<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Identity Crisis (dot Name)</title>
	<link>http://identitycrisis.name</link>
	<description>Identification and Civil Rights (plus Free Software, Sysadmin, Life, and other Topics)</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 00:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>EFF demands that court not unmask corporate critic</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2007/05/03/eff-demands-that-court-not-unmask-corporate-critic/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2007/05/03/eff-demands-that-court-not-unmask-corporate-critic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 00:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gnu</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Identity</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/2007/05/03/eff-demands-that-court-not-unmask-corporate-critic/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Corporate Critic Fights to Keep Anonymity
Chemical Company on Quest to Identify Online Speaker
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) have asked a California appeals court to scrutinize a chemical company&#8217;s attempt to strip the anonymity from a participant in an online message board.
Identity demands are everywhere &#8212; particularly for &#8220;troublemakers&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2007/05/03/eff-demands-that-court-not-unmask-corporate-critic/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Richard Clarke calls the kettle black</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/10/02/richard-clarke-calls-the-kettle-black/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/10/02/richard-clarke-calls-the-kettle-black/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:23:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gnu</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Identity</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/2006/10/02/richard-clarke-calls-the-kettle-black/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the New York Times of October 1, 2006, &#8220;Week in Review&#8221; page 10, Richard Clarke&#8217;s guest op-ed complains that we lack national unity to fight terrorists.  He blames this on (1) the Iraq idiocy, (2) &#8220;the administration&#8217;s willingness to use 9/11 as an excuse to strengthen presidential power and erode fundamental American civil [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/10/02/richard-clarke-calls-the-kettle-black/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When do we have to show ID?</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/09/25/when-do-we-have-to-show-id/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/09/25/when-do-we-have-to-show-id/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gnu</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Identity</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/2006/09/25/when-do-we-have-to-show-id/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was writing a response to a FAQ at flexyourrights.org that asks
&#8220;When do I have to show ID?&#8221;  The airport section of what I wrote starts
like this:
  TSA airport regulations state that everyone is free to fly without ID if they&#8217;ll undergo a more extensive physical search, but because this regulation is secret, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/09/25/when-do-we-have-to-show-id/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DoJ asks for extension in Gilmore Supreme Court case</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/09/07/doj-asks-for-extension-in-gilmore-supreme-court-case/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/09/07/doj-asks-for-extension-in-gilmore-supreme-court-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gnu</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Identity</category>
	<category>Travel ID</category>
	<category>Secret Law</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/2006/09/25/doj-asks-for-extension-in-gilmore-supreme-court-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Justice Department has asked to extend its deadline in responding to John Gilmore&#8217;s Supreme Court challenge to the secret law that purports to require ID of airline passengers.  Its response is now due on October 11, 2006.

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/09/07/doj-asks-for-extension-in-gilmore-supreme-court-case/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chertoff wants TSA to check passengers&#8217; IDs</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/08/14/chertoff-wants-tsa-to-check-passengers-ids/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/08/14/chertoff-wants-tsa-to-check-passengers-ids/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gnu</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Identity</category>
	<category>Travel ID</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/2006/08/14/chertoff-wants-tsa-to-check-passengers-ids/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Currently, airlines do this job.  But a New York Times story says that 

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Sunday (13 August 2006) that he intends to replace contractors who inspect passenger identification at airport checkpoints with staff from the Transportation Security Administration, a move that would be one of the biggest expansions of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/08/14/chertoff-wants-tsa-to-check-passengers-ids/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We asked the Supreme Court to review secret law on Air ID</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/08/07/we-asked-the-supreme-court-to-review-secret-law-on-air-id/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/08/07/we-asked-the-supreme-court-to-review-secret-law-on-air-id/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gnu</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Identity</category>
	<category>Travel ID</category>
	<category>Secret Law</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/2006/08/07/we-asked-the-supreme-court-to-review-secret-law-on-air-id/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We filed our cert petition with the US Supreme Court today.  We&#8217;re asking that they invalidate TSA&#8217;s secret rules (until or unless TSA publishes them as a regulation).  We suggest that:
A. The Government&#8217;s Insistence on Deeming the Directive a Secret Notwithstanding That It Acknowledges the Directive&#8217;s Existence and Its Contents Violates Due Process
and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/08/07/we-asked-the-supreme-court-to-review-secret-law-on-air-id/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Working Draft of Cert Petition</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/12/working-draft-of-cert-petition/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/12/working-draft-of-cert-petition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rochelle</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Identity</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Attached are our first four working drafts of the Petition for Certiorari.  As you&#8217;ll see, the Petition is much closer to complete now than in the early drafts.  Drafts 3 and 4 are substantially the same, except that they are organized differently, and we are evaluating to decide which we prefer.  Review [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/12/working-draft-of-cert-petition/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legislative history of 49 U.S.C. Section 114(s)</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/11/legislative-history-of-49-usc-section-114s/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/11/legislative-history-of-49-usc-section-114s/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jen</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Secret Law</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/?p=22</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Title 49, section 114(s) provides:
(s)  Nondisclosure of security activities.
(1)  In general.  Notwithstanding section 552 of title 5, the Under Secretary shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security under authority of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) or under chapter 449 of this title if [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/11/legislative-history-of-49-usc-section-114s/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legislative history of 49 U.S.C. §§ 40119, 44902</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/07/legislative-history-of-49-usc-%c2%a7%c2%a7-40119-44902/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/07/legislative-history-of-49-usc-%c2%a7%c2%a7-40119-44902/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:29:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jen</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Travel ID</category>
	<category>Secret Law</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/?p=21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The provisions that are 49 U.S.C. Sections 40119(b) and 44902(b) were enacted in 1974 as part of the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974 [1] in response to a string of hijackings in the early 1970s. Public Law 93-366, enacted by Senate Bill No. 39 (“S. 39”), was entitled:
An act to amend the Federal Aviation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/07/legislative-history-of-49-usc-%c2%a7%c2%a7-40119-44902/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the void for vagueness doctrine apposite, where the public cannot see a law or regulation?  Are there cases applying this principle to secret law?</title>
		<link>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/06/is-the-void-for-vagueness-doctrine-apposite-where-the-public-cannot-see-a-law-or-regulation-are-there-cases-applying-this-principle-to-secret-law/</link>
		<comments>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/06/is-the-void-for-vagueness-doctrine-apposite-where-the-public-cannot-see-a-law-or-regulation-are-there-cases-applying-this-principle-to-secret-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jen</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Secret Law</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://identitycrisis.name/?p=20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Perhaps because the notion of a “secret” or unpublished law or regulation is extremely rare, we did not find any cases applying the void-for-vagueness doctrine to “secret law.”  There are a few cases that address the application of the doctrine to “unwritten” regulations and policies, with different results.
Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, 93 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://identitycrisis.name/2006/07/06/is-the-void-for-vagueness-doctrine-apposite-where-the-public-cannot-see-a-law-or-regulation-are-there-cases-applying-this-principle-to-secret-law/feed/</wfw:commentRSS>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
