{"id":1582,"date":"2008-10-23T11:13:45","date_gmt":"2008-10-23T15:13:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blacknell.net\/dynamic\/?p=1582"},"modified":"2008-10-23T11:13:45","modified_gmt":"2008-10-23T15:13:45","slug":"edging-toward-requiring-permission-to-travel-domestically","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blacknell.net\/dynamic\/2008\/10\/23\/edging-toward-requiring-permission-to-travel-domestically\/","title":{"rendered":"Edging Toward Requiring Permission to Travel Domestically"},"content":{"rendered":"

A couple of developments on the travel monitoring<\/span> “security” front have made the news, lately.\u00c2\u00a0 First, the Department of Homeland Security, come January, will<\/a>:<\/p>\n

take over responsibility for checking airline passenger names against government watch lists beginning in January, and will require travelers for the first time to provide their full name, birth date and gender as a condition for boarding commercial flights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Even assuming that DHS can use this to better filter its “No Fly” list of false positives, we’re still left with the question – how can the government know someone to be so dangerous that they cannot be allowed onboard a plane, yet they cannot arrest them?\u00c2\u00a0 My view is that they can’t, and that this is merely another bit of security theatre.\u00c2\u00a0 It has the added bonus, however, of permitting the gradual building of an all-encompassing monitoring structure that I’m sure will never be abused.<\/p>\n

The second story speaks to the “all encompassing monitoring structure”, too.\u00c2\u00a0 The ACLU highlights recent government efforts to create what the ACLU is calling a “Constitution Free Zone” that is defined as 100 miles inland from the external borders of the US (including coasts). \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 The ACLU summarizes the issue<\/a>:<\/p>\n