John Gilmore challenged the airport security to show him the law that requires him to display identification before he could board a plane. There supposedly is a law that requires it, but it is a secret law . Fundamental to democracy is that laws must occupy the public space. This is a candidate for a Bill of Rights.

Sensitive Security Information

Gilmore founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an activist, advocacy organization with is devoted to the protecting the openness of technology through supporting digital freedom and rights. They have been involved in many important court cases dealing with copyright, censorship and patents.

John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.

The gate agent asked for his ID.

Gilmore asked her why.

It is the law, she said.

Gilmore asked to see the law.

Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is "Sensitive Security Information." The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection.

The same story as told in the opening brief, as there are some differences in the opening summary of the article to the statement of facts ;

At the Southwest check-in line, Mr. Gilmore was asked for his identification. He politely declined. The Southwest clerk told him that he could not fly without producing an ID because of "a[n] FAA security requirement." The clerk then told Mr Gilmore that if he did not wish to show ID, he could instead be screened at the gate before boarding the aircraft.

Mr.Gilmore then went through the airport x-ray security and when presenting his boarding pass at the departure gate, Mr. Gilmore was again asked for his ID. Mr. Gilmore declined politely and asked if the requirement was based on governmental law or airline policy. The Southwest agent at the gate replied that it was a governmental law. Another Southwest employee informed Mr. Gilmore that he had to show a government-issued picture ID or he could not board the plane.

When he discovered he couldn't fly on Southwest without an ID he went to the ticket counter to get a United Airlines ticket instead. There he inquired about their need for ID. he was told he could not show ID but would searched more. Gilmore refused.

Later, the United Security agent told Mr. Gilmore that there were security directives, but that he could not show them to Mr. Gilmore. He stated that these directives are from TSA to United and that these directives are revised as often as weekly, and are transmitted orally to the airline. United Security also stated that these orally transmitted rules are different in different airports, resulting in varying enforcement and a major training problem, as airline employees are trained in the local procedures in one place and then interact with the public in other locations.

The crux of the issue is this line from the statement of facts;

The alleged federal law requiring the airlines to request ID from their passengers is unpublished and secret. Despite the secret nature of the law, the airlines have been mandated by the federal government to advise air travelers that the law requires them to show identification.

The Grievances

The grievances in this case are attempts to bring it to the notice of the court. Such as need an ID violating the right of assembly and duress. Showing an ID violate the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Nowhere in the case are they able to ask, "Are secret laws unconstitutional". The closest grievance is;

Does the secrecy of the Government's requirement that a passenger show ID in order to fly violate the passenger's right to due process.

Who's issue is this? It is obviously the Legislatures, they should not be able to make secret laws. But the Legislature is more and more unaccountable. That Gilmore has gone to the Judicial over this suggests that he expects a fairer hearing when airing his grievances from the Judicial, than the Legislative.

Public Laws and Rights

I think this issue is of sufficient cause and concern to be a candidate for addition to Avocadia's Australian Bill of Rights . Something along the lines of; All laws shall be made public and reviewable by those that are subject to them. No law will be encumbered by process, such as copyright, which restricts the ability to access, disseminate and distribute these laws.

cam