lack of privacy issues Re: [LINK] Airport to tag passengers
Deus Ex Machina
vicc at cia.com.au
Mon Oct 16 22:35:20 AEST 2006
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
> - 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"
> "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 "
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.
ps please someone tell jan not to inadvertently read my posts, its bad
for her posture.
More information about the Link