DHS: "Prior Governent Permission" rules for fliers, invasive dossiers
Destiny says:
The Department of Homeland Security quietly moves closer to an invasive "Secure Flights" proposal that requires government-issued credentials for all air travelers -- and government permission for each flight! International "Advance Passenger Information System" rules were published Monday (effective February of 2008), making the U.S. version much more likely to pass.LinkThe proposed rules also let airlines retain the information obtained, even after it's been passed it on to the government. "The Identity Group" discovered that the U.S. government's travel dossier records include everything -- the books travelers were carrying, the phone numbers of their friends, and even whether they asked for one bed or two in their hotel room.
the latest
latest episodes
Ihre Papiere, bitte!
Why? You already know where I'm going.
When the National ID goes into effect you will need government permission (in the form of the ID) to cross state lines or enter Federal lands or buildings, including Federal Parks. No ID = no entry.
Does it smell like fascism yet?
The title "Prior Governent Permission" is mispelled. Noen, actually many European countries already use national IDs. For many purposes they make things less rather than more inconvenient. There are serious worries (such as ID theft and surveillance) but the notion that you will need an ID to cross state lines is ridiculous; the only thing I can think of that's more ridiculous is to compare these restrictions to facism.
I at least don't see much of a problem with requiring ID for flights aside from it being uneccessary and inefficient. Letting the airlines keep extensive data seems like much more of a concern.
Twenty years ago, the idea you'd need government permission to fly would have been ridiculous. Do you care to place bets on the same applying to cross state lines (except that it's (currently) unconstitutional to restrict interstate commerce)?
Three weeks ago, the idea you'd need ID to visit a federal park would have seemed ridiculous. Come to think of it -- it still is.
There's a lot of incompetent people making a lot of money on this crap.
Also, I take exception to it being ridiculous to compare this with fascism (or even with facism). You need to detect fascism early if you want to get out before the borders close.
Identity and safety have NOTHING to do with each other. Osama bin Laden could fly in any airplane so long as he's not carrying a bomb, knife, gun, etc.
Why so much emphasis on identifying people rather than screening more than, what, 10% of the luggage? Nearly all reports indicate that screening for dangerous items is completely ineffective, yet the focus is still on monitoring and restricting the movement of people.
I don't think you have to be paranoid to see an ulterior motive here.
Michael, it is unconstitutional for states to restrict interstate commerce (and even that isn't strictly speaking true. There are many conflicting rulings about what precisely is entailed by the dormant commerce clause). There is nothing unconstitutional about the federal government restricting interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Remember, stupidity is not unconstitutional.
JoshuaZ - Sure, with a less insane, power driven and sociopathic administration I would be less concerned. But as far as needing the National ID to cross state lines or to enter federal property including parks, that isn't my idea. That is a direct quote of DHS.
Our political, educational and health systems are broken. I just hope Bush brings his guitar to California. Maybe he can sing a song.
Soo...I wonder how long it is going to take people to go to the airport and refuse to comply? Or refuse to comply when crossing a state border?
Oh, wait, the blog was saying that being "outraged" was an appropriate response. Wow. I bet the guys at DHS are just quivering in their combat boots over that one. I bet they are just floored that someone on a blog (they wouldn't read unless it got flagged somehow) is outraged. That's going to change everything. Yep. In fact, I bet if a thousand blogs started spinning outrage for a thousand days over this issue, I am sure that the folks at DHS would be just overwhelmed and unable to cope.
Then again, say you do refuse to comply when entering an airport, or park, or crossing a state line. Would they really care if they arrested you, and then sent you off incommunicado to stand secret trial? Nope, probably not. No, indeedy not. Just another nut, off to get cracked.
I wonder, what is THE appropriate response when someone who views you as less than human takes away your human rights? And that of your friends, and neighbors, and children? Somehow, until I start seeing THAT response, I won't be caring much about how "outraged" people are, either.
Good point Bill. It is a bit disheartening to think that there is no appropriate response that doesn't take great courage and a large gamble.
I'm sorry JoshuaZ, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
The DHS is dangerous. If you think that fascism cannot happen in the US, you are not correct and have read no history. It not only is possible, it's actually happening.
I was in the USSR in the 1970s, and let me tell you, I'm starting to see a lot of parallels. Random check points, the complete freedom of the government to spy on anyone they wanted to with no repercussions. Secret laws. Any of that sound familiar?
In the USSR, you needed 'papers' to move between the provinces. Here, you will need papers to fly, but other movement will soon be restricted. If you don't want a revolution, you have to do things in small doses, otherwise the sheep get upset and bolt.
If you aren't alarmed by what's going on in the US. you are either part of the problem or blind. Part of that "If you have nothing to hide..." group. Friends who visit Europe are telling me they certainly aren't laughing, or at least, the Germans aren't.
According to "practical nomad" - which is where the original research if being done (his first post about this is in 2006), travelers would need permission to travel - both domestically and internationally. This is such a bad idea. For one thing, government bureaucracies never move fast. You need a last minute flight to go to funeral? Or a spontaneous trip? Or a last-minute business meeting? Good luck with that. The national ID is problem, but the bigger problem in my eyes is the needed permission to travel. This is insane and stinks of totalitarianism. I remembering reading the Federal Register when this idea was proposed and my eyes popping out! This couldn't be true - they couldn't honestly be proposing this idea. But, sadly, it is and they are. I just hope congress doesn't cave, yet again and implement this horrible idea.
From his blog post in September 2007, "The Secure Flight proposal would apply to domestic flights the same requirements for government-issued travel credentials and individualized, explicit, prior, per-flight permission to travel ("clearance") as the DHS plans to apply to international flights under its "international Advanced Passenger Information System" (APIS) rules."
I think that people are a lot more upset and angry about this than is commonly accepted- but what can you do? Can't vote it away, can't fight it without being disappeared, can't emigrate (nobody wants us.)
It is the very definition of fascism when you need state permission to move about or freely associate, when you're spied on in the streets and in your home, and when you're subject to search just about anywhere you happen to go.
And just in case we won't accept it as a safeguiard against terrorism, or to "protect" voting, it's all about nasty illegal aliens taking our healthcare and lettuce-picking jobs.
It can happen here. But when it does, you'll be stuck over there.