commies rear ugly heads yet again Re: [LINK] Airport to tag passengers
Deus Ex Machina
vicc at cia.com.au
Mon Oct 16 08:01:35 AEST 2006
Karl Auer [kauer at biplane.com.au] wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:12 +1000, Geoffrey Ramadan wrote:
> > surface appears to conform to the 4 basic RFID privacy resolutions (from
> > the world's data protection and privacy commission)
> > 1) data not linked to personal information
> > 2) person fully informed
> > 3) only use data for what it was intended for
> > 4) able to delete or disable RFID tag
> Are these the only four?!? What about a person's choice not to take
if you are talking about about other peoples property then you have no
right to split out one component that doesnt suit you if the proprietor
doesnt wish it to be split. such suggestions are just more communism.
these display a fundamental disrespect for other peoples property rights which
really is the hallmark of a good commie inst it?
> I find it objectionable to place business interests on the same level as
> privacy rights at all, and it is telling that Maxwell does. Says a lot
> about what he really thinks about privacy.
business interests are superior to privacy, privacy doesnt create
prosperity. privacy is the last bastion of the leftist against the
overwhelming triumph of business to create lifestyle and an unprecendent
standard of living for humanity that participates in it.
to suggest business should kow tow to privacy advocates is disingenous
stupidity. business only kow tow to one group, its customers. if its
customers dont want rfid they will not spend their hard earned dollars.
the market very quickly sorts out what the public want in stark contrast
to the self anointed bleating losers who claim they know what the public want.
> > ???In a society based on anarchy, it is possible to imagine anything. But
> > we live in a civilised society, in which both common sense and the rule
> > of law prevail.??? - Interview from Professor Peter Cole April 8 2004.
> > (RFID Physicists)
> This is an apparently meaningless truism. You may to be using it to
> imply that NOT accepting a "balance" between business interests and
> privacy rights would be tantamount to anarchy. If not, what the heck DO
> you mean?
not anarchy. the usual ratbag communists.
the rfid beat up is not different to the barcode beat up many years ago
and we hear nothing from our commie friends about barcode any more. in a
decade rfid will still be here our commie friends will have been swamped
out in the tide of consumer demand, choice and benefits.
More information about the Link