[LINK] Airport to tag passengers

rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Mon Oct 16 20:51:43 AEST 2006

Geoffrey, straightforward questions deserve straightforward answers:

> How does protecting the privacy rights of passenger usurp the 
> Government and Industries issues and responsibility in ensuring the 
> safety of passengers?

This one simply looks like the wrong solution to the wrong problem. What 
are the terrorist threats regarding air travel?
- the hijacking of the aircraft itself for use as a weapon - not 
particularly addressed by controlling movement of individuals within the 
- a suicide or similar attack within the airport - not particularly 
solved by this.
- the planting of a device in luggage. If it's in the luggage carried by 
the attacker, the RFID doesn't much help prevent the attack. If it's a 
'plant' in luggage via baggage handling or similar, then you need to 
secure those areas - diverting attention to tracking the movement of the 
harmless traveller doesn't help.

> Also, no one has yet explained what rights are exactly at issue?

The right, as the US judge once said, "to be left alone" when I'm going 
about normal, legal and harmless activities.

> How does it conflict with the 4 basic RFID privacy resolutions?

Reverting to the original story:
"1) data not linked to personal information"
"such as the possibility that people might ditch their tags to avoid 
detection, or swap them with another person."
So: how do you tie tag to the identity if you're not collecting identity?

"4) able to delete or disable RFID tag "

> What is the problem?

In my view, the problem is a pointless solution, funded with government 
money, which solves the wrong problem while snooping on the wrong people.

Historically, only one kind of state or government has made it "normal" 
to watch as many activities of normal citizens as possible: the police 
states. It is a fundamental premise of the totalitarian state that it 
needs the maximum possible information about all possible citizens' 
activities. People have a right to debate these things and to resist 
needless intrusion.

Moreover, it is not better, but worse, when the state and the corporate 
entity combine in the intrusion into the life of the citizen. That is 
nothing more than the "corporate state".

People are right to resist the needless narrowing of the private; most 
particularly, because experience tells us that "more control" does *not* 
equate to "safer society". Oddly enough, freedom seems to be best 
defended by more freedom (it's like the probably-apocryphal story of a 
terrorist cell planted in Dee Why, when it came time to activate them, 
the problem was that who wants to bomb things when the surf's up?).


> Regards
> Geoffrey Ramadan, B.E.(Elec)
> Chairman, Automatic Data Capture Australia (www.adca.com.au)
> and
> Managing Director, Unique Micro Design (www.umd.com.au)
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

More information about the Link mailing list