On 4 Sep 97 , Neil Rest wrote:
> >The "anti-terrorism" measures in force at U.S. airports include the
> >requirement that each passenger show a government issued
> >identification before being permitted to board the plane. It is
> >forbidden to give away a ticket, or to buy a ticket for another
> >person; the name of the pasenger must be on the ticket.
> >
> >If you ask the personnel if they've ever heard of anyone who's ever
> >heard of this . . . sorry, I can't quickly come up with a better
> >adjective than "fascist" regimen ever interfering with an act of
> >terrorism, they can't understand what you're talking about. It's
> >for our own good, after all.
On 5 Sep 97 , Martha Bartter wrote:
> I guess I don't feel as strongly about this as you seem to. Most
> Americans (over the age of 16 or so) have a "government issued" id
> -- either a driver's license or an official equivalent. No one who
> has purchased a plane ticket and shows this id gets taken off the
> plane in handcuffs. At least, I haven't heard of such.
> To me, "government permission" includes such proscriptions as
> travel
> to Cuba -- there's the gov't in action -- but not the request to see
> id to fly any more than id to drive my car. Or do you consider this
> also 'fascist'?
On 5 Sep 97 , CMUNSON wrote:
> Marina: Neil is right about this. You have to show a valid ID
> to fly on the commercial airlines. People really don't question
> this, but it constitutes a license to travel. I can't imagine
> how many average folks who are unaware of this have been halted
> at airports.
>
> All of this is in response to the Flight 800 crash, which they
> thought was caused by terrorism, a link never proved.
SNIP
> This new restriction is just the tip of the iceberg. At the end
> of the year something called "passenger profiling" goes into
> full effect. This will be a computerized system designed to
> identify potential "terrorists." I'm sure that lots of folks
> will be inconvenienced by this. I have one acquaintance, who is
> an American dissident, who has been hassled by this system when
> they tried to travel.
At first, I had to smile about these emails. I cannot remember a time
when in Europe one had not to show his or her id at check-in and at
the border control (the share of cross-border flights is of
course higher in Europe than on the North-American continent).
Apart from that everybody is screened, all luggage is screened, too
(last time I was in London, I stood half an hour in line for that,
including the check-in it took longer than the actual flight).
Nowadays, some airlines question everybody closely about what they
have put into their suitcases, if somebody had access to their
suitcases ('were you alone while packing?'), if somebody gave you
something to take with you, etc., all quite personal questions. When
I reached that point in thinking about the emails, I quit smiling.
However, although I see how much liberties we have lost with all
these security measures, I would not like to bord a plane without
them.
>From the emails it is not completely clear whether in the US it is a
government requirement to show your id at check-in or only a measure
by the airlines. But, assuming the latter, to give the discussion a
different twist, does anybody question that you have to show an id at
the bank at an introductory visit? Or when you write a check? The
necessity is seen by most people. But what is the difference to the
airline? (By the way, I remember when I lived in the US for a year,
how surprised I was that one Id (in this case my passport) was not
sufficient to open a bank account. I had to bring a second one. The
clerk told me condescendingly that my passport could be forged at
every corner. I still don't know if everybody had to bring 2 Ids or
only people without a US-American driver's license. I was completely
taken aback, my passport was certainly harder to forge than a
driver's license. )
Even if the airline really only want to put a lid on 'mis-use' of
frequent flyers, does not have the company a right to specify the
conditions under which it sells its product to the costumer as it
wants? If the costumer does not want the product under these
conditions, it does not have to buy it after all. And, it does not
necessarily impair the 'license to travel'. There are still the
possibilites to go by train, car or coach or on foot (yes, I know, it
is more time-consuming).
Of course, the companies have to keep within certain rules
(no exclusion based on race, gender, handicap, sexuality, political
opinion, etc.) besides the rules established as business standard.
IMO, that 'passenger profiling' Chuck (?) has mentioned certainly
impairs civil rights in an unacceptable way.
Petra
** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de **
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:39 PDT