I totally agree.

Bruce

I think you are exactly right given so many outlets to sell and re-sell goods and services now via the internet. What is amazing to me though is I am 34 and still remember when you didn't have to show ID at check in or to board a flight and actually once sold a return on a ticket I didnt' need in the newspaper.

I have never believed showing an ID adds to safety when traveleing but do believe it is something the airlines would never allow to go away.

Because there wasn't the storage capacity to record them? Because networks were analog? Because people rarely made long-distance or international calls and no-one was that interested in reading pages of local numbers? Because there was no competition so even if you knew what your rates were you still couldn't find a cheaper service? To stop people finding out about their extra-marital affairs (the French myth)?

I think you're gonna have to be a bit more explicit - maybe everyone else gets it but I have to confess I am still in the dark!

Requiring identification was a very touchy subject in some European countries for a long time because the Germans implemented just this requirement in '40-'45 (called an 'ausweiss'). Not complying was an offence that could result in deportation or even death. It was also meant to aid in rounding up Jews and other groups.

In some countries idenitficaiton requirements (especially if it is blanket) still stokes a bitter discussion as there are enough people left who remember.

Where? I thought it was pretty much just UK & Ireland that don't have compulsory ID cards now and they were never occupied. (The UK had compulsory ID cards during WW2).

That's your choice, and I respect that choice.

All I'm asking is that each passenger be allowed to make the choice for themselves -- and not have the federal government impose something on them against their will.

Okay, I'll bite. How is it an imposition when you are perfectly free not to fly? Nobody is forcing you to do something against your will. If you want to ski, you must put on skis. Is that an imposition against your will, if you would rather ski without them?

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose that ten years from now, the street corners are rife with police checkpoints, and the police demand that all pedestrians must present their "papers" for inspection and must submit to a search of their person. Will you tell me that these ID checks are perfectly voluntarily? After all, if I want to avoid the "voluntary" ID checks, all I have to do is never leave my home. After all, I'm perfectly free to stay in my home my entire life; if the government deems that by leaving my house, I have implicitly consented to allowing the police to search me at any time, for any reason, well, what possible grounds for unhappiness could I possibly have? How can this be an imposition when I am perfectly free never to leave my home?

I hope this thought experiment illustrates the flaw in your argument, by magnifying the illogic enough that it is blatantly obvious that such logic leads to absurd conclusions.

The point is that "just don't fly" isn't a meaningful option for many of us. And it's not "just don't fly" -- if you want to avoid ID checks, don't take the bus; don't take the train; don't drive. What does that leave? The alternatives are dwindling day by day.

Perhaps you are prepared to argue that if I want to fly, then I have to "voluntarily" relinquish my civil liberties. Personally, I find that notion obnoxious and unjust. (If showing ID actually were effective at preventing terrorism, then that would be different. But right now the ID checks are pointless security theatre.)

I am perfectly free not to eat too. So should I be denied the right to buy groceries or go to a restaurant unless I present ID since no one is stopping me from becoming a farmer?

An ID demand to live a normal life -- and flying is a part of normal life for me and many others here -- in MY OWN COUNTRY is ridiculous.

The countries "we" "liberated" have compulsory ID cards? Not everywhere. Most Afghans wouldn't go for it if it came from the national government or outside.

Ahh, my apologies -- I didn't mean to be so obscure.

Hitler used records from many businesses to round up subversives. This was possible since businesses kept many records (were there phone records at the time? beats me).

For a long time after the fall of Nazi Germany, there was a lot of sensitivity about these kind of data retention issues. As I understand it, many phone companies refrained from keeping any logs on who their customers called, to prevent their records from being abused in that way every again. One of the consequences of this policy was that, for many decades, their customers didn't get itemized bills showing who they had called that month (unlike in the US, where phone companies keep these records freely, and each month you receive a bill showing all the phone numbers you have called).

These data protection sensitivities may have subsided somewhat. I don't know whether many Europeans still receive unitemized phone bills -- but for many decades, phone bills in many countries were not itemized for exactly this reason. It was considered good civic hygiene to avoid unnecessarily establishing systems of records that could be used to facilitate the rise of a police state.

The analogy to airline travel is this: If I have to show my ID, I have to tell the airline my real name; if I have to tell the airline my real name, the airline will have it in its databases; if airlines are like other businesses in the US, they might keep these records forever; and these records would be a treasure trove for any future "police state" government that wanted to track down dissidents, subversives, and anyone they viewed as a threat. Am I suggesting our current government is doing this, or would do this? No. But once you've given up privacy rights, it's usually very hard to get them back.

For example: Did you know that the FAA's requirements for checking ID were originally justified as a response to the TWA 800 "bombing"? What bombing, you say? Exactly! You may remember that one of the early theories about the TWA 800 crash was that it was the result of a terrorist bombing. This was used as a justification for creating federal photo ID requirements for all aviation passengers. After the ID check was imposed, it was subsequently discovered that the TWA 800 crash was probably not a terrorist incident after all (but instead was likely due to a spark in a fuel tank). Was the photo ID requirement eliminated after that was discovered? Not a chance!

It's a lot easier to lose privacy than to regain it.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose that ten years from now, the street corners are rife with police checkpoints, and the police demand that all pedestrians must present their "papers" for inspection and must submit to a search of their person. Will you tell me that these ID checks are perfectly voluntarily? After all, if I want to avoid the "voluntary" ID checks, all I have to do is never leave my home. After all, I'm perfectly free to stay in my home my entire life; if the government deems that by leaving my house, I have implicitly consented to allowing the police to search me at any time, for any reason, well, what possible grounds for unhappiness could I possibly have? How can this be an imposition when I am perfectly free never to leave my home?

Ask me again when it happens.

The point is that "just don't fly" isn't a meaningful option for many of us. And it's not "just don't fly" -- if you want to avoid ID checks, don't take the bus; don't take the train; don't drive. What does that leave? The alternatives are dwindling day by day.

Why isn't it a meaningful option? Life is a series of choices. I make mine and you make yours. If you don't like the ones you're making, make others.

Perhaps you are prepared to argue that if I want to fly, then I have to "voluntarily" relinquish my civil liberties. Personally, I find that notion obnoxious and unjust. (If showing ID actually were effective at preventing terrorism, then that would be different. But right now the ID checks are pointless security theatre.)

What civil liberties are you relinquishing by flying? You're going where you want to go, when you want to go (unless you're flying USAir). Is there some codicil in the constitution that says you don't have to identify yourself? I admit I am not a scholar, but I missed it if it's there.

I am perfectly free not to eat too. So should I be denied the right to buy groceries or go to a restaurant unless I present ID since no one is stopping me from becoming a farmer?

An ID demand to live a normal life -- and flying is a part of normal life for me and many others here -- in MY OWN COUNTRY is ridiculous.

Your definition of normal might be different from others'. Must they bow to yours? And that MY OWN COUNTRY thing sounds a lot like LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.

It's fun talking about, but I couldn't care less if ID is required to fly or not. I take very little offense at other people's behavior, unless harms me or my family or my property. Want me to flash a little card so I can ride on the big airplane? Sure...

If you don't understand why "don't fly, don't take a bus, don't take the train, don't drive" isn't a meaningful option, then I probably won't be able to explain it to you in any way that will convince you.

The right to travel around the country freely, without being forced to submit to unnecessary "papers, please" checkpoints.

Whether or not this is a Constitutional right (under the US Constitution), I think it is a civil liberty.

We could spend all day arguing over how the Constitution should be interpreted, but the Constitution is not the be-all and end-all of civil liberties. There are civil liberties that I consider damn important, but that are not explicitly listed anywhere in the Constitution.

That's fine. It's your right to not give a damn. I respect that, and I would defend your right to show ID if you prefer. All I'm saying is that not everyone feels the way you do -- and that people who do care consider this is an intrusion on their civil liberties, and one that seems unjustified.

Should my civil liberties be restricted to only those that you consider important? Should your civil liberties be restricted to only those that I consider important? If I don't care about the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, should that mean that you don't deserve one, either?

To each their own, but what make domestic flying different than domestic buying of groceries? If required ID is good for one, then why not the other?

Uh...beats me. Why do you have to pay to get into a major league baseball game, but not a little league baseball game? Different products?