Agent Monkeysee on 12/10/2006 at 18:26
I don't see how airport-issued tags would be an infringement of civil liberties. It's basically an individual version of luggage tags.
RFID tagging in general raises obvious civil liberties issues but scrictly within the purview of tracking airline passengers while in an airport really isn't that big a difference from security checkpoints and cameras all over the place.
*Zaccheus* on 12/10/2006 at 18:39
I'm not luggage.
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
cameras all over the place.
I don't like cameras all over the place either.
And I'm pretty certain that this tagging won't stop at the air-ports. We already have security cameras all over the place in town centers ...
Agent Monkeysee on 12/10/2006 at 18:52
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
I'm not luggage.
I don't like cameras all over the place either.
Fair enough and speaking as an American the British hardon for public surveillance upsets me as well, but the way I see it an airport brings with it absolutely no assumption of privacy anyway. It really is the one place where civil society decided a long time ago that security trumps liberty and this is just part of a trend that's been around since the '70s.
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
And I'm pretty certain that this tagging won't stop at the air-ports. We already have security cameras all over the place in town centers ...
That's a legitimate complaint to some degree but it's not specifically an argument against RFID tracking
within airports. Also you must really hate going to London :cool:
Having said that I'm unclear how RFID tracking would have stopped 9/11. The hijackers didn't have to go anywhere regular passengers wouldn't. A hijacker is just a normal passenger until they attack the plane crew. I think the best argument against this is that it's not clear that this would actually do anything to make airports more secure. I just don't agree that it immediately raises civil liberties issues.
*Zaccheus* on 12/10/2006 at 19:14
If you think it does not improve security, then surely the question is why are they doing it?
What concerns me is the drip, drip, drip, effect - introducing stuff in small increments, so it is harder to object to individual changes because of the "it's not that different from what we already have" argument. I'm at the point where I have simply had enough.
I suspect there are also some commercial interests involved, eg. finding out how best to target consumers by tracking their movement habits (where to place shops & adverts etc).
duckman on 12/10/2006 at 19:29
Quote Posted by Matthew
Of course, locking the cockpit door gives a good excuse for potential hijackers to threaten the lives of cabin crew/passengers to force the pilots to open it, but hey!
Oh, you mean apposed to crashing the plane into a building with 3000 additional deaths?
Agent Monkeysee on 12/10/2006 at 19:32
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
If you think it does not improve security, then surely the question is why are they doing it?
Yes which is why I raised that question :confused:
*Zaccheus* on 12/10/2006 at 20:22
Indeed, and I'm saying that I think there is an immediate civil liberties concern because of it.
Turtle on 12/10/2006 at 20:27
Quote Posted by duckman
Oh, you mean <strike>a</strike><b>o</b>pposed to crashing the plane...
Seriously, you don't need <i>passengers</i> to land a plane.
Agent Monkeysee on 12/10/2006 at 21:35
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Indeed, and I'm saying that I think there
is an immediate civil liberties concern because of it.
But you haven't said what that is beyond slippery slope arguments and the general sense that people just shouldn't be monitored in airports. The first claim isn't an argument for or against this particular example and the second I find simply unrealistic and regardless isn't actually calling out any specific civil liberty violations. There never really was an expectation of privacy in an airport since the beginning of mass air travel.
