[LINK] Airport to tag passengers
gramadan at umd.com.au
Tue Oct 17 00:50:37 AEST 2006
Karl Auer wrote:
> Hi Geoff.
> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 11:49 +1000, Geoff Ramadan wrote:
>> The right not to take part is a given. He can choose to follow the Airports
>> procedures or he can go to another airport.
> And if all airports have the system, his "right" is a sham.
>> They are in fact protecting and considering the rights of passengers, that its
>> whole purpose: their right to safe travel.
> This "right" is actually a desire, a wish. The airports and others are
> quite rightly seeking to protect "their" travellers, they have a duty of
> care. What they do NOT have is any reason and certainly no "right" to
> assume that how they want to do it is how people want it done. Nor do
> they have any reason or right to make assumptions about what rights can
> or should be traded off for that safety.
What rights do you think are being traded, and what status has this
right in law?
> That is why customers - passengers - are an essential part of the
> discussion. What if most passengers do NOT want their rights traded away
> for safety?
>> Unfortunately in order to do this, they need to extend on peoples rights.
> That is a common and sadly false misconception (if by "extend", which
> makes no sense in this context, you mean "intrude"). There is no (or
> hardly any) conflict between civil rights and real safety. There is a
> LOT of conflict between civil liberties and much of the nonsense we have
> passing for "safety" and "security" these days. Read some of Bruce
> Schneier's stuff, he's good at making this clear.
>> I think he is being honest.
>> The reality is that Business DO want more information about their customers and
>> potential customers. In order to extract this information they want to ask
>> questions that are private in nature.
>> Customer/Business already do this now. Business will continue to push the
>> envelope, which has led to privacy laws protecting consumers.
> See the flip side? Business pushes it too far, otherwise such laws would
> not be needed. Business does not have and never will have the interests
> of its customers at heart, except in so far as it MUST do, to avoid
> losing them.
Is this what the privacy laws (and I assume others) are about, stopping
Business from pushing too far.
> As to "reality" the reality is that business, given half a chance, will
> exploit, pollute and destroy, because it's only measure of success is
> profit. How do I know this? Because it is the proven, demonstrated
> history of business as long as there has been such a thing.
> So lets not talk about what is reality. let's instead talk about what
> measures we can take as people to ensure that our lives are not
> dominated and controlled by those interested not in our welfare but in
> the extent to which we can enrich them.
> An honest man would have said "we want stuff from customers which in
> many cases it is not in their interests to give us; in some cases it
> even against the law for us to request it. We need to make giving us
> information more attractive; where our desires conflict with the law we
> need to lobby for change in the law."
>> He is just stating the obvious by trying to find a balance.
> How easy it is to use the word "balance". Business interests and civil
> rights are not something that have a "balance" to be found. Rights are
> givens, aimed at increasing human happiness. Business interests are
> aimed at increasing profit. Can you imagine a business saying "we must
> balance our need to extract cash from customers' wallets against the
> laws regarding theft"? There is no balance - you just don't do it,
> period. And if you do, you get punished.
If it is illegal or unlawful then I agree.
I was referring to the balance as it relates to what is legal, an in
particular as it relates to privacy.
>> What he means is:
>> In the normal mode of operation of extreme privacy advocates is to use
>> miss-information about the capability of technologies, and to come up with
>> extreme examples of how privacy can be invaded, which would only be plausible in
>> a world based on anarchy.
> Odd. I see the quote (which I realise may have been taken out of
> context) as setting up a straw man.
The quotation was at the end of a radio interview about RFID and privacy
> Regards, K.
More information about the Link