[LINK] Airport to tag passengers
gramadan at umd.com.au
Tue Oct 24 23:04:40 AEST 2006
Adam Todd wrote:
> 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?
Is this the whole point.
As terrorist want volunteer to be "identified", then you identify the
non-terrorist. Hence could identify terrorist by exception.
> 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