lack of privacy issues Re: [LINK] Airport to tag passengers

[Deus Ex Machina]

rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au [rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au] wrote:
> 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.

> particularly addressed by controlling movement of individuals within the 
> airport.
> - 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.

there are no privacy issue here.


> >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.

no privacy issue here either.

> >How does it conflict with the 4 basic RFID privacy resolutions?
> 
> Reverting to the original story:
> "1) data not linked to personal information"
> versus:
> "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 "
> Fail.

still no privacy issue.

> >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.

no privacy issue here still.

> 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?).


your entire post can be summarised to one line: "dont want it".

nothing to do with privacy. conclusion: walking around on someone else property has
no privacy implications.

Vic

ps please someone tell jan not to inadvertently read my posts, its bad
for her posture.