Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the facial-recognition-renders-this-a-moot-point dept.

Privacy 1492

Anonymous Arrestee writes "Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anybody can be compelled at any time to identify themselves, if a police officer asks. People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian? The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name. On this latter point, someone will have to bring a separate case. And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any case it doesn't like. The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada [pdf]. Previous Slashdot story here."

cancel ×

1492 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A CLIT PSA (1)

Proctal Relapse (467579) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490619)

I'd like to remind all you puffers that I am still in charge. Thank you.

GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490631)

The GNAA is in the process of doing a hostile takeover of the CLIT and all of its "assets".

Further developments will be posted...

Re:A CLIT PSA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490655)

Police Officer here. Reveal your name. Don't worry, you are not under arrest, but you are required to give me your full name by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Re:A CLIT PSA (1)

RucasRiot (773111) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490777)

My name is Robert Dobbs

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490623)

fp

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490635)

YOU FAIL IT!

What's Next? (1)

jamie812 (720355) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490624)

Blood type? Fingerprints? Favorite color?

License and registration please? (2)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490662)

ah, you're not driving? doesn't matter - papers please.

cowards hide anonymously (3, Insightful)

nuttyprofessor (83282) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490630)

Actually, the flaming in usenet and elsewhere demonstrates
how badly people behave if they think they are anonymous.

Backwards reasoning... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490666)

The fact that some people behave badly when (they believe) they can do so anonymously does not imply that there aren't perfectly valid reasons for wanting to be anonymous. So there.

Re:cowards hide anonymously (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490672)

or slashdot, even

i mean, uh, no, oops, um, please don't mod me down, i'm not anonymous, i mean, or a coward, or trolling, or, um, ... albksl

^^^^
above poster has some kind of disorder and has fallen on his keyboard. please feel sympathy for the anonymous.

Hey! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490702)

I'm anonymous you insensitive clod!

Re:cowards hide anonymously (5, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490706)

Yep, Penny Arcade did a wonderful comic [penny-arcade.com] which illustrates that exact point.

Doesn't change that anonymity is one of the cornerstones of a functioning democratic society, however.

Re:cowards hide anonymously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490739)

you are absolutely correct. just give me your real name, address, and phone number and I'll contact you to tell you how right you are.

Re:cowards hide anonymously (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490807)

Still, usenet is better than big brother right? ;)

Sound familiar? (2, Insightful)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490632)

"Your papers, please?"

Re:Sound familiar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490667)

My name? Jose Jimenez...

Re:Sound familiar? (1, Funny)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490688)

My name? Jose Jimenez...

...you arrested my cousin. Prepare to die!

Re:Sound familiar? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490678)

thank you. this is exactly what I was goign to reply with, but i would have given it a a more for that WWII movie fake german accent sounding slant: "pah-piers, pah-piers! Hast Du Pah-piers bitte?"

Re:Sound familiar? (2)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490707)

thank you. this is exactly what I was goign to reply with, but i would have given it a a more for that WWII movie fake german accent sounding slant: "pah-piers, pah-piers! Hast Du Pah-piers bitte?"

You should hear my grandfather. He does a great "For you, the war is over" -- based on his capture on a beach on the coast of Fresia.

Re:Sound familiar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490683)

Morrowind?

The guard captain in the Census office right?

Of course it does (5, Funny)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490704)

"Your papers, please?"

Sallah (laughing): Papers? Of course!
(to Marcus)
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Yes.
Sallah: Papers. Got it here! Just finished reading it myself!
(to Marcus)
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Yes?
Sallah: "Egyptian Mail," morning edition!
[to Marcus]
Sallah: Run.
Marcus Brody: Did you say, uh...
(Sallah punches German Dude)
Sallah: RUN!

Re:Sound familiar? (1, Funny)

Telecommando (513768) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490713)

"Your papers, please?"

"But, all I have is a pipe!"

Re:Sound familiar? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490737)

"I just started grad school, I have no publication yet, sir!"

"And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any case (1, Offtopic)

mandalayx (674042) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490634)

"And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any case it doesn't like."

How does that make sense at all?

I think this law seems pretty shitty, but that line seemed a bit like flamebait to me.

"Sound Orwellian?"

Yes it does to me, but the commentary in the news article isn't necessary. Let me come to my own opinion, thanks.

PS - there is also a ruling on Intel v. AMD from today (see the SCOTUS website) but I wasn't able to sort through the legalese.

Re:"And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any c (5, Informative)

Damiano (113039) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490727)

The reason the Supreme Court only hears cases it wishes is twofold.

1) As the original poster suggested, it allows them to only decide cases they feel are "ripe"

and more importantly:

2) The Supreme Court receives over *8000* requests for cert each year. They can only hand 80-120 cases or so. Needless to say they have to be able to filter some of the "junk" out.

Re:"And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any c (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490749)

SCROTUM?

Re:"And the SCOTUS is at liberty not to hear any c (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490793)

PS - there is also a ruling on Intel v. AMD from today (see the SCOTUS website) but I wasn't able to sort through the legalese.

The ruling was a very narrow ruling that said that Intel can be compelled to release some documents filed to a US court (in the Intergraph lawsuit) in a seperate lawsuit filed in Europe. Right now the ruling has no impact- I believe AMD would have to file a second lawsuit to actually get Intel to release the documents. This ruling just clears the way for AMD to file that lawsuit.

Communism and Capitalism (1, Interesting)

vaidhy (14207) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490636)

Looks like US is bringing its laws finally inline with what the rest of the world has!!

And for those people who think that fourth amendment is still alive, best of luck!!

Re:Communism and Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490668)

what the HELL does this have to do with communism or capitalism??

canada anybody? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490638)

so, how come we aren't seeing the mass migration of all you intelligent americans to canada yet?

even the most right-winged uber-conservatives from the states that i know love canada.

Re:canada anybody? (0)

Dark Nexus (172808) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490748)

Psst... That's a pretty standard law the world over... Last I heard, Canada has it too, and has for quite some time, probably well before 1984.

Re:canada anybody? (1)

pbox (146337) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490755)

i aint going. them gots shits for wether. yippie.

Re:canada anybody? (1)

nyrv (663334) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490778)

This is the most disturbing news I have ever heard. I for one welcome my new Canadian Overlords.

Medical Marijuana here I come!

Re:canada anybody? (5, Funny)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490783)

so, how come we aren't seeing the mass migration of all you intelligent americans to canada yet?

It's already happened -- he crossed the border last Thursday.

As George Carlin says.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490639)

"Just another way of reducing your liberties and telling you that can fuck with you anyway they want"

Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything else (4, Informative)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490642)

From a link:

In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.

This bodes well -- it would seem to put the kibosh on any effort to turn this into a "must produce your National ID card on demand" ruling.

A name is a name (Jack Brown), and gives the officer something to call you besides "Hey You", but as long as we're not required to produce some sort of definitive, unique-identity-signifying number of the beast, I'm not too worried.

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (4, Funny)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490708)

If all I have to give is my name, then I'm not particularly concerned. Just make up a name that doesn't sound too suspiciously bland (like John Smith) I think my new police officer name just became Bryan Wendy.

Of course, I will continue to list my address as
1060 West Addison
Chicago, Illinois
60613

And my social...
078-05-1120 [wired.com]

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (4, Funny)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490776)

If all I have to give is my name, then I'm not particularly concerned. Just make up a name that doesn't sound too suspiciously bland (like John Smith)

And what if you really are John smith? Even worse, what about the Michael Boltons of the world?

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490769)

but as long as we're not required to produce some sort of definitive, unique-identity-signifying number of the beast, I'm not too worried.

But my legal name is {477ef70b-a53c-4658-9586-9d4e8541f02f}, you insensitive clod!

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (4, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490794)

according to http://papersplease.org/hiibel/index2.html it went like this:

****

Meet Dudley Hiibel. He's a 59 year old cowboy who owns a small ranch outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. He lives a simple life, but he's his own man. You probably never would have heard of Dudley Hiibel if it weren't for his belief in the U.S. Constitution.

One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.

On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.
***

so what the hell? did the court decide? that his quilty but it's still not alright to ask for the id????

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490809)

so what the hell? did the court decide? that his quilty but it's still not alright to ask for the id????

Is being quilty kind of like being blankety, only thinner?

Re:Name only, not ID, serial number, or anything e (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490805)

A name is a name (Jack Brown), and gives the officer something to call you besides "Hey You", but as long as we're not required to produce some sort of definitive, unique-identity-signifying number of the beast, I'm not too worried.

In my state (PA), it is perfectly legal to use any name of your choice so long as there is no fraudulent intent.

Though it's not the name on my driver's license or birth certificate, Kijoro Kano is the name I use when someone has no legitimate reason to ask for it.

LK

Time for a road trip ... (1)

rubicon7 (51782) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490643)

... one-way to Canada.

Possible scenarios (5, Funny)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490644)

People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian?

"What's your name?"
"Rutherford."
"Rutherford is an unperson."
"Ogilvy."
"Ogilvy's a dead war hero."
"Uh--"
"To Miniluv with you!"

The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name.

"You are under suspicion for extreeeme bestiality."
"Uh, no."
"What's your name?"
"Forget it."
"To Miniluv with you!"

So close! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490674)

"What's your name?"
"Rutherford."
"Rutherford is an unperson."
"Ogilvy."
"Ogilvy's a dead war hero."
"Uh--"
"ROOM 101!"

Finally... (3, Interesting)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490645)

... the US is the same as France...

Anonyminity is a virtue (1)

Sodade (650466) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490646)

Here they come here come the bastards Bury your head deep in the sand Anonyminity is a virtue in this day and age Amazing hand dexterity Flagrant misuse of security Better run, run, run, run, run Run Run Run Run, here they come.

Sound Orwellian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490647)

No.

This is nothing (1, Insightful)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490648)

Years from now your computer will make you use retina scan. Without that you can't login and your pet robot will beat the shit out of you.

Those who think U.S. is becoming more free is absolutely on crack. We are prisoners to our own PC, spyware, viruses, martha steward pajamas.

So much for the right to remain silent. (3, Insightful)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490650)

Doesn't this fly in the face of the cherished "right to remain silent"? I mean, how can you identify yourself without speaking?

I don't really know what to say about this, other then that it's a desturbing step backwards. I can see corrupt police arresting someone for identifying themselves "incorrectly" (i.e. if the cop dosn't belive them).

Very dissapointed in SCOTUS.

Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490696)

does anybody else think that "SCOTUS" sounds vaguely sexual?

Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490728)

I mean, how can you identify yourself without speaking?
Carry around a pad of paper and a pen or pencil. If an officer asks for your name, and you wish to exercise your right to remain silent, write your name down on a piece of paper.

Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (1)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490760)

The point of "Right to Remain Silent" is that you have the right to not give any evidence which may incriminate yourself. In other words, they can't *force* you to confess to anything. You always have the right to "no speech".

The Supreme Court decision just says that while you may have the right to exercise no speech, you don't have the right to completely withold your identity. This in-and-of itself should never be a criminal fact.

Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (4, Informative)

interiot (50685) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490731)

Far be it from me to suggest people RTFA, but the issue was specifically covered:
  • Hiibel's contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.
eg. you shouldn't be forced (by imprisonment, torture, or otherwise) to admit to some crime. But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating. If the authorities already have some evidence against you, then they do either way, and hiding your identity won't change that.

Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490792)

I sure feel sorry for the fellow named "O. Samabin Laddin"

Re:So much for the right to remain silent. (5, Interesting)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490795)

But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating.

Unless, of course, you're on the shit list of some local government agency, for speaking out against said government agency. And then you might suddenly find yourself with a busted tail light, a flat tire, or even 'suspicion of transporting drugs' which, in the South at least, can get your car completely dismantled.

But that doesn't happen in the good ol' U.S. of A., right?

Max

Miranda 101 (1)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490803)

The Miranda Rights are only for suspects who are being arrested. It is designed to remind the suspect of his 5th Amendment right to nonself-incrimination.

As it says on the Wiki [wikipedia.org] police only need to Mirandize those who they intend to question. Snip: "Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda Warning. Furthermore, if public safety warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior to a reading of the Miranda Warning."

Identify only in Specific Cases (4, Insightful)

Pave Low (566880) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490652)

Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anybody can be compelled at any time to identify themselves, if a police officer asks.

No, that is just not correct. The court held that police, based on reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity can compel him to identify themself.

This ruling doesn't change the fact that police just can't ask to for your name for no reason at all. At least get the facts right in your own damn summary before going off on "your rights".

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490693)

Pity that in this particular case, the cop had absolutely no freakin' 'reasonable suspicion'.

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490799)

mod parent up

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (4, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490705)

The court held that police, based on reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity can compel him to identify themself.

If you are "suspected" of conspiracy to delay or obstruct a peace officer, the police would then have the reasonable suspicion necessary to ask for your identity.

LK

Re:Identify only in Specific Cases (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490806)

At least get the facts right in your own damn summary before going off on "your rights".

The job of the editors is to post stories which generate hits to the site. Slashdot plays the self serving FUD game just as well as your favorite evil mega-corp.
Facts are dead, long live hype.

SCOTUS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490658)

The s-cotus said what?

Not a Problem (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490665)

The only people who would have a problem with giving law enforcement officers are exactly the same people with something to hide and/or are suffering from extreme paranoia. Face it - there is not one single legitimate reason to give your name to a police officer or FBI agent.

whats the charge? (1)

theguywhosaid (751709) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490670)

sure, they can arrest you, but what are you charged with?

Re:whats the charge? (2, Insightful)

Dark Nexus (172808) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490719)

Interfering with an investigation, maybe? As others have said, there needs to be a REASON for them to ask you who you are.

Dudley Hiibel's side (4, Informative)

po_boy (69692) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490671)

Here's a link to Dudley Hiibel's side of the story: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/ [papersplease.org] .

Thanks for fighting for my rights, Mr. Hiibel!

Implications (5, Insightful)

sglider (648795) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490680)

Unfortunatly, the unknowing average citizen believes that since they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't have a problem giving a policeman their identification. This in turns allow the powers that be to further ask for other information, such as, "What are you doing around here", and "Where are you going?" These in of themselves are rather harmless questions, but if we aren't careful, we can recreate Nazi Germany rather quickly. The ability to move about anonymously and not have to be on the defensive about who and where we are are inherent rights, and I can't see legal justification for making the innocent prove who they are and the guilty (or in this case, suspected of another crime) get away with not having to identify themselves. We are supposed to a people that believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', and not 'give in to everything the government wants' because its supposedly 'for our own good'.

The lesson here... (3, Insightful)

Eberlin (570874) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490681)

Do not act suspicious enough to be asked to identify yourself. It's disheartening but accepted policy that anonymity isn't much of an option when the authorities get involved. The more information you obstruct, the more irate they'd get...and the more inconvenienced you will be in the end.

The lesson here is to be clean enough or not be suspicious enough to get into such predicaments.

I work at a place where people occasionally use stolen ID numbers to gain computer access. People tend to betray themselves with their actions when they're guilty of something, and it's often easy enough to find out who isn't logged on legitimately just by making eye contact. It's a matter of being mindful of your non-verbal communication.

Easy way out (5, Funny)

isomeme (177414) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490689)

I think it's very kind of the Supremes to provide such a simple way out of this otherwise intrusive situation. If a police officer asks you for your name, simply inform him or her that, as you are wanted for another crime, you would prefer not to give your name. See how easy that is? I love this country!

Re:Easy way out (1, Offtopic)

lewp (95638) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490764)

Doh! Now we'll never catch Osama.

Not correct (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490692)

I thought that part of the point here was that the laws were only validated by the court for circumstances where a person *is* under reasonable suspicion of being involved in a crime, which is a lower standard than that required for a search (probable cause).

Down Under (4, Informative)

martinX (672498) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490695)

Now I am surprised! Here in the land Down Under, we have always been compelled to identify ourselves to police. Name and address, but there's no ID card requirement.

There is also a charge for giving police a false name.

Try this for a start [qld.gov.au] .

Or Google [google.com]

Re:Down Under (-1, Troll)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490743)

Now I am surprised! Here in the land Down Under, we have always been compelled to identify ourselves to police. Name and address, but there's no ID card requirement.

Sure, but only on Saturday nite, and only to make sure everyone gets home in time for early-morning Sunday sheep-shearing.

Re:Down Under (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490745)

Same goes here in Norway afaik..
But here we can also make the officer identify himself, if someone feels something is done wrong.

Not that any new laws are needed just to arrest (4, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490698)


I doubt there's anyone in America that could not be charged and convicted of a real legal offense that exists on the books somewhere in America in a given week. This isn't some nebulous concept of sin - I'm speaking of real laws that exist.

Still - the thought of being arrested for just walking around without a wallet, or not wanting to tell a strange officer your name is going further into the "oh, come on" realm.

I can imagine many ways to spin this both ways. Drunk people can be charged for even more crimes now if they get caught ashamed and unwilling to name themselves. So can plain embarassed or even crazy people.

Still - the judges had to decide based on the issues handed to them. I'd have preferred greater freedom here, but as a matter of law, they may be correct that this isn't a constitutional requirement. Always strange how legal decisions get made.

Ryan Fenton

1984 (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490699)

Orwell missed by 20 years..

catch-22 (4, Insightful)

QEDog (610238) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490703)

So, they ask for your name, you refuse to tell them. They arrest you. If they arrest you, you have the right to remain silent, so you don't have to tell them your name.

To have the right not to tell them your name you have to get arrested?

Am I the only one that things this is hilariosly messed up logic?

Re:catch-22 (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490791)

Don't say that too loud or they'll notice and you'll lose that right as well!

Read the opinion (5, Insightful)

Carnage4Life (106069) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490814)

The argument of the Supreme Court is that your name doesn't incriminate you unless there are extenuating circumstances so asking you to identify yourself doesn't violate your 5th ammendment rights.

Rights? What rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490709)

You have the right to remain silent....not!!!

gotta register one of these days....rct

It'll become an excuse for mass fingerprinting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490710)

Due to homeland security if any officer suspects that you may not be who you claim, they can AND DO require fingerprinting on the spot.

Seriously.

SCOTUS not hearing cases... (1)

Loco3KGT (141999) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490712)

Hasn't this always been the case? The Supreme Court gets inundated with requests and they can only hear so many cases per year. So they choose the ones that pertain to the Constitution the most and decide which ones have the greatest impact and then hear those cases.

What's changed?

Wow, just like the Bush vs. Gore (2, Informative)

jfern (115937) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490714)

ruling to end the FL recount.
It was a 5-4 ruling with
Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, Thomas, and Scalia in favor and Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg opposed.

manifest destiny (1)

kflash15 (252578) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490717)

I think that the majority of /.er's just regard this ruling as another step twoard the manifest destiny of the world... You have to wear your IR because it's embedded in your arm, and unless you're very clever there's no way to avoid telling the feds who you are (after all, the bill of rights doesn't pertain to RFID tags).

FIRST STEP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490720)

Next step FED ID's

Doesn't matter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490723)

Who the fuck goes anonymous anyway?

A few relevant quotes (4, Informative)

No Such Agency (136681) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490734)

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Also, a number of Philip K. Dick's books addressed the power of the drug war to instantly criminalize somebody, a power which oculd be used selectively against dissenters and political troublemakers. This is another example of a law which can be used selectively - the police choose who to ask, thus biasing the pool of possible arrestees. Demanding identification under duress - from people you know will be unwilling to provide it - has the benefit that it's all above board, and the ensuing arrests are in the interests of "security".

"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."

Incriminating, no, but it could be intimidating. This is, IMO, dangerously close to saying "if you're innocent, you should have nothing to hide".

Last post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490736)

Well that's it folks, I guess I have to retire this account

The name is Jablowme. Heywood Jablowme. (0, Troll)

Glamdrlng (654792) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490750)

For added hilarity, the majority of the SC who ruled against Mr. Hiibel also indicated that you don't necessarily have to provide identification documents, just your name:
In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.
Myself, I expect the DHS' terrorist databases to look like Christmas trees when they pull the files on Mike Hunt, Heywood Jablowme, Amanda Hugginkiss, and Servuss M'Bawlz.

stand up for what you believe in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490763)

Post anonymously!!

;^)

Huh? (4, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490770)

People who refuse to identify themselves, even if they are not suspected of a crime, will be arrested. Sound Orwellian? The Supreme Court also said people who are suspected of another crime might not be subject to arrest for not revealing their name.

So, lemme get this straight. You're NOT suspected of a crime and refuse to identify yourself, you get arrested. You ARE suspected of a crime and refuse to identify yourself and you DON'T get arrested? That's pretty fucked up.

It works both ways (5, Funny)

ozbird (127571) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490775)

You have the right to ask the police officer for their ID. If you cannot confirm that they are indeed
a police officer, you have no obligation to give them your ID.
(However, saying "If you show me your's, I'll show you mine" will probably get you arrested.)

nope (2, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490784)

"Sound Orwellian?"

Nope. It sounds post 9-11. That's not to say it's better or worse. Simply that the motivation is fear, not in absolute power.

Not really (3, Insightful)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490786)

Sound Orwellian?

No.

Not unless having a half-intelligent government of a nation of people is Orwellian.

The government reserves the right to know who exactly is in the country. You're a citizen, you have certain responsibilities to the state if you don't want to get arrested - or you're an alien, and you have even more if you don't want to get evicted.

The government has always reserved this right. Public anonymity to other private individuals has its uses and should be permitted under most cases, but public anonymity to the police is basically hiding from the government, which you should be detained for.

And the Supreme Court has always had the ability to refuse an appeal - whereupon the lower court's decision (federal appellate, IIRC) continues its effect.

Yes, the police's rights can be abused. But e-mail can be and has been abused, so is e-mail thus a bad thing?

If you don't like what the government's doing, show me YOUR plan, and tell me how it introduces no new shortcomings. For longstanding principles like this that are somehow "news" (on Slashdot of all places), I really doubt you can.

Headline correction. (1)

user no. 590291 (590291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490787)

Fourth amendment defeated 5-4.

Not so fast... (5, Interesting)

applemasker (694059) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490788)

This isn't a blanket license for law enforcement to ask for "papers" or whatnot. To put it in context, the holding is that neither the 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches or seizures or the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination protect a citizen against giving their name in conjunction with an "investigative stop." If there was no investigative stop, and a citizen were mere asked to identify themselves, then the result could (and probably would) be different.

In this case, the police officer came upon a domestic dispute on the side of a roadway when Hiibel refused to identify himself. This is a little different from a cop walking up to you and asking for "papers." Under the circumstances, this request for identification (in the majority's view) is not unreasonably intrusive from a privacy standpoint. At this stage, asking for a name is not like patting him down or searching the car, both of which are more invasive and would require some additional justificaiton.

Also, before everyone stampedes for Canada, let's keep in mind that although there may not be any Federal Constituional prohibition against this, the States are all free to find that citizens in their jurisdiction enjoy greater state constitutional protection than the Federal provisions at issue here. That said, there is nothing preventing any individual state from a contrary holding under the exact same circumstances.

Personally, I disagree with the holding, but I am simply offering the rationale. The 5-4 split demonstrates, if nothing else, that reasonable minds can differ on this issue. (Also, the fact that O'Connor again "swings" the Court is interesting..)

Link to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions here [findlaw.com] .

Often Moot - but it's still dangerous (4, Insightful)

TomRC (231027) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490804)

It's often a moot point. If you were stopped in your car, they'd have your license number. They would just ask you "Is this your car?" If you say yes, you've identified yourself. If you didn't say it is, and continued to be evasive, they would assume you'd stolen it and arrest you. Same thing if you were in your house and they came to your door. You MIGHT have been safe walking down the street on a public sidewalk, prior to this ruling.

The idea that you might be able to withhold your name if you are guilty means that remaining silent is automatically a confession - either you're guilty of something else, or you're guilty of withholding your name. The police will ALWAYS arrest you, and find some other means to identify you.

Also, since the police can arrest you for withholding your name, if you are trying to avoid being arrested for an outstanding warrant, they can hold you indefinitely - simply by asking you your name every 24 hours until you tell them (so they look up your outstanding warrants). Yep - forced self-incrimination.

My guess is that there will be a future case that gets to the supreme court, where an innocent person in a legal demonstration refuses to give their name, gets arrested, and refuses for weeks to give their name - and gets held by the police without any realistic opportunity to be set free. Then maybe the court will realize what they've done.

I'm out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490810)

I'm out of this country. Fuck this, I can't be anonymous? I can't not have police ask me questions, pat me down for "weapons" looking for weed, have the swat team come into my house while I am putting on my clothes and point some automatics on me, where a government with unlimited funds can sue the shit out of me for years and years just trying to run me out of cash, and if I say I will fight they drop MORE charges on me. For blowing some glass pipes. Justice? They destroyed my friends lives. Made them sucidal. We had cops in the store before, and one of the co-owners probation officer patted him on the back. Now everyone just rolls joints. You think you are fine, walking down the street or selling pipes. Wave at cops, ask them if you are in the wrong. Then they decide to have a beef. I like cops, I really do. I like it when they save a kid from a child molester. When they help me change a tire. When they are there to protect me. But put to much power into their hands and the few bad apples abuse it. While in France I was told that at any time a cop could ask you for your ID. I told them no American would stand for that. That it was crazy. I am ashamed to be in a country where people are getting there rights eroded in order to "protect" them. What the hell are we fighting for? I'm gone, let the zombies come and tear this place apart.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?