Travel in the USA Requires ID | Hacker News Reader

Travel in the USA Requires ID

neil.fraser.name

144 pointsColinWright137 comments

"We have literally reached a point where the only way to travel long distances anonymously is to use a horse."

Sure about that? Brief Googling on regulations around moving horses between states indicates that "under ... federal regulations, horses moving interstate must be identified and accompanied by an Interstate Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (ICVI)."

There's always personal BigDog robots...

until those have to be licensed, with appropriately-displayed plates.

Let's not get started on having to buy dog licenses every year in most of the country.

There's a lot of FUD in the article.

Most (all?) states have no requirement to carry or present ID to officers - you only have to give your name, and sometimes your address depending on the state. There's no Federal requirement to carry ID.

To operate a motor vehicle you need a driver's licence...but your passengers don't. What about riding the bus? You can get on the local Metro, Bolt bus, or Greyhound w/o an ID.

Hitchhiking doesn't require an ID.

Bicycling doesn't require an ID. Nor does walking.

You don't need a pilot's license to fly an experimental aircraft (but I'm sure there are other requirements for operating from an airport).

Hangliding/parasailing doesn't require an ID.

So...only through a commercial airline (private jets don't require IDs) requires proof of identify.

Just to nitpick, you absolutely need a pilot's license to fly an experimental aircraft. You don't need one to fly an ultralight, but that's quite a different thing. (An experimental aircraft is just one that's registered in a certain way. It could be anything from something you constructed in your garage to an ex-Soviet MiG that you've restored to flying condition. An ultralight is anything under a certain low weight.)

As the blog states, you actually don't need an ID to fly, you just need to prove your identity (and be ready for a huge hassle).

It's been eight years, but in 2007 I was able to fly from Columbia, SC to Atlanta, GA without any personally identifying documents whatsoever - I showed up at the airport without a ticket, without a wallet, without anything.

I was flying home for a funeral and as such was fairly distraught, so perhaps they cut me some slack on that account. I don't remember any specific hassles though.

You had a ticket but no physical manifestation of it, or had you not bought a ticket by the time you arrived at the airport? Without a wallet, does that mean without cash?

I had already bought a ticket.

That's pretty cool. It makes me want to take a look at Canadian regulations to see if it's possible and if I could pull it off...

Is "proving your identity" different in any meaningful way from "having an ID"?

I imagine if you were ever on TV or in the newspaper/a magazine with your picture in it, you can just carry the newspaper around with you everywhere and show them that picture.

I think someone like Barack Obama or Al Pacino can easily "prove their identity".

I guess it depends what point you're trying to make. There's a big debate in several states around voting and whether it should require proof of identity and whether that's specifically an ID or something else.

I personally think there's a difference between "you must have one of these specific documents to travel" vs "you must be an identifiable person to travel"

In Anglo-American common law, your identity is basically whatever it is you call yourself, provided that you are not doing so with intent to defraud or otherwise facilitate unlawful activities. Most U.S. states still recognize a common law name change or assumed name.

If James McGill uses the name "Saul Goodman" openly and notoriously in the course of his business, he could reasonably use either name, or both, to identify himself. It is literally just that simple. Your name is whatever you use as your name. If you are a corporation, you may need to file a "doing business as" document with the state business registration authority, but natural persons can merely start introducing themselves with the new name. I could start calling myself "Master President Jack Redbull Walks-Away-From-Explosions Cartman the 42nd", in addition to my birth name and my HN handle, and lo, that would be my name.

As such, the "proof" would be as simple as solemnizing an affidavit that you are not using the name for any malicious purpose.

Requiring an ID--or more specifically, a state-issued ID--is much more burdensome. The state, you see, has a selfish interest in being able to link all of the names a person may have, such that it is easier to enforce its laws upon that person.

I could not go to the state's ID-issuing agency and get an ID card featuring the name "Master President Jack Redbull Walks-Away-From-Explosions Cartman the 42nd". The bureaucrat on site would rather tiresomely insist upon knowing the boring old name that my parents gave to me, and adamantly maintain that the state will officially recognize only one name at a time, that requires a form to be filled out and authorized by a probate judge, and the new name wouldn't fit on the card anyway, and would have to be abbreviated to "[Mr.] Master P. Cartman, 42nd".

This common law tradition allows a person to use an assumed name or pseudonym for travel, without the expectation that the traveler be authorized in any way. But the state (apparently) has an interest in tracking the whereabouts of criminals and those who appear to have criminal intent. So it institutes ID requirements to slide around the common law right of people to avoid name-based tracking regimes.

and the new name wouldn't fit on the card anyway

You wouldn't believe the trouble I've had to go through as a result of the State of New Jersey not being able to accommodate the length of the rather common name "Christopher".

I think you can still travel long distances anonymously using a bicycle.

Stephen King treats bikes as the canonical post-apocalyptic transit method — roads are too crowded with abandoned cars for automobile travel to be effective, and motorcycle travel is very dangerous (there is no ambulance if you have a high-speed accident).

But you can do a hundred miles in a day on a bike. That's not bad.

I've also never been asked for ID when using an Amtrak ticket, although my sample size is low (15 journeys) and I always use a credit card at point of purchase (either online or at a ticket counter).

Motorcycles also need gas.

And motorcycles need constant maintenance.

But the maintenance is really pretty simple, the biggest problem with any gas-burning vehicle would be that all modern gas will be more or less useless after a year or so.

Electrics would have similar problems, though at least they can be charged from either generators or the electrical grid.

A diesel motorcycle would probably be the best bet, since diesel engines can be made to run on a variety of other fuels. The US Marines have one, the M103M1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/automobiles/24KAWASAKI.htm...) but they're not really available to the public.

It's funny you mention that, because he doesn't bring up bicycles in several of his post-apocalypse books (I'm thinking of The Stand as one specific example -- the characters all walk from one end of the country to the other).

I'm fairly sure The Stand uses bicycles as the primary mode of transportation? Unless I'm mixing that up with Under the Dome, but I don't think so?

It's been many years since I read it, but I seem to recall that in the full director's cut version (or whatever they call the not-well-edited version that came out second), the conclusion of the book involved a package in a basket on the handlebars of a bike?

It's not Under the Dome-- there are some kids that bike around but all the adults drive

One of the passages I'm thinking of from The Stand:

Halfway there a thought rose to the surface of his mind like a bubble and popped. It happened casually, with no fanfare, but the implications brought him to a dead halt.

The thought was: Why haven't you been riding a bicycle?

He stood in the middle of the lawn, equidistant from the stream and the house, flabbergasted by the simplicity of it. He had been walking ever since he had ditched the Harley. Walking, wearing himself out, finally collapsing with sunstroke or something so close to it that it made no difference. And he could have been pedaling along, doing no more than a fast run if that's what he felt like, and he would probably be on the coast now, picking out his summer house and stocking it.

Much like Greyhound drivers, Amtrak conductors don't always ask to see ID, regardless of where or how the ticket was purchased. It's hit-or-miss in coach, depending (at least) on the conductor, the train, and your boarding station. In first class it's either exceedingly rare or nonexistent, at least west of Chicago. The NEC may be different; I've traveled over 40,000 miles on Amtrak but never there.

A reasonable thing for the author to point out would have been that this has become yet another seldom-enforced law/regulation. Such policies are bad because they allow for selective and abusive enforcement, erode respect for the rule of law as an institution, provide none of the purported security benefits for which the policy was made in the first place, and create confusion as to what laws and regulations actually exist.

As a separate thought exercise, consider the otherwise law-abiding individual who has constructed an identity and identification indistinguishable from a real one, but different from his own. Since there is no means of validating a piece of identification anyway, and in the circumstances described herein no means of determining from an individual's name whether he is to be prohibited from boarding, what's the point anyway? There are a lot of similar rabbit holes here; it's really best not to think about it, because (a) nothing you or anyone does is ever going to change it for the better, and (b) you're never going to discover any kind of logic to any of it. Make yourself a phony-but-real ID if you want, or don't. Travel, or don't. But don't try to reason about or change government policy; it's a waste of mental energy.

I think this is simply an extension of the fact that its really no longer possible to live an anonymous life in the USA. The government makes the case that they need to know who and where everyone is so that they can figure out who is "dangerous". This seems perfectly reasonable to an awful lot of people. The problem is that the people's idea of what "dangerous" means is wildly divergent from the government's.

Reading this should particularly echo to the French-crowd here, as our government is about to pass one of worst anti-privacy law in history, all in the sake of fighting "terrorism" of course.

Side note: The author is also the author of Differential Synchronization, a key alternative to Operational Transform. If you happen to read this, congratulations for your work!

Thanks for the reference to Differential Synchronization, very interesting! https://neil.fraser.name/writing/sync/

> We used to make fun of the Soviet Union for its lack of freedom of travel ("papers please").

You only need ID not pre-authorization. You don't have to get Idaho to authorize your vacation and Nebraska to allow you transit.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step ...

And then you slide down the slippery slope?

Here is how one such journey ended. [1] That handsome devil is the person quoted in GP.

[1]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Forbidden...

> You only need ID not pre-authorization.

To the extent the federal government requires valid state-issued ID for travel but neither mandates states to issue ID nor prohibits states from rescinding IDs that they have issued, you in effect do need pre-authorization, even if the actual pre-authorization regime is fairly light touch, granted by default for long terms without specific travel plans, and rarely revoked.

I've heard of states revoking your ability to drive, but not your ability to have a State ID. What's an example of that?

(That said, I agree that if IDs are going to be required for voting, travel, etc then they should be free to acquire.)

The federal government does not require valid state-issued ID.

And the US is actually pretty good about not requiring you to always have Federal ID on you, compared to European countries.

I find it strange compare the laws of a state to others and say things like,

"It's pretty good compared to..."

They are different government types, founded on different laws, containing different people, and so on. The United States was founded on the idea of "freedom" so, it seems strange to require anything on you, unless it impedes others freedoms.

If you found a nation on an idea, the specifics of the idea are going to be hammered out.

Both the idea of "freedom" and the idea of impeding others' freedoms have been specified in US legislation and in the case history of the US court system. Without going through and clarifying what freedom and impeding freedom mean in different situations, the US economy could not exist at its present size.

Investors can be confident that life will go smoothly based on the US Government. That's what powers the US Treasury, which powers low interest rates, which powers our economy.

Technically the US was founded on that ideal, then the Articles of Confederation was seen to be unworkable, so they federalized a bunch of power in the Constitution, which was then amended with the original Bill of Rights because the Constitution without didn't really guarantee freedom.

It's important to not hand waive away that evolution, because the US is not run on the most-free system of government that could have been imagined in 1776. We ratcheted that down almost immediately, and to argue otherwise is incorrect.

I can't see how the US was founded on that idea of "freedom unless it impedes others freedoms," since, at its most basic level, the US government has always restricted people's movements.

If you "own" property, I can't freely walk onto that property. Your "ownership" places a severe limitation on my ability to exercise the freedom to move about freely.

It seems specious to claim retroactively that the US somehow cares about freedom at all, when some of the most basic were stripped from us at its founding.

Your premise is invalid. It'd be the same as claiming that by existing and occupying physical space, combined with my not having a right to murder you, you're preventing me from accessing the physical space you're occupying and therefore denying me freedom.

The hole in your logic is the notion that your freedom is impeded, when in fact it is not: that freedom properly does not exist where you're claiming it should. The same logic hole is commonly seen when people claim censorship on private forums: freedom of speech does not apply there, just as physical right to pass/movement does not apply to private physical space.

If you employ the violence of the state to keep me from walking on so-called "private" property, then absolutely my freedom is impeded.

What's "private" space without the violence of the state to back it up? By what right can you exclude me from walking wherever I please, under some guise of "freedom"?

Why do you keep putting "private" in quotes? Do you seriously believe that you should be able to walk into my living room and grab a seat on the couch? Do you seriously believe that you're not "free" if you cannot do so? Should I then be "free" to kick the crap out of you when you take a step into my lawn? Your notion of freedom seems to only work in your favor and completely disregards everyone else.

Walking onto property you claim as your own is not a violent act. Kicking the crap out of me because I've walked onto property you claim as your own is a violent act.

Constraining my movement with respect to your lawn is putting a constraint on my freedom. Beating me up neither constrains my freedom nor encourages it, it's just you being violent.

It's also silly to say the US is founded on "freedom" when that word is uselessly vague.

I didn't say that the US was "founded on freedom", but the idea of certain freedoms were very much a part of its inception. Regardless, I don't think you actually defended anything you said. My ability to own private property constrains your freedom in the same way that my mere physical existence constrains your freedom of occupying the same physical space as me. It's all a bunch of psuedo-intellectual, hypothetical nonsense.

>The United States was founded on the idea of "freedom"

I'd argue that the United States was founded on particular freedoms, not the general idea of it. Like the original settlers just wanted the freedom to practice their religion in peace. They certainly didn't believe in any freedoms beyond their own interests.

State IDs are used almost as a de facto Federal ID. From my experience at least, there is a very careful process in place when changing states.

I cannot remember the last time i showed my ID to anyone when traveling/flying in Europe.

I was advised, by Germans, to always have my passport on my person when in Germany, as police are empowered to and will randomly stop people and demand identification. One German friend told me that once he was caught out without his ID, and police literally escorted him home to retrieve and show it.

Also had to show ID (passport, in my case, as a visitor from the US) to board planes in Europe.

While traveling on trains in Germany, I was also required to show ID.

Sorry, but that is BS.

Traveling on trains does not require an ID. You are not stopped randomly in Germany to show your ID. It never happened to me in the 40 years I am living in Estern Germany and Western Germany.

In Germany it is required that you own an ID (or Passport). But you are not required to have it on you.

That said, if police has a reason to identify you, because of suspicious behavior, police can have a hold of you until your identity is proven. That will happen when you are speeding for example.

See my other comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9384495

> That said, if police has a reason to identify you, because of suspicious behavior, police can have a hold of you until your identity is proven.

Sometimes, suspicious behavior may be that your skin is not white enough.

Different things.

1) "Have your passport on your person": Yes, unfortunately this country requires you to be able to provide some ID. No, you don't need to carry it with you. If you DON'T have one though, it might cause issues/trouble/cost money. [1] I assume the Germans were misinformed and scared, the anecdote was probably not true.

2) You have to show your ID or passport at the border (aka. the airport in this case). You don't need to do that if you move in the Schengen area: Travelling from Germany to the Netherlands won't require an ID. That said, maybe you talk about braindead boarding procedures only. Those exist. People like to make sure that you're the one that checked in and all and .. yeah.. Please provide your boarding pass and ID. Useless. Enforced randomly. Utterly insane. Consider it a nuisance if it happens, but .. it doesn't, most of the time.

3) You never need to show an ID in a train. Except: a) you cross a border and leave the Schengen area. Normal procedures, people will check your passport/ID b) you bought a ticket that says 'can be used in a train (as paper or digital), but requires an ID'. That's the DB (German Railway company) being insane, stupid, annoying, crap, (insert-more-expletives-here). You can buy a ticket at a counter and no one is ever going to ask you for your ID. And I guess no one knows why they consider it a reasonable thing to do for most online tickets/digital tickets.

So:

1) Wrong 2) Maybe 3) DB is run by idiots, is crap, sucks - and there is a workaround

1: Seems to be German only, Google translate? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalausweisgesetz

On the train: entering Germany from the Netherlands, so trip was entirely within Schengen (and in fact Germany had been my point of entry on that trip for the Schengen area; I was returning to Germany after traveling around France, Belgium and the Netherlands a bit). Train stopped at German border, German train crew came on board, and an officer wearing a jacket labeled POLIZEI required me to show my passport and asked some immigration-type questions ("how long are you staying in Germany", etc.). Other passengers in the compartment were also required to show identification. A companion in a different part of the train said she was also required to show her passport and answer questions.

This occurred on 21 July 2014, aboard IC 147, Amsterdam Centraal - Berlin Hbf.

At this point I am simply more amused by the number of people who've insisted that what happened, doesn't and can't happen, than I am annoyed by it.

Hmm.. I don't think people are saying that you're a liar or anything, it's just weird and - obviously, given the feedback, more or less unheard of. I'd be pretty annoyed as well.

That said: This particular border was/is monitored a bit more. Even cars crossing that border might get pulled over. Why? Certain harmless substances were/are (not sure about the current legislation) easier to get in the NL and people living close to the border tended to do shopping trips..

>Also had to show ID (passport, in my case, as a visitor from the US) to board planes in Europe.

If this was a Schengen (inter-europe flight), the only reason you would need it would be on checkin if your airline checks this for revenue protection. By law there shouldn't be any passport checks (at least only randomly).

Anecdote: Travelled by airplane within Europe multiple times, never had to show my passport

>While traveling on trains in Germany, I was also required to show ID.

Which is only required if you get a non-transferrable online ticket. If you buy your ticket at the station, there is no need to show an ID on the train (in contrast to Amtrak)

Being non-citizen is a different story. I think both US and Japan require non-citizens to carry their registration document (green card, visa, etc.) all the time, although it is rare that you actually asked to present it. Demanding ID for its own citizens sounds a lot worse.

Can confirm. All foreigners in Japan must carry the "Alien Card" with them, and it's not that rare to be randomly asked for your ID by the police.

That creates a problem because, obviously, the police is performing racial profiling and I met Caucasian or Black Japanese citizens who have been harassed by the police because they were not carrying any ID.

It is not necessary inside Schengen, but not all EU countries are part of the area - when traveling to UK or Ireland, you definitely need to show your ID.

In France if the police wants to control your identity, you need an official document to prove it. If you don't have it they will detain you until they can verify your identity.

I had to show ID (Passport) to both take a train from Germany to Paris, and to fly from Germany to Rome. And again while on the train each direction. I also had to show my passport / ID at each hotel I stayed at in Paris and Rome.

For the train: Probably you booked an online ticket (think QR code)? Often that says "Only valid with a government ID". Why? Hell, who knows. Crappy company..

For the flight: Usually you either check in with your ID/passport in one way or another. That's true, I guess. As far as I'm aware at least, there's no way around it. They don't "check" you, but you prove that you booked your flight by presenting the ID. Bah.

For the hotels: That's the real issue. Ignore the rest. Most countries here seem to require that you give up your identity if you check into a hotel. The ID isn't always required - actually that's rare for me so far - but you're supposed to give up your name, private address and contact information. For .. random idiotic reasons I assume.

It's not the hotels that care here, though. Can't blame them.

>As far as I'm aware at least, there's no way around it.

Online checkin? Did multiple flights with Lufthansa, never had to show ID. Maybe depends on the airline

I would guess so. My last (cross border) flights in Europe were with airberlin, Ryanair and easyjet and I had to provide ID while boarding in together with my ticket, and at checkin because I showed up without a physical ticket, so they needed some way to verify I was the one who had paid for the ticket. I never showed any ID to the police, customs, immigration, or anything like that.

15 years experience with living in Europe, I've been asked for my ID only a few times, while boarding planes. Never in the streets, at cafes, being 'carded' for wanting to buy a beer, or drink a beer outside if I want to, freely .. without requiring ID. Like, if you think that Europe is all 'citizens, comrade', those days are over. Schengen is awesome!

As European, I can confirm that I have seen it happen a few times, once even happened to me.

Plus not all European countries are part of Schengen.

True, not all. But there is a pretty big swath of population between Netherlands/Spain/Italy/Hungary/Poland/Denmark ..

Being in the UK, I only need my licence when ... never really. If I'm stopped by police they can request I turn up at a police station within two weeks to produce my licence but otherwise it's not needed to travel anywhere (excluding flying)

also, "papers please" was a German thing AFAIK

Its not much of a German thing any more, precisely because the Germans seem to have an awareness for just how ridiculous things can get, whereas Americans seem instead to just be fine with the ridiculousness..

Russia has a long history of requiring internal passports to travel, including the USSR but existing both before and after.

ID is a form of authorization. There are plenty of people who can not get a valid ID in the United States, yet they wish to travel too. So, they walk.

That seems like quite a bit 'only'.

Other ways to travel without ID: by taxi paid for with cash also greyhound buses (paid for with cash).

It seems cash is the only means of travelling without IDing yourself. The destruction of privacy via credit cards/debit cards hasn't been given enough credit.

The article points out long-haul buses and links to this article: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-...

Greyhound and other inter-state buses require ID.

There's a site about this issue from the Identity Project, which documents campaigns against ID requirements for travel.

http://www.papersplease.org/

Not to mention the random checkpoints various states can set up in the name of immigration or DUIs.

Recently there has been an interesting method of getting around this, which at least is interesting: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/03/see-this-guy-get-...

Bikes are at least as practical as horses. And buses are at least as practical as that.

In TFA, the author says that bus passengers are subjected to random ID checks. It sounds like it's a statistical thing, not a 100% screen, but nonetheless if you are dead-set on not carrying/showing ID, it's going to be an issue.

The author is incorrect, they search, but they don't require ID.

They are not subject to random ID checks. You are however, subject to random fare inspection.

In the article, there's a link to a TSA Blog article that assures readers you don't need an ID to pass through security.

And, at the bottom of that article, there's a link to another TSA site, which lists acceptable IDs ('You can find a list of acceptable IDs here.', emphasis mine).

Hilariously, the first line of that page is: 'Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the airport checkpoint in order to travel.'

Mixed signals, TSA.

http://papersplease.org/

I am fairly confused by this site. Best I can find is the page that says that I should deny showing my ID (in all cases? In some cases?), and ask to see the law that requires me to show my ID and "see what happens". For a site that says that one of their core missions is education, I don't exactly feel educated.

Their other activities seem more productive, such as investigating what information the TSA and DHS keep on your travels, but which problem is it at the core here? The fact that the TSA asks to see my passport when I fly, or that the store that info along with my departure/arrival locations?

http://papersplea.se/

I've never had my ID checked to ride on a Greyhound bus.

That's because drivers are sloppy about enforcing it, even though it's been company policy for however many years.

>the only way to travel long distances anonymously is to use a horse.

Pretty sure that'll get your name in plenty of papers, so not so sure about the anonymous part...

The author of the article implies that he used to be proud of not having to do so because it differentiates his country from the Soviet Union.

How will having to carry ID turn a country into an authoritarian dystopia? Is it just an American thing?

I ask because I live in a country with an authoritarian past and we still have to carry ID everywhere and people just don't see anything wrong with that. Should I try to persuade them otherwise?

Requiring papers to travel means convincing your government. Not requiring papers/ID means the government can't withold them. Personal freedom, which is paramount in American public discourse.

In my country everyone has a right to an ID card and not even the police can confiscate them.

I agree that withholding an essential ID document is evil.

But, do you see that checking even your ID means the police can deny travel based on who you are? The 'travel papers' are then in the government computer.

No, its essential you do not even present ID to travel, for personal freedom to be ensured.

If you have a warrant for your arrest, they will detain you. Or if you are under house arrest or something. They can't stop you on mere suspicion, though.

I don't mean to say "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear". It's more like "if you weren't literally convicted of a crime, don't worry".

Today. But that can change whenever some politician decides.

There's a difference between requiring to identify oneself and requiring to get an explicit clearance to travel.

Last time I checked, air travel in the US requires a valid ID, but you're automatically allowed to travel, unless you're on some no-fly list or are a wanted criminal. (Last time I took Amtrak it did not require any authentication; I bought a ticket from a vending machine.)

The US system is built with certain distrust to the government, and with a number of checks and balances to prevent it from becoming tyrannical. Hence the idea of the government having no business to know my whereabouts unless there's a good reason to suspect me of some wrongdoing.

I personally don't see an excessively great trouble in anyone having my location data. Still, there are two good reasons for the government to collect as little such data as possible. First, the data may fall to wrong hands: fancy your house robbed when you're traveling? Second, it costs a lot of money to collect the data; if the data are collected "just in case", that money is wasted.

In my country it's exactly the same way. You need an ID, but not an authorization. The location data is also treated the same way, for the second reason you stated.

The way people feel about needing valid ID is very different, though.

Perhaps it's a small thing, but I remember as a young boy, probably in the early 70s and the Cold War, my mother telling me about the USSR. I specifically recall her saying "over there you need to have papers to travel, so we couldn't just go visit your grandparents like we're doing today".

For whatever reason, that stuck with me for 40-odd years, so the differences today really do resonate with me.

I agree there is a superficial similarity, but it seems strange to focus on that little detail.

What prevented people in the USSR from visiting their family wasn't the requirement of ID per se. It was the fact that the government could confiscate all your documents and basically turn you into an unperson.

In my country, which had a recentish authoritarian past, the Constitution (we made a new one when we changed the form of government) says that everyone has a right to an identity, and nobody can take that away from you.

Comparing an ID with "travel papers" is silly. An ID is an identification device given to everyone who wants one. "Travel papers" are licenses to travel.

IDs are a tiny restriction on your freedom. Travel papers are a major restriction on your freedom.

The stupid airfare taxes are a much bigger restriction on our freedom, IMO.

Three words: No Fly List.

There is no transparency to that process, no way to find out if you're on it, no appeal, no recourse. That's tantamount to license to travel if not worse.

There is an appeal process, and just recently you are now generally notified if you are on it.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/04/14/us-t...

That doesn't mean it is perfect (far from it), but things have gotten (slowly) better.

So you are saying that the current no fly list is as bad as having to apply for a license to travel every time you intend to?

They are different things. When the government says "you must apply for a license before you do X" it means you are denied until permitted. The current implementation of the no fly list seems to be "permitted until denied". That isn't to say the process of getting on/off the list is good, just that it's not nearly as bad as being denied by default.

I don't really want to argue in support of the no-fly list because I think it is definitely unconstitutional (in current form), but it is still not a license to travel.

It's a black list compared to a white list (travel papers). This makes a huge difference as the default is that you are allowed to travel. Instead of having to convince some bureaucrat that you should be allowed to travel, the government just blocks a relatively small number of people from traveling. Only 500 Americans are on the list. So 1.5 x10^-4 percent of Americans are limited by it.

Also, no fly list only applies to one method of travel. You can still drive, train, or walk anywhere you want.

the default is that you are allowed to travel

I disagree with that interpretation. In fact, there is no default as such. You are required to demonstrate your identity in order to show that you're not one of those people. So you can't just fall into the default condition.

So 1.5 x10^-4 percent of Americans are limited by it.

Abridging the rights of a small number is still abridging rights. The philosophy of the USA, as demonstrated in the Bill of Rights, is supposed to be that minorities, even individuals, have their rights protected from the tyranny of the majority.

No.

According to the Justice Department itself:

"Last fall, there were about 64,000 people on the no-fly list, according to the government. Typically, less than 5 percent of those on the list are Americans. The list fluctuates in size."

That's at least 3,000 American -citizens-. Many of those on the list are legal permanent residents, many more than citizens (as immigrants).

I got 500 from a CNN article dated today. Less than 5% can be 1% or 4%.

Either way its still virtually nobody.

The post's entire point is that IDs are de facto travel papers. The reasons why we object to photo ID at vote time should also apply to general intra-US travel (or at least intrastate travel).

And my point is that travel papers aren't just something you need to travel with. It's a permission for specific travel.

You can argue that requiring an ID for traveling on a plane is too restrictive, but it's not travel papers.

Not trying to argue here, just trying to understand you. At the point where ID is required, it becomes de facto permission for that specific travel, no? Without ID, that travel is denied. (Or at least, that's the author's point.)

It becomes permission for travel in general, not specific.

Also, it only becomes any kind of restriction if there is any restriction on the issuing of ID (either practical, economical or legal).

As always, the details are more important than the big picture.

What's the difference, exactly? "Travel papers" are used to control whether or not you're allowed to travel. ID checks are also used to control whether or not you're allowed to travel. (For example, one use of ID checks for air travel is to check the traveler against the government's no-fly list.)

Are you just saying that the requirements aren't currently restrictive enough to be worth complaining about? Because I only see a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

Permission vs. just to identify who I am.

I can drive to the airport right now and fly wherever I want. I don't need it approved by government.

Tell that to someone on the no fly list.

I can drive to the airport right now and fly to China without doing any prior paperwork. That doesn't mean I don't need it approved by the government, that just means I already got it approved and the approval is still valid.

If I didn't have that visa, I'd have to go get one before I can fly to China. Likewise, if you didn't have an ID, you'd have to go get one before you can fly at all. But I do have that visa, and you do have that ID, so we don't have to do anything more.

You need papers, and you can be prevented from flying if they don't want you to. I don't see the qualitative difference, just the quantitative one that a state ID is a lot easier to get than a visa.

Airlines tend to like having ID checks pseudo-imposed upon them, as a way of enforcing non-transferability of tickets.

I wonder if we will need to have a license to operate a self-driving car. Certainly we will need a driver's license in the short-term, but after some time when people trust that self-driving cars work, will we decide that it is no longer necessary for the person using the car to know how to drive? If so, then that seems like it would open up a pretty anonymous way to travel. Of course, the vehicle will probably be licensed, but if you rent it from a company, then they company will know who is using the car, but the government will not. Will the government require rental companies to check ID's and provide them with the information? Maybe, but they already do that, and the government would need a warrant to get the information.

You do not need ID to fly intrastate within the US:

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2015/04/09/why-did-the-tsa-pr...

However, you do need explicit pre-approval from the US DHS to fly, through the Pre-Crime surveillance and control regime of Secure Flight:

http://papersplease.org/wp/2014/09/22/gao-audit-confirms-tsa...

> Pre-Crime

Nice.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SQCXxa8...

Is the MTA in NYC still subject to random ID checks?

Not sure if this is the latest legal practice, but it seems that the NYCLU has fought against this and won:

http://www.nyclu.org/news/nyclu-victory-preserves-right-walk...

That's to say nothing of the 'license plate reader-like' identification that is feasible through MetroCard tracking.

Unfortunately, your stuff is still subject to "random" searches.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1dm5fu/what_are_my_rig...

http://www.aele.org/law/2006LRSEP/macwade-kelly.html

I've never had my ID checked. Bag, yes. ID, no.

If it is (or was), I'm curious what happens if a person doesn't have an ID. As someone well above the legal drinking age who does not own a car, I often go about my day without carrying my Driver's License or other state-issued ID.

I often use my family bible when going across borders. it's always worked as proper identification, and is always accepted.

This makes me wonder: do you need ID to take a train within the Schengen area? I'd imagine not.

No. You also don't need a ID for flying inside Schengen or going by bus.

Forget being checked for ID. If you travel with a phone you constantly broadcast where you are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com