John Gilmore, Suspected Terrorist
Great story about EFF co-founder John Gilmore’s removal from a British Airways flight because he was wearing a button that the airline didn’t like: I was ejected from a plane for wearing “Suspected Terrorist” button.
July 19th, 2003 at 1:12 pm
Interesting read. Got some i.d.?
July 22nd, 2003 at 9:12 am
I read with great interest the author’s reasoning for exactly why he wears that pin. He states that its because since everyone has to go through increased levels of security checks in today’s world, we are all losing our personal freedoms and are all being considered possible terrorists.
I would ask this person, “So, just how should we treat air travelers so that personal freedoms are not violated, as these rights are apparently paramount in importance?” Do we go back to pre-9/11 security measures? Or are even those types of invasions of privacy too restrictive when viewed through the prism of “my body, my possessions, my life,…my business.”
Our personal freedoms are a great and highly valued thing. But there is still a counter-balance somewhere that should always consider personal responsiblity for ones actions and a sense of obligation for the welfare of our fellow man. Part of the reason why we as a country were vulnerable on 9/11 and remain so to this day, is that our personal rights and privileges tend to make us particularly strident, self-absorbed and easily bruised when we encounter resistance to being able “to do as we want, when we want.” Thus, security measures are implemented on a minimal level of effectiveness, which can be circumvented more easily by those intending to do harm.
Those who rage the loudest against the perceived heavy-handed, Police-State-like actions imposed on them in the guise of public safety in air travel should enlighten the rest of us on the better solution for balancing an enormous public transporation process with a high expectation of both efficiency and security, while protecting everyone’s real and perceived personal rights. All of us who travel by plane will be exceedingly grateful for the implementation of this solution.
I’m all ears.
July 22nd, 2003 at 9:45 am
Well, for starters, we could back off on the truly stupid no-fly decisions, like this one. Supposedly he was yanked _after_ clearing through airport security, only because a stewardess, looking at his “Suspected Terrorist” button, decided that maybe that was something he’d been required to wear by airport security. After that it just became a pissing contest, between people too on-edge to be rational.
So sure, I’m willing to sacrifice some liberties in the name of greater air-travel safety. I’m not willing to sacrifice liberties just so an airline and its employees have the right to be stupid. Which is what happened here.
July 22nd, 2003 at 12:00 pm
Granted, this little spat was avoidable. The airline personnel could have chosen to ignore someone’s minor protest of his perceived rights violations, or clearly state a consistant, viable policy explanation for their actions. To me, its not unlike a moron making a “bomb” reference as a thoughtless joke and being escorted off the plane or having the plane return to the gate because the Airlines have a policy to take all such references seriously. So therefore, someone who implies that they may be a terrorist, no matter how unlikely or ridiculous, has to be treated with suspicion.
To me, Gilmore’s actions are in the relm of the self-righteous and self-absorbed crowd (which I previously described)that are so blindly focused on displaying their indignation in some public way, that they will risk a confrontation and incident that will impact far more than just themselves, in order to get some form of personal satisfaction. He is clearly smart enough to know that if he pushed his little drama very far, he would cause this type of action.
If I was among the crowd that was seated around him whom he said he personally polled about allowing him to fly with his pin, I’d have said, “Look, you got the attention you wanted and you made your point, so hand over your little trinket for the rest of the trip before you punish everyone else for your selfish actions.”
My main point, however, is still to hear an answer from Gilmore, or others who feel as strongly as him, for a workable alternative solution to the apparently intolerable trashing of personal rights that are being forced upon the flying public.
Potesting, while armed with solutions, is reasoned and sincere. Protesting without offering any alternative ideas, John, is not unlike the little kid analogy that you have often used, who sticks his fingers in his ears and screams, “nonononononono!”
January 5th, 2004 at 5:53 pm
rights are not percieved they are God given and cannot be removed