Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Airport To Tag Passengers With RFID 262

Posted by kdawson
from the say-baaaaa dept.
denebian devil writes "A new technology is to be trialled in Debrecen Airport in Hungary that will involve tagging all passengers with high-powered RFID tags. From the Register article: 'People will be told to wear radio tags round their necks when they get to the airport. The tag would notify a computer system of their identity and whereabouts. The system would then track their activities in the airport using a network of high definition cameras. "[The tags] have got a long range, of 10m to 20m," said Dr. Paul Brennan of University College London's antennas and radar group which developed the tags, "and the system has been designed so the tag can be located to within a meter, and it can locate thousands of tags in one area at a given time."' The system is being touted for 'Improving airport efficiency, security and passenger flow by enhanced passenger monitoring.' BBC is also reporting this story, and brings up such hurdles to the project as 'finding a way of ensuring the tags cannot be switched between passengers or removed without notification.' As for any mention of the 'hurdle' of people's rights, the article vaguely and briefly states that 'The issue of infringement of civil liberties will also be key,' but doesn't bother to go into any pesky details."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airport To Tag Passengers With RFID

Comments Filter:
  • Dog collars. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by teh loon (974951) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @07:48AM (#16435099)
    From the desciption, it sounds like the passengers will end up wearing dog collars. Anyone reminded of Battle Royale? It's one thing to be security conscious, but another thing to be paranoid.
    • Re:Dog collars. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rachel Lucid (964267) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:01AM (#16435157) Homepage Journal
      With or without exploding goodness?


      ... shouldn't 'non-switchy-ness' be enforced via having to turn in 'your' tags at the flight gate? After all, what would be the point of enforcing non-switching anyway when you basically ensure that each person has to get one and turn one in, except to infringe on their rights?

      ... like we're not doing that to BEGIN with...

    • by aplusjimages (939458) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:47AM (#16435337) Journal
      FBI: "What's all the dots?"
      Airport Security: "Those are all the passangers and people in the airport."
      FBI: "Well how do we find the terrorist in that sea of dots?"
      Airport Security: "Well, they will be the . . . suspicious . . . dots."
      FBI: "Whats a suspicious dot look like?"
      Airport Security: "You'll have to talk to my supervisor. I just watch the dots."
      • Re:Dog collars. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by wannabgeek (323414) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @10:19AM (#16435819) Journal
        you got modded funny, but you should be modded insightful. If a guy wants to go to some restricted area to do any mischief, he would not be wearing his dog collar. He would conveniently slip it onto someone else or make an accomplice carry two tags (one inside and one his own) while he slips into the secure area. I am not really sure what they are planning to accomplish by watching the dots.
        • by mpe (36238)
          If a guy wants to go to some restricted area to do any mischief, he would not be wearing his dog collar. He would conveniently slip it onto someone else or make an accomplice carry two tags (one inside and one his own) while he slips into the secure area. I am not really sure what they are planning to accomplish by watching the dots.

          The only way in which such a system could work would be if it is possible to accuratly track people as well as tags. Thus could identify an untagged person in the secure area,
          • by badfish99 (826052)
            The whole point of the tags is that it's not possible to track people without them. The tracking is what the tags are for. I think the idiots who designed this simply forgot about the possibility that people would take the tags off.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by mstahl (701501)

          My suspicion is that they would want to watch the dots to determine how to most efficiently move people through the airport or otherwise study their movements. Were this the case, however, the tags would be anonymous. Either way, it's a problem that is not most effectively solved by RFID tags.

          Realistically, what is this going to do for any purpose whatsoever? It saddens me to know that air travel is going to be a fairly annoying if not downright humiliating process for a long time to come....

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by kimvette (919543)
        Aren't the good dots blue or green, and the bad dots red?

        Or am I thinking lightsabres?
      • by Lactoso (853587) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @10:33AM (#16435915) Homepage
        Let's see how funny it is once the terrorists roll out their new plot......"The PacMan Initiative"
    • by cicho (45472) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @02:49PM (#16438001) Homepage
      The authorities should drop the veil altogether and quit using the word "security", because security is not what such measures are about. _We_ (whoever would object to wearing a dog collar at the airport or having their personal information freely shared with foreign intelligence agencies just because you're getting on a plane) should quit using that word too, because we're giving them a free ride.

      The word is enforcement. Better still, control. These measures are all designed to control the population, not to ensure its security.
  • Luggage? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richard Allen (213475) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @07:53AM (#16435111)
    Perhaps they should invest some of this energy into tracking luggage?
    • Re:Luggage? (Score:5, Funny)

      by MichaelSmith (789609) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:06AM (#16435185) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps they should invest some of this energy into tracking luggage?

      Thats the idea. Passengers and luggage will be merged. You bring along an extra suitcase and they seal you inside at the check in counter.

    • by MrNaz (730548)
      There's no point. Luggage doesn't have any rights to trample on.
      • by no-body (127863)
        There's no point. Luggage doesn't have any rights to trample on.

        BS - luggage is owned by "somebody" and that "somebody" has a right to privacy.

        Luggage tracking on airports is pretty sophisticated, luggage tag numbers are linked to a ticket record, luggage can be immediatley linked to an individual with a wireless barcode scanner.

        And - if spooks want to search (and bug) the luggage of a human, all they need to do to go to TSA and have them to pull the luggage. You can bet that this is happening.

        So

        • by compro01 (777531)
          Luggage tracking on airports is pretty sophisticated, luggage tag numbers are linked to a ticket record, luggage can be immediately linked to an individual with a wireless barcode scanner.

          and yet they still manage to lose mine...
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by SeaFox (739806)
      Perhaps they should invest some of this energy into tracking luggage?

      That's not a priority. Suspicious-looking suitcases don't blow up planes.

      Oh, wait...

      Anyway it wont happen, because in Soviet Russia, luggage tags track YOU!
  • by Robaato (958471) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @07:53AM (#16435113)
    Okay, so they can keep close tabs on you in the airport. Yet, if you were intent on doing mischief, wouldn't you have done all your preparation before you even got there?
    • by DrXym (126579) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:52AM (#16435355)
      Okay, so they can keep close tabs on you in the airport. Yet, if you were intent on doing mischief, wouldn't you have done all your preparation before you even got there?

      I'd be interested to know exactly what problem tagging everyone is supposed to solve. Airports are already compartmentalised and people must show their boarding card / passport to move from one area to the next . So what difference would an RFID tag make? It might actually weaken the system since humans will be less attentive than they are now. I suppose it might have marginal benefits such as when you're trying to locate a person exactly but it hardly appears to warrant the expense of the system.

      Besides, a bad person who is intent on blowing themselves up on the plane makes every effort to abide by the same rules as other passengers. How does this system do anything at all to detect them? And terrorists who just want to kill a bunch of people at the airport can do that easily too - there are enough densely packed queues in airports to easily facilitate mass murder whether the terrorist has a valid passport, ticket, id or RFID or not. I'm surprised that it doesn't happen all the time. The queues are out the door on some days of the year.

      • by Fred_A (10934)
        I'd be interested to know exactly what problem tagging everyone is supposed to solve.
        Lack of income for monitoring gadgets salespeople apparently.
      • I'd be interested to know exactly what problem tagging everyone is supposed to solve.

        Well, I believe one of the side benefits mentioned was being able to find lost kids. Think of the children!!
      • S....

        1. Don't kill off the SALES man! This is the fine work of government to RFP for bids. Lockheed can win global contracts and then farm them out to their privileged few subcontractors.

        2. I suspect the anti-tamper feature will incorporate some sort of stun mechanism.

        3. Imagine being pulled into an on-site interrogation room and being asked:

        - WHY did you visit the bathrooms 13 times. WHY THOSE 13?
        - WHY did you hug THOSE two people? Do you know they hugged 3 others elsewhere in the airport?

        4. Maybe they sho
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        >I'd be interested to know exactly what problem tagging everyone is supposed to solve.

        The cynical answer would be, the problem of people who think they are free citizens.

        Is it just me, or has commercial air travel hit the floor of tolerability already?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'd be interested to know exactly what problem tagging everyone is supposed to solve.

        It's not supposed to solve any particular problem. It's just one more aspect of the elaborate security theater that the public is willing to go along with because it makes them feel safer, somehow. I'd be willing to bet that most people don't think about it that hard, they just comply.

        In reality, this sort of thing won't do a solitary damned thing to increase anyone's safety. All it will do is turn them into compl
  • by Nova Express (100383) <lawrencepersonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday October 14, 2006 @07:58AM (#16435135) Homepage Journal
    Don't worry, after they've stapled this to your ear, they'll let you go so you can go back to mingling with the rest of the herd.

    Just count yourself fortunate that they've given up on their branding idea...

  • Why. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ColaMan (37550) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @07:58AM (#16435137) Homepage Journal
    What the hell's this for? Forensics after the fact?

    "Yes, and as you can see that the terrorist loitered a lot near the toilets. Of course, quite a few people do that as well while waiting for relatives to finish their business, so we can't use that as a reliable indicator of evil intent. But I'm sure, in time, we'll find something that will show us for certain. Please, we need more funds for research."

    • by TubeSteak (669689)
      Someone thinks they can (or knows how to) identify suspicious patterns of movement.

      Remember how experts have been saying racial profiling is a bad idea? Well this is one of the alternatives, tracking your movements for suspicious behavior.

      Relying on technology is easier than training lots and lots of people in how to recognize suspicious/anxious behavior
  • by merdaccia (695940) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:01AM (#16435151)
    %country_trust_level("Albania" => 5, "Andorra" => 6 ... )

    ...

    if ($country_trust_level{$RFID->citizenship} < 5) {
    run_1984($RFID);
    }

    ...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:03AM (#16435173)
    Great, the system can track everyone at all times, but how can anyone make any sense of this information? And what exactly is it meant to prevent anyway? Would tracking the 9/11 bombers have helped? Would it have stopped the shoe-bomber getting on the plane? If something happens we'll know exactly where the perpitrators were AFTER the event, but that won't really help. This is about as useful as knowing what colour all passengers underwear is. It's all about the appearance of doing something rather than actually doing something.
    • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
      I suppose the idea is to employ some kind of machine learning, where the system learns to distinguish normal from suspicious patterns. The suspicious patterns would then lead to an investigation; hopefully, this investigation will prevent bad things from happening.
      • by dangitman (862676)
        And I'm sure the terrorists wouldn't make any effort at all to avoid "suspicious" patterns. It's thinking like this that helps, not hinders them.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Loconut1389 (455297)
      They already do know what color everyone's underwear is- or at least a sufficient random sampling. What do you think the 'extra' screenings are for?
    • by kimvette (919543)
      And even more shortsighted, if someone is going to sneak through a back door in one of the shops/vendors, wouldn't he or she simply remove the tag, leaving it in a spot (like the back of a seat) where one would like to remain stationary, or have an accomplice carry his tag while wanders off to do Bad Guy(tm) stuff? I know this will sound cliche: but if everyone is tagged, only criminals won't have tags.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by sgt_doom (655561)
      Would tracking the 9/11 bombers have helped?

      A lot of time has passed since 9/11/01, and as a consequence the facts are getting hazier and hazier. FYI, they (CIA, FBI) were tracking the 9/11/01 bombers and didn't help worth a sh*t!

  • Security? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by subreality (157447) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:06AM (#16435183)
    I can believe the bits about passenger flow and efficiency, but what security is this supposed to add? The security in airports is theoretically based on keeping Bad People (by whatever definition) out. Assuming some Bad Person gets in, what is tracking their movements within 1m ever going to do to indicate that they're doing something Bad?

    To me, this sounds like an efficiency study that they tacked on the word "Security" in order to sidestep the civil liberties issues. We've seen this done plenty of times before, but I'm amazed at how transparent it is here.
    • Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14, 2006 @09:30AM (#16435511)
      Actually, this sort of data is any AI-researcher's wet dream. My first thought would be to implement some algorithm that learns how people move through the airport, based on the set of all locations over time per person. Once the algorithm successfully predicts the movements of people, you let it analyse what everybody is doing in the airport. People whose movements don't match what the algorithm predicts are tagged as 'outliers', and security can at any time simply request the n people that deviate most from the norm, and keep an eye on them with their high def camera's.

      The problem with these techniques, of course, is the normalizing effect. Everybody that does something weird, or out of the ordinary gets observed. Little charming quirks in your personality, like sitting down on the floor in some empty space instead of sitting in on a bench in the crowded waiting area, will instantly arouse suspicion. Do what everybody does, or you'll be suspected, watched and usually, gently prodded back in line. All human societies have an inherent normalizing effect. In this case the reason isn't just security, improving efficiency usually means weeding out the weirdos as well. And all technology does in these cases is amplify that effect. Just think of the whole slashdot moderation thing, it works beautifully, but it also makes the groupthink a lot stronger (and the slashdot crowd is on the whole a relatively intelligent and critical subset of society).

      Of course any real terrorist will make sure that he (or she) acts as normal as possible. In fact with the amount of attention being paid to air travel, terrorists are probably just looking for less secured areas (like the the Spanish train bombings or the London subway).
      • by mpe (36238)
        Of course any real terrorist will make sure that he (or she) acts as normal as possible.

        Even if such a system could flag "too normal" as well as "too abnormal" the number of false positives would render it worst than useless for actual security.
      • by kent_eh (543303)

        Little charming quirks in your personality, like sitting down on the floor in some empty space instead of sitting in on a bench in the crowded waiting area, will instantly arouse suspicion.

        Or spending a lot of time looking at the architechture?

        I do this a lot in any place that I happen to be, including airports.

        It may not be normal for the majority of people, but it is normal for me (and a small group of other people).

        I don't feel safer if security is spending it's time constantly challenging me for appr

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by crucini (98210)
        Mostly insightful. But:

        Of course any real terrorist will make sure that he (or she) acts as normal as possible.

        This is the classic geek mistake when examining security - to assume it's a logic puzzle or chessboard. In the real world, if you can place an obstacle in your adversary's path, you gain an advantage. Of course he will probably go around it, but it gives him an additional burden and an additional chance to make a mistake.

        There are probably thousands of variations on an airplane terrorist attack,

    • by Stonent1 (594886)
      When people toss around the term "Civil Liberties" you have to remember that not every country is the US, UK, or Canada. If you don't like what they are doing, you have the option of seeking alternate modes of transportation.

      Does anyone here at slashdot work for a living? If so, you've no doubt encountered access badges at some place that you've worked. You walk up to the door, swipe your badge by the sensor and the door unlocks. You think they don't keep records of that? My employer also has a lot of vid
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by badfish99 (826052)
        And you put up with this shit?

        People wouldn't be treated like sheep, if they didn't behave like sheep.
  • A matter of trust (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:08AM (#16435201)
    Now all we need is trust those terrorists won't remove the tags from their necks before doing evil stuff. The perfect system.
    • Re:A matter of trust (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:31AM (#16435283) Homepage Journal
      You, sir! You're under arrest for performing a suicide bombing!

      But...but...I'm still alive!

      Tell that to the court! We have solid evidence that you were involved in the bombing; your tag was found at the explosion site!

      My tag? My tag! Where's my tag? It's been stolen!

      Enough of that! We have it on record: you were in the middle of the explosion when it happened. You can object all you want, but everybody knows that computers don't make mistakes. You're guilty and you know it!
  • 10m to 20m? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rholliday (754515) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:09AM (#16435207) Homepage Journal
    <pedant>
    If their maximum range is only 20 meters, I would certainly hope they can be accurate to within 1.
    </pedant>
    • "If their maximum range is only 20 meters, I would certainly hope they can be accurate to within 1."
      The first version's range was 20 meters as well, but the accuracy was only 19 meters. So on the display you just saw a big red circle that would oscillate slightly and occasionally disappear...
  • by Professor_UNIX (867045) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:11AM (#16435215)
    I thought RFID tags were passive devices. How do you make a "high powered" passive device? I guess you can increase the power of the scanners, but the tags themselves are the same no?
  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:12AM (#16435219)
    We're talking about a small airport! Possibly a few dozen people at best on a busy day. As a hungarian I'd preferred to have a better story posted about Hungary, but heh. Domestic flight is really small, given that the country isn't so large either. It is misleading to say that this airport is a major one, I don't think it is a terrorist target at all.
    • And then it will be a larger airport, then all airports, then other 'high-security' areas. And at each point people will say "well, it's only a little different than before", and take each incremental assault on our liberty until we're all wearing dog collars everywhere, all the time.
      • Yeah ok. Please make the mistake of equating someone's stupid research project which is most likely totally unviable in a normal airport with totalitarian control.

        Look, I'm privacy conscious as the next slashdotter, but this is just simply not an issue here. Who would trust a security system whose creator doesn't even know that dirty bombs doesn't exist in reality.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by MrNaz (730548)
          If you told a frequent flier 20 years ago about today's security procedures he would tell you that it was unlivable. Governmnets have realized that to seize control of society, you do it so slowly that nobody notices. You, my friend, don't seem to be noticing.
          • Because I'm not flying. Although I do travel a lot - by train. My country isn't a constant state of paranoia, like the USA seems to be...
            • Having recently travelled to Hungary, I have to agree with you. The US and the UK take the prize for the most intrusive police behavior, so far, in my experience of travelling and working in over 20 countries.
          • by Dausha (546002)
            Give him a break. Hungary was once a Soviet satellite. This is penny-ante stuff in comparison to old-school Soviet tactics. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary]

            But, for what it's worth, Courts have the special circumstances rule that lowers a U.S. citizen's enjoyment of Fourth Amendment rights under conditions where the risk of not searching is so much higher that "reasonable" is lower. For example, if I told you that one out of 1,000 people in a room had a bomb, would it be unreasonable to search everybo
            • I'm telling you that more like one in several MILLION people has a bomb. If you run the numbers of travellers vs bombs detonated/discovered, that's what you get. (I don't really care about the people who, for whatever reason, owned a bomb and transported it peaceably and undetected.) Yes, it's unreasonable to search everybody.

              KeS
  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:16AM (#16435227)
    People began screaming "Make us feel safer!" to the gubmint and airlines shortly after 9/11. The vast majority of people I know will welcome this, they'll sit there smugly thinking they're safe, indeed, they'll be safe in their cattle car all the way to the Final Destination.

    +Godwinned?
    • I fly out of Washington National and Dulles pretty regularly. I have yet to feel even 1/10th as inconvenienced by the security protocols as at London Heathrow or Rome Fiumicino 25 years ago.
  • I submitted this same story two days ago and it was rejected. What has changed in the intervening two days to make the story publishable?
    • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:37AM (#16435307) Homepage Journal
      What makes you think anything needed to change in order for the story to be accepted from another submitter? You're not assuming the process is anything like rational or unbiased, are you?
  • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:18AM (#16435239) Homepage Journal
    What I don't get is how this system is supposed to improve security. I mean, this whole scare is about suicide bombers, right? So you tag everybody, and then they magically aren't going to be doing their thing? I don't see how these tags prevent people from blowing themselves up, taking a gun and shooting people, smuggling packages on planes, etc.

    Worse, this system is actually going to make matters worse: it costs money, people need to be watching the system, and people need to investigate whateven "suspicious behavior" occurs. All this takes resources away from more effective measures.

    At least, that's how I see it. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe this system is dumb. Or maybe it actually rather cleverly serves a purpose _other_ than security (e.g. putting money in the pockets of the designers).
    • by db32 (862117)
      You are confused. It doesn't make things worse because "it costs money" it makes things better because "it makes money" You are only viewing it from the end of the people getting screwed. Try again, except this time put yourself in the place of the defense contractors and security companies making money off of paranoid governments. This is PERFECT! Can you imagine the cost of a system capable of doing this? This is a big ticket project. Look in the US when 9/11 happened, guess who was the loudest voi
    • by mpe (36238)
      Worse, this system is actually going to make matters worse: it costs money, people need to be watching the system, and people need to investigate whateven "suspicious behavior" occurs. All this takes resources away from more effective measures.
      At least, that's how I see it. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe this system is dumb. Or maybe it actually rather cleverly serves a purpose _other_ than security (e.g. putting money in the pockets of the designers).


      If the latter, were it to provably fail they can
  • by geoff lane (93738) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:29AM (#16435273)
    Exactly how does this increase security? Terrorists are very rare. Tourists are both very common and very stupid. The only result will be security running around fishing tags out of toilets and vending machines.
  • Evaluation (Score:3, Funny)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:35AM (#16435297) Homepage Journal
    After the study has been completed:

    We proudly present the results of the evaluation of the ultra airport security system. During the evaluation, no acts of terrorism were committed in this airport. Clearly, the system is a great success and well worth the investment. We recommend the system to be kept in place and be installed in other airports and public places, as well.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by tkw954 (709413)

      We proudly present the results of the evaluation of the ultra airport security system. During the evaluation, no acts of terrorism were committed in this airport. Clearly, the system is a great success and well worth the investment. We recommend the system to be kept in place and be installed in other airports and public places, as well.

      Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

      Homer: Hmm. How does it work?

      Lisa: It doesn't work. (pause) It's just a stupid rock!

      Homer: Uh-huh.

      Lisa: B

  • Due to a financial crunch, airlines will sell licenses to hunt their passengers for tagging. The hunting grounds will be limited to the airport terminal and parking lot. Weapons will be limited to non-lethal so they will not be considered "inhumane". Allowed weapons include:
    • paintball guns
    • bb-guns
    • tasers
    • baseball bats
    • pointy sticks
    • nightsticks
    • .22 caliber pistols
    • and very dull knives
  • How about tags that cannot be so easily swapped? RFID tags could be placed on the passengers forehead with glue that can only be removed after 12 hours or maybe with a glue disolving, tag removing gun.

    Or how about RFID clothing. Passengers normally wear clothes, which, lets face it, could be composed of explosive or accelerant fibres, or stuff that decomposes in to toxic gas after 3 hours. So, build a load of changing rooms at each airport and exchange the passengers clothes for a type approved travel suit,
  • The tag provides a convenient decoy mechanism for the terrorists. Drop/hide the tag somewhere or give it to somebody else, and the authorities tracking the RFIDs will think they're in one particular place when they're really somewhere else.
  • by v1 (525388) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @10:00AM (#16435683) Homepage Journal
    the article vaguely and briefly states that 'The issue of infringement of civil liberties will also be key,' but doesn't bother to go into any pesky details."

    That's because the people setting all this up consider "civil liberties" to be one of those "pesky details".

    Civil Liberties is not a set of rules that inconvenience you, that you should work to find ways around. If you are trying to find ways around laws designed to protect the public from abuse, you are not assulting the law, you are assulting the principles and ideals that the law was made for, and endangering those people whom those laws are designed to protect.

  • What I really hate is how they always have to shoot you with a tranquilizer dart, first.

    The good news is that this will allow us to learn about the migratory patterns of airline passengers, so maybe we can get ahead of them and into position to photograph their mating rituals.

  • People's rights? What rights?

    The airport isn't yours. When you walk into an airport you have to agree to abide by the rules established by the owner of the airport. You have no right to demand that they be changed. Feel free to establish rules in your own house, but when you enter someone else's property you abide by their rules.

    You have no more right to avoid the airport's tracking requirements than you'd have to demand free flights or free meals at their overpriced sandwich bars.

    I'm sorry you may not like
    • by multiplexo (27356)
      Hey bitch, which privately owned airports are we talking about? The airport 10 miles from my house, SeaTac, is owned by the local port authority, a public agency whose officials are elected, most airports of any significant size are publicly owned. As an aside it always amazes me how many so called 'libertarians' will accept and advocate and advance assholish and fascistic behavior on the part of private property owners while shitting their "Hello Ayn Rand" panties if the government behaves the same way."
  • 1) Develop some idea...
    2) Devise some bizarre, convoluted and obscure way it could be applied to "security" - extreme hand waving is obligatory.
    3) Stand by while it starts to rain money on your research group courtesy of gullible government departments, research councils and investors.
    4) Don't miss any sleep worrying about exactly what terrorist attack scenario would be averted by this technology. Or whether you are, in fact, plugging a security hole that doesn't exist.
    5) Next month, when the cause de jour
  • At this point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Monoliath (738369) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @01:14PM (#16437265)
    ...I'm willing to use more inconvenient and lengthy modes of travel to avoid such a ridiculously dehumanizing practice such as this. If I am in need of travel to the USA from another country and the given airport employs this method, I will travel by boat and adjust my schedule as needed. If I am in need of travel within the USA and the given airport/s employ this method, I will travel by bus. I will not accept this kind of treatment from any organization for simply for the sake of safer / lower risk travel. I would much rather just die in a hijacked plane crash, or a boat sinking, or a train derailing, than be treated like a tagged animal. I was quite happy with the level of risk involved with flying prior to this kind of nonsense.
  • How will they afford this once people stop flying through their airport because of the inconvenience and the dislike of being treated like an animal?

    • by tftp (111690)
      How can the people "stop flying through their airport" if that's the only way to their destination? If your employer wants you to attend a business meeting, can you say "no" ? can you say "yes, but I need a month to drive there and back, and $10,000 for fuel and other expenses" ?

      Fact is, air travel is essential to US businesses because of distances between locations. Travel by train or car will take forever, and you can't afford that. A tiniest private airplane will cost you a million dollars, and it

  • ...and brings up such hurdles to the project as 'finding a way of ensuring the tags cannot be switched between passengers or removed without notification.

    It seems like you could easily enough implant these just beneath the skin of say the forehead, or the wrist.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Working...