What if your name is Bin Laden, Osama? Then should the powers that be in the local, state, and federal governments be entitled to know that you have some upcoming air travel?

After 9/11, it is Uncle Sam's business who, how, when, where, and maybe why you fly. Whether they make good use of that information, of course, is an entirely different question.

As long as someone named Osama Bin Laden passes through the metal detector and has his carryon bags, if any, x-rayed, then I don't give a d@mn if he sits next to me on the plane.

It is still none of the government's business!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I agree with Spiff almost completely. The only point we would differ on is the seating arrangement! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

The government has no need or right to demand the who, what, why, etc. Nor do they even have any business knowing why I want to remain anonymous. I do not believe that the events of 9/11 gives the government license to encroach upon our civil liberties one iota.

[This message has been edited by pushback (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

Here's what I mean: A "false name" meaning the name not on your birth certificate, but rather the name you decide to call yourself, perhaps one day on the way to the airport.

They may not let you board but the question is "is it illegal" and my answer is "no it's not illegal."

Given your well-documented lack of faith in the current transportation security infrastructure -- to be more specific, the chances of your favorite TSA official intercepting a real threat at the metal detector -- I find your statement preposterous. As you well know, the metal detector personnel would likely be busy harassing travelers like yourself for having metallic shoes while Mr. Bin Laden transversed the security checkpoint unmolested. We might as well give Uncle Sam a fighting chance of success by affording him the information necessary to red flag the real threats.

We all like our privacy, but the days of flying under an umbrella of anonymity are long gone. And justifiably so. I have no problem with the government knowing when and where I am flying, although I hope and expect that they use the information at their disposal effectively.


[This message has been edited by cAAl (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

Definitely not!

Shall we positively identify every person just before they get behind the wheel of a car and furthermore require them to divulge their exact driving route? Such a measure would "give Uncle Sam a fighting chance of success by affording him the information necessary to red flag the real threats." You never know when someone might decide to pack a truck full of explosives and detonate it in front of a building.

Better yet, shall we positively identify every person as they leave their house and require them to divulge their planned activities for the day? Such a measure would "give Uncle Sam a fighting chance of success by affording him the information necessary to red flag the real threats." After all, you never know when someone might decide to set off a bomb in a park.

There are some battles that the government should be forced to fight with one hand tied behind its back, because when both hands are free, the demonstrated history of abuse of power and destruction of civil liberties far outweighs any positives that would be gained if we were to "give Uncle Sam a fighting chance of success by affording him the information necessary to red flag the real threats."

By the way, it's not "lack of faith", it's pure contempt. Please get it right.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

As humans, we adapt and we very quickly forget. It is simply innate in us. A visible example is the encroachment on the "real estate" commonly known as your television screen. Not too long ago when you watched a program on TV you saw only the program, albeit it interrupted by commercials. Then, translucent logos appeared in the corner for brief periods. The marketing geniuses, knowing exactly how long they needed to wait for acceptance and adaptation before pushing the line then put the logo there permanently. From there the logos, over time, lost the translucence and then became animated. Now we have animated pop-ups with sound tossed in our face. Who’s complaining? For how long?

This is an example of how our short memories and ability to adapt is used against us.

Spiff's examples show a similar progression. As ridiculous as his examples may seem they are not outside the realm of eventual reality. Once we, as humans, accept one encroachment and we learn to live with it as its sting fades into acceptance. Like the advertisers, the government is well aware of human nature, knowing how far and how fast they can push the line of encroachment and under what circumstances.

As tragic as 9/11 was it was a boon for those with the agenda to strip us of our civil liberties and we, as a whole, have accepted it with few questioning the government’s actions or motives. It is important that all such attacks on our civil liberties being intensely questioned and scrutinized. Once a liberty has been sacrificed it never comes back on its own. It must be fought for to be recovered; a task much more formidable than standing ones ground and not allowing it to be sacrificed to begin with.

The logical conclusion of Spiff’s rant above would likely me micro-chipping our children at birth. Seems ridiculous, even preposterous to imagine such an encroachment now but that’s where those geniuses come in. If history is our guide, the encroachment will be methodical and deliberate. It will be under the guise of “our own protection”. Scenarios that come to mind are a rash of kidnappings requiring the government step in to protect our children. Who could argue with keeping our children safe?

No, I believe there must be another way to handle this without defying the dream of our founding fathers. We have granted absolute authority without probable cause to TSA and others. How does that protect our free nation? Instead of being attacked from without we are being attacked from within.

And bin Laden wears a watermelon smile the whole time.

[This message has been edited by pushback (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

Spiff: Take a look at your wallet. I presume you have a driver's license or some other form of government-issued identification. What are you doing on April 15? Presumably you will be providing the government with even more personal information in your tax return. I don't want to belabor the point, but the government already knows a whole lot about you. So aside from the general undercurrent of anarchy that lurks beneath each of your anti-government rants, pray tell what is so horrific about the government having the means to access information about your air travel plans? What tangible harm will you suffer if Washington discovers that you are planning on flying AA #1234 from XXX-YYY next week?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly a big fan of government. But I see no real downside in letting the government know some very basic details about my air travel plans. I've said it before: this is hardly the stuff of Orwell. And to the extent that there is a chance of a tangible security benefit, the scales tip in favor of this de minimis intelligence opportunity. Cause we all know what the catastrophic results of an air security breakdown can be.

You loudly proclaim the government's blindness and ineptitude when it comes to air transportation security measures. Why do you want to handicap them even further?

[Exit stage left for me. I suspect you and I are doomed to disagree.]

[This message has been edited by cAAl (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

And to prevent further attacks like, for example, the Oklahoma bombing, it seems appropriate to place cameras in every room of every building. That would certainly have greatly reduce the probably of success by the perpatrators.

If pre-flight screening is effective then knowing someone's name is not going to make the flight any safer. And if it's not effective, it's still not going to improve safety. It might help in some other preceived need, but it won't make flights any safer.

To further illustrate your point, I can see the public service announcements already:

"Stop all potential terrorists tomorrow. Abort all fetuses today." http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Mar 11, 2004).]

Har har har. Here's something fun you can try. Transfer money from one bank account to another $9,999 dollars at a time.

Sadly, that is not how it always works out. If one is unaware that they are violating a law, they could still face prosecution. Ignorance of the law would imply that one does not have an intent to violate said law since they are, by definition, ignorant of the law. However, if they inadvertently violate a law, prosecution is still a very real possibility.

All crimes require an actus reas (guilty act), not all of them require a mens reas (guilty mind).

1. Why would Eminem fly Southwest?

2. What she did is against airline policy, possibly against the law, and is also a great way to make sure that no one famous (or who merely values their privacy) flies your airline.

Oh really? Then all my airline tickets are issued in a false name, as are my passport, my driver's license, and my credit cards. I guess that's really pynchonesque of me, although I suspect that about half the people on any given flight also live their lives under false names.