Another EPIC saga

The case of Gilmore v. Ashcroft, now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is one of those that leaves you scratching your head because it seems like such a no-brainer that you can't imagine why it's even an issue.

On July 4, 2002, John Gilmore went to Oakland International Airport. He had a ticket in his own name with Southwest Airlines to Baltimore-Washington International Airport. ...

John politely refused to show his ID and was not allowed to fly.

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly. ...

At San Francisco's airport, just like the rest of the country's airports, there was a sign that began "A Notice From the Federal Aviation Administration" and includes the sentence "passengers must present identification upon initial check-in."

John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn't see them. These secret directives, issued by the Transportation Security Administration, are revised as often as weekly, and are transmitted orally rather than in writing. To make things even more confusing, these orally transmitted secret rules change depending on the airport.

EPIC picks up the story, noting that

Gilmore argues that the requirement [to show ID] violates numerous constitutional protections, including the rights to travel, petition and freely assemble, be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and have access to due process of law.

Mr. Gilmore is challenging the dismissal of his case in March by a federal district court. In that proceeding, the government not only refused to provide the court with the text of the law or regulation requiring airline passengers to show identification, but declined even to acknowledge whether the requirement exists. Furthermore, the district court judge accepted the government's assurance that the court did not have jurisdiction to review the law or regulation, failing to independently determine the legal basis for that claim. [Emphasis added.]

That is, people are being required to show proof of identity based on secret directives based on laws or regulations the very existence of which the government will not acknowledge! Now, a certain amount of secret information, that I can buy. Secret directives under very limited conditions, even that I suppose maybe I could see.

But secret laws? And a court - any court - agreed?

Unbelievable. We are at a dangerous point, perhaps even a tipping point. I don't like what I see. At some blue moments like this, I'm glad I'm the age I am so that I will very likely not live to see the world of 50 years in the future.

EPIC's amicus brief in the case is here in .pdf format; their page about travel privacy issues is here.