[LINK] Airport to tag passengers

Brendan Scott brendansweb at optusnet.com.au
Thu Oct 19 20:11:23 AEST 2006

Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> Brendan Scott [brendansweb at optusnet.com.au] wrote:
>> Deus Ex Machina wrote:
>>> Karl Auer [kauer at biplane.com.au] wrote:
>>>>> What rights do you think are being traded, and what status has this 
>>>>> right in law?
>>>> Good question! The right to be left alone. The right not to be a suspect
>>>> by default. The right for data about my possessions, my movements and my
>>>> person to be under my control. The right to choose how, when and why I
>>>> reveal such data to others, and the right for me to stipulate - and have
>>>> the means to enforce - conditions on their use.
>>> you mean like an airport owner stipulatig how their property is used?
>> Ahem.  
>> Airports are licensed to operate by the Government - ie the public's elected representatives and they are licensed on behalf of the public. It is perfectly reasonable for the public to stipulate how their property is used by their tenants.  If those tenants don't like it, they can spend their money elsewhere. 
> twatle. the public elect the government they dont tell it how to run its business.

The public certainly are entitled to tell them how to run its business, and if they don't listen hard enough they might find themselves out on their ear at the next election - or not.  You seem to be arguing that there is no place for public discourse.  

> there is also clear legal separation between
> the government and the corporations it owns. just because the government
> for example own a majority share in telstra, does not mean it can tell
> telstra what to do.

It means it can keep firing management until they do. 

> and you are right if the government imposed stupid conditions on the
> managemement of airports then nobody would step up to the plate. just as
> if airport impose stupid conditions on the use of their property no one
> would turn up.
> the reality is though that if rfid is introduced into airports, no on
> other then a few zealots are going to give a shit. can we see the subtle
> differences here yet?

And you know this how? You have your magic goggles on?  As far as I can tell you are no better qualified than anyone else to say what the public wants.  You may well be less qualified.
> lefty loves to impose his set of values on others and as we saw during
> the last election screams violation of democracy when his values are not
> voted in. obviously people are sheep and too stupid to rise to lefties level.
> just as they will be too stupid to do anything about rfid in airports,
> or barcodes and scanners in super markets. and we all know how evil
> barcodes and scanners can be in the wrong hands.
> so lets summarise, the public is not going to tell the government to
> impose stupid conditions on airport management like lefty wants because lefty doesnt
> actually represent the public view, just his own "superior" vantage point.

I have not met this Mr "Lefty" you are referring to. The government will make its own mind up when facing policy decisions like this.  It is open to the Government to impose privacy protective provisions, just as it is open to not do so.  More importantly, it is an essential part of a democracy that its citizens be able to express their wishes to their representatives.  Whether they are "truly representative" is up to the MP to decide, as it is to weigh the policy implications.  I can't find anything in the Constitution which puts you in privileged position to decide these points. 


More information about the Link mailing list