[ back to Tom 7 Radar ]

w
e
b

l
i
n
k
Papers, please! (21 Jun 2004 at 11:07)
Well, there's finally been a resolution on this interesting case about whether one can be punished for simply refusing to identify oneself. The Supreme court said, 5-4, that you can. Close, but no cigar.
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
Hock (res211.mesls.org) – 06.22.04 12:18:08
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this ruling will be used to clear the way for automated and forced identification in the name of "security" but no doubt also used for marketing purposes, etc. Did you see Minority Report?
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
Tom 7 (gs82.sp.cs.cmu.edu) – 06.22.04 14:31:25
I did. Actually, I would much prefer advertising to be relevant to the things that I care about, and for there to be correspondingly less of it. If someone set up a system that was anonymous and couldn't track you, I'd probably not oppose that.

Although this ruling is really just "terry stops" (so I think we'd definitely get another court case for an automated mandatory identification law, which would presumably cross the 5-4 barrier in its privacy implications). But this underscores the need for god-fearing-fearing justices in the SC...!
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
Hock (sleepy.cs.wisc.edu) – 06.26.04 17:31:03
But what constitutes a "Terry Stop" is "reasonable suspicion". Here's how I envision this: when entering the building, you "voluntarily" give your identity (because you have "nothing to hide"). But if you refuse to do this, since 99% of people are sheep and would do this voluntarily, you would arouse "reasonable suspicion" and thus would legally be coerced into giving up your identity, because you could reasonably be suspected to be hiding something, especially due to "recent events".
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
Tom 7 (h-66-167-9-216.phlapafg.dynamic.covad.net) – 06.27.04 22:43:29
It is a plausible (and scary) scenario... I just think that there'd be enough difference for judicial review.
p
o
s
t

a

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
[ Tom 7 Radar  •  Tom 7 on Google+  •  on Twitter  •  on Facebook ]