Per Slashdot, here’s an article on Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Gilmore’s effort to challenge secret federal laws requiring travelers to present identification papers at airports.
The case raises an interesting question: Does a system allowing the government to track our whereabouts really make us safer? You can read more about it here.
It’s healthy for our society that people like Mr. Gilmore are willing to fight rules which most people simply don’t bother to question. Since 9/11, the government has been doing a lot of things that have not been subject to adequate public scrutiny. We need people to force the issue of why.
I think Gilmore doesn’t get the whole point of ID papers, or rather chooses to ignore a benefit and portray it only as a cost.
That benefit and that point is that regardless of whether the ID actually identifies the person, it serves as a marker and reference in tracing its carrier’s movements after the fact. It helps with investigations as much as it helps immediate security.
But I think you’re right that ID issues need to be aired and discussed, particularly as new technologies like RFID come into use.
I don’t think presenting ID suddenly came into vogue after 9/11, it was being done long before that, and for good reason.
I think Gilmore’s point is that presenting an ID doesn’t increase the safety on a flight (in contrast to other security measures, such as fortifying the cockpit doors). Either because (1) our system might not recognize the bad people, or (2) the bad people might carry fake IDs.
I don’t know the history of the ID requirement, but I read that it started to emerge following the TWA explosion–an interesting response to a crash which was supposedly caused by a bad fuel tank.
My recollection of something I read about Gilmore in the last few days (in a San Francisco paper, I believe) is that Gilmore has simply refused to present an ID for domestic (as opposed to international) air travel until such time as the airline will at least cite (if not show him) the law which requires him to do so. From my recollection of the story I read, supposedly the airlines have refused to cite or show him that law (a federal regulation, I’d guess), saying that it would violate national security to do so.
Gilmore quite sensibly commented that his protest isn’t against a requirement for national IDs, but that if national IDs are to be required they should be required only after a full and complete debate on all of the pros and cons involved.