How very much like government.

The apologetics re: “the secret rules only apply to people who choose to fly” are further good evidence for Mr. Hampton to conclude you are not completely on the up-and-up. Simple common sense: why not try using it? For an entertaining dramatization, feel free to read Kafka’s “The Trial” before further comment on this matter.

Or has your government placed that one on the index librorum prohibitorum?

That these rules are secret because people might be able to work their way around them if they knew the Secret Procedures is already well known to be without merit. I mean, heck, the fact that “people with ID get checked less” is itself a massively huge hole in the security apparatus, don’tchathink? In that aspect, of what value is it that the Super Extra Checks made for people without ID are secret? Any of these “miscreants” you speak of will simply get some ID and be waved through with the rest of them. But even if they did fly without ID, all it would take is a few trial runs to figure out The Secret all on their own and act accordingly. Oh no! Because they have no ID, it won’t be possible to discover these “probes” or correlate them to other individuals and thus unravel the plot! Could it be, Mr. Cyber Security Expert and DHS consultant, that your (and your compatriots) sycophantic obeisance to Holy Secrecy has itself created a huge problem in the first place? And this, my good man, is what begs the ultimate question here: is the secrecy you insist we love really for operational reasons as you claim, or is it just par for the course cover-your-ass doctrine we have come to expect from the bureaucrats?

Mike, people are only subject to this law if they want to fly. The law only deals with either showing a picture ID or being subjected to a search prior to boarding. There are reasons behind the law, but they are classified to prevent miscreants from exploiting any weaknesses in those procedures.

John Gilmore is not interested in defending freedom. He is a millionaire kook who believes that “information just wants to be free.” He is hell-bent on exposing flaws in the nation’s security at airports and in the terrorist surveilance program. But lawmakers and judges disagree with him, as do most Americans.

I did not make ad-hominem attacks against you Mike. I just pointed out that in this instance, there is no boogie man behind the laws. Is it a “vast departure?” Who could tell? There may be several other laws that those without clearance cannot inspect as well. After all, arent they secret?

I want an hour back.

I suspect you can’t explain it at all, which is why you’ve been resorting to ad hominem attacks against me instead.

Funny. When I was in a position to determine classification, the best advice given to me was, “don’t create classified unless absolutely necessary.” That gem saved me a ton of time, effort, and brain cells. Oh, yeah – it also kept my truly sensitive info secure!

If you have searched my blog for my comments on DHS, you will find that I have also been critical of many aspects of their operations. Some things they do pretty well, however, especially with information sharing with law enforcement.

I have been critical of EFF too.

Mike, just because I criticize your stance on this one issue doesnt mean that I support secret laws. Im just saying that several courts have already told the EFF and John Gilmore that they simply have no case here. I agree. This is not the big deal you seem to think it is.

It is absolutely not American to subject anyone to secret regulations. That’s one of the hallmarks of a fascist state.

Why are you supporting this?

And there is no REAL operational security issue here. Overclassification is running rampant all over the government, something you must be well aware of.