[LINK] Airport to tag passengers

[Geoffrey Ramadan]

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.

Reg
Geoffrey Ramadan

>
> 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.
>
> Hmmm.
>
>