[LINK] Airport to tag passengers

Adam Todd link at todd.inoz.com
Mon Oct 23 00:17:34 AEST 2006

At 08:36 PM 22/10/2006, Geoffrey Ramadan wrote:
>Jan Whitaker wrote:
>>At 10:36 AM 17/10/2006, Geoff Ramadan wrote:
>>>But also as mentioned before, Passengers also have a "right" to safe 
>>>travel. Airports have an obligation to provide safe travel, which 
>>>include protecting against threats, not to mention customs and other 
>>>legal compliance obligation.
>>I thought you conceded that this move doesn't 'provide safe travel' and 
>>therefore doesn't meet the test required of the licensed operators of the 
>>airports? If it doesn't, then there is no reason under that argument in 
>>the tradeoff.
>I said it was a dumb system.
>Jan I am trying to understand how do you weigh up differing and 
>conflicting "rights".
>Does the greater need  for safety, outweigh privacy issues?

Depends on who's privacy is at stake.

Is the privacy of 1 million innocent honest and true people less important 
than the privacy of one terrorist who doesn't give you correct details anyway?

That is the question to pose.

After all, the PRIVACY of terrorists, dictators and henchmen of the past 
several decades hasn't exactly been anything less than public, yet it 
hasn't stopped them blowing up buildings, killing innocent unarmed women 
and children.

Strangely enough, the lack of privacy has ensured that those innocent 
victims are next to impossible to identify without millions of dollars and 
endless people being allocated to the purpose of identification.

And it seems the purpose of identifying remains isn't for the closure of 
family and friends, but to see if the terrorists body parts are able to be 
identified from the destruction.


More information about the Link mailing list