No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly

from the national-security dept

Thu, Jul 1st 2010 10:01am — Mike Masnick

Apparently ten people who claim that they're on the official US government "No Fly" list have sued the US government, claiming that it's illegal to be on such a list where there's no way for them to confront their accusers or get themselves off of the list. Some of the people in the lawsuit are US citizens and military veterans. There's a great quote about how these people are "too scary to fly but not scary enough to arrest." It does seem like a valid question, but legally I doubt the case will go anywhere. The government will claim national security, and that will basically be that.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: civil rights, no fly

73 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Richard (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:10am

Previous post
They could always buy one of those flying cars.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:11am

Well fuck 'em.
If they can't come up with a reason to keep them off flights (which is pretty much necessary for any sufficiently advanced position) then don't.

Goddamn, it's stunning to me how much we've gone tits-up to the powers that be over the past twenty years. Where's your spines, people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny, 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:20am

I agree...
I think that when you are put on something as major as a list that means you cannot fly those on the list should be told why they are on the list and have some recourse for getting off the list (and this is the not the first list we've seen that can cause life changing damage but have no way to get off of it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:27am

We need something like cap and trade
I have no desire to fly, since the TSA, it is more bother than it is worth. So if I could take someone place on the list for money or other consideration.......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mojo, 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:36am

The whole concept of "no fly" is questionable anyway... so basically, the airlines are trying to say "we can't do our job and clearly our security is a failure so we're going to just keep people off our planes altogether."

I mean come on, the "underwear bomber" raised every red flag possible (most notably paying cash for a one way ticket) and no one stopped HIM for further questioning?

The airline's efforts should be directed towards basic common sense at the security level, not a mysterious list that is supposed to make us THINK we're keeping bad guys off the plane.

If security was even passable, we wouldn't need a list. Everyone who was a true threat to the plane would be stopped before getting on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:44am

Mike Masnick: "The government will claim national security, and that will basically be that."

I would be ashamed to be a citizen of a country in which a jury would allow that.

Danny: "I think that... those on the list should be told why they are on the list and have some recourse for getting off the list"

No good: you are on the list because your name is similar to the name of a criminal, and if you want to get off the list just fill out these forms (no mistakes or you'll have to start over), agree to abide by our decision, sign away your right to legal action and ask us very nicely. On your knees.

ChurchHatesTucker: "Goddamn, it's stunning to me how much we've gone tits-up to the powers that be over the past twenty years..."

It certainly is. For a while I thought it was an age thing, that anyone who had spent time as a child listening to The Lone Ranger would immediately recognize the "no fly" list as an unamerican outrage, but then I began meeting people older than myself who bellyfeel all of this War on Terror nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:44am

Re: Well fuck 'em.
If our government is going to be as bad as those they suppress then what's the point of suppressing anyone? The point of suppressing others from taking over is to protect our freedoms, if we have to give up our freedoms to protect them then what's the point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:45am

Schneier
If you read Schneier's blog you will know that he has been picking holes in this stupidity for years - here is a bit of fun...

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/tsa_logo_contes.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:48am

Can't they just seek a declaratory judgment saying they're allowed on those flights?

Or maybe they can simply change their names, that always seems to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kyle, 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Well fuck 'em.
Fool, because there's money to be made by suppressing other governments.

Go watch "Thank you for smoking" and go reflect on how the movie isn't really about smoking, but about lying and "paying the mortgage".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Gizzi (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:52am

Constitutional Right?
They're arguing they have a constitutional right to fly and I don't know if you do. While I'm no Constitutional scholar, I don't remember reading in any text of one's right to fly. Now, you *might* be able to argue against due process and similar themes but there's no crime here.

Moreover, the lack of one's authorization to fly doesn't prevent someone from traveling - just not by air. There are other ways to return to the country and there's no "no drive" or "no sail" list. Yeah, its a burden but as long as they have valid US passports, they shouldn't be denied entry into the country. Sail to New York City from England; fly to Mexico and drive in. Fly using carriers not bound by US law or FAA regulation. Seriously, am I the only one who thinks of this?

I agree that the "no fly" list is rubbish and doesn't work in the least. But these odd "rights" that people think they have, have to go... driving is not a right - flying is not a right.

You have something to cry about when they come up with a "no travel anywhere anytime list" without being indicted for a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:59am

Re: Constitutional Right?
I hope you get put on a no drive or fly list one day. We'll see how you like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:04am

Re: Constitutional Right?
By that reasoning, if the government bars you from traveling by any means other than goose-drawn dirigible, your rights have not been infringed.

Freedom to travel is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, but that does not mean that it is not a right (see 9th amendment), and I would hope that any U.S. court would defend it. My guess is that the government will fight hard to prevent the matter from going to court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:07am

is flying a right or a priviledge?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: Re: Well fuck 'em.
The poor people of one country are sent to fight the poor people of another country to benefit the rich people of both countries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:08am

Re: Constitutional Right?
They're arguing they have a constitutional right to fly and I don't know if you do.

I believe that the argument is based the constitutional right to be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" (Sixth Amendment) rather that a specific "right to fly".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:09am

Mc Carthyism runs rampant in the halls...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:14am

Re:
"Can't they just seek a declaratory judgment saying they're allowed on those flights?

Like what Ted Kennedy did? If the list is valid, how can a judge overrule it? And if a judge has the power to do that, why not ask to have the whole list abolished?

"Or maybe they can simply change their names, that always seems to work.

Would you change yours, if it appeared on the list?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:16am

Re: I agree...
I think that when you are put on something as major as a list that means you cannot fly those on the list should be told why they are on the list and have some recourse for getting off the list

Agreed. In fact, I think this is the key distinction between this situation and your run-of-the-mill national security issue. I have no idea of there is a legal foundation for this opinion, but I think that because these people are being restricted from a certain activity, instead of just trying to get the government to divulge information it has on them, the government should not be able to invoke national security. If the no-fly list were instead used by some government agency to monitor people's travel, this would be a passive action and should be covered by the national security justification. But because it's an active action, preventing flying on a commercial plane, I think it should be treated the same as being accused of a crime i.e. the Sixth Amendment should apply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike C. (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:28am

Re:
I would be ashamed to be a citizen of a country in which a jury would allow that.

I think the point Mike wanted to make includes that it will never even get in front of a jury in the first place. The gov't will move for dismissal on the basis of national security and the judge will likely grant it, with prejudice.

/wish it weren't so
//cynical? Me? Nahhhhhhh... :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Gizzi (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:31am

Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
You make a very valid point in bringing up the 9th Amendment which I did forget about. But I don't see the method of travel (other than individual propulsion) as being a right whereas the travel itself I consider a fundamental right of personal freedom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Gizzi (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:39am

Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
I made a brief mention of due process and similar themes in my comment. And I'd hope that's how they argue their case because not being read the charges against them and not being able to confront their accusers seems to be the most egregious act of this whole thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike C. (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:46am

Re: Re:
I wonder if a name change would even work or if they'd just add the new name to the list. If so, maybe a few "choice" name changes would be in order.... say:

Robert S Mueller III (Director of the FBI)

John S. Pistole (Deputy Director of the FBI and current TSA administrator)

Then pick a few prominent people or celebrites. For example, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, William Gates, Stephen King, Robert Pattinson, Gwen Stefani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Angelina Jolie, etc. Load up that list with a whole bunch of names that don't belong there but also have a public audience.

Of course, it'll never happen, so we're stuck with the current mess. Oh well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
redwall_hp (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:52am

Well, it is entirely unconstitutional, isn't it? The Bill of Rights spells it out pretty well. You have the right to know what you're accused of and to confront your accuser in court. The "No Fly List" is secret and there is no accountability for the people who might add you to it. Claiming "national security" as a magic loophole for everything is just bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:55am

Re: Re: I agree...
, I think it should be treated the same as being accused of a crime i.e. the Sixth Amendment should apply.

Heh, even the constitution doesn't apply if the gov't utters the magic words "national security".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
redwall_hp (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: Well fuck 'em.
A wise man (Benjamin Franklin) once said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Sadly, the general public seems all to willing to give up their basic rights—rights the Constitution and its amendments are supposed to protect—for a false sense of security.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:59am

Right to ...
The entire argument of 'there is no right to' whatever is completely bogus.

There are no right's enumerated in the constitution because the constitution does not enumerate any rights. The constitution enumerates the powers granted to the government by the governed.

The biggest problem in my mind is we've completely steamrolled over the 10th amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

although the 9th amendment is also fairly relevent here
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
See my goose-drawn dirigible argument above: if travel is a fundamental right, but the government can bar you (not everyone, just you) from any particular mode of travel, then it is a right in name only.

This isn't really about travel anyway it's about equality. This is a law that applies to some people but not to others, which I find really offensive. I don't want people to be taken off the list, I don't want the so-called recourse process to be improved, I want the list abolished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:01pm

Re: Constitutional Right?
They're arguing they have a constitutional right to fly and I don't know if you do.

I don't think they're arguing a constitutional right to fly. The question is whether or not the gov't has the right to block them from flying without telling them why. Not quite the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:03pm

The Government Should ...
The government should let anyone contest the no-fly restriction in person. In the US at the nearest federal court or abroad at the nearest US embassy. Have FBI agents or an anti-terrorism team interview them. Then the government has a chance to see and talk to the genuine terrorists, even if there isn't the evidence to arrest them, and the falsely accused have a chance to get it set straight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:05pm

Re:
I would be ashamed to be a citizen of a country in which a jury would allow that.

It's not the juries, it's the judges. They probably wouldn't even let it get to a jury in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kyle, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:06pm

Re: Re: I agree...
More on that. If the person is deemed unfit to fly for being dangerous, shouldn't the person be detained by the police? If the police has no grounds for doing so, then TSA should have no business preventing people from flying.

This is a failure of the legal system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
posing as TSA, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:10pm

Don't worry people, we're been learning with the RIAA. We'll change the name of the "No-fly list" to "Happy land-dwellers". People will love our change to the name of the policy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:13pm

Re:
Mr. McCarthy is laughing in his grave...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
You're right that due process and the right to confront accusers are very important, but there is something even more fundamental involved: rule of law. It's not just that the people who have been barred from flying haven't had a fair trial, it's that they haven't been accused of anything! There is no criminal law on the books with a mandatory sentence of "barred from flight on commercial airlines for life".

(And don't forget that the list is a list of names, not of people. That's a crucial point that a lot of people miss.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:24pm

Re: The Government Should ...
Sure thing, citizen. Just show up on this date, wait for a few hours in the lobby, then fill out this 200 page form, and then you can come into the courtroom and beg to be allowed to fly. Then go home, and maybe someday we'll get back to you.

Seriously, if you want the government to provide a protocol by which an individual can petition to maybe, in theory, eventually be allowed to fly again, you are missing the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
No offense, but I honestly believe that you are making an unstated (and perhaps unconscious) assumption: that a stated reason would be valid according to some standard. "Because your name is similar to the name of a suspected criminal" is a reason, and in many (most? all?) cases the real reason, but I don't think that would satisfy you. You have a standard in mind, you want it to be enforced, and it must be reasonable, and that's called LAW.

To ask for a reason before that standard is in place is to tacitly grant the DHS the power to do whatever thinks best.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
unusableOtter, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
I'm certainly no expert on the fifth amendment, but this has all the key hallmarks of being a regulatory taking.

Specifically, the government has to pay you if they deprive you of your land or your liberty, and so while these folks may not have any way of getting off the no-fly list, they should be entitled to compensation, under the fifth amendment, in the same way that a landowner who has his land seized by the government is entitled to fair compensation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:53pm

Re:
FYI, I'm pretty sure that's not the airlines making those decisions. Replace the word "airlines" with "government" and I pretty much agree with what you say, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
@Mike: "The question is whether or not the gov't has the right to block them from flying without telling them why."

Isn't quite the most transparent gov. in history Obama promised, is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:59pm

Government stance:
National Security
National Security
National Security
National Security
*GASP*
National Security
National Security
National Security
National Security
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 1:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
So, as long as you're allowed to walk, everything is alright and no right have been infringed? Nobody is stopping you at any checkpoint, it's just that for any intents and purpose, you've been deprived of any practical modern way of travel. You need to travel to the other side of the country? No problem, just walk there! It'll take you a few months, maybe a year, tops. Your job will probably be waiting for you when you came back.

Communication/free speech is a right? Yes? But maybe you can be put on a "no writing list", so you can still walk up to people and talk to them. Just not type them an email or write for a newspaper or send a telegram. How would you like that? Or kicked off the internet, which many are trying to do. Add you to the "no phone list" too. After all, telephones probably weren't what the "founding fathers" were thinking about, so it's OK to ban you from using one. They're not taking away your vocal cords or preventing you from using sign language!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 1:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
Of course, that's what happened! Obama did it! It was all fine with Bush...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 1:16pm

Re:
A privilege that, if removed, can cause unnecessary hardship and restrictions on innocent people.

Consider this: your IP address looks like one a terrorist used to plot a bombing. Your internet connection is a privilege. You don't mind that being removed, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
But surely that should only be part of the process? Once people are flagged and they are proven innocent, they should be able to be removed from the list or otherwise flagged as legitimate.

I'm not only talking about fairness here but a list that flags up hundreds or thousands of random innocent people, over and over again, is pretty much useless when it comes to fingering actual security risks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mischab1, 1 Jul 2010 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
It's not that Obama did it, it's that we were expecting Obama to fix a lot of these types of issues and he hasn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 2:03pm

I believe that somewhere someone said that the right to come and go was inalienable and I think it was one of the founding fathers what happen to those principals?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 2:04pm

The entire US government is the stupidest bunch of turds in the punch bowl
And believe me, there are a lot of stupid turds in the punch bowl, but these dunces take the cake. Their rationale for everything they do is "National Security", which when it is as abused as it currently is, translates to "Because I said so". I have simply got to get the hell out of here while I still can, before the Fourth Reich is officially installed for the next thousand years, and the new Berlin Wall goes up at the borders, keeping all of our sorry asses confined to the wonderful USA Workers' Paradise.

It doesn't even seem to matter who is voted into office anymore, and probably hasn't for at least 50 years, because the real power in this country is completely unelected, and exists solely to propagate itself for eternity. What a fascist shit-hole we have become! When these psychotic idiots start putting toddlers on their list, you know we are doomed as a nation, because legions of pathological psychotic idiots are running everything, and elections are just window dressing to keep the roiling masses placated with the ludicrous idea that they actually have a say in the governance of the country.

Enjoy the sheer wretchedness of the rest of your lives here, but I am not going to hang around to see the delayed fulfillment of George Orwell's worst nightmares. Maybe see you in the Bahamas, or Antarctica, or any place where this Alice in Wonderland reality hasn't yet taken root. I wonder when they're going to re-name the DHS goons "Volkspolizei"? Give it time. I have given it too much already, so take the money and run is my new mantra.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Teddy Bear, 1 Jul 2010 @ 2:07pm

Freedom of movement.
"Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Bush raped the constitution and Obama is partaking on it too now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Teddy Bear, 1 Jul 2010 @ 2:10pm

Freedom of movement.
"Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Bush raped the constitution and Obama is partaking on it too now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jul 2010 @ 2:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
Let me get this straight. You want a system in which you can be deprived of your civil rights unless/until you prove your innocence, and all you want is... what? a promise that if you do so your name will be removed from the list and not put back on for at least a month?

(And yes, the list is useless from a security standpoint.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sefu, 1 Jul 2010 @ 2:23pm

Re: Constitutional Right?
Isn't that what this is. No fly means no travel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 3:14pm

Re: Re:
yeah, i would have no problem, i would move to another ip address. what is your point? using the standard techdirt tortured logic, ip addresses are not ways to identify anyone, but names and date of birth are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Well fuck 'em.
ben franklin also has been dead for a very, very long time, and his comments were made without consideration for the times we live in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re: Re: I agree...
I agree completely, except that I'd say "arrested", not "detained".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well fuck 'em.
And he's also on the $100 bill. Coincidence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re:
"Would you change yours, if it appeared on the list?"

My statement was meant to show the absurdity of our legal system and the fact that it does nothing to stop terrorists.

Heck, a terrorist would probably be more willing to change his/her name than a normal citizen. That's kinda the point I was trying to make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
Wow, this comment looks like something you would write on a Thursday.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 4:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps terrorists should consider acquiring high profile names.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement, 1 Jul 2010 @ 4:51pm

You would think that the government would want people to come forward and 'prove' that they do not belong on the no-fly list so the DHS and the TSA can direct their limited resources on real terrorists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 8:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well fuck 'em.
Just because something is old doesn't make it any less relevant today. The sun is old; I guess it doesn't count for shit anymore either...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
Well, I would also prefer it if the list was removed altogether. But, if the list has to exist, there should be a system in place where the wrongfully accused should only have to prove their innocence once - not every time they wish to fly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:25am

Re: Re: Re:
I said "internet connection", moron, not "IP address". The IP address would be used as justification for kicking you off the internet.

"ip addresses are not ways to identify anyone, but names and date of birth are"

Well, I'll remember that next time you support people being sued for "piracy" with only an IP address to identify them.

But, if you knew anything about this list, you'll know that dates of birth are often NOT listed (leading to hilarious situations where small children have been temporarily detained). All this has is a list of names, which are sometimes shared by many thousands of people. It's useless, much like yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RT Cunningham (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 2:46am

Re: The entire US government is the stupidest bunch of turds in the punch bowl
I already did and I live in the Philippines! You can read or hear news of how bad it is here, but you'll find a lot less government anything here than in Hicktown, USA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DonV (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 5:49am

Money in this country is the big dog …really all you have to do is pay the right person/s and ta-da your in the plane
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 9:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well fuck 'em.
True. In Franklin's day, terrorism was an even larger threat. The odds of you being the victim of a terrorist attack now are orders of magnitude lower than they were then.

The issues we deal with now are not different in nature from the ones they were dealing with then, across the board. I can't think of a single example of a "new" problem that had no analogue in any part of this nation's history.

Franklin would understand our times much more completely than we understand his.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 2 Jul 2010 @ 10:27am

Re:
It is certainly not a right.

However, that is not the point. This is a case of the government taking away a a privilege without due process.

They can take away your driver's license, but not on a whim and without any way of confronting them and fighting to get it back (not to mention a way to prevent it from being taken in the first place).

The no-fly list is secret - so you don't know you are on it until you are stopped at the airport and prevented from leaving on an airplane (which can be of significant cost). There is no appeals process to try to get yourself off of the list even if you happen to be on the list by mistake.

This is a loss of liberty without due process issue that should be fought - as Mike pointed out, it may be pretty much impossible to win, but it should be questioned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 9:36pm

Re:
"The airline's efforts should be directed towards basic common sense at the security level, not a mysterious list that is supposed to make us THINK we're keeping bad guys off the plane."

Agreed, look at Israel, better security with less hassle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 3 Jul 2010 @ 9:39am

Re:
> I would be ashamed to be a citizen of a country in which a jury
> would allow that.

A jury would never even get to make that decision. A jury decides guilt or lack thereof (or in a civil case, liability or lack thereof). They don't get to decide whether suits can proceed or not based on national security.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 3 Jul 2010 @ 9:43am

Re: Constitutional Right?
> I agree that the "no fly" list is rubbish and doesn't work in the least.
> But these odd "rights" that people think they have, have to go...
> driving is not a right - flying is not a right.

The Founders disagreed:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 3 Jul 2010 @ 9:46am

Re: Constitutional Right?
> While I'm no Constitutional scholar, I don't remember reading in any
> text of one's right to fly

Well, there's this bit from Article I, Section 9:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Seems like singling out certain individuals (as opposed to passing laws that affect everyone equally) is the very definition of a bill of attainder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, constitutional right, 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:10pm

Re: Constitutional Right?
STFU and learn you moron, To wit:

---

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

---

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

---

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777

---

"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose."

Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

---

"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

---

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

---

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

---

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."

Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

---

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

---

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

---

"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

---

Have you learnt yet, or will I have to continue living with the tyrannies your ignorance enables?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 1:24pm

Re: Constitutional Right?
The pursuit of happiness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]