman (who, by the way, had on a nicely-fitting t-shirt that would have shown any concealed items) contribute to air safety? (And no, I do not fit in any ethnic group that might have been targeted for profiling). After that incident, I’d be happy to join a class action lawsuit.
OK—off-topic (slightly). I just have to bitch and moan, and this seems like the appropriate place.
I flew to Las Vegas last week. I am—ahem—naturally blessed. Unfortunately, I am also approaching forty and gravity is taking its toll. Without silicone, I need some underwire support (and lots of it). I was selected for the random search before boarding the plane, and the underwire in my bra kept setting off the wand/alarm. Rather than pulling me to the side and discreetly searcing me (which would have pissed me off anyway), I was GROPED (as if I were getting my annual breast exam) by this woman in full view of all boarding passengers. I was so embarrassed, I didn’t make a scene then (no need to call further attention to the activity)—but I wish I had. How does groping the breasts of a nearly middle-aged woman (who, by the way, had on a nicely-fitting t-shirt that would have shown any concealed items) contribute to air safety? (And no, I do not fit in any ethnic group that might have been targeted for profiling). After that incident, I’d be happy to join a class action lawsuit.
“A man that gives up freedom for security deserves niether” Ben Franklin
“A man that gives up freedom for security deserves niether” Ben Franklin
“A man that gives up freedom for security deserves niether” Ben Franklin
Peggy
They are not groping people for no reason. What would you rather them do, just wave people through or inspect them thoroughly to make sure there are no terrorists on board?